Worst Roman Emperors

[Pangur Bán]

Wha--? No, Diocletianus caused the civil war because he did things that facilitated civil war, not because he preceded it. Unless you think it's impossible for civil wars to be caused by things that precede them, in which case say so now, so I'll be sure not to respond to any more of your posts.

Your claim is that the man who brought more than half a century of civil warring to an end, who retired in peace ... your claim is that more than anything he did he should be evaluated on the fact that another war broke out after he died and that, therefore, the political system he created was "politically unstable", and that therefore Diocletian was a bad emperor and would have been so much better if Light Spectra was there to give him advice.

If you want your criticisms of a historical figure like Diocletian to hold any weight with reasonable people knowledgeable about the era, they need to be more well rounded. Some simplistic assertions, straw men and rudeness doesn't amount to well-roundedness. You show no awareness, for instance, of the particular circumstances Diocletian had to deal with or the powers he actually had.

Try giving me an explanation for why Diocletian did what he did?

By your logic, nothing ever causes civil wars, they're just aberrations of nature.

No. You're not following me at all. You need to re-read.

By your logic, nothing ever causes civil wars, they're just aberrations of nature. Establishing a nondynastic tetrarchy in which upon Diocletianus' death, four different people would compete for political authority with a very flimsy way for them to legally disassociate their positions was a terrible idea and it lead to a war for succession. This is quite simple. Diocletianus rewrote the Roman constitution, it failed, I blame Diocletianus.

That already existed and had for centuries
See ...
http://www.sodahead.com/living/why-...ings-they-know-nothing-about/question-708323/
Diocletian just institutionalized it. Many historians have argued this system ensured the Empire's survival.

Apparently your opinion is that he was infallible, and since he briefly ruled over a period of peace that therefore he was incapable of not causing another war with his own blunders (which were several).

Yeah. Straw man.

Why are you talking about ideology? That has nothing to do with anything. Your original response was that if Diocletianus had a more stable system of imperial succession, I would've instead criticized him for being too authoritarian. My response is that I would not have, to which you have derived all sorts of mindless babble. Stick to the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, you brought up totalitarianism and how it is worse than lawlessness.

 

[LightSpectra]

You're either incapable of communicating in a way comprehensible to the sane or you're trolling. Either way there's no point in me responding.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, naturally.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm certainly insulted by anything that comes out of the mouth of somebody who unironically argued that somebody can't have caused a civil war because civil wars happened before and after him.

 

[Lord Baal]

LS is completely correct about this one. It would be the equivalent of saying the Clinton had no interest in Iraq because it was the Presidents before and after him that invaded it.

 

[Pangur Bán]

LS, honestly I think the debate has just gone over your head.
Baal, I'm afraid your simile has gone over my head. Don't get it at all.

 

[Dachs]

My opinion of Diocletianus is pretty simple: he was good at fighting Iranians, holding the fort, restoring order, and basically all the stuff that typical emperors are supposed to be good at doing. He was garbage at economic policy (just like everybody else back then) and he created an inherently unstable institutional rulership framework that predictably collapsed almost immediately. That doesn't make him a Terrible Emperor, it makes him a decent Emperor with a crap legacy that was mostly his own fault.

 

[LightSpectra]

But Dachs, the collapse can't have been his fault because he died before it happened. QED.

 

[Pangur Bán]

LS, this is your own straw-man ... no-one here ever said that as far as I can see. I linked an English definition of "straw man" for you above, but since you claim to have comprehension problems here is one in German too:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strohmann-Argument

 

[LightSpectra]

Direct quote from post #37, which was a response to me saying that Diocletianus' policies caused the proceeding civil wars:

This is just speculation. Civil wars were around before Diocletian. That they came around after him too does not make him the cause. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's not a strawman fallacy if the literal meaning of your words in context convey the idea I was refuting. I'm really tired of people crying strawman because their argument turned out to be ridiculous.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'm really tired of people crying strawman because their argument turned out to be ridiculous.

This is probably because you use it all the time, but aren't competent enough to recognize you do so.

This is just speculation. Civil wars were around before Diocletian. That they came around after him too does not make him the cause. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's not a strawman fallacy if the literal meaