General Discussion & Comments

[Diocle]

Finding one Emperor that rose to the purple by civil war thinking on the best for the Empire and not on himself, is probably a very hard task .
Jullianus you had a year with much to look upon. My condolences for your loss.

The names are many and famous: Caius Iulius Caesar? Caius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus? Vespasianus? Diocletianus? Iulianus?
About Iulianus, let see what remains today of him:

'Law is reason exempt desire. It behoves an emperor to behave towards the people and to the magistrates like a citizen who obey the laws, not like a king who is above the laws.'




Instead what does remain of your hero Constantine?
Well, you have still 2000 years of History of the Catholic Church to remember and love , congratulations and .... my condolences to you too!

[Sertorio]

Well Diocle my note about Julianus was actually referring to a post by Julianus Heraclius...You might want to rollback a few posts and see what i was referring to.

[Emperor Caesar]

I respect your opinion Diocle and understand why Constantine is considered a bad emperor to you. However, the tetrarchy would have ripped the Empire into shreds. Constantine had to reunite the Empire. The tetrarchy only worked for Diocletian because it was clear to the rest of the emperors that he was top dog in the group. Also, Maximian and Diocletian were good friends and knew how to work for the good of the empire. There was a clear hierarchy. But without those conditions, the lines became blurred because each emperor thought that he was better than the other. The power of the Augustus was not respected like it had been with Diocletian and Maximian. The system, although in theory a good idea, was doomed to failure.

[Legionier]

A question I've forgotten. Will Aral Sea have historical size (see e.g. maps prior to 1960)?

[Diocle]

I respect your opinion Diocle and undertsnad why Constantine is considered a bad emperor to you. However, the tetrarchy would have ripped the Empire into shreds. Constantine had to reunite the Empire. The tetrarchy only worked for Diocletian because it was clear to the rest of the emperors that he was top dog in the group. Also, Maximian and Diocletian were good friends and knew how to work for the good of the empire. There was a clear hierarchy. But without those conditions, the lines became blurred because each emperor thought that he was better than the other. The power of the Augustus was not respected like it had been with Diocletian and Maximian. The system, although in theory a good idea, was doomed to failure.

EST MODUS IN REBUS.

That is: There is a right way to do things.

Constantine, usurping the title, broke the whole machine, if he followed the line traced by Diocletian, instead of launching a personal race for the personal power, he had the personality to save the Tetrachy, but he hated the system created by Diocletian because it limited his personal power, this is the point.

Constantine, following his way, destroyed the new constitutional architecture which was built by Diocletian to save the alchemical political machine invented by Octavian, Constantine (UT EUM DII DEAEQUE PERDANT) ultimately destroyed the Empire, because Rome was not, nor it could become a Hellenistic Tyranny and trying to turn the Roman Empire into a hereditary monarchy destroyed the subtle and delicate political balance restored by Diocletian.

Emp, also I respect your opinions as the opinions of everyone on TWC, I just write what I think, so please read all my posts as if at the beginning of each one there was written 'In My Humble Opinion'.

[Emperor Caesar]

EST MODUS IN REBUS.

That is: There is a right way to do things.

Constantine, usurping the title, broke the whole machine, if he followed the line traced by Diocletian, instead of launching a personal race for the personal power, he had the personality to save the Tetrachy, but he hated the system created by Diocletian because it limited his personal power, this is the point.

Constantine, following his way, destroyed the new constitutional architecture which was built by Diocletian to save the alchemical political machine invented by Octavian, Constantine (UT EUM DII DEAEQUE PERDANT) ultimately destroyed the Empire, because Rome was not, nor it could become a Hellenistic Tyranny and trying to turn the Roman Empire into a hereditary monarchy destroyed the subtle and delicate political balance restored by Diocletian.

Emp, also I respect your opinions as the opinions of everyone on TWC, I just write what I think, so please read all my posts as if at the beginning of each one there was written 'In My Humble Opinion'.

I feel the same. I of course will not attack your opinions. I see what you mean but I just don't see how the tetrarchy would have survived without a "Diocletian" and "Maximian" at the top of each set. Which there wasn't. Galerius was the last good one in the system.

[Diocle]

OK Emp, to continue the discussion and to add a new input, this is a nice pic I've found on FB, is it necessary to add that the III century greatly increased this statistics ..
Do you agree with me that, at least, Diocletian slowed down this horrid statistics for 20 and more years? Can we say the same about the work of Constantine?



