Best Way To Divide The Roman Empire In Four

So I've heard at various points that the east-west divide was unintentionally hurtful towards the west that really started to show in the last decades of the western empire. One solution I've heard is that a four way could have been better for the empire overall.

So my question is what would be the best way to divide the empire in four and when would it be the best time to do this that would provide overall better longevity to the roman world as a whole.

I admit a timeline with this idea interest me.
 
The empire was divided in four by Diocletian...
Tetrarchy_map3.jpg
 
The empire was divided in four by Diocletian...
Tetrarchy_map3.jpg

'Smacks head' ya, forgot about that-though was not that a bit too late for it to really provide the benefit that people were arguing? I remember some people saying that his divide was uneven on who got what or something like that.
 
So I've heard at various points that the east-west divide was unintentionally hurtful towards the west that really started to show in the last decades of the western empire. One solution I've heard is that a four way could have been better for the empire overall.

So my question is what would be the best way to divide the empire in four and when would it be the best time to do this that would provide overall better longevity to the roman world as a whole.

I admit a timeline with this idea interest me.

The empire was divided in four by Diocletian...

Instead of a quadripartite division, I was sketching a TL idea (the PoD being a much earlier death of Constantine and a more successful Gallerius) which proposes a tripartite division: an Western Roman Empire (Hispania + Gallia + Britannia), focused on the Rhine border | the "Central" Roman Empire (Italia + all Africa west of Lybia + the whole of the Balkans), which goes neatly along the Danube border | the "Oriental" Roman Empire (all the Asian provinces + Egypt and Lybia), which should focus on the border with Persia.

Why I think it's better? Simply because it focus on the defensive frontiers is more suitable to permit a longer lived Empire. Despite the worst enemy of Rome arguably being Persia, its IOTL ruin came from the Danube first (the Gothic invasion post-Adrianople) and then from the Rhine, and only because Stilicho stripped the limes germanicus from its garrisons to face Alaric. And all of this because he was disputing with the Eastern Roman Empire the control of Illyria.

Thus, if the whole of Italy and the Balkans are concerned with the protection of the Danube, the *Gallic/Western Empire (despite being the weakest link of the Roman chain) is left protecting a much smaller border and defensible in the Rhine, and also the border with the Picts - which, until 406 A.D., were considered the safest borders of the Empire. Regarding the East... well they can keep the Sassanids at bay (if even the Palmyrene Empire with a much smaller powerbase managed to contain the Persians). Finally, the Central Empire won't be too concerned with Italy or Africa, but will strive to preserve the status quo on Pannonia, Moesia and Thracia, just like the Byzantine Empire did until the 7th Century.

Now, if you want a quadripartite division, it will probably be on the lines of the Tetrarchy, perhaps the only difference being that Hispania goes to the Gallic administration instead of the Italian administration.
 
The problem is what is to stop someone from doing what Constantine did OTL, meaning reuniting the empire, all you need is a capable rules and the empire will be reunited.....
 
Instead of a quadripartite division, I was sketching a TL idea (the PoD being a much earlier death of Constantine and a more successful Gallerius) which proposes a tripartite division: an Western Roman Empire (Hispania + Gallia + Britannia), focused on the Rhine border | the "Central" Roman Empire (Italia + all Africa west of Lybia + the whole of the Balkans), which goes neatly along the Danube border | the "Oriental" Roman Empire (all the Asian provinces + Egypt and Lybia), which should focus on the border with Persia.

Yes, I remember reading about this in that thread. I think some people argued against it, but I was thinking that having this kind of divide around the start of the third century as a good point.
 
We had a great thread on this a few months back that yielding some very interesting and workable solutions (one I remember was a very good idea). I can't for the life of me remember the thread though.

EDIT: Apparently I was seriously ninjad.
EDIT 2: I should point out that the only reason the tetrarchy was divided like it was, was because Diocletian learned not to trust Maximian with being able to competently manage an army after the debacle that was his attempt to retake Britain from the usurper (the tetrarchy probably wouldn't exist if Maximian was at least somewhat militarily able). Hency why Maximian's realm had no frontiers to worry about.
 
I remember that thread too, but I can't remember its title to save the life of me either.
 
I remember that thread too, but I can't remember its title to save the life of me either.

We had a great thread on this a few months back that yielding some very interesting and workable solutions (one I remember was a very good idea). I can't for the life of me remember the thread though.

EDIT: Apparently I was seriously ninjad.
EDIT 2: I should point out that the only reason the tetrarchy was divided like it was, was because Diocletian learned not to trust Maximian with being able to competently manage an army after the debacle that was his attempt to retake Britain from the usurper (the tetrarchy probably wouldn't exist if Maximian was at least somewhat militarily able). Hency why Maximian's realm had no frontiers to worry about.

It's this one :) (I actually copied and pasted some of the posters' debates in a brainstorming archive I have in my computer)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=351019

Sly Fox, I didn't know about the point you raised in your "Edit 2". Now that I think about it, Diocletian's original purpose really seemed to remain a dual division of power, like Valerian + Gallienus and Carus + Carinus did. It seems the Tetrachy, despite being an improvisation, actually saved the Empire for the time being.
 
The problem is what is to stop someone from doing what Constantine did OTL, meaning reuniting the empire, all you need is a capable rules and the empire will be reunited.....
A related question to division I'm wondering is whether people prefer Diocletian's border defense strategy or Constantine's elastic defense (which arguably only happened because Constantine needed a huge 'bodyguard' surrounding him) for the overall health of the empire(s).
 
Top