Διοκλητιανός: Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων
Περιεχόμενο που διαγράφηκε Περιεχόμενο που προστέθηκε
CHE (συζήτηση | συνεισφορές) Χωρίς σύνοψη επεξεργασίας |
|||
Γραμμή 36:
Το [[305]] ο Διοκλητιανός παραιτήθηκε και αποσύρθηκε στο ανάκτορό του στο [[Σπλιτ|Σπάλαθο]] της [[Δαλματία]]ς, όπου πέθανε μετά από 6 έτη.
==Πρώτη περίοδος εξουσίας==
Ο Διοκλητιανός πιθανόν συνεπλάκη σε μάχες με τους [[Κουάδοι|Κουάδους]] και τους [[Μαρκομάννοι|Μαρκομάννους]] αμέσως μετά τη Μάχη του Μάργου. Τελικά κινήθηκε προς τη βόρεια Ιταλία και συνέστησε μια αυτοκρατορική κυβέρνηση, αλλά είναι άγνωστο εάν επισκέφτηκε την πόλη τη Ρώμης εκείνη την στιγμή.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 5; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69.</ref> <!--There is a contemporary issue of coins suggestive of an imperial ''[[adventus (ceremony)|adventus]]'' (arrival) for the city,<ref>''Roman Imperial Coinage'' 5.2.241 no. 203–04; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 5, 287; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 50.</ref> but some modern historians state that Diocletian avoided the city, and that he did so on principle, as the city and its Senate were no longer politically relevant to the affairs of the empire and needed to be taught as much. Diocletian dated his reign from his elevation by the army, not the date of his ratification by the Senate,<ref>Williams, 41.</ref> following the practice established by Carus, who had declared the Senate's ratification a useless formality.<ref>Aurelius Victor, ''De Cesaribus'', 37.5, quoted in Carrié & Rousselle, ''L'Empire Romain'', 654</ref> However, Diocletian was to offer proof of his deference towards the Senate by retaining Aristobulus as ordinary consul and colleague for 285 (one of the few instances during the Late Empire in which an emperor admitted a ''privatus'' as his colleague)<ref>Barnes, ''Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality''. [[Cornell University Press]], 1998, page 46</ref> and by creating senior senators Vettius Aqulinus and Junius Maximus ordinary consuls for the following year – for Maximus, it was his second consulship.<ref>William Lewis Leadbetter, ''Galerius and the Will of Diocletian''. Abingdon: 2011, n.p.g. (e-book)</ref>
Nevertheless, if Diocletian ever did enter Rome shortly after his accession, he did not stay long;<ref>Southern, 135, 331.</ref> he is attested back in the Balkans by 2 November 285, on campaign against the [[Sarmatians]].<ref>Potter, 281.</ref>
Diocletian replaced the [[Praefectus urbis|prefect]] of Rome with his consular colleague Bassus. Most officials who had served under Carinus, however, retained their offices under Diocletian.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 5–6; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 113; Williams, 41–42.</ref> In an act of ''clementia'' denoted by the epitomator [[Aurelius Victor]] as unusual,<ref>Aurelius Victor, 39.15, qtd. in Leadbetter, "Carinus."</ref> Diocletian did not kill or depose Carinus' traitorous praetorian prefect and consul Ti. Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus, but confirmed him in both roles.<ref>Barnes, "Two Senators," 46; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 5–6; Leadbetter, "Carinus"; Southern, 135; Williams, 41</ref> He later gave him the proconsulate of Africa and the post of urban prefect for 295.<ref>Leadbetter, "Carinus."</ref> The other figures who retained their offices might have also betrayed Carinus.<ref>Barnes, "Two Senators," 46; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 5–6; Leadbetter, "Carinus."</ref>
===Maximian made co-emperor===
[[File:IMP MAXIMIANVS P AVG.gif|thumb|Maximian's consistent loyalty to Diocletian proved an important component of the tetrarchy's early successes.<ref>Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40.</ref>]]
The assassinations of [[Aurelian]] and Probus demonstrated that sole rulership was dangerous to the stability of the empire.<ref name=P280>Potter, 280.</ref> Conflict boiled in every province, from Gaul to Syria, Egypt to the lower Danube. It was too much for one person to control, and Diocletian needed a lieutenant.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Southern, 136.</ref> At some time in 285 at [[Mediolanum]] ([[Milan]]),{{refn|Barnes and Bowman argue for 21 July,<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; ''New Empire'', 4; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69.</ref> Potter for 25 July.<ref>''The Roman Empire at Bay'', 280–81.</ref> |group=notes}} Diocletian raised his fellow-officer [[Maximian]] to the office of [[Caesar (title)|caesar]], making him co-emperor.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 4; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; Bleckmann; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Potter, 280–81; Williams, 43–45.</ref>