In which way will the Mod depict the high chance of being assassinated during the III century?

Link: http://bigboardgaming.com/causes-of-...rs-14ad-395ad/

[Emperor Caesar]

Yeah I agree that Diocletian definitely helped the process and stabilized the empire. But the point I'm trying to make is that the tetrarchy was a unstable system and couldn't work in the long run. I think Constantine stabilized the empire for the time being.

[Reno Melitensis]

This is for you Diocle, Goooooooal

Genoa 1 vs 0 Juventus

Cheers

[Diocle]

This is for you Diocle, Goooooooal

Genoa 1 vs 0 Juventus

Cheers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

@Emperor, sorry but I must disagree, Constantine fought for half of his rign a civil war, his son Constantius fought many civil wars, after the death of Julian there was a Civil War, a so on till the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Dynastic system didn't work because it had no social and cultural basis in the Roman political Tradition, Rome wasn't a Kingdom, the Roman Emperors were not Kings, there was not an aristocracy based on blood, Rome wasn't a Feudal State, the structure of the society was not Feudal, this was what Diocletian had understood, and this was what Constantine was too politically and culturally illiterate to understand.

In my opinion, not always in history the best political part prevails, when a system reaches the end of its historical parable, the forces of internal (Constantine) and external (Persians, Huns and Germans) disaggregation prevail over the best and wiser forces opposing to the crisis, this is the way empires end.

[Emperor Caesar]

Yes Constantine stabilized the empire during his reign. Not after of course. You are right, Rome wasn't necessarily built on a bloody dynasty. Merit was how the Roman world was won and how it should have stayed. So on that point I agree. But you must agree that by Constantine's time, the tetrarchy was already devolving into civil war across the empire (i.e. Maxentius).

[Abdülmecid I]

this was what Diocletian had understood, and this was what Constantine was too politically and culturally illiterate to understand..

Basically I agree with you, I also dislike Constantine, but I don't think it was a question of political illiteracy. You and me examine the facts based on how much they helped Rome and the ancient world to survive, but perhaps Constantine didn't care for the future of Rome. Instead, he wanted to be the only ruler and he changed the military system, just to stop any general to usurp the power, just like he did. Did his actions harm the Roman Empire? IMO they did, but why should Constantine care? He was dead by then. Maybe I am romantic, but the end of Antiquity means a big step towards selfishness and Constantine is the best example of it, imo.

[M. Licinius Ibeii]

I think you are all blaming the wrong people for the collapse of the Tetrarchy.

Diocletian established the Tetrarchy because he could see that the stability of the Empire was being threatened by powerful warlords constantly bidding for the purple. I once calculated that before Diocletian, the average life expectancy of someone wearing the purple during the Third Century was 2 years - and only 2 of them died of natural causes, most were killed by rivals. The Tetrarchy stopped the rot by identifying the 4 most powerful warlords in the Empire and officially giving them a share of imperial power. And it worked! Diocletian reigned for 20 years and is the only Emperor in the history of Rome ever to 'voluntarily' abdicate - though you could & should argue that he was pressured into it by Galerius.

And therein lies the fault. Don't blame Diocletian for creating an 'inherently unstable system' - it wasn't, as long as it was used properly. And don't blame Constantine for 'selfishly reaching for power'. He didn't: he just reacted to circumstances.

The Tetrarchy failed because instead of identifying the 4 most powerful men in the Empire and giving them a share of the spoils, Galerius chose to snub Maxentius and elevate his best mates Severus and Maximin Dia in Maxentius' place . So Maxentius naturally rebelled - helped by Galerius' cackhanded alienation of the citizens of Rome. Galerius at least got it right when Constantius died by elevating Constantine into the position of Caesar, which was already his by default thanks to his troops declaring him emperor. But then Galerius spectacularly dropped the ball at the conference of 308 by giving the East to his buddy Licinius instead of to one of his main rivals (he clearly didn't believe in 'keeping your friends close, but keeping your enemies closer').

And remember, Constantine only invaded Gaul because Maximian proclaimed himself Augustus there after the snubbing of 308. In other words, Constantine didn't rebel against the Tetrarchy, Maximian and his son Maxentius did because Galerius tried to deprive them of power - precisely what the Tetrarchy was set up to avoid! Once Maxentius' father was dead, Constantine knew it was only a matter of time before that blood-debt would need a reckoning, and by then the Tetrarchy was in pieces.

