WI: Diocletian doesn't create the Tetrarchy

No Tetrarchy. No civil wars, no excessive military (Wikipedia estimates that 1 in 15 men served in the military), but keeping the autocratic and centralized reforms of Diocletian. What happens? Does Galerius succeed him? Would there be far greater religious strive in the Roman Empire with the illegal growth of a then-radical Christianity without Constantine to make it the state religion?
 
No Tetrarchy. No civil wars, no excessive military (Wikipedia estimates that 1 in 15 men served in the military), but keeping the autocratic and centralized reforms of Diocletian. What happens? Does Galerius succeed him? Would there be far greater religious strive in the Roman Empire with the illegal growth of a then-radical Christianity without Constantine to make it the state religion?

I think we would see the continuation of the crisis of the third century. I mean long term, the Tetrarchy was a disaster which caused regional power struggles between the Emperors, but it did do good short term. The Emperor didn't have to rush back and forth across the empire to try to be on hand during invasions/crises. It gave the various parts of the empire more wiggle room for defense. And the military was already excessive, so I doubt no Tetrarchy would change that.
 
No Tetrarchy. No civil wars, no excessive military (Wikipedia estimates that 1 in 15 men served in the military), but keeping the autocratic and centralized reforms of Diocletian. What happens? Does Galerius succeed him? Would there be far greater religious strive in the Roman Empire with the illegal growth of a then-radical Christianity without Constantine to make it the state religion?

Does he still pick a co-emperor? Because if he does (and I just think being Diocletian he would), he needs to pick someone far more competent than Maximian. I think it was Maximian's incompetence, specifically his failure to take back Britain, that lead Diocletian to turn the dual rule into a rule of 4.

Also, not increasing the military might come back to bite the empire later on. They needed just about every last soldier.
 
Poor Diocletian wouldn't be able to grow his cabbages and I don't think a lesser emperor would be able to deal with all the demands of a centralized empire.
 
Last edited:
Alright, I didn't know the Tetrarchy solved the problem of the Empire's large size. Revised scenario; he only crowns Galerius/Maximian as co-emperor and divides the Roman Empire in two. Would the lack of civil wars have done any good in long term? Would Christianity have become more violent without its legalisation by Constantine?
 
Well Galerius would only be 24 at the time of his ascension so we can rule him out for a little bit (especially since there are more experienced members in the military Diocletian can turn to). IMO, Maximian was the reason he appointed two more Caesar's, largely due to his incompetence in dealing with the usurpation in Britain. Cosntantius Chlorus would be a good candidate though. He was appointed Caesar for Maximian and was given the frontier provinces so Maximian wouldn't have to take care of the military affairs. So he seems much more competent, and his record agrees with that.

Though you might want to find a way to prevent Constantine from succeeding him, because Constantine seems like just the kind of person that was intent on controlling the whole thing, and then we are right back where we started with the fall of the tetrarchy.
 
Honestly, despite personally I don't like Diocletianus, I admit the principle of the Tetrarchy wasn't wrong in the short term, and was an implicite recognition between the Latin and the Greek part of the Empire; it was indeed true the formula of two Emperors was already tested with Marc Aurelius and Lucius Vero. However, Constantine and Theodosius showed the Empire still could be governed by a single person as well.

However, more than the single people, there was still to see also the role of the armed forces, which refused their de facto right to impose their candidates, in order to see confirmed privileges and other revenues. After all, Constantine was recognized immediately Augustus from his troops, without even passing to the title of Caesar.
 
As far as the military aspect is confirmed it was the least worst option. Rome couldn't afford a Diocletian scale military in the long run but it equally couldn't defend itself without a Diocletian scale military. What you really need is an Emperor to come in and downsize. Leave Britain, spin off the Eastern Provinces (modern Eastern Anatolia, Syria, Jordan, Israel) and concentrate resources on securing a Rhine-Main-Danube border which is defensible with the resources of Gaul, Italia, Spain, the Balkans and North Africa.
 
As far as the military aspect is confirmed it was the least worst option. Rome couldn't afford a Diocletian scale military in the long run but it equally couldn't defend itself without a Diocletian scale military. What you really need is an Emperor to come in and downsize. Leave Britain, spin off the Eastern Provinces (modern Eastern Anatolia, Syria, Jordan, Israel) and concentrate resources on securing a Rhine-Main-Danube border which is defensible with the resources of Gaul, Italia, Spain, the Balkans and North Africa.

Sacrificing Britannia and Asia Minor? A quite harsh scenery, it could work against the barbarians but the Persians will be satisfied? Giving a Mediterranean shore to Persia could mean giving them the possibility to create a navy, and putting Egypt in danger...
 
As far as the military aspect is confirmed it was the least worst option. Rome couldn't afford a Diocletian scale military in the long run but it equally couldn't defend itself without a Diocletian scale military. What you really need is an Emperor to come in and downsize. Leave Britain, spin off the Eastern Provinces (modern Eastern Anatolia, Syria, Jordan, Israel) and concentrate resources on securing a Rhine-Main-Danube border which is defensible with the resources of Gaul, Italia, Spain, the Balkans and North Africa.

Why on earth would the emperors pull out of their most resource rich provinces? Syria, Anatolia, and Palestine and Arabia Petra, along with Egypt (which pulling out of those provinces would put in jeopardy) were the most prosperous and revenue rich provinces in the empire, especially in the late empire. They can't really pull out of Gaul either though, so it looks like they are stuck with just leaving Britain, which frees up 2 or 3 legions and removes a hotspot for usurpers.

Though they'd still have to keep their military. I don't think it was unsustainable though. But to sustain the upkeep of the western armies, you need to have the west have access to the vast wealth of the east. The eastern empire had a LOT of gold, especially considering they were able to just constantly pay off their enemies such as the Huns, with enormous sums.
 
Top