The concept of dual rulership was nothing new to the Roman Empire. [[Augustus]], the first Emperor, had nominally shared power with his colleagues, and more formal offices of Co-Emperor had existed from [[Marcus Aurelius]] on.<ref>Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40. See also: Williams, 48–49.</ref> Most recently, Emperor Carus and his sons had ruled together, albeit unsuccessfully. Diocletian was in a less comfortable position than most of his predecessors, as he had a daughter, Valeria, but no sons. His co-ruler had to be from outside his family, raising the question of trust.<ref>Potter, 280; Southern, 136; Williams, 43.</ref> Some historians state that Diocletian adopted Maximian as his ''filius Augusti'', his "Augustan son", upon his appointment to the throne, following the precedent of some previous Emperors.<ref>Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; Odahl, 42–43; Southern, 136; Williams, 45.</ref> This argument has not been universally accepted.<ref>Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; Southern, 136.</ref>
The relationship between Diocletian and Maximian was quickly couched in religious terms. Around 287 Diocletian assumed the title ''Iovius'', and Maximian assumed the title ''Herculius''.<ref>Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 70–71; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Liebeschuetz, 235–52, 240–43; Odahl, 43–44; Williams, 58–59.</ref> The titles were probably meant to convey certain characteristics of their associated leaders. Diocletian, in [[Jupiter (mythology)|Jovian]] style, would take on the dominating roles of planning and commanding; Maximian, in [[Hercules|Herculian]] mode, would act as Jupiter's [[hero]]ic subordinate.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 11–12; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 70–71; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Odahl, 43; Southern, 136–37; Williams, 58.</ref> For all their religious connotations, the emperors were not "gods" in the tradition of the [[Imperial cult (ancient Rome)|Imperial cult]]—although they may have been hailed as such in Imperial [[panegyric]]s. Instead, they were seen as the gods' representatives, effecting their will on earth.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 11; Cascio, "The New State of Diocletian and Constantine" (CAH), 172.</ref> The shift from military acclamation to divine sanctification took the power to appoint emperors away from the army. Religious legitimization elevated Diocletian and Maximian above potential rivals in a way military power and dynastic claims could not.<ref>Williams, 58–59. See also: Cascio, "The New State of Diocletian and Constantine" (CAH), 171.</ref>
===Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia===
After his acclamation, Maximian was dispatched to fight the rebel [[Bagaudae]], insurgent peasants of Gaul. Diocletian returned to the East, progressing slowly.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Southern, 137.</ref> By 2 November, he had only reached Civitas Iovia (Botivo, near [[Ptuj]], [[Slovenia]]).<ref>''Codex Justinianus'' 4.48.5; ''Fragmenta Vaticana'' 297; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 50; Potter, 281.</ref> In the Balkans during the autumn of 285, he encountered a tribe of [[Sarmatians]] who demanded assistance. The Sarmatians requested that Diocletian either help them recover their lost lands or grant them pasturage rights within the empire. Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory. The nomadic pressures of the [[European Plain]] remained and could not be solved by a single war; soon the Sarmatians would have to be fought again.<ref>Southern, 143; Williams, 52.</ref>
Diocletian wintered in [[Nicomedia]].{{refn|He is placed there by a rescript dated 3 March 286.<ref>''Fragmenta Vaticana'' 275; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Potter, 281, 649.</ref>|group=notes}} There may have been a revolt in the eastern provinces at this time, as he brought settlers from [[Asia (Roman province)|Asia]] to populate emptied farmlands in [[Thrace]].<ref>''Panegyrici Latini'' 8(5)21.1; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6.</ref> He visited [[Syria Palaestina]] the following spring, {{refn|He is attested there in a rescript dated 31 May 287.<ref>''Codex Justinianus'' 4.10.3; 1.51.1; 5.17.3; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 50–51; Potter, 281, 649.</ref> The Jewish Midrash suggests that Diocletian resided at Panias (present-day Banias) in the northern Golan Heights.<ref>Bereishis Rabbah, Ed. Vilna, Parashas Toledos 63:8.</ref>|group=notes}} His stay in the East saw diplomatic success in the conflict with Persia: in 287, [[Bahram II]] granted him precious gifts, declared open friendship with the Empire, and invited Diocletian to visit him.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Millar, 177.</ref> Roman sources insist that the act was entirely voluntary.<ref>Southern, 242.</ref>
