The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/historymarche04231 For a limited time (now through April 30, 2023), Skillshare is offering 40% off your first year of membership - one of their best offers out there! skl.sh/historymarche40
God job . We need more video on this period , for understand the fall of Rome completely . Maybe a series on the Antonini era from Traiano to MarcoAurelio ?
@@bdleo300ve been saying the exact same thing for the longest time, but for the case of the Ottoman Empire. 36 Sultans, 12 deposed by a military coup, so exactly one third. A lot of those even killed by mere civilians. Even if you didn’t experience such a faith, your life still sucked. For instance Osman III. Dude chilled in captivity for freaking 55 years before becoming sultan. Two die due to “broken heart” immediately after getting news of a lost battle. The rest is a ton of responsibility, paranoia, due to the “ancient laws” obligatory killing of children and brothers, captivity in the kafes etc. What a shitshow of a job. This was just an example since the Ottoman Empire is the field I’m most savvy in. I’m quite sure that the exact same also goes, more or less, for any other state and dynasty.
Yeah. Probus has almost been vastly forgotten by history. He was truly Aurelien's student/successor until his rivals got super jealous of his popularity.
Auralein and Probus are my favorite one-two punch in Roman history. Auralien was a humorless work horse who demanded the same discipline that led the Romans to victory against the Latins and Samnites 600 years before his time. Probus was more chill in personality but on par with Shapur I, Odenaethus, Claudius and Auralien as a general, while also being the among the best administrators of the century, maybe second only to Diocletion.
Yes, this guy was based, in the truest sense of the word. Stepping down in order to live the rest of his life in a palace on the adriatic, tending to his gardens.
Si tu potuisses videre brassicas a manibus meis elevatas, certe numquam iudicares illam temptationem.
Год назад+157
Diocletian is an example that to be successful in war, it is not always necessary to be a good commander, but you also have to be an astute politician and an excellent diplomat, in addition to rewarding the obedience of your subordinates well and knowing when it is necessary show mercy towards opponents.
That’s not quite right. When we say “good commander”, we should think of their strategic thinking, their operational planning, and their tactical prowess. Those political and soft power skills came with experience and wealth. Was Carinus prepared for Diocletian? He didn’t seem to have developed a firm loyalty among his troops, clearly a trait that his predecessors discounted at their own peril, as well. These opportunistic players couldn’t hope to win the long game, with hindsight. Diocletian combined his political savvy with operational ability, executing a psyops campaign when it would do the most damage. But his own troops never would have formed up without a foundation as a proven commander. He combined it all to carry the day.
Diocletian was a talented general. He understood how to use all the tools at his disposal. While his army was initially inferior to Carinus, he found ways to weaken him. Bringing Carinus' sub-commanders over to his side. Shaking his soldiers' faith in him. So, when they finally engaged each other, Carinus' army, while numerically superior, suffered from weak morale and sub-commanders with questionable loyalty. If Diocletian felt that the situation wasn't enough to his advantage at this point in time, he would likely have refused battle. Not fighting before he felt like he had a good chance of winning. He had learned from his earlier clashes with Carinus not to fight him unless the odds were on his side. Changing the odds. When at all possible, only fighting when he wanted to. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight. Learning from past battles, campaigns, and wars. Diocletian did all of these things. And all of them are marks of a great general. It is necessary to be a good commander to win in war. But political and diplomatic skills are indeed crucial as well. They are necessary to start wars, to keep the state running in the best possible way for the war effort during wars, and to end wars. How many wars started with combatant nations prepared for fighting the second they were declared because diplomats and politicians judged the right moment to fight? How many militaries and nations were never in danger of falling apart because diplomats and politicians adapted the nation perfectly to a war footing? How many post-war situations were salvaged by diplomats and politicians following defeat in war? How many wars started with combatant nations unprepared for them because diplomats and politicians bungled their way into them? How many militaries and nations collapsed because diplomats and politicians weren't able to adapt the nation properly to being at war? How many victories in war were squandered by diplomats and politicians mishandling the post-war situation, possibly so badly that it led to new wars? Diocletian was a great general, a great diplomat, and a great politician. Possibly, the greatest Roman emperor since the Five Good Emperors.
Thank Hannibal for bringing me to this channel. I started watching because of your series on the Second Punic War, but I continued because of your excellent and diverse historical content. It has been said before but bears repeating: the quality of production/animation you provide in your documentaries on this platform is unmatched. Well done, and keep up the great work...for the sake of my entertainment
You're in the second century of the Roman Empire. You're the Emperor. You're surrounded by your legion and bodyguards with no enemy in sight. You're in danger.
I`ve recently discovered this channel and now I watch it daily. Your work is much appreciated, I`m eagerly awaiting each new episode. History is so fascinating, but visualizing battles and have a complete explanation of the events is mesmerizing. I wish you all the best and millions of subscribers.
Probus has to be one of the most under rated Generals and Emperors of the Roman Empire. If he ruled for longer, he’d easily be a Diocleaten, maybe even a Trajan.
There were instances where troops would proclaim someone emperor, and they would refuse, I think on more than one occasion it eventually become "you will be emperor or we will kill you" and that's how we got a few emperors. Ah the crisis of the third century
Probus was a good emperor in every way, he left good memories in all classes, both senate and plebs, for his works and actions, and even those who killed him regretted having done so by erecting a monument in his honor. That has happened very few times in history.
It is just so incredible to think that for all the disasters, assassinations and civil wars that littered the roman empire during the crisis of the third century, the roman empire not only manages to endure and end up with an efficiently ruthless and effective emperor in diocletian, whom would give the empire a new lease of life and stability before the rise of Constantine.
So Diocletian abdicated and basically became the cabbage merchant from Avatar. Romans: "Come back and rule the Roman Empire, sire!" Big D: "My cabbages!"
