The Roman Empire: Rise, Fall, and What We Still Get Wrong

Diocletian is one of the most underrated figures in Roman history. He took control of a fractured, economically devastated empire in 284 CE and spent twenty years systematically rebuilding it. The fact that his solutions stored up new problems doesn't diminish the scale of what he accomplished.

His key insight was that the empire was too large for one man to govern militarily. He created the Tetrarchy — "rule of four" — in 293 CE: two senior emperors (Augusti) and two junior emperors (Caesars), each responsible for a geographic portion of the empire. The theory was that borders would be better defended with regional commanders, and succession would be orderly — Caesars would become Augusti when Augusti retired.

Diocletian himself retired in 305 CE, the only Roman emperor before the end of the Western Empire to voluntarily abdicate. He went to his palace in Spalatum (modern Split, Croatia) and grew cabbages. When told later that his lieutenants needed him to return to power, he reportedly said that if they could see his cabbages, they wouldn't ask.

The Tetrarchy lasted about as long as it took for one of the Tetrarchs to die and the others to fight over the inheritance. Constantine I, son of one of the western emperors, emerged from the resulting civil wars as sole ruler by 324 CE.

Constantine's historical significance is immense and contested. He issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, extending religious toleration to Christians throughout the empire — ending centuries of intermittent persecution. Whether his own conversion to Christianity was sincere or political (or both) is a debate that will probably never be settled. The consequences were unambiguous: Christianity went from a persecuted minority religion to the religion of the emperor within a single reign.

He also moved the capital. Constantinople — built on the site of the Greek city Byzantium on the Bosporus — was dedicated in 330 CE. The strategic logic was sound: the eastern provinces were richer and more urbanized; the new city was closer to the main military threats (Persia, the Danube). But it also created a permanent center of gravity in the east that would, a century later, make the western provinces feel like a distant, less-funded periphery.

Diocletian and Constantine together fundamentally restructured the late empire. The army was reformed, split between mobile field armies (comitatenses) and frontier garrison forces (limitanei). The tax system was overhauled, tied to land assessments (the *indictio*). The Christian church became a partner of imperial authority rather than its victim.

The late Roman state was, by many measures, more administratively sophisticated than the early empire. It was also more expensive, more bureaucratic, and more dependent on fiscal extractions from an increasingly burdened provincial population. The question of whether it was sustainable had a different answer in the wealthy east than in the fragmented, economically weakened west.

Diocletian and Constantine: The Empire That Remade Itself Twice

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE