Talk:Diocletian/Archive 1

birthplace

born in the city that for a long time carried his name- Dioclea (today's Podgorica, Serbia and Montenegro)

What is the basis of this? I always read that he was born at Salona, and even that was marked probably. --Joy [shallot] 00:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Serbian Wikipedia:

(Диоклеја, близу Салоне - данашњег Солина) (Dioclea, near Salona - today Solin)

Of course, the same is written in Croatian Wikipedia, and if both Croats and Serbs managed to agree on this point than it is definitely true.Mor Vilkacis 12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tetrarchy

Diocletian didn't strictly speaking split up the empire. The Tetrarchy is also covered in depth in the article Tetrarchy - would it be better to give a brief summary here under the heading on reforms and then redirect readers to that article? (Ostrich, you should remember to sign your name).

I don't think the "splitting the empire" section of this article is very good. It seems to be a bit faulty and simplified. I agree with your idea to leave just a summary of the subject here. If you want to rewrite it you should just go ahead. --Tokle 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Retirement

Regarding: "He was the only Roman Emperor to remove himself from office; all of the others either died of natural causes or were removed by force."

Is this correct. The emperor Majorian also abdicated.

/Rune

From the Marjorin article: Majorian was forced to resign by Ricimer. He died five days afterwards, either of dysentery or by violence. He was forced to resign (and was then soon killed (most likely) thereafter). I suppose the sentence could be changed to "..the only Roman Emperor to voluntarily remove himself from office.." --Stbalbach 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

Justin II also abdicated

Gibbon writes: "The tardy knowledge of his own impotence determined him to lay down the weight of the diadem; and, in the choice of a worthy substitute, he showed some symptoms of a discerning and even magnanimous spirit."

/Rune

Too many emperors.. but I think in Justins case, he remained Emperor, if not in title only, until he died in 578. Stbalbach 01:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Isaac I Comnenus also resigned, if you want to include Byzantine emperors. Adam Bishop 06:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Diocletian's "economic reforms"

From Peter Johnson [03:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)]: I'm adding information about Diocletian's institutionalization of serfdom.

Christians

There is no mention of the persecution of Christians and the Era of Martyrs!?

It is mentioned at the bottom of the section on military reforms. But since it really has nothing to do with that, I've seprated it into its own new section, which can be expanded. It is also noted in the "Legacy" section. By the way, excellent illustration of Dio's palace you added! Thanks!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dominus et Deus

Diocletian was not the first to claim the title. See the page on Talk:Aurelian#Dominus et deus. However, he was the first to make it stick.

An 'Illyrian'?

Treadgold says he was most likely a Greek.

Doclea

Perhaps someone should check out the article Doclea - a Serbian/Slavic Principality in southern Dalmatia. The two are connected - but a clear connection I can't draw. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

292 or 286?

The sidebar lists Diocletian as the sole emperor until 292, but the article on Maximian clearly lists his co-reign starting in 286. Can this discrepancy be addressed and corrected, please? --Don Sowell 18:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Picture

What is the provenance of this picture? The only information provided is a link to an informal website which does not label the origin of the picture. One verifiable portrait of Diocletian survives in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. This bust head depicts him with the more common late-antique diadem rather than the Augustan-style in the article. I have taken a picture of this bust and I can change it if this idea has support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.199.228 (talk) 18:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Cabbages

It states in 'Retirement and death' that he farmed cabbages. I like the idea but is this true? Some googling found this page http://www.motherlindas.com/of_cabbages_and_emperors.htm. But I'm not entirely convinced - it has the feel of a hoax ..... I'm not saying it is a hoax just it might be. The article referes to H. Stieglitz (apparently a German scholar) saying that he was probably paraphrasing Eutropius. I can't find H. Stieglitz on google and Eutropius in his 'Abridgement of Roman History' (http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/eutropius/index.html) does not mention cabbages at all in the relevant chapter (9). Even checked for Brassica in the Latin Text. I'd love someone to come-up with some evedence for this but if not shall we remove it?

It's Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 39.6: It was [Diocletian] who, when solicited by Herculius and Galerius for the purpose of resuming control, responded in this way, as though avoiding some kind of plague: "If you could see at Salonae the cabbages raised by our hands, you surely would never judge that a temptation." [1]. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is "Qui dum ab Herculio atque Galerio ad recipiendum imperium rogaretur, tamquam pestem aliquam detestans in hunc modum respondit: 'Utinam Salonae possetis visere olera nostris manibus instituta, profecto numquam istud temptandum iudicaretis'." in Latin, for the sake of completeness (text here). I suppose a minor problem is that "olera" can mean any sort of vegetable, but it does also mean cabbages. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Pictures

The pictures in this article from The 1880's Young Folks' History of Rome are not appropriate. These pictures are artistic imagination from a children's book and are not an attempt at accurately representing Diocletian and his times. For example, the portrait of his head is redundant- and in the second picture the soldier's dress and equipment is anachronistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.158.139 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move, anon. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

I've removed the following passage from the article: "He was the first emperor (after Philip the Arab) with a certifiably Greek full name: Dioclês. This is a full name similar in form to Heracles (Hêras kléos, the "fame/glory of Hera"), with the stem for Zeus substituted for the stem for "Hera" (Diós kléos, the "fame/glory of Zeus"). This was Latinized to Diocletianus when Diocles became emperor." Apart from the last sentence, these statements haven't appeared in any secondary source I've read. Whether or not the material is true, if this hasn't appeared in any secondary source, it's most likely irrelevant. If someone wants this material to return, they should provide a reference for it. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duje & Solin

I'm cutting some further material that isn't cited in the works I'm using. Do return it if you can find citations for it: Diocletian's palace later became the seed of modern Split, Croatia. Diocletian was laid to rest in an octagonal mausoleum, from which it was removed from the mausoleum in the 7th century while the building was being converted into a church. The emperor's remains were replaced with a shrine to St. Duje, a bishop of Salona who was martyred under Diocletian. Parts of the cathedral and mausoleum are now used as a reliquary for the bones of Christian martyrs who died during his rule. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Military reforms

I've cut this material:

"Diocletian expanded the army from around 400,000 to over 450,000: about two-thirds of the army's strength was frontier forces (limitanei or ripenses); The remainder were in the mobile units that the Augusti and Caesares kept centrally located in their territories (comitatenses). Since they were closer to the centers of power, and therefore more politically dangerous, the mobile troops were better paid than the frontier forces. This proved a cause for resentment and, later on, trouble.

The experience with the vexillatio system led Diocletian to reduce the legions of the field forces to about 1,000 men each, to assure greater strategic and tactical flexibility without the need for detachments. The legions of the frontier were kept at full strength (4,000–6,000 men). Auxiliary units in both mobile and frontier forces were usually 1,000 men each.

Also, under Diocletian the post of Praetorian prefect was greatly reduced in power. Instead, each Augustus and Caesar had two major military commanders, a Magister militum (commander of the infantry) and a Magister Equitum (commander of the cavalry). This not only divided military responsibilities, thus reducing political dangers, but it also acknowledged the increased importance of cavalry in the Roman army.

Many of the military reforms started by Diocletian were continued by his successors and largely completed under Constantine, who abolished the Praetorian Guard, replacing it with a smaller, more controllable personal bodyguard (the Scholae) of about 4,000 men."

If anyone has sources for it, they can bring it back. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)