No Gallienus was the cabbage merchant, he literally disguised himself as a cabbage merchant in order to sneak into a Persian camp at the Battle of Satala.
The cabbage is ore valuable than it might appear. Cooked meats and dishes can be cooked and wrapped in heavily fiberous cabbage leaves and kept for days. Like a tortilla. But tougher. Sarma is a cabbabe leave wrapped meal, served in Dalmatia/Croatia
Crisis of the 3rd Century is so interesting we know people have appetite for this kind of story. If HBO ever release Rome 2 I hope they put it in this era
God job . We need more video on this period , for understand the fall of Rome completely . Maybe a series on the Antonini era from Traiano to MarcoAurelio ?
Love the suggestion. I'm already exploring topics on both Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. I'm also close to finishing the Milvian Bridge. Did you check my Aurelian video and the battle of Abritus?
@@HistoryMarcheDon't forget Adriano and pax adriana .For sure I see all the series on Aureliano Imperator restitutio imperi against Zenobia and Gallo-roman empire , for ad Abritus is the battle against the goths wicth Cniva on charge of the Goths ? English is not my mother language , I came from Italy and know by name and visit all the city mentioned in your video on 3 Samnite war see my comment i came from Anxanum . Thanks for answer . Congratulations for the channel . And the ancestor the grandfather of Adriano came from Italy 60km from my city , a little city called Atri Aruzzo Italy check
What an unusual yet impressive victory! I'm surprised the algorithm didn't inform me of this excellent upload Perhaps the sacrifices weren't sufficient :/
I appreciate your comment but aren't they all late? Ohhh, you mean later. Gotcha. 😀 I read "late Roman-emperors" instead of "late-Roman emperors". I fell on my head when I was small, ok?
As the writer of both this video and the Aurelian series, I'd like to give some thoughts on Diocletian's qualities as an emperor, as I see his qualities are being debated: (1/10) Incredibly, Diocletian survived the fifty-year series of usurpations and invasions that constituted the core parts of what we call the third-century crisis. Usurpation and military rebellion was incredibly frequent, more so than in any other period of Roman history. A part of the problem was an issue of imperial presence. With multiple, new, strong foreign enemies having emerged (210s: Alemanni; 220s: Sassanids; 230s: Goths; 250s: Franks), the empire witnessed challenges on a scale it had not faced since Republican times. The result was a trial by fire for armies, emperors and the empire as a whole, which had become used to a lower intensity existence. Major defeats were suffered, and towns, strongholds and cities were ravaged. These things undermined the imperial ideology of Victory, a key part of how emperors advertised and demonstrated their legitimacy. In turn, this encouraged support for usurping generals who promised to do a better job on the battlefield and pay closer attention to the army's needs. This development normalized a culture of military rebellion, and a part of this culture was rebellion in the face of imperial absence and perceived neglect. If an emperor wasn't present on a particular frontier, that frontier could rise up in support of a present general. By 293, when the Tetrarchy was created, this was very much still an issue, since Carausius had been ruling as a usurper in Britain since 286.
(2/10) So, I would argue a key point of the Tetrarchy was to have an emperor in each of the key militarized zones for the sake of imperial presence: the Rhine (Constantius), northern Italy/the upper Danube (Maximian), the middle/lower Danube (Diocletian/Galerius), and the east (Diocletian/Galerius). The other point of the arrangement ought to have been the creation of a reliable succession in advance, since Constantius and Galerius were made the Caesars and thus the successors of the Augusti. Constantius and Galerius were experienced military officers, and had already been made the sons-in-law of the Augusti, so they were good picks for the job. Diocletian defied the odds and survived, thereby ending the crisis. Moreover, the Tetrarchy functioned remarkably well under the overall leadership of Diocletian, who must have been an exceptionally imposing figure with an unusual capacity to influence others. The enemies of the empire were defeated and any usurpers or potential usurpers were ultimately defeated or unable to act in the first place. Diocletian coordinated his co-rulers in an effective manner while ensuring his supremacy (he appears to have been responsible for all empire-wide edicts), and he took very good care of diplomatic dealings (e.g. he secured Roman control over western Armenia without a war, he made good use of the formidable Goths as a mercenary pool rather than as an enemy, and he gave Lower Nubia between the first and second cataracts to the Meroitic Nubians and established a stipend for both the Nubians and Blemmyes, a measure that established the Nubians as a friendly buffer state and ensured peace on the troublesome Nubian frontier until the sixth century.). Diocletian was probably the founder of the comitatenses, he was the creator of more legions than anyone since Augustus, he built numerous new roads including the Strata Diocletiana on the Arab frontier, and he was a builder of more fortifications than most other emperors (on the borders, behind the borders, beyond the borders).
(3/10) Diocletian intensified the trend of separating military and civil commands, and he contributed more than any other emperor to the division of provinces to ease administration and military defense. These last two measures also weakened the power of possible rivals. He expanded the government to an unprecedented degree, he created new palatine secretary positions, and he expanded and formalized the imperial council into the late Roman consistorium. I'll quote R. Smith (2011: Measures of Difference: The Fourth-Century Transformation of the Roman Imperial Court, American Journal of Philology 132: 125-51) 135-136: 'The sheer human size of the late court is also telling, and here, too, Diocletian's reforms are a hinge. The doubling of the number of the empire's provinces to around one hundred, grouped into a dozen newly created "dioceses," fuelled a boom in the number of its administrative offices; and over the fourth century, the banding of dioceses within territorial praetorian prefectures would create still more offices. In the mid third century, it has been estimated, there had been around three-hundred salaried senior civil servants to administer the empire, working with clerical assistance of (at most) 10,000 slaves and freedmen of the imperial household. Estimates of the total size in the late fourth century, by contrast, put it at around 35,000, of whom perhaps as many as 6,000 held "upper-level" posts that presupposed senatorial status or automatically conferred it.'
