The Tetrarchy

[Tobias]

G'day All

Diocletian, realising the necessity for regional-based commanders, separated the Empire into two regions; East and West. Each of these regions was administered by an Augustus. The legal pretences of the Principate were done away with and citizens became subject of the Emperor, who was their lord. Diocletian also set up a regular means for succession, the Tetrarchy, involving two more junior Emperors, the Caesars. This worked once only, on Diocletian's retirement.

Why was this the case? Was there something in the form of the Tetrarchy that did no appeal to the potential rulers, or was the competition for the throne so close that they didn't care how they affected the empire by civil warring for it?

What are your opinions?

[Princeps]

Personally I think the main problem with the system was his aversion to dynasties. If he had compromised on this issue it may have been a more successful endeavour (would have lasted longer at least), but the tensions created by his insistance on not allowing the senoir Emperors' sons to become Caesars created issues and rivalries. That's my opinion.

[Favonius Cornelius]

The question of succession in my opinion was the single most difficult and dangerous problem of the empire. I suppose it is such for any empire, but it seems as if it was especially so for the Romans.

 

The Tetrarchy was one of those nice ideas that looks good on paper, but upon implementation ancient human nature just could not come to terms with it. Eventually (particularly if there is not even a family connection), every Caesar will fancy himself an Augustus, and every Augustus an Augustus Caesar of the entire empire. 'For centuries before they had been slugging it out for the ultimate prize' they thought, 'so why should we abandon it now, I am best and I will take it.' Also there was an imbalance in the resources of the districts. Some had better men, others better money, the truth was the entire empire needed the entire empire to run effectively. Britannia needed the money of Syria, and Syria needed the manpower of Hispania.

 

I think perhaps the system could have worked if it were instituted during Pax Romana perhaps. It would have to have a long running precedence before people would take it for a good idea and a natural order of things.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I wouldn't mind the tetrarchy. I think it could work if the succession from Caesar to Agustus had stricter rules,guidelines, and definitions. When it comes to military matters, I just wished that the East would actually try to help the West combat the barbarian hordes instead of just bribing the hordes like a sickness. With that money, you could help the West raise and train better soldiers.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I wouldn't mind the tetrarchy. I think it could work if the succession from Caesar to Agustus had stricter rules,guidelines, and definitions. When it comes to military matters, I just wished that the East would actually try to help the West combat the barbarian hordes instead of just bribing the hordes like a sickness. With that money, you could help the West raise and train better soldiers.

 

 

Which rules, guidelines, and definitions do you speak of, which would help in choosing the right person?

 

The east probably could have done more to help, but at the same time they always had the Persian terror from the east to worry about, and the Goths accross the Danubus.

[Tobias]

I have followed your opinions and i agree. the disinherited sons of rulers would constantly continue to vie for position, and each would have their own followings. I'm afraid such an idea should take it's place with communism (please don't start an argument about communism); it's a good idea in theory, it's just that people don't work with it properly.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Tobias

[Onasander]

I'm not going to argue about communism, it's marxism (forced communism) I got problems with.

 

The Tetrarchy was one of those nice ideas that looks good on paper, but upon implementation ancient human nature just could not come to terms with it.

 

Afraid it's not a question of ancient human nature. Take modern China, even during the era of greater rebublican control in the early twentieth century, they could not eradicate the long tradition of warlords controling all aspects of power cept for the De Jure.

 

The PRC has recently changed it's military territories from 11 to 7, each with it's own Specialized Rapid Reaction forces (Airborne/ Air assualt) and unique special forces special designed for operation in that territory. The territories are designed for a certain external threat, such as Vietnam (China invaded in 1988), the Phillipines and Taiwan, India, Russia etc.

 

Now, this is a beautifully designed idea for a long stabilized nation like America or Brazile, but in a country that less than 60 years ago consolidated it's territory and has such a massive differance between races and topologyas well as a long tradition of regional military and political autonomy, this will likely prove disastorous during future government upheavals that states regularly have.

 

On paper, the Tetrachy sucks. It's not even as good as the Chinese system, cause the chinese system leaves the greater territorial defences of the whole intact upon the collapse of the Federal government (each region is designed for high-tech, local wars against an external threat... in other words, each warlord could fight the non-chinese nation it's bordered to without the need of resources or manpower external to his territory.

 

Rome couldn't hold it's ground like that, sense the competing Ceasars had no long tradition of comming to thier competitors aid (Chinese political strategy is very Machevalli in nature, do to the long nature of thier civil wars. whereas Roman civil wars were finished comparitevely quick and had much few players involved at any one time). If a ceasar goes down and thier power is upsurped, no one in Rome would readily deal with illigetimate or barbarian players for the throne, until they found they had no choice to, but then it would be to late.

 

In other words, the Tetrarcy is of a Fuedal design, like China's, but without the long Feudal tradition and necissary strategies as well as counterbalances at play. The question of succesion was only lightly taken care of and not throughly thought out for the succesful continuation of power.

[backfire22]

The tetrarchy was a positive political reform however it did not come with the neccessary reforms in the military. Upon Constantius Chlorus' death his ambitious son saw the opportunity to usurp the tetrarchy and fell into the temptation of establishing his own hereditary dynasty. Had the reforms of Diocletion included limiting the authority of the military commanders the tetrarchy may not have been corrupted by the military ambitions of Constantine and his peers.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Funny, my guy Constantine messed up the tetrarchy, but it didn't matter because he was an abled and competent leader on the field and in the political arena, including in heading a new religion. Now do you call that corrupt when the Roman tetrarchy was already a failure and the only thing left was again for an empire under the rule of one man, a man who actually improved the Roman state compared to Rome after Commodus.

Edited November 14, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Tobias]

Constantine, luckily, was strong enough to gain and hold his throne once he usurped the Tetrarchy. Whilst it's true that the tetrarchy by this stage had not been and was not working, it would have been good to see an able emperor gain the throne through legal means for a change

Anyway, Constantine had the willpower and intelligence to hold his throne; not as many Roman and later Byzantine Usurpers were so able to hold or even gain the throne without constant civil war.

[Sextus Roscius]

personaly, I think the tetrarchy abolished the major sense of unity in the mediteranian, the whole "a huge bunch of people united under one flag" really I beleive helped keep the new foriegn provinces in the east side with the old, traditional west becuase quite simply, they had to get along.

 

But with the tetrarchy they no longer had to and this lead to the seperation of the Ideas. While the west kept its anti-barbarian ideas, the kept fighting and losing becuase they no longer had the support they needed from the eastern provinces. While the eastern provinces didn't think they needed the west any more and let it burn, which in the end was a bad thing for the econemy, not to mention they kept bribing the barbarians off like cowards becuase they didn't want to get involed.

 

All said, I beleive the tetrarchy was a horrible move that helped lead to the empire's downfall.