@Tanc49 Then here I will defend my view of Diocletian.
Diocletian's Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic... it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian's daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should be thanked for Rome's survival.
Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian's Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.
I wrote this simply to defend myself, and articulate my points to the best of my ability. Not trying to win any followers, and if better evidence against my points can be shown, I would accept it.
tl:dr; Diocletian is the worst. Economy bad. Tetarchy bad. Persecutions bad.
Diocletian's Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic... it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian's daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should be thanked for Rome's survival.
Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian's Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.
I wrote this simply to defend myself, and articulate my points to the best of my ability. Not trying to win any followers, and if better evidence against my points can be shown, I would accept it.
tl:dr; Diocletian is the worst. Economy bad. Tetarchy bad. Persecutions bad.