(4/10) This expansion of imperial government allowed Diocletian to be the most pro-active ruler of the Roman Empire since Augustus. David Potter discusses this (2014: The Roman Empire at Bay, 2nd ed.) 292, 329: ‘It is under Diocletian, as well, that the old form of the imperial edict, a general statement of policy addressed either to the empire as a whole or to a specific group within it, becomes far more common than it had been in previous ages. Diocletian plainly saw the administration of justice as a zone in which the emperor should function to create a new order in society. The attempted transformation of societal norms through imperial fiat was a process that gained in speed as the reign went on. ... In general historical terms, the persecution edict is perhaps of greater significance as evidence for the activist stance of tetrarchic government, a stance that was inherited by the governments that succeeded it. This belief in the power of central government to effect sweeping change stands in stark contrast to the style of government in the first two centuries AD, where, for instance, one emperor’s decision about the definition of colonial status would not change preexisting statuses. There are obviously precedents in the course of the third century, ranging from the constitutio Antoniniana, to Decius’ edict on sacrifices, to Valerian’s persecution edicts, to the currency reform of Aurelian, but no period in the history of Roman government offers so many examples in short order as occur in the reign of Diocletian. Unlike previous emperors who might work within existing structures, amending certain practices in, for instance, the collection of taxes, Diocletian often appears to be trying to sweep all these earlier practices away. The language that his government used was usually deeply traditional in form, but outward form is not the same thing as intent. The ideology of reconstruction that informed tetrarchic reshaping of the historical level was not empty. The rhetoric offered a justification for major efforts at actual change.’
(5/10) Diocletian standardized the empire's coinage to an unprecedented degree, and he later sought to improve military pay with currency reforms. He was the first emperor to streamline and universalise the taxation process, using a regular empire-wide census to do so, which made taxation more equitable and efficient. He had his palatine secretaries create the first two legal codices in Roman history, the Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes, which made it easier for governors and secretaries to judge cases and served as the precursors to the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, which are central foundations to western legal traditions. He established a new administrative unit, the diocese, which grouped together the numerous new smaller provinces created by Diocletian, and whose administrators, the uicarii, were subordinate to the praetorian prefect. He reduced the size of the often problematic praetorian guard, set up plans for Galerius to disband them altogether, and he reduced the power of the Caesariani (notoriously corrupt tax farmers). As an active commander he also appears to have been pretty competent. Details are usually lacking, but he commanded successful campaigns against Sarmatians (285, 289, 294), Germans (288), Saracens (290), Carpi (296, 303-304), and a major Egypt-based usurpation (297-298), that of Domitianus and Achilleus, in which he beseiged and took Alexandria before heading south to restore control of the Thebaid and reorganize the Nubian border.
(6/10) He employed an image of quasi-divine rule to an unprecedented degree. For example, he took the nickname Jovius and gave Maximian of Herculius, he wore bejeweled sandals and a gold-brocaded robe, and he introduced the ceremony of adoratio, whereby imperial subjects, when they approached the emperor, would be offered the purple robe to kiss. These things surrounded the emperors with an aura of divinity that was probably designed to further protect them against rebellion in an age when rebellion was rife. But something I think Diocletian did particularly well was his use of a combination of quasi-divinity with military fraternity in a way that ought to have been contradictory but seems to have worked - after all, propaganda plays on emotions, not logic. Rather than adopt Maximian or forge a marriage alliance, he presented himself and Maximian as brothers, a novel approach to dynastic self-representation that I would argue was tailored to appeal to the soldiery, since Roman soldiers did call their comrades 'brothers', and one's military brother was a concept that had legal force in Roman society. Coins presented the Tetrarchs sacrificing in front of military camp gates, and Maximian's panegyrists speak of how he grew up amid the clashes of iron in Pannonia. To top off the contradiction, fraternity traditionally contains a notion of equality, and Diocletian and Maximian did sometimes present an image of equal rulership. But also, Diocletian had no issue with presenting himself as the senior-ranking ruler, especially in Tetrarchic art and inherent within the signum Jovius. In the end the paradox doesn't seem to have mattered. An important message of the Tetrarchy was the image of harmonious co-rulership, and one could either believe that was true of the Tetrarchy because of the equality of Diocletian and Maximian or (probably truer to reality) because of Diocletian's hierarchical control.
Hi all. I wrote the script for this video. Some notes on the evidence and the reconstruction offered in this video: Information on the battle itself is scarce, and we know that the source record is tainted by Diocletian's propaganda, but we know that Carinus, after initial successes, was abandoned and betrayed by much of his army (who were probably negatively impacted by Diocletianic propaganda and their topographical position), and that those involved in the betrayal included key officers, including likely Aristobulus and Constantius, who were great rewarded after the battle. Aurelius Victor specifically tells us that Aristobulus was rewarded for 'services rendered', and Constantius named his next-born son Dalmatius, probably after the governorship of Dalmatia that we know he held at the time. Carinus was then slain by one or more of his officers for having supposedly slept with their wives. Scholars such as Klaus Altmayer have agonized over reconstructing details of the campaign, including the likelihood that Diocletian suffered one or more initial defeats in Pannonia and retreated eastward. The reconstruction of the battle itself is evidence-based speculation, based to a large extent on C. B. Rose's persuasive argument that the frieze on the Arch of Constantine in Rome depicting the battle of the Milvian Bridge was originally on an Arch of Diocletian and depicted the battle of the Margus. If this is correct, and it probably is, than Carinus, in his pursuit of Diocletian, suddenly found himself facing Diocletian's army with the river Margus right behind his own army, perhaps because Diocletian had conducted a feigned retreat. Moreover, P. Kovacs, while noting the numerous literary references to Carinus' defeat on the Margus, also notes Eusebius' claim that the final battle was actually at Cornacum, where Carinus was killed. He suggests that Carinus, after his defeat at the Margus and in his flight westward, was then killed at Cornacum, perhaps while besieged in the fort. This reconstruction reconciles the claim by sources that Carinus was abandoned by much of his army and defeated at the Margus with the different but related claim by other sources that he was slain by his officers. The script adopts this reconstruction. Some Greek sources claim that Diocletian was dux of Moesia when he seized power, but he probably wasn't dux of Moesia in 284 as he was with the army in Anatolia and in the preceding Persian war, which fits better with the claim by various Latin and Greek sources that he was commander of the household troops. This would have allowed him to jostle for power and possibly allowed him to help cover up the death of Numerian while doing so. As for the claim that he was dux of Moesia, this probably relates to a position he had previously held, probably under Probus (since there is not really enough time for him to have held the position under Carus, and he appears to have followed Carus to the east, as Zonaras tells us that he earned great distinction fighting the Persians).
