Talk:Diocletian

Persecution of 303

On one hand, some Christians clearly escaped, otherwise the religion would have ceased to exist! But to allow as the only comment that only apostates survived is clearly wrong and biased. See for example, http://www.althusius.net/node/54. Some were blinded, had their noses slit, their ears cut off.

Another reference which I cannot verify says 3000-3,500, not much in the greater scheme of things but the people executed were the leadership, bishops, etc. While this might not be satisfactory for sheer bloody numbers, it can sure demoralize a movement. And 3,000 (if true) is no great fun either if your group is the target. Student7 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The genius of WP:SS is that it allows detailed descriptions of almost anything the benefit of a proper home. The details of the Great Persecution belong at Diocletianic Persecution and Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire. Obviously, the affair was bloody; that much is conveyed by the choice descriptions of the persecutions effected in Nicomedia alone. "Before the end of February, a fire destroyed part of the imperial palace.[158] Galerius convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, conspirators who had plotted with the eunuchs of the palace. An investigation was commissioned, but no responsible party was found. Executions followed anyway, and the palace eunuchs Dorotheus and Gorgonius were executed. One individual, Peter, was stripped, raised high, and scourged. Salt and vinegar were poured in his wounds, and he was slowly boiled over an open flame. The executions continued until at least April 24, 303, when six individuals, including the bishop Anthimus, were decapitated.[159]" Surely that conveys a sense of the events, without going off into tangential detail on persecutions that happened far from Diocletian.

A good line or two about martyrdom and the Christian movement would be good, and a descriptive "it was bloody and evil" thrown in to characterize the persecutions in the East, but I've lost most of my sources (the interlibrary loans came due a few months back) and can't supply anything to fit those purposes. I'm wary of any sort of numerical estimate here, given the weakness of the source material. If you can attach a good scholarly name or press to the estimate, I'd consider it. Actually, if you have any specific (and brief: we're running up against page size recommendations here) suggestions on how to amend the text to better describe the persecution, you should air them here. I'm willing to listen. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: 192.175.84.19. "This section is grossly misleading, it implies that the "great persecution" was largely in the minds of the christians. Only a handful really lost their lives it seems to say." I'm sorry that you got that impression. I hope there are remedies beyond eliminating the line sourced to Treadgold. Personally, I think the Treadgold line is quite important: it's important to note for the reader that most Christians live on, either through weak enforcement of the edicts' provisions or through the superficial compliance of Christian laity. (The superficial compliance, of course, became a difficult issue for the Church in Constantinian times; it's what spawns the Donatist controversy and the Melitian schism.) Martyrs shouldn't be written out of the narrative, but they're less important than the great mass of Christians who survived. If you can suggest an emendations to correct the seeming implications that "the "great persecution" was largely in the minds of the christians" or that "Only a handful really lost their lives" (perhaps a well-sourced fatality line, as per the above, would be helpful here), I would be much obliged. Thanks for contributing! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the remark on summaries. Higher level articles tend to get reinflated all over again, exactly what the forking was supposed to relieve.

I agree that Diocletian may have had good reason in his mind to stop what may have looked to him to be a palace coup or an internal coup of some sort.

Nevertheless, saying that Christians escaped only through perfidy and apostasy is truly gratuitous. The persecution was aimed at bishops, apparently. They sure didn't escape! The people with their noses slit, and other mutilations didn't escape!

To me, it's like coming in after the Holocaust or Rawandan massacre and saying that the survivors must have lied about their faith, race, or whatever. It's a nasty observation and unfair IMO without a bit more detail.

For the average Christian at the time, it was a scary several years. Like the Jews in Germany during the 30s, you either surived by your wits or were beaten. Not a fun way to live IMO.Student7 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so how do we emphasize that the persecution essentially failed in its aims without maligning the Christians or downplaying the severity of the persecutions? Does the most recent revision satisfy? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good. Thanks.

To satisfy other editors, was the "apostasy" statement taken from an otherwise scholarly source? My point was that Burckhardt figured out (as probably did other scholars) that there well may have been an attempted coup. But it is one thing to deduce a possible coup from the record, quite another to deduce apostasy since those phrases probably didn't slide through repeated Christian scroll copying.

Having said that, is it important to put (maybe in the subordinate article) that "one source thought that.....?" While it is clear where my sympathies lie, I'm not trying to force a pov article against true scholarship, as much as it's hard for me to swallow.

