A better figure would be Emperor Aurelian, even more underrated than Diocletian. The tetrarchy wasnt thaat great of a plan, but his changes to the military fit the times (standing army, border army, emperors own army, etc)
>>583779 It's a question of whether he was a great man or was just another piece of on the road of a trend.
Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine can be seen as different pavements of the same road. I think your inquiry is an excellent subject to debate. But sadly many people don't know much about him, I only have very basic knowledge so it is very hard to comment on him exponentially, yes I can say Diocletian was influential but If you disagree I couldn't argue with you that much.
>>584217 He is part of a trend but that doesn't mean he did change things by being around. He made the empire split more formal than it ever had and he formed the basis for the guilds among other things. Basically much of the medieval institutions come from him and constantine
btw, by any chance, do you know if there are"side by side" comparisons of what a roman soldier during the 300s and 400s looked compared to earlier ones from, say, hadrians time? i know the plate armor and the rectangular shield were replaced, for chainmail armor and smaller round shields, so was the gladius for a longer sword.but whenever i picture a roman solder, i alwayspicture him looking like an early empire one. my mind has no""picture" for the tetrarchy ones.
>>584311 Well just remember there was no one look to a Roman empire especially by the late empire would not look uniform soldiera on the Rhine would look very different from the ones in Syria. The armies had become much more local. And this is a simplification but diocletian wanted to keep the armies filled so he made it so that sons would have to follow there children into their trade. Also much of his taxes were in kind instead of coin so guild like groups made collections easier
For instance, I would argue that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was more important overall than Diocletan: The former made Islam into something other than a religion by a bunch of backwards desert dervishes, with profound impacts on history that last to this day. Diocletan accelerated a trend that was already existing, the Empire was too big to manage, and it would have split apart sooner or later.
Ergo, I would consider Khalid more important than Diocletan, if you count what's going on in Arabia as part of "Western" history.
>Let us spend time describing how tetrachy supposed to work >What a genius plan to stabilize the Empire >Surely Diocletian was a great statesman >Oh, and it didn't really worked, at all Every book on the late Empire.
>>583812 Basically he saved a dying empire sort term but paved way to European feudalism. With Constantine and his Code, they basically made the blueprint for post-rome Europe, down to it's laws and organizational structure.
Him AND Constantine are very influential and important because they shaped the western world for a thousand years.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.