Well, next time be more explicit please… what does it mean “from the balkans”?!! That term didn’t even exist at that times. Why don’t you say that they were from Illyria: Diocletian, Constant, Constantin the Great etc?
@@endrit2705 'The Balkans' is an acceptable term in scholarship on the third century and is used as a catch-all for Pannonia, Moesia and Thrace (it has a more expansive meaning than Illyria or Illyricum). If you want greater geographical specificity you can look up each of their origins. These videos aren't meant to be comprehensive.
As a former high school student with 4 years of Latin(1959-1963), I enjoy all your videos on Roman topics and Roman history. I hope you make videos on the origin of the Huns(Xiongnu ?) and the Goths and their impact on the Roman Empire.
Great channel. It is indeed a wonder that civilisation got anywhere with all the battles and wars going on almost continuously. We live in relatively peaceful times!
Diocletian clearly studied his Machiavelli. ;) I'm always impressed with those brilliant commanders who died peacefully in old age, like Diocletian and Timoleon of Corinth.
how about sulla? perhaps the most accomplished among them and the very fact that he tried to prevent another one following his footsteps to become a dictator like him before retiring properly was showing he saw the true face of power for what it is..
The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/historymarche04231
For a limited time (now through April 30, 2023), Skillshare is offering 40% off your first year of membership - one of their best offers out there! skl.sh/historymarche40
:)
God job . We need more video on this period , for understand the fall of Rome completely . Maybe a series on the Antonini era from Traiano to MarcoAurelio ?
How u make these programs with no historical truth to it????
Common Soldiers : “Hey our commander sneeze without covering up”
“Lets kill him that’s unacceptable”😂😂😂
Being the emperor was the worst/most dangerous job in the empire... slaves and miners probably had longer life expectancy 😀😀
@@bdleo300ve been saying the exact same thing for the longest time, but for the case of the Ottoman Empire. 36 Sultans, 12 deposed by a military coup, so exactly one third. A lot of those even killed by mere civilians. Even if you didn’t experience such a faith, your life still sucked. For instance Osman III. Dude chilled in captivity for freaking 55 years before becoming sultan. Two die due to “broken heart” immediately after getting news of a lost battle. The rest is a ton of responsibility, paranoia, due to the “ancient laws” obligatory killing of children and brothers, captivity in the kafes etc. What a shitshow of a job. This was just an example since the Ottoman Empire is the field I’m most savvy in. I’m quite sure that the exact same also goes, more or less, for any other state and dynasty.
Poor Probus, couldn't catch a break.
Yeah. Probus has almost been vastly forgotten by history. He was truly Aurelien's student/successor until his rivals got super jealous of his popularity.
Auralein and Probus are my favorite one-two punch in Roman history. Auralien was a humorless work horse who demanded the same discipline that led the Romans to victory against the Latins and Samnites 600 years before his time. Probus was more chill in personality but on par with Shapur I, Odenaethus, Claudius and Auralien as a general, while also being the among the best administrators of the century, maybe second only to Diocletion.
Probus was a good emperor, shame no one knows about him
Probus deserves better
The great Probus will not be forgotten
Yes! You're one of the best history channels on the site!
I concur! From Brazil!.
How did you reply to the video before it was released?
@@thechronicler1453 probably early access
The best for sure. Kings and generals close but David’s voice is so immersing. Cannot be beat
_The_ best!
One of my favorite Emperors out there. Surely his farming skills were amazing.
Yes, this guy was based, in the truest sense of the word. Stepping down in order to live the rest of his life in a palace on the adriatic, tending to his gardens.
‘If you could see the cabbages raised by my hands, you surely would never judge that a temptation.’ Beautiful quote
Si tu potuisses videre brassicas a manibus meis elevatas, certe numquam iudicares illam temptationem.
Diocletian is an example that to be successful in war, it is not always necessary to be a good commander, but you also have to be an astute politician and an excellent diplomat, in addition to rewarding the obedience of your subordinates well and knowing when it is necessary show mercy towards opponents.
Bloody 🙏
That’s not quite right. When we say “good commander”, we should think of their strategic thinking, their operational planning, and their tactical prowess. Those political and soft power skills came with experience and wealth. Was Carinus prepared for Diocletian? He didn’t seem to have developed a firm loyalty among his troops, clearly a trait that his predecessors discounted at their own peril, as well. These opportunistic players couldn’t hope to win the long game, with hindsight. Diocletian combined his political savvy with operational ability, executing a psyops campaign when it would do the most damage. But his own troops never would have formed up without a foundation as a proven commander. He combined it all to carry the day.
The thing is these are basically wars and wars are won off of strategy, logistics, money, and a good army. Which Diocletian had.
