Why does Diocletian get credit for ending the crisis of the Third Century instead of Aurelian?
Why does Diocletian get credit for ending the crisis of the Third Century instead of Aurelian?
Why does Diocletian get credit for ending the crisis of the Third Century instead of Aurelian?
The guys who killed Aurelian sure were the greatest retards in Roman History, and that is saying something
At least the damage done by killing Aurelian was somewhat undone, that homosexual Phocas on the other hand permanently ruined the future of the Roman Empire by killing Maurice
Yes, but the thing about Aurelian is that THERE WAS NO FUCKING NEED TO KILL HIM
Led to a fucking hilarious bit of time choosing his successor though. Nobody in the army could claim to be augustus, because that would mark them as a likely traitor to Aurelian, and the army, who really liked Aurelian, was in a lynching mood. So they sent a message to the Senate asking them to please appoint an emperor.
The Senate, well used to their chosen Augusti being crushed in a civil war by whoever was raised up by the legions, declined and sent a message back to the army telling them that whoever they pick will do.
So they just went back and forth like that for a bit. Bunch of letters between a weirdly polite army and a confused Senate.
>We believe the honored senators should select the man to succeed as Augustus.
>We, the Roman Senate, know that the army knows who best to lead it. Please let us know your choice when you make it.
>No, no. The legions insist the choice is yours.
>We appreciate your deference to tradition, but please pick someone already. There's barbarians around.
>Wise men of the Senate, we are writing you to...
Went on like that for like half a year. Eventually, the Senate cautiously chose an old, widely popular politician with some army connections. Then to everyone in Rome's surprise, the legions didn't immediately rebel and actually accepted him.
Aurelian and Probus won the wars to restore the empire, but Diocletian's long, stable reign allowed him to reform the empire and secure the peace.
Aurelian simply ruled too short and didn't have time to enact enough reforms
5 more years and he would be remembered instead of Diocletian
because he didn't do a very good job of it considering his Tetrarchy collapsed after he abdicated
After Commodus, Rome was fucked beyond repair. Aurelian and Diocletian just delayed the inevitable, and in many ways their reforms actually made matters worse.
Well, Constantine did a good job, but his successors just couldn't keep up the momentum.
>abandons sol invictus cult in favor of christianity to stabilize the empire
>fast forward 100 years later: roman emperor is bullied by the patronus of beekeepers
well... that was dumb
without christianization it falls in 10 years
>but his successors just couldn't keep up the momentum
Constantine II and Constans were fuckups, right. But Constantius II was superb, managed to keep everything going on smoothly despite his brothers; he was stretched thin, running from one side of the empire to the other, putting down fires, and he never dropped the ball. A very underrated emperor, easily top 5
Constantius II had the supremely underrated knack for making sure whatever part of the empire he was currently in was decently secure before rushing off to deal with an invasion or usurper. That he had the perspective to do that is a worthy attribute for a leader, even if his reluctance to delegate authority is why he had to deal with such crises personally.
You can sort of understand why he was so reluctant to do so, although it was definitely an achilles' heel for him in the later years. Julian was a good pick for a junior emperor, and it's kind of surprising to know that Constantius II's massacre of the princes wasn't actually that reviled. I suppose a widespread fratricide could be seen as a good thing for the empire if it meant there wouldn't be any more instability to a populace that had just experience a century+ of said instability due to usurpations and shaky ties.
because Aurelian was a based fat man and history (unjustly) hates the accomplishments of fat people
it's not fat, their brains were too big it spread all over their body
Was Aurelian a fat ugly bastard?
yes
St. Thomas Aquinas was rembered as having a robust physique of impressive strength and endurance.
I have never gotten good advice from any fat person ever.
What is Charles James Fox doing ther- OH, WAIT, THAT'S CICERO!
Where's Tony Soprano?
Aurelian did all the legwork, Diocletian enacted the reforms that made something like the Crisis impossible to occur again, and if the Empire were to get that weak and corrupt again, would result in full-scale collapse, which it eventually did.
Zenobia needed BWC correction and she settled down
>instead of Aurelian
lmao Gallienus did the actual tough work. Aurelian's attempts at reform were a joke whereas the policies of Diocletian and Gallienus were impressive. Probus too deserves a mention for his empire wide restoration
Both of them capitalized over the work of the forgotten hero of the crisis, Gallienus (God what a shitty life he had)
>Gallienus
15 truly thankless years of work trying to hold it all together. Sad he is just so overlooked in Roman history.
Senators got butthurt he took their prestigious military commands from them and wrote history reflecting this.
>muh Diocletian
>muh epic reddit mask guy
Us Probus and Gallienus chads know to whom the true credit belongs to
BIGGVS CHVNGUS THE CHVNKY BOY
Ancient propaganda. The Tetrarchs portrayed themselves as the "saviours of Rome" to justify the existence of their political system, downplaying the achievements of their predecessors like Gallienus and Aurelian.
If you actually look at the long-term impact of Diocletian's reforms, they were mostly ineffective.
Because a key factor of the third century crisis was the endless succession of emperors reigning for a year or two before getting rekt.
Aurelian didn't solve that bit, in fact after he was murdered 5 years into his reign there were 6 emperors in 10 years.
Diocletian on the other hand lasted a whole 20 years, and although the tetrarchy degenerated quickly after his death, the civil war ended with Constantine reigning another 30 years, with his son ruling another 27 after him.
80 years of mostly stable government is a massive achievement after the third century clusterfuck, so Diocletian does deserve the credit for ending the crisis over Aurelian, who was still an exceptional emperor in his own right regardless of not solving everything wrong with the empire.
Why did the lower near east generate such thirsty queens