Around the same time, perhaps in 287,<ref>Barnes, ''New Empire'', 51; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 73.</ref> Persia relinquished claims on [[Armenia]] and recognized Roman authority over territory to the west and south of the Tigris. The western portion of Armenia was incorporated into the empire and made a province. [[Tiridates III of Armenia|Tiridates III]], [[Arsacid dynasty of Armenia|Arsacid]] claimant to the Armenian throne and Roman client, had been disinherited and forced to take refuge in the empire after the Persian conquest of 252–53. In 287, he returned to lay claim to the eastern half of his ancestral domain and encountered no opposition.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 73; Potter, 292, 651; Southern, 143; Williams, 52.</ref> Bahram II's gifts were widely recognized as symbolic of a victory in the ongoing [[Roman-Persian Wars|conflict with Persia]], and Diocletian was hailed as the "founder of eternal peace". The events might have represented a formal end to Carus' eastern campaign, which probably ended without an acknowledged peace.<ref>Southern, 242, 360–61.</ref> At the conclusion of discussions with the Persians, Diocletian re-organized the Mesopotamian frontier and fortified the city of [[Circesium]] (Buseire, Syria) on the [[Euphrates]].<ref>Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 73; Millar, 180–81; Southern, 143; Williams, 52.</ref>
===Maximian made Augustus===
Maximian's campaigns were not proceeding as smoothly. The Bagaudae had been easily suppressed, but [[Carausius]], the man he had put in charge of operations against [[Saxons|Saxon]] and [[Franks|Frankish]] [[Piracy|pirates]] on the [[Saxon Shore]], had, according to literary sources, begun keeping the goods seized from the pirates for himself. Maximian issued a death-warrant for his larcenous subordinate. Carausius fled the Continent, proclaimed himself Augustus, and agitated Britain and northwestern Gaul into open revolt against Maximian and Diocletian.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6–7; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 70–71; Potter, 283–84; Southern, 137–41; Williams, 45–47.</ref>
Far more probable, according to the archaeological evidence available, is that Carausius probably had held some important military post in Britain<ref>Southern, 138</ref> and had already a firm basis of power on both Britain and Northern Gaul (a coin hoard found in [[Rouen]] proves that he was in control of that mainland area at the beginning of his rebellion) and that he profited from the lack of legitimacy of the central government.<ref>Potter, 284</ref> Carausius strove at having his legitimacy as a junior emperor acknowledged by Diocletian: in his coinage (of far better quality than the official one, especially his silver pieces) he extolled the "concord" between him and the central power (PAX AVGGG, "the Peace of the three Augusti", read one 290 bronze piece, displaying, on the other side, Carausius together with Diocletian and Maximian, with the caption CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI, "Carausius & his brothers" [http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/empires2.htm] ).<ref>Southern, 138 & 140</ref> However, Diocletian could not allow elbow room to a breakaway regional usurper following on [[Postumus]]'s footprints to enter, solely on his own accord, the imperial college.<ref>Williams, 61/62</ref> So Carausius had to go.
Spurred by the crisis, on 1 April 286,<ref name=AUGGGG>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 6–7; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; Potter, 282; Southern, 141–42; Williams, 47–48.</ref>{{refn|The chronology of Maximian's appointment as augustus is somewhat uncertain.<ref>Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Southern, 142.</ref> Some suggest that Maximian was appointed augustus from the beginning of his imperial career, without ever holding the office of caesar;<ref>Potter, 281; Southern, 142; following ''De Caesaribus'' 39.17.</ref> others date the assumption of the Augustan title to 1 March 286.<ref>Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 69; following ''BGU'' 4.1090.34.</ref> 1 April 286 is the most common date used in modern histories of the period.<ref name=AUGGGG/>|group=notes}} Maximian took up the title of Augustus.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 7; Bleckmann; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Potter, 282; Southern, 141–42; Williams, 48.</ref> His appointment is unusual in that it was impossible for Diocletian to have been present to witness the event. It has even been suggested that Maximian usurped the title and was only later recognized by Diocletian in hopes of avoiding civil war.<ref>Potter, 649.</ref> This suggestion is unpopular, as it is clear that Diocletian meant for Maximian to act with a certain amount of independence.<ref>Potter, 282; Williams, 49.</ref> It may be posited, however, that Diocletian felt the need to bind Maximian closer to him, by making him his empowered associate, in order to avoid the possibility of having him striking some sort of deal with Carausius.<ref>Southern, 141</ref>