Diocletian was a talented general. He understood how to use all the tools at his disposal. While his army was initially inferior to Carinus, he found ways to weaken him. Bringing Carinus' sub-commanders over to his side. Shaking his soldiers' faith in him. So, when they finally engaged each other, Carinus' army, while numerically superior, suffered from weak morale and sub-commanders with questionable loyalty. If Diocletian felt that the situation wasn't enough to his advantage at this point in time, he would likely have refused battle. Not fighting before he felt like he had a good chance of winning. He had learned from his earlier clashes with Carinus not to fight him unless the odds were on his side. Changing the odds. When at all possible, only fighting when he wanted to. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight. Learning from past battles, campaigns, and wars. Diocletian did all of these things. And all of them are marks of a great general.
It is necessary to be a good commander to win in war. But political and diplomatic skills are indeed crucial as well. They are necessary to start wars, to keep the state running in the best possible way for the war effort during wars, and to end wars. How many wars started with combatant nations prepared for fighting the second they were declared because diplomats and politicians judged the right moment to fight? How many militaries and nations were never in danger of falling apart because diplomats and politicians adapted the nation perfectly to a war footing? How many post-war situations were salvaged by diplomats and politicians following defeat in war? How many wars started with combatant nations unprepared for them because diplomats and politicians bungled their way into them? How many militaries and nations collapsed because diplomats and politicians weren't able to adapt the nation properly to being at war? How many victories in war were squandered by diplomats and politicians mishandling the post-war situation, possibly so badly that it led to new wars? Diocletian was a great general, a great diplomat, and a great politician. Possibly, the greatest Roman emperor since the Five Good Emperors.
this is a civil war, where politics is as important as fighting skills.
Thank Hannibal for bringing me to this channel. I started watching because of your series on the Second Punic War, but I continued because of your excellent and diverse historical content. It has been said before but bears repeating: the quality of production/animation you provide in your documentaries on this platform is unmatched. Well done, and keep up the great work...for the sake of my entertainment
"But cabbage farming? Really? A man of your talents?"
- Messenger asking him to take the purple again
You're in the second century of the Roman Empire.
You're the Emperor.
You're surrounded by your legion and bodyguards with no enemy in sight.
You're in danger.
If you're Commodus, maybe
3rd-4th centuries were worse…
What I find fascinating is the logistics of it all. I’d love to see a video on how long it takes for the traveling of the armies etc.
They probably forced march anywhere between 10-20 miles a day.
Used to be a Kings ang General fan. Well, not anymore, as this channel is far more superior
They both do great work
Both are a gift
Kings and Generals have become somewhat of a Ukrainian propaganda channel.
Aye
@@niconick2551I'm pretty tired of Kungs and Generals blatant biases in the modern wars
I`ve recently discovered this channel and now I watch it daily. Your work is much appreciated, I`m eagerly awaiting each new episode. History is so fascinating, but visualizing battles and have a complete explanation of the events is mesmerizing. I wish you all the best and millions of subscribers.
Absolutely
Excellent production. The voice, the graphical content, the writing. All top notch. Possibly my favourite channel, alongside K&G.
k&G is slightly sub-teir and their foray into the Ukraine/Russian war will be proven neo-con claptrap very very soon.
Same mate same. I'm subscribed to both historymarche and K&G
Probus has to be one of the most under rated Generals and Emperors of the Roman Empire. If he ruled for longer, he’d easily be a Diocleaten, maybe even a Trajan.
Okey with pleasure....thank you for sharing...your( history Marche ) channel is one of my favorite channels
I wonder if you will cover the civil wars after Diocletian’s abdication such as the rise of Constantine the Great and his later war with Licinius
I hope he does
@@Imperator-vo4to It's engaging content, I'm sure they will.
Just Find the video at Kings and Generals, search the battle of milvian bridge.
Great video. Have been waiting for Diocletian… His story is amazing. Great overview of his rise to power. Hope to see more about his reign.
"I'm the Emperor!"
*Stab*
"I'm the Emperor!"
*Stab*
"I'm the Emperor!"
*Stab*
Repeat for a hundred goddamn years.
I would say a Thousand
Quite frustrating if you ask me, petty men’s ambitions know no bounds.
It repeated for more than 2 centuries. And then continued on with the Eastern R.E.
There were instances where troops would proclaim someone emperor, and they would refuse, I think on more than one occasion it eventually become "you will be emperor or we will kill you" and that's how we got a few emperors. Ah the crisis of the third century
@@cjthebeesknees Gamma male personality types.
Loved the background info on the moments after Aurelian’s death!
Thanks
Thanks so much for the support! Very kind of you.
LOVE HISTORYMARCHE💖💖
Another amazing video as always!
Splendid video, great quality as always
I was quite intrigued by the successions of Aueralian up to Diocletian, it's not often discussed
Thanks!
Thanks so much for the support! Very kind of you.
Great vid as usual, thanks for making it. Now to watch another one.
Worthy of support on the occasion of Ramadan
Thanks so much for the support! Very kind of you.
Probus was a good emperor in every way, he left good memories in all classes, both senate and plebs, for his works and actions, and even those who killed him regretted having done so by erecting a monument in his honor. That has happened very few times in history.
It is just so incredible to think that for all the disasters, assassinations and civil wars that littered the roman empire during the crisis of the third century, the roman empire not only manages to endure and end up with an efficiently ruthless and effective emperor in diocletian, whom would give the empire a new lease of life and stability before the rise of Constantine.
Anyone who gets the chance should visit the remains Diocletian's palace in Split Croatia. It is really amazing.
So Diocletian abdicated and basically became the cabbage merchant from Avatar.
Romans: "Come back and rule the Roman Empire, sire!"
Big D: "My cabbages!"
No Gallienus was the cabbage merchant, he literally disguised himself as a cabbage merchant in order to sneak into a Persian camp at the Battle of Satala.
The cabbage is ore valuable than it might appear. Cooked meats and dishes can be cooked and wrapped in heavily fiberous cabbage leaves and kept for days. Like a tortilla. But tougher.
