It's sad to know the tetrachy eventually led to civil war and the permanent split of the empire with Honorius/Arcadius. it worked well with Diocletian because Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius were a bunch of bros who seeks nothing but the good of the empire and acknowledged Diocletian as the rightful leader. However, the moment Diocletian resigned, it was doomed to fail.
Yes definitely, political stability was what Diocletian wanted the most. So his system was probably his biggest accomplishment and his biggest failure at the same time
@@ancientsight I've heard that Diocletian was a good militarist as well as a superb administrator, but his economic decrees were bad. The western half of the Roman Empire could have survived, but it was too weak to defend itself.
For the economic policies, I believe this was due to the fact he had the mind of a soldier. He enforced decrees and believed everyone would follow them like his men did on the battlefield
@@ancientsightthat, and he was not practicing monetary policies in a vacuum. There were already many millions of bad coins all over the empire and he needed to recall then if he was going to add more, higher-quality coins to the system but they simply didn't understood inflation the same way the future generations would.
Not really a Tetrarchy (rule of four), rather it was a dual emperorship (Augustii) with pre-designated heirs (Caesarii). But there was no question that it was the two Augustii that were the rulers.
What do you mean ? If you call that "dual emperorship", that means that they were the rulers. Or am I missing something in what you are saying ? There was a sort of primacy order established between the 4 emperors with Augustus above Caesar and "Jovian" above "Herculian" emperors. And yes indeed, Caesars were not fully emperors. But the power they held were enough to consider this system a real Tetrarchy.
@@ancientsight I do not agree, the Caesar's were completely subordinate to the two emperors Diocletian and Maximian. The Caesars served only two purposes: 1. to facilitate a smooth transfer of power when one or both emperors died or resigned, 2. to serve as a slightly glorified general/governer to make it easier and faster to counter threats against the empire. The tetrarchy is a historiographic invention.
It's sad to know the tetrachy eventually led to civil war and the permanent split of the empire with Honorius/Arcadius. it worked well with Diocletian because Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius were a bunch of bros who seeks nothing but the good of the empire and acknowledged Diocletian as the rightful leader. However, the moment Diocletian resigned, it was doomed to fail.
Yes definitely, political stability was what Diocletian wanted the most. So his system was probably his biggest accomplishment and his biggest failure at the same time
@@ancientsight I've heard that Diocletian was a good militarist as well as a superb administrator, but his economic decrees were bad. The western half of the Roman Empire could have survived, but it was too weak to defend itself.
For the economic policies, I believe this was due to the fact he had the mind of a soldier. He enforced decrees and believed everyone would follow them like his men did on the battlefield
@@ancientsightthat, and he was not practicing monetary policies in a vacuum. There were already many millions of bad coins all over the empire and he needed to recall then if he was going to add more, higher-quality coins to the system but they simply didn't understood inflation the same way the future generations would.
See? Tetrarchy is not the only factor of the fall of Rome
surprised this channel doesn't have at the minimum over 100k. animation is great. On par with other history ytubers and exceeds others
Recently found your channel. Thank you for your work. I appreciate you.
And thank you for your comment, it is really motivating
Another great video 👌
Keep up the good work, you might be the next Kings n generals👌🏽🙌🏽
And then it went to a massive team death match
Indeed
why am I just finding your channel? Great content!!
Diocletian was always my favourite Emperor, love seeing more details of his reign!
Thanks for helping me with my school project :D
If only Diocletian had forced Maximian to disinherit Maxentius.
I agree
He didn’t like Constantine but was okay with Maxentius
underrated period
Not really a Tetrarchy (rule of four), rather it was a dual emperorship (Augustii) with pre-designated heirs (Caesarii). But there was no question that it was the two Augustii that were the rulers.
What do you mean ? If you call that "dual emperorship", that means that they were the rulers. Or am I missing something in what you are saying ?
There was a sort of primacy order established between the 4 emperors with Augustus above Caesar and "Jovian" above "Herculian" emperors. And yes indeed, Caesars were not fully emperors. But the power they held were enough to consider this system a real Tetrarchy.
@@ancientsight I do not agree, the Caesar's were completely subordinate to the two emperors Diocletian and Maximian. The Caesars served only two purposes: 1. to facilitate a smooth transfer of power when one or both emperors died or resigned, 2. to serve as a slightly glorified general/governer to make it easier and faster to counter threats against the empire. The tetrarchy is a historiographic invention.
Sad that it didnt take into account human nature
Indeed, but I like to think that it was worth trying
@@ancientsight it gave the west another century or so
Question what is your main language?
It is french, I am definitely not native english as you can ear
@@ancientsight oh lol nice language
Im playing the mod of this on attila