WI: Diocletian divides the empire in two, not four

[GauchoBadger]

What if, say, emperor Diocletian had less sons or even just one, affecting his tetrarchy plan and diminishing the ammount of portions within the empire, specifically two?
How much of a difference would it make? IMO, because the empire was divided in four, it ended up in chaos until it could be reunited by Constantine. Just two halves would be enough to both create more autonomy for crushing rebellions, commanding armies and et cetera, while little enough to prevent too many claimants to the united throne.
What do you guys think?

 

[Russian]

What if, say, emperor Diocletian had less sons or even just one

Diocletian did not have any sons, he had one daughter only.

 

[volantredx]

Diocletian originally had the empire split in two. Himself and Maximian, it was only after Britain rebelled that he split it into four and even that was largely a matter of getting enough executives in place to handle all the crisis that were in place.

 

[The Professor]

Yeah. IMHO splitting into 3 might be better.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

Well Diocletian technically did divide the Empire in two. There was an Emperor of the West and Emperor of the East, and both had a Caesar (Junior Emperor). If it's merely split in two, will there not be a Augustus/Caesar system or will one of them become Augustus?