So....what if the Diocletian (I think he started this but I could be very wrong) idea of being above the soldiers and separate from the soldiers (I am probably describing this horrendously) was not adopted and the emperors continued to interact with the soldiers and show the soldiers they are one of them?
Huh? Diocletian and most of the Emperors of the fourth century are very much in touch with his soldiers.
The ideal Emperor during the 4th century is very much a person that is willingly to share some of the hardship with his soldiers. Brian Campbell mentioned an account from the Historia Augusta on how an Emperor is expected to conduct himself on campaigns.
Historia Augusta said:Once, when a certain Ovinius Camillus,195 a senator of ancient family but very pleasure-loving, made plans to rebel and seize the throne, and this was reported to Alexander and forthwith proved, he summoned him to the Palace and thanked him for voluntarily offering to assume the responsibility for the state, which had been imposed on many a good man against his will.... Later, when an expedition against the barbarians was announced, he urged him either to set forth on his own responsibility, did he so desire, or to proceed in company with himself. And since he himself travelled on foot, he invited Camillus to share his labours, but when the man fell behind after five miles, he bade him ride a horse, and again, when after two days' journey he was tired out by riding, he had him put in a carriage. And when Camillus refused even this, either through fear or in sincerity, and even resigned his power and made ready to die, Alexander sent him away, commending him to the soldiers, by whom he himself was singularly beloved, and bidding him go in safety to his country-estate.
If not, we can always look at how Julian's campaign as another example of Emperor being extremely close with his army.