Diocletian, Hereditary Succession and the Tetrarchic Dynasty
Byron Waldron2018
At the turn of the fourth century, four soldiers ruled the Roman Empire: Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius and Galerius. This Tetrarchy, as modern scholars call it, was the brainchild of Diocletian, and under this emperor's leadership, the regime brought stability to an empire shaken after a half-century of political and military convulsions. These Tetrarchs defeated the resurgent enemies of the empire, they ended an epidemic of military rebellion that had lasted decades, and they attempted numerous reforms in an effort to better the empire both economically and spiritually. This dissertation examines the Tetrarchy as an imperial dynasty, and it uses the concept of dynasty to highlight how the Tetrarchic regime was often at odds with imperial precedents. Like other Roman dynasts, the Tetrarchs employed adoption, marriage and shared nomenclature in the expression of their rule, but they also ignored certain dynastic norms. Diocletian and Maximian presented themselves as brothers despite being unrelated, and they used the names Jovius and Herculius to imply a close connection to Jupiter and Hercules. Diocletian and Galerius repeatedly excluded the sons of the Tetrarchs from the succession, and the sons themselves were variously hostages, symbols of imperial unity and targets of assassination. Moreover, for most of the Tetrarchic period, imperial women were neither empresses nor deified. This study investigates these issues through the lens of the Roman army, and it presents the Tetrarchic dynasty as a military experiment, created by and tailored to soldiers. At the beginning of Tetrarchic rule, Rome's armies exerted an unprecedented influence over imperial politics, and the Tetrarchs themselves were products of these armies. This thesis shows that the Tetrarchs gave their sons and the imperial women important but subdued roles within their regime. It proposes that these approaches to dynasty and the decision to create the Tetrarchy came about because of military experience and responded to the pressing need to forestall army rebellion. Furthermore, the study argues that the regime represented the Augusti and their Caesars as pairs of brothers, and that it did so to appeal to the army. It is concluded that friendship, namely the camaraderie of Diocletian and Maximian, was central to dynastic cohesion and imperial unity during the Tetrarchic period. Whatever the intentions of the Tetrarchs, their dynastic junta could only be temporary, since the friendship of the Augusti could not be replicated.