Is it fair to say that nobody in western history has been so important and yet so forgotten by the public at large as Diocletian
>>583779
diocletian is shit dawg. all he did was split a dying empire. byzantines are not rome.
>>583812
you literally know nothing besides what the textbooks say.
>>583779
That's a blanket statement, so no you're wrong and dull.
A better figure would be Emperor Aurelian, even more underrated than Diocletian. The tetrarchy wasnt thaat great of a plan, but his changes to the military fit the times (standing army, border army, emperors own army, etc)
>>584165
I feel Aurelian was the mitary master but didn't live long enough to effect the rest of life
>>583779
It's a question of whether he was a great man or was just another piece of on the road of a trend.
Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine can be seen as different pavements of the same road. I think your inquiry is an excellent subject to debate. But sadly many people don't know much about him, I only have very basic knowledge so it is very hard to comment on him exponentially, yes I can say Diocletian was influential but If you disagree I couldn't argue with you that much.
>>584209
one of those "what ifs". sadly, we'll never know. he was called "the restorer of the world" after all. diocletian inherited his achievements.
>>584217
He is part of a trend but that doesn't mean he did change things by being around. He made the empire split more formal than it ever had and he formed the basis for the guilds among other things. Basically much of the medieval institutions come from him and constantine
>>584260
>guilds
im interested, go on...?
btw, by any chance, do you know if there are"side by side" comparisons of what a roman soldier during the 300s and 400s looked compared to earlier ones from, say, hadrians time? i know the plate armor and the rectangular shield were replaced, for chainmail armor and smaller round shields, so was the gladius for a longer sword.but whenever i picture a roman solder, i alwayspicture him looking like an early empire one. my mind has no""picture" for the tetrarchy ones.
>>584311
Well just remember there was no one look to a Roman empire especially by the late empire would not look uniform soldiera on the Rhine would look very different from the ones in Syria. The armies had become much more local. And this is a simplification but diocletian wanted to keep the armies filled so he made it so that sons would have to follow there children into their trade. Also much of his taxes were in kind instead of coin so guild like groups made collections easier
all the books about the latter western roman empire are so fucking expensive
>>583779
Definitely Sulla.
First Roman to ever march on Rome, thus setting the precedent followed by Pompey (almost), Caesar, and dozens of generals and co-emperors since.
Diocletian is at least sort of known for his persecution of Christians, if nothing else.
What about Stillicho? Unkown as fuck(i guess?).
Theodosius I, last emperor of a united empire, decent leader
Emperor Majorian, good commander, reconquered a lot of territory, murdered.
>>583779
How are you defining "western history"?
For instance, I would argue that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was more important overall than Diocletan: The former made Islam into something other than a religion by a bunch of backwards desert dervishes, with profound impacts on history that last to this day. Diocletan accelerated a trend that was already existing, the Empire was too big to manage, and it would have split apart sooner or later.
Ergo, I would consider Khalid more important than Diocletan, if you count what's going on in Arabia as part of "Western" history.
>>584700
True but I also believe that he is much more famous in Arab countries than diocletian is in western
>>584535
The thing about sulla is that he is faggot.
>Let us spend time describing how tetrachy supposed to work
>What a genius plan to stabilize the Empire
>Surely Diocletian was a great statesman
>Oh, and it didn't really worked, at all
Every book on the late Empire.
>>583812
Basically he saved a dying empire sort term but paved way to European feudalism. With Constantine and his Code, they basically made the blueprint for post-rome Europe, down to it's laws and organizational structure.
Him AND Constantine are very influential and important because they shaped the western world for a thousand years.
>>585474
I agree 100 percent but everyone remembers constantantine because of his military success and Christianity
