0
Diocletian first pushed back the Sassanids and the Germans. Then he ended the revolts. Then he tried to solve the problem of the civil wars between the two halves of the army. Diocletian worked out a system where there would always be two Emperors, and each of these Emperors would have two assistants.
This system is called the Tetrarchy (rule of four). When one of the Emperors died, his assistant would move up to being Emperor, and choose a new assistant.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Rene
Steve
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What emperor divided the roman empre into eastern and western half to try and stop its decline?
No emperor divided the empire into two halves. The empire was never divided. Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire are terms which have been coined by historians. The Romans had only one term: Roman Empire.The emperor Diocletian created the tetrarchy (rule by four) and created fourmain administrative units (not two) which were called praetorian prefectures. Diocletian appointed fellow general Maximian as co-emperor. Maximian took overall control of the western part of the empire, while Diocletian took overall control of the eastern part. These two men became senior emperors (Augusti) when Diocletian appointed the creation of two junior emperors (Caesars). The Caesars, Galerius and Constantius, were subordinate to the Augusti and took charge of defending the troubled frontiers along the rivers Danube (in the east) and Rhine (in the west) and respectively, which were under constant attack from outside. Each co-emperor was in charge of one of the four praetorian prefectures. Diocletian took charge of Oriens: eastern Libya (Cyrenaica) Egypt. the territories in Asia and Thrace (the south-eastern corner of the Balkan Peninsula). Maximilian took charge of Italia: Italy Africa (north-western Africa). Constantius I took charge of of Galliae: Britannia (England and Wales) and Gaul and Hispania (spain and Portugal). The Galerius took charge of Illyricum: most of the Balkan Peninsula in south-eastern Europe. These were units of a single empire which, Diocletian stressed, was indivisible. Each emperor had an imperial seat. They were Nicomedia(modern Izmit in north-western Turkey) for Oriens Sirmium(modern Sremska Mitrovica, near Belgrade, in Serbia) for Illyricum, Mediolanum(modern Milan in Italy) for Italia et Africa and AugustaTrevorum(modern Triers in Germany) for Galliae. Rome ceased to be the capital of the Empire.This reform had several aims: 1) The bad experience of recent sole emperors suggested to Diocletian that sole emperors were vulnerable and that co-emperorship made power more secure. 2) Diocletian had no male issue. Therefore, he needed a trusted co-ruler from outside the family. 3) There was a need to improve imperial control over the empire. There had been conflict between powerful men in every province of the empire. Diocletian shared controlling the provinces with Maximian. 4) There was also a need to improve the efficiency of the defence of the vast frontiers of the empire from constant attacks from outside. The creation of these four units was not a division of the empire which, as Diocletian stressed, was indivisible. It was an administrative arrangement.Co-emperorship was not new. Previously emperors had made their sons co-emperors with one in charge of the east and the other in charge of the east. The purpose was the same, improving the defence of the frontiers. After the tetrarchy, there was an alternation of periods of co-emperorship and periods with a sole emperor. This clearly shows that the empire was not divided.The creation of rule by four men was accompanied by a doubling in the number of provinces and a tightening of the grip of the imperial bureaucracy over them and local affairs. This enormously increased the size of the imperial bureaucracy and the cost of imperial administration.
Why did Diocletian divide the roman empire in two parts?
Diocletian thought Rome was to big for one man to rule. His solution was to split the city into an eastern half and a western half, with each side having its own ruler. Rome kept on being attacked by Germanic invaders. They were losing money so Diocletian decided to split it so the Eastern half of Rome could thrive while the Western fell to the invaders. In the end it worked really well. The Byzantium (East Rome) lasted 1000 years longer than the Western Rome.
What did Diocletian try to improve the way the empire was ruled?
He strengthed the borders and froze prices for wages and goods. He also established the policy of rule of divine right. When he realized these methods could not stop the collapse, he divided the empire into two sections and allowed another ruler govern the other portion.
What was Hannibals greatest mistake?
The greatest mistake perhaps was when he chose not to besiege Rome but go around and try recruit more soldiers during his time in Italy. Rome took that opportunity to send soldiers to Carthage and Hispania (what is now North Africa and Spain) and thereby forcing Hannibal to return to Carthage and fight the battle of Zama which he lost. If he had beseiged Rome, he might have won and even if he didn't, it would still somehow influence the course of history for beseiging Rome would've kept second Punic War to last longer (for example, beseiging Rome might prevent messengers, orders or soldiers from Rome to leave for other places like Carthage and Hispania and thereby preventing the Battle of Zama to even happen perhaps).
How did wealthy landowners react to economic reforms by diocletian and Constantine?
Diocletian's main economic reforms were the introduction of new coins and price controls to try to solve the problem of hyperinflation. Neither of these worked. Hyperinflation and the economic crisis continued and the large landowners continued to deal with it has they had already being doing. They switched from commercial production to supply the cities to production for barter on the local market and turned migrants to the countryside from the impoverished towns and impoverished tenant peasants into servile workers. Diocletian imposed burdensome taxes. The large landowners could not do much about this because Diocletian had created an autocracy by enormously enlarging the imperial bureaucracy which became very powerful. Moreover due to the low value of the coins, Diocletian resorted to taxation through confiscations of goods. He turned requisition into taxation and it was difficult to avoid this. Tax collectors were made to pay for what they failed to collect from their own pockets. Moreover, the empire was still affected by wars and there was too much instability for political opposition. Constantine resolved the hyperinflation problem by abandoning the useless silver coins and amassing large quantities of gold which he used to issue a new gold currency which actually had value and was viable. This improved the economic situation of the rich, but not that of the poor who could not afford gold coins and still had to rely on a worthless copper token currency. Constantine also reformed taxation, making it less burdensome and reduced the top heavy bureaucracy. Constantine's economic policies were popular with the wealthy classes.