[[File:Antoninianus Carausius leg4-RIC 0069v.jpg|thumb|left|Carausius, rebel emperor of [[Roman Britain]]. Most of the evidence for Carausius' reign comes from his coinage, which was of generally fine quality.<ref>Southern, 140.</ref>]]
Maximian realized that he could not immediately suppress the rogue commander, so in 287 he campaigned solely against tribes beyond the [[Rhine]] instead.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 7; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 71; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40.</ref> As Carausius was allied to the Franks, Maximian's campaigns could be seen as an effort to deny the separatist emperor in Britain a basis of support on the mainland.<ref>Williams, 62</ref> The following spring, as Maximian prepared a fleet for an expedition against Carausius, Diocletian returned from the East to meet Maximian. The two emperors agreed on a joint campaign against the [[Alamanni]]. Diocletian invaded Germania through Raetia while Maximian progressed from Mainz. Each emperor burned crops and food supplies as he went, destroying the Germans' means of sustenance.<ref>Rees, ''Layers of Loyalty'', 31; Southern, 142–43; Williams, 50.</ref> The two men added territory to the empire and allowed Maximian to continue preparations against Carausius without further disturbance.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 7; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Southern, 143.</ref> On his return to the East, Diocletian managed what was probably another rapid campaign against the resurgent Sarmatians. No details survive, but surviving inscriptions indicate that Diocletian took the title ''Sarmaticus Maximus'' after 289.<ref>Barnes, ''New Empire'', 255; Southern, 144.</ref>
In the East, Diocletian engaged in diplomacy with desert tribes in the regions between Rome and Persia. He might have been attempting to persuade them to ally themselves with Rome, thus reviving the old, Rome-friendly, [[Palmyra|Palmyrene]] [[sphere of influence]],<ref name=ubdeze>Potter, 285.</ref> or simply attempting to reduce the frequency of their incursions.<ref>Williams, 63.</ref> No details survive for these events.<ref>Southern, 144.</ref> Some of the princes of these states were Persian client kings, a disturbing fact in light of increasing tensions with the Sassanids.<ref>Williams, 78.</ref> In the West, Maximian lost the fleet built in 288 and 289, probably in the early spring of 290. The [[panegyric|panegyrist]] who refers to the loss suggests that its cause was a storm,<ref>''Panegyrici Latini'' 8(5)12.2; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 7, 288; Potter, 284–85, 650; Southern, 143; Williams, 55.</ref> but this might simply have been an attempt to conceal an embarrassing military defeat.<ref>Southern, 143; Williams, 55.</ref> Diocletian broke off his tour of the Eastern provinces soon thereafter. He returned with haste to the West, reaching Emesa by 10 May 290,<ref>''Codex Justinianus'' 9.41.9; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 51; Potter, 285, 650.</ref> and Sirmium on the Danube by 1 July 290.<ref>''Codex Justinianus'' 6.30.6; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 52; Potter, 285, 650.</ref>
Diocletian met Maximian in Milan in the winter of 290–91, either in late December 290 or January 291.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 8; Barnes, ''New Empire'', 52; Potter, 285.</ref> The meeting was undertaken with a sense of solemn pageantry. The emperors spent most of their time in public appearances. It has been surmised that the ceremonies were arranged to demonstrate Diocletian's continuing support for his faltering colleague.<ref name=ubdeze/> A deputation from the Roman Senate met with the emperors, renewing its infrequent contact with the Imperial office.<ref>''Panegyrici Latini'' 11(3)2.4, 8.1, 11.3–4, 12.2; Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 8, 288; Potter, 285, 650; Williams, 56.</ref> The choice of Milan over Rome further snubbed the capital's pride. But then it was already a long established practice that Rome itself was only a ceremonial capital, as the actual seat of the Imperial administration was determined by the needs of defense. Long before Diocletian, [[Gallienus]] (r. 253–68) had chosen Milan as the seat of his headquarters.<ref name="Elsner, Imperial Rome, 73">Elsner, ''Imperial Rome'', 73.</ref> If the panegyric detailing the ceremony implied that the true center of the empire was not Rome, but where the emperor sat ("...the capital of the empire appeared to be there, where the two emperors met"),<ref>''Panegyrici Latini'' 11(3)12, qtd. in Williams, 57.</ref> it simply echoed what had already been stated by the historian [[Herodian]] in the early third century: "Rome is where the emperor is".<ref name="Elsner, Imperial Rome, 73"/> During the meeting, decisions on matters of politics and war were probably made in secret.<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 8; Potter, 285, 288.</ref> The Augusti would not meet again until 303.<ref name=ubdeze/>
-->
==Παραπομπές==
|