But Constantine didn't destroy it. Galerius did.

Of course, you can argue that Constantine could (and probably should) have reinstated the Tetrarchy once he had total control, but he was a megalomaniac and I think that's asking a bit much of a man who's just spent the last 18 years of his life fighting to keep what he thinks was rightfully his.

[Diocle]

... Of course, you can argue that Constantine could (and probably should) have reinstated the Tetrarchy once he had total control, but he was a megalomaniac and I think that's asking a bit much of a man who's just spent the last 18 years of his life fighting to keep what he thinks was rightfully his.

I don't argue that Constantine 'could have reinstated the Tetrarchy' because I've already written that Constantine was a man politically illiterate,

son of a whore and a dangerous psychopathic murderess (to kill a woman in the way in which he killed Fausta, you MUST be a f..... disgusting psychopath!),

so, no, actually I do not consider that animal named Constantine, able to make anything human and good during his nauseating and despicable infamous life.

[demagogos nicator]

I am wondering how the political situation on the start of the campaign would look like? Would it be like in SAI where it feels like Roman factions+Armenia against rest of the world or would there be a more sandbox start

I would prefer the later in the sense that Roman factions would be at war inly with the factions with which they have a major conflict at the start date of the particluar campaign while other faction would be neutral or allied when it is historicaly plausible. In my opinion it is much more interesting start both for the empire and its neighbours, I know that if the faction shares a comon border in total war game it is usually only matter of time when the war breaks out but I still consider it worth a try to start neutral when there was no major war at the start date as it opens more gameplay horizints. For example as Rome you may support various germanic tribes in their disputes allieng with ones against another and thus preventing the creation of the major power on the limes while as a german warlord you may decide to play as loyal feoderati of the empire and fight against its enemies (as I usually do when playing as franks or more recently Burgundii in IB2 Africa Vandalorum) or you may just want to unite all of germania (or as Jazyges or Alani all of Scythia) before challenging the might of Rome. Maintaining the friendly border within the neighbouring faction also often demands sizable garrisons in the border settlemetns which is another realistic gameplay dimmension of starting at peace with certain barbarian factions.

However, it may be just my wierd affection to try to keep peace with faction as long as possible in game called total war Any ideas?

[Architect of Doom]

So, can someone say to me which is the best Tetrarch to play (not only in gameplay, but also in terms of who would be the best ruler) other than Constantine?

[Diocle]

Galerius. He killed a lot of Christians and was a nice and good man and he succeeded in doing what Julian failed: Galerius sacked Ctesiphon.

[Tis Holiness]

Lol C.I.Caesar was never an emperor. Also, he didn't launch a civil war just to help the empire, he did it for himself.
Now that is interpretation gone bad. <<< Those are the words of my lecturer.

[Diocle]

The Senate launched the Civil War, the Senate used Pompeius against the Republic, the Senate falsely accused Caesar, the Senate wasn't anymore a democratic institution. The crisis of the Roman Republic cannot be read as a fanciful tale with Caesar as main character playing the role of Palpatine in Star Wars.
You are formally right when you write that Caesar was never Emperor, but he founded the basis of the Empire, Octavianus completed the work, so actually Caesar was the First Roman Emperor.

Previously the Senate had broken the Republican laws taking violent actions against the Gracchi, the Senate appointed that human crap named Sulla as Dictator, the Senate during the troublesome last years of the Republic continuously acted against Democracy and its own Republican laws, the Senate was the real political actor of the Civil Wars. The Senate of Rome killed the Republic assassinating the Gracchi brothers and slaughtering Caius Marius, the Senate itself, voluntary destroyed his own legality and political legitimacy, the Seante realized the putsch against the Republic, not Caesar.

Did Caesar act for personal interest? Yes maybe, as everyone on earth, as you and me, but for you, did Pompeius act for altruism? ... and the corrupt Senators, falsely accusing Caesar, were doing that for altruistic reasons? Lulz!

[Gandalfus]

I believe what Caesar did was a step in the right direction at the time. As with every system, the republic had stagnated, and become corrupt. The same happened with the Roman Emperors, that form of government stagnated and became corrupt. A few emperors halted the decline but the rot had already set in, and for every good apple there were 10 bad ones.