Thanks again for your consideration. Student7 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, actually none of the sources I've read give much emphasis to apostasy IIRC. The "laying low" part gets the greater emphasis. Treadgold's actual words de-emphasize apostasy: "The persecution failed to force many Christians to apostasize..." Thus, I don't think it's too much of a loss to drop it. Details of alleged apostasy by the Meliteans and Donatists are better placed in the Diocletianic Persecution subarticle, where they can receive due emphasis. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He ordered that the deacon Romanus of Caesarea have his tongue removed for defying the order of the courts and interrupting official sacrifices. Romanus was then sent to prison, where he was executed on November 17, 303. - See Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, "The Book of Martyrs," Chapter 2, for the full story on Romanus. I just want to take a hammer and break the bust of Diocletian everytime I go to the Getty Museum and see his evil face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Diocletian's ethnicity

Do we know anything about Diocletian's ethnicity? Nothing is said about this in the article. If there is information regarding his ethnicity then it should be presented in the article. For my own part, I have absolutely no knowledge of Diocletian's ethnicity, but going by his name, it would seem possible that he was at least partially of Greek origin - of course, I am just speculating, and possible content in the article regarding his ethnicity would need to be sourced. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we speak about a "ethnicity" in this Time? His Father was a Illyrian "freebuying Fighter" gr.--84.75.20.66 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is Aper?

Aper seems key to the death of Numerian and ascension of Dioicletian, but I see no explanation of who he is. Spark240 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucius Flavius Aper. I've added a link to the article at the first mention of his name. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

today's article

what Diocletian is today's article right on!!! I have been learning about him in my late antiquity class, cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpasby (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

doesn't make sense

In introduction: "Of course this was purely a political favor done by a Senator after a blistering affair."

Regarding military capitals

Something else that doesn't make sense: The statement that "Trier sat on the Rhine." Trier does not, and never has, sat on the Rhine. It is, instead, on the Mosel. Is the author using "the Rhein" in a larger sense here? Moonbiter (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of Diocletian's death

The date of his death does not appear to be as cut-&-dried as this article makes it. Byron J. Nakamura discusses the evidence -- & it appears the authorities have argued over the correct answer for quite a while -- & himseld argues that 3 December 312 may be the correct date. See "When Did Diocletian Die? New Evidence for an Old Problem," Classical Philology, 98, (2003), pp. 283-289. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and remaining to be addressed. William Avery (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Updated article with relevant details. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdication, Vitellius before Diocletian

I believe Emperor Vitellius abdicated on December 18, 69. He was not allowed to and was not successful in abdicating, but he did voluntarily and publicly abdicate. His rule was very brief and he was in fact murdered while still being forced to be the emperor. Source Morgan, Gwyn, 69 A.D., Oxford University Press 2006 pages 240-242. He sites Tacitus and Suetonius as his sources I am new to this so I wanted to let someone else perhaps do any editing deemed necessary, perhaps you could add successfully voluntarily abdicated, you could include Vitellius, or you could just delete that the part about "only..." I'll let you decide if and what changes to make. Eaglebeach (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Foundation of the Tetrarchy

In the "Foundation of the Tetrarchy" it states that "Galerius was assigned Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and responsibility for the eastern borderlands." Barnes is given as a reference. I haven't read Barnes, but the map in the section indicates that Galerius was in charge of the Danube. Edward Gibbon says "While the Cæsars exercised their valour on the banks of the Rhine and Danube, the presence of the emperors was required on the southern confines of the Roman world." Jim P. (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the same problem with the map (and two years after your post it hasn't been addressed). Either the article has Diocletian and Galerius campaigning in the wrong places, or the map is wrong regarding their two rulerships. The text has Diocletian staying and fighting in the Balkans and Galerius fighting in Syria and Egypt. The reversals are so substantial and repeated that it's impossible to know which of them was where. I tend to think of maps as being prepared with great care and fact-checking - but could there be a massive typo in the Diocletian and Galerius rulerships? That would be the only mistake - though a big one - on the map. Meanwhile, the descriptions of where each of them was fighting are repeated and emphasized, so it's hard to believe someone could have made such a mistake consistently over so many words and paragraphs. Just to confuse matters more, the article on Galerius has him campaigning in the Balkans and the Middle East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerius. Finally, the article on the Tetrarchy has Diocletian responsible for the eastern borderlands and Galerius in the Balkans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy Bottom line - I think the map is right and the text is wrong.Wlegro (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The text as it stands is fundamentally correct when it comes to detailing Diocletian's and Galerius's activities from 293 through to 305; the problem is that the map is based upon an old understanding of the apparent fixed nature of the Tetrarchy's rule over specific provinces, which is based upon later primary sources looking at the then current stable subdivisions of the empire and retrospectively applying that to the period of the Tetrarchy. Pat Southern, in "The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine" states the following (pgs 147-148):

"The appearance of four Emperors did not necessarily involve a fourfold division of the Roman world, though it seems from their attachment to certain groups of provinces as if each Caesar and each Augustus controlled an allocated portion of the Empire; indeed Aurelius Victor specifically states that this was the case, but in fact there were no strict boundaries between the four quarters of the Roman world where each man operated, even though there were four cities which became their headquarters, or capitals. Lactantius complained that everything had been multiplied by four as each of the Tetrarchs tried to outdo each other, increasing their armies, bodyguards, Imperial staffs and so on, but he exaggerated in order to condemn the regime that persecuted Christians, as opposed to his hero Constantine who founded the Christian Empire. A division of the Empire into four distinct units would seem perfectly reasonable to those authors who compiled their histories during the fifth century and later, when officially established territorial boundaries were the norm. It would seem logical to them that this had also been the case during the Tetrarchy, but at the turn of the third and fourth centuries the four Emperors were assigned to regions as and when they were needed, and not to specific areas as part of a fixed geographical plan. It is not known how far each of the Tetrarchs could act, take decisions or legislate in the areas where the others were operating, but it is fairly certain that Diocletian could override protocols and take decisions in any part of the Empire, commensurate with his seniority."

This means that Diocletian and Galerius's oversight of certain zones shifted across the years, depending upon where Diocletian believed he and Galerius needed to be, and that Diocletian had direct oversight of the Danubian provinces while he was there, and over the Eastern provinces when he was there. So the provinces requiring imperial oversight may have been grouped together and had discrete boundaries, but not the Tetrarch assigned to it. Analysis is also clouded by the apparent stability of the situation in the West, where after the raising of Constantius, Maximian largely confined himself to Italy, and left the fighting on the Rhine to his Caesar. Nevertheless I think that the section that that states the assignment of fixed areas of imperium for each Tetrarch is the one that needs to be reworked, with the map possibly removed. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Updated article with relevant details. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diocletian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920071651/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/default.asp to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006190005/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1050581 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1050581

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Stabilized Rome?!

The article says "In spite of these failures and challenges, Diocletian's reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily, enabling the empire to remain essentially intact for another 150 years despite being near the brink of collapse in Diocletian's youth." This is an odd statement to make, considering that the "reforms" he made were terrible economic policy (price controls, attempts to legislate behavior, and a massive expansion of the army and bureaucracy far beyond the ability of Rome to pay for it), the decision to build an army composed largely of German mercenaries, and the split of the Empire into Eastern and Western halves. He couldn't pay for his expanded bureaucracy, so he forced men to inherit and keep the job of their fathers. This resulted in a government composed largely of people who were trying to get out of their jobs. This was, predictably, followed by economic troubles, loss of faith in Roman beliefs, religious frenzy, civil war, massive instability, a military composed mainly of German mercenaries, fighting between the eastern and western halves of the empire, and eventual collapse. What suggests Diocletian's reforms "stabilized" rather than destroyed the empire? Philgoetz (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of these points are well-taken, however, the barbarization of the army had not yet reached those levels, either in Diocletian or Constantine's day - the majority of the army remained Empire citizens.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are not WP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again at Featured article review. buidhe 08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

With errors introduced since the 2008 featured version. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges this is noted at WP:URFA/2020A since October that you are re-working in userspace; how is that coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've been quite busy, but the end is in sight; it'll likely take place sometime in April. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Any update on this? Were the changes implemented? Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Unfortunately no, I have not had the time to re-work this. FAR may be the best option; hopefully, I will have time at some point in the future, but at present I have grad school with basically no breaks until the end of next summer. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil the FA criteria. Concerns are outlined below:

• There seems to be a reliance on ancient sources in some sections, which as buidhe points out above, might not be accepted today.
• There are other sources that I find skeptical, like Ref 83 which uses www.dot-domesday.me.uk and numerous blog posts from roman-emperors.org of which I could not find an author's name in the post, so I cannot confirm if author listed in this article is correct.
• There is a list of articles in "Further reading" which I think should be consulted and added into the article if able.
• There are other sources listed in "Bibliography" which are not used as footnotes in the article (like Banchich, Thomas M., Elliott, T. G. and Lewis, Naphtali) These should be used as footnotes or removed.
• The source formatting varies wildly, probably because sources have been added since its FAC promotion: some are missing years of publications for books, some missing ISBNs, and the CAH references do not indicate the full name of the author when lsited in the citations section (so the article only gives the author's last name).

I'm considering this a second notice for a possible FAR, and will indicate as such as WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Concur with your summary of issues; I will say that the www.roman-emperors.org (which is actually a scholarly work in spite of lackluster appearance) has changed formats recently in a very frustrating and unhelpful way, chief among them that they now remove the author's name. Archives can be used to confirm author names, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ponyo, explain yourself, here is proof diocletian committed suicide, also explain yourself what does may be mean, is that encyclopedic? duh!!!

www.stnicholascenter.org/how-to-celebrate/resources/liturgical/sermons/orthodox/saint-nicholas-reflection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.228.0 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is encyclopedic. It's what modern scholarly sources say. Neither the date nor the cause of his death are known for certain. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, DrKay, it's what a few historians have speculated. There's no hard proof whatsoever that Diocletian committed suicide, and although papers/books may be published, getting the mainstream of university professors to accept this premise is another matter - our staff certainly hasn't, while finding the concept interesting; I doubt you will find this being taught at any major school as fact at this time. It is at university roundtables where mainstream historical thought is developed - where scholarly writings are discussed and balanced with opposing/alternate views. I'm uncomfortable about the way the paragraph ends with the impression that this is how he died - I strongly suggest a more mainstream group of sources also be used.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

I want to add Dominus and Augustus titles. Ogican (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Diocletian's Edict on Currency

Hi, I am a new contributor so just feeling my way.

This Wikipedia article states that the currency edit of 301 halved the value of the nummus. However, Potter says p334 the coinage "was to be retariffed so that it would have double its face value." That implies the nominal value of the nummus is doubled, not halved. It doesn't make sense to halve a coin's value, especially in the face of inflation. So can I suggest the wording in the article be changed to say "the nummus, the most common coin in circulation, would be worth twice as much"

cheers Andrsmith (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What I think the passage implies is, while the silver content was halved, the face-value was doubled - inflation incarnate, a problem of the late Empire.

adjustment of the lede

On the Persians: "Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favourable peace." Already, there was a potential campaign against them during the latter part of Constantine's reign, and wars of his successors Contantius II and Julian were only a couple of decades later. I would replace this with the actual length of the ceasing of hostilities, or some such. As it reads, I take it as the same as the result of the campaigns during Augustus's time with the Germans - where real problems with them did stop for quite a lengthy time. I don't want to denigrate the breathing space Diocles gave to the Empire by this treaty with Shapur, but Shapur saw two more wars with Rome while he was king. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Intention to re-write

Marking here that I will be re-writing this article in my userspace to align it with featured article standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to gut the article, or dumb it down? The featured article standards are not that great. I have seen articles losing useful sections, just to please a reviewer. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Not particularly, no. I rewrote Basiliscus and the size nearly doubled. I just think the rewrite would actually be easy for me than double-checking every single cite to ensure it actually is there, and all the other issues that happen when it festers for some time. My main concerns are just the uncited bits and the mix of refs/primary sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=5030553&diff=1056613863&oldid=1056599459#Diocletian SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Diocietian's Palace 2021.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Mislink

Family tree entry for Constans is mislinked. Should be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans 47.205.124.128 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Troop numbers

In his military reforms section, it is stated that Lactantius criticized Diocletian for the troop increases. Treadgold also maintains that a large increase in the number of soldiers occurred in Diocletian’s reign. However, in the Wikipedia page about the late Roman Army, a relatively thorough analysis concludes that Treadgold is most likely incorrect in his observation between statements made by John of Lydus (who concluded about 400k effectives) and Zosimus (who concluded 581k). The Wiki page states the following (significantly paraphrased by me):

[Treadgold argues that John was stating the start of Diocletian’s reign, while Zosimus stated the end. However, Treadgold also concludes that the army size remained constant throughout the Crisis, which is absurd. Furthermore, Zosimus has been pegged as unreliable, given he stated 60,000 Alemmani deaths at Strasbourg in 357, while Ammanius stated 6,000-8,000. Finally, It would be strange for John to give out the number of men at the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, when he could easily give out the peak number of effectives. Finally, Agathias and Zosimus may have given out the official number of men, rather than the actual, as units may have been significantly damaged from the crisis and other wars.]

I simply want Diocletian’s page to be revised in order to reflect this analysis, given that Treadgold is most likely incorrect. However, am I still unsure if this is truly the right point of view, and if a true expert can patch me up, that would be great. Thank you! Aurelianberries (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)