Sarma is a cabbabe leave wrapped meal, served in Dalmatia/Croatia
@@KaiHung-wv3ulthat wasnt gallienus tho i think, and he reffers to what diocletian was said to do after retirement
@KaiHung-wv3ulthat was Galerius
365 days. 365 emperors.
Just being silly.
I have been anticipating another well done video on this subject. I'm never disappointed. Thank you all.
Crisis of the 3rd Century is so interesting we know people have appetite for this kind of story. If HBO ever release Rome 2 I hope they put it in this era
Great video from beginning to end!
Very good video, thanks!
I'm addicted to your videos. Thanks for the hard work and dedication.
Another fantastically made video as always
Always elite level work!📖💡💪🏻🙌🏼
Thank you for an exciting video. Your stories are worth the yearly salary of a Roman legion (a late Republic one). Great work!
15:51 That tree formation om the right look like a face.
God job . We need more video on this period , for understand the fall of Rome completely . Maybe a series on the Antonini era from Traiano to MarcoAurelio ?
Love the suggestion. I'm already exploring topics on both Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. I'm also close to finishing the Milvian Bridge. Did you check my Aurelian video and the battle of Abritus?
@@HistoryMarcheDon't forget Adriano and pax adriana .For sure I see all the series on Aureliano Imperator restitutio imperi against Zenobia and Gallo-roman empire , for ad Abritus is the battle against the goths wicth Cniva on charge of the Goths ? English is not my mother language , I came from Italy and know by name and visit all the city mentioned in your video on 3 Samnite war see my comment i came from Anxanum . Thanks for answer . Congratulations for the channel . And the ancestor the grandfather of Adriano came from Italy 60km from my city , a little city called Atri Aruzzo Italy check
Absolutely fantastic channel and top quality video as always - thank you for these brilliant documentaries History Marche 🙏🏼
Amazing documentary. Love the Roman history docs. please more on the 4th century !
What an unusual yet impressive victory!
I'm surprised the algorithm didn't inform me of this excellent upload
Perhaps the sacrifices weren't sufficient :/
Story well told, enjoyed it a lot
thank you amazing video❤❤
Diocletian was definitely one of the best late Roman emperors. He must have been very intelligent also.
I appreciate your comment but aren't they all late? Ohhh, you mean later. Gotcha. 😀 I read "late Roman-emperors" instead of "late-Roman emperors". I fell on my head when I was small, ok?
As the writer of both this video and the Aurelian series, I'd like to give some thoughts on Diocletian's qualities as an emperor, as I see his qualities are being debated:
(1/10)
Incredibly, Diocletian survived the fifty-year series of usurpations and invasions that constituted the core parts of what we call the third-century crisis. Usurpation and military rebellion was incredibly frequent, more so than in any other period of Roman history. A part of the problem was an issue of imperial presence. With multiple, new, strong foreign enemies having emerged (210s: Alemanni; 220s: Sassanids; 230s: Goths; 250s: Franks), the empire witnessed challenges on a scale it had not faced since Republican times. The result was a trial by fire for armies, emperors and the empire as a whole, which had become used to a lower intensity existence. Major defeats were suffered, and towns, strongholds and cities were ravaged. These things undermined the imperial ideology of Victory, a key part of how emperors advertised and demonstrated their legitimacy. In turn, this encouraged support for usurping generals who promised to do a better job on the battlefield and pay closer attention to the army's needs. This development normalized a culture of military rebellion, and a part of this culture was rebellion in the face of imperial absence and perceived neglect. If an emperor wasn't present on a particular frontier, that frontier could rise up in support of a present general. By 293, when the Tetrarchy was created, this was very much still an issue, since Carausius had been ruling as a usurper in Britain since 286.
(2/10)
So, I would argue a key point of the Tetrarchy was to have an emperor in each of the key militarized zones for the sake of imperial presence: the Rhine (Constantius), northern Italy/the upper Danube (Maximian), the middle/lower Danube (Diocletian/Galerius), and the east (Diocletian/Galerius). The other point of the arrangement ought to have been the creation of a reliable succession in advance, since Constantius and Galerius were made the Caesars and thus the successors of the Augusti. Constantius and Galerius were experienced military officers, and had already been made the sons-in-law of the Augusti, so they were good picks for the job. Diocletian defied the odds and survived, thereby ending the crisis. Moreover, the Tetrarchy functioned remarkably well under the overall leadership of Diocletian, who must have been an exceptionally imposing figure with an unusual capacity to influence others. The enemies of the empire were defeated and any usurpers or potential usurpers were ultimately defeated or unable to act in the first place. Diocletian coordinated his co-rulers in an effective manner while ensuring his supremacy (he appears to have been responsible for all empire-wide edicts), and he took very good care of diplomatic dealings (e.g. he secured Roman control over western Armenia without a war, he made good use of the formidable Goths as a mercenary pool rather than as an enemy, and he gave Lower Nubia between the first and second cataracts to the Meroitic Nubians and established a stipend for both the Nubians and Blemmyes, a measure that established the Nubians as a friendly buffer state and ensured peace on the troublesome Nubian frontier until the sixth century.). Diocletian was probably the founder of the comitatenses, he was the creator of more legions than anyone since Augustus, he built numerous new roads including the Strata Diocletiana on the Arab frontier, and he was a builder of more fortifications than most other emperors (on the borders, behind the borders, beyond the borders).
(3/10)
Diocletian intensified the trend of separating military and civil commands, and he contributed more than any other emperor to the division of provinces to ease administration and military defense. These last two measures also weakened the power of possible rivals. He expanded the government to an unprecedented degree, he created new palatine secretary positions, and he expanded and formalized the imperial council into the late Roman consistorium. I'll quote R. Smith (2011: Measures of Difference: The Fourth-Century Transformation of the Roman Imperial Court, American Journal of Philology 132: 125-51) 135-136: 'The sheer human size of the late court is also telling, and here, too, Diocletian's reforms are a hinge. The doubling of the number of the empire's provinces to around one hundred, grouped into a dozen newly created "dioceses," fuelled a boom in the number of its administrative offices; and over the fourth century, the banding of dioceses within territorial praetorian prefectures would create still more offices. In the mid third century, it has been estimated, there had been around three-hundred salaried senior civil servants to administer the empire, working with clerical assistance of (at most) 10,000 slaves and freedmen of the imperial household. Estimates of the total size in the late fourth century, by contrast, put it at around 35,000, of whom perhaps as many as 6,000 held "upper-level" posts that presupposed senatorial status or automatically conferred it.'
(4/10)
This expansion of imperial government allowed Diocletian to be the most pro-active ruler of the Roman Empire since Augustus. David Potter discusses this (2014: The Roman Empire at Bay, 2nd ed.) 292, 329: ‘It is under Diocletian, as well, that the old form of the imperial edict, a general statement of policy addressed either to the empire as a whole or to a specific group within it, becomes far more common than it had been in previous ages. Diocletian plainly saw the administration of justice as a zone in which the emperor should function to create a new order in society. The attempted transformation of societal norms through imperial fiat was a process that gained in speed as the reign went on. ... In general historical terms, the persecution edict is perhaps of greater significance as evidence for the activist stance of tetrarchic government, a stance that was inherited by the governments that succeeded it. This belief in the power of central government to effect sweeping change stands in stark contrast to the style of government in the first two centuries AD, where, for instance, one emperor’s decision about the definition of colonial status would not change preexisting statuses. There are obviously precedents in the course of the third century, ranging from the constitutio Antoniniana, to Decius’ edict on sacrifices, to Valerian’s persecution edicts, to the currency reform of Aurelian, but no period in the history of Roman government offers so many examples in short order as occur in the reign of Diocletian. Unlike previous emperors who might work within existing structures, amending certain practices in, for instance, the collection of taxes, Diocletian often appears to be trying to sweep all these earlier practices away. The language that his government used was usually deeply traditional in form, but outward form is not the same thing as intent. The ideology of reconstruction that informed tetrarchic reshaping of the historical level was not empty. The rhetoric offered a justification for major efforts at actual change.’
(5/10)
Diocletian standardized the empire's coinage to an unprecedented degree, and he later sought to improve military pay with currency reforms. He was the first emperor to streamline and universalise the taxation process, using a regular empire-wide census to do so, which made taxation more equitable and efficient. He had his palatine secretaries create the first two legal codices in Roman history, the Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes, which made it easier for governors and secretaries to judge cases and served as the precursors to the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, which are central foundations to western legal traditions. He established a new administrative unit, the diocese, which grouped together the numerous new smaller provinces created by Diocletian, and whose administrators, the uicarii, were subordinate to the praetorian prefect. He reduced the size of the often problematic praetorian guard, set up plans for Galerius to disband them altogether, and he reduced the power of the Caesariani (notoriously corrupt tax farmers). As an active commander he also appears to have been pretty competent. Details are usually lacking, but he commanded successful campaigns against Sarmatians (285, 289, 294), Germans (288), Saracens (290), Carpi (296, 303-304), and a major Egypt-based usurpation (297-298), that of Domitianus and Achilleus, in which he beseiged and took Alexandria before heading south to restore control of the Thebaid and reorganize the Nubian border.
(6/10)
He employed an image of quasi-divine rule to an unprecedented degree. For example, he took the nickname Jovius and gave Maximian of Herculius, he wore bejeweled sandals and a gold-brocaded robe, and he introduced the ceremony of adoratio, whereby imperial subjects, when they approached the emperor, would be offered the purple robe to kiss. These things surrounded the emperors with an aura of divinity that was probably designed to further protect them against rebellion in an age when rebellion was rife. But something I think Diocletian did particularly well was his use of a combination of quasi-divinity with military fraternity in a way that ought to have been contradictory but seems to have worked - after all, propaganda plays on emotions, not logic. Rather than adopt Maximian or forge a marriage alliance, he presented himself and Maximian as brothers, a novel approach to dynastic self-representation that I would argue was tailored to appeal to the soldiery, since Roman soldiers did call their comrades 'brothers', and one's military brother was a concept that had legal force in Roman society. Coins presented the Tetrarchs sacrificing in front of military camp gates, and Maximian's panegyrists speak of how he grew up amid the clashes of iron in Pannonia. To top off the contradiction, fraternity traditionally contains a notion of equality, and Diocletian and Maximian did sometimes present an image of equal rulership. But also, Diocletian had no issue with presenting himself as the senior-ranking ruler, especially in Tetrarchic art and inherent within the signum Jovius. In the end the paradox doesn't seem to have mattered. An important message of the Tetrarchy was the image of harmonious co-rulership, and one could either believe that was true of the Tetrarchy because of the equality of Diocletian and Maximian or (probably truer to reality) because of Diocletian's hierarchical control.
He retired in his palace near Salona that is now town center of Split, my hometown
Absolutely another awesome video ty sir ❤
Great video as always!
An always excellent channel ! Thank you.
Great video 👍
Thank you!
Hi all. I wrote the script for this video. Some notes on the evidence and the reconstruction offered in this video:
Information on the battle itself is scarce, and we know that the source record is tainted by Diocletian's propaganda, but we know that Carinus, after initial successes, was abandoned and betrayed by much of his army (who were probably negatively impacted by Diocletianic propaganda and their topographical position), and that those involved in the betrayal included key officers, including likely Aristobulus and Constantius, who were great rewarded after the battle. Aurelius Victor specifically tells us that Aristobulus was rewarded for 'services rendered', and Constantius named his next-born son Dalmatius, probably after the governorship of Dalmatia that we know he held at the time. Carinus was then slain by one or more of his officers for having supposedly slept with their wives. Scholars such as Klaus Altmayer have agonized over reconstructing details of the campaign, including the likelihood that Diocletian suffered one or more initial defeats in Pannonia and retreated eastward.
The reconstruction of the battle itself is evidence-based speculation, based to a large extent on C. B. Rose's persuasive argument that the frieze on the Arch of Constantine in Rome depicting the battle of the Milvian Bridge was originally on an Arch of Diocletian and depicted the battle of the Margus. If this is correct, and it probably is, than Carinus, in his pursuit of Diocletian, suddenly found himself facing Diocletian's army with the river Margus right behind his own army, perhaps because Diocletian had conducted a feigned retreat.
Moreover, P. Kovacs, while noting the numerous literary references to Carinus' defeat on the Margus, also notes Eusebius' claim that the final battle was actually at Cornacum, where Carinus was killed. He suggests that Carinus, after his defeat at the Margus and in his flight westward, was then killed at Cornacum, perhaps while besieged in the fort. This reconstruction reconciles the claim by sources that Carinus was abandoned by much of his army and defeated at the Margus with the different but related claim by other sources that he was slain by his officers. The script adopts this reconstruction.
Some Greek sources claim that Diocletian was dux of Moesia when he seized power, but he probably wasn't dux of Moesia in 284 as he was with the army in Anatolia and in the preceding Persian war, which fits better with the claim by various Latin and Greek sources that he was commander of the household troops. This would have allowed him to jostle for power and possibly allowed him to help cover up the death of Numerian while doing so. As for the claim that he was dux of Moesia, this probably relates to a position he had previously held, probably under Probus (since there is not really enough time for him to have held the position under Carus, and he appears to have followed Carus to the east, as Zonaras tells us that he earned great distinction fighting the Persians).
Very well written script; as is the above.
@@JudasBoB270 Thanks!
pure gold betterthan silver coins minted after death of marcus aurelius
Well, next time be more explicit please… what does it mean “from the balkans”?!! That term didn’t even exist at that times. Why don’t you say that they were from Illyria: Diocletian, Constant, Constantin the Great etc?
@@endrit2705 'The Balkans' is an acceptable term in scholarship on the third century and is used as a catch-all for Pannonia, Moesia and Thrace (it has a more expansive meaning than Illyria or Illyricum). If you want greater geographical specificity you can look up each of their origins. These videos aren't meant to be comprehensive.
great video
The third century in the Roman Empore seems to me like the biggest pvp arena in history.
Glad to see this period covered again!
Fantastic history about a very interesting time!
Nice video, best documentary channel on YT! Could you tell me in which program you make ur maps. They are great!
Great video, I think it will be great if you make a video about the seven warring states of china as the battle of fei for example.
awesome.....great vid...bonus made me giggle at every assassination....
Great video! Thanks!
amazing, as always :)
As a former high school student with 4 years of Latin(1959-1963), I enjoy all your videos on Roman topics and Roman history. I hope you make videos on the origin of the Huns(Xiongnu ?) and the Goths and their impact on the Roman Empire.
@HistoryMarche Please where is the next part on Hannibal?
I love History Marche!
Love this channel!
Please more videos. This was great
Well done as always.
Great channel. It is indeed a wonder that civilisation got anywhere with all the battles and wars going on almost continuously.
We live in relatively peaceful times!
Extremely good video, algorithm take note
Thanks for the video
Yeah, I went to high school with the Diocletian. Dude was an absolute wild man.
Did he made you Join the battles for 25 years for a farm as reward?
Tarraco being placed in Barcelona, what a classic!
Great vid
This battle reminds me a little bit about Sekigahara. The battle were Tokugawa took control of Japan in 1600.
I miss hannibal
After 19 episodes of his greatness I am really interested how it goes and his allies
This is the best hannibal channel
Diocletian learnt from his predecessors and practiced the art of convincing people that he was the best leader! Great series.
It's a rare emperor that lives to step down and enjoy his retirement! Great video, as usual. ⚔🔥👏
He didn't enjoy it for long unfortunately 😢
@@CaptainGrimes1He remained retired but he kept on getting pestered by Galerius & Maximian to return to power
Diocletian clearly studied his Machiavelli. ;) I'm always impressed with those brilliant commanders who died peacefully in old age, like Diocletian and Timoleon of Corinth.
how about sulla? perhaps the most accomplished among them and the very fact that he tried to prevent another one following his footsteps to become a dictator like him before retiring properly was showing he saw the true face of power for what it is..
@@lazy_nyt Yes. Sulla was another who understood Machiavelli. ;)
Nice work.
When the next parts of East Roman emperor Basil II will be ready?
Make it to the end of the video? Your production was much too interesting to leave early. Great work, thank you.
Happy Roman new year everyone! Today’s the traditional date that Rome was founded
super cool - Diocletian was sleek guy - nice explanation who is who .
Can you do a video on the Battle of Cape Ecnomus?
Would you consider doing a video on John hunyadi
Very nice video
A bloody end to an extremely difficult century.
It was shown once again with this video that the greatest enemy of Rome was Rome itself. Thanks for the amazing video.
Do you guys use Geo layers for your maps ? Or another program ?
Thank you
Fantastic
Thank u
Probus,.What a badazz in such unstable Times~
That last line confused me. Diocletian seemed like a Littlefinger until he started talking about his cabbages. Great video!
Diocletisn Palace is in Split, Dalmatia, Croatia.
One of the few Roman Emperors that made it to retirement.
Sadly
He was also one of the most evil
@@jonathanwilliams1065 all of them were evil don't get fooled by imperial propoganda. you can't rule over that many people by being a good person.
@@geordiejones5618 no man is fully good
he is the only one along with maximian.
Diocletian has always stuck with me- for years and years I think about his happy retirement in envy,
Everyone that’s interested in this history bless you…. We are a dying breed
A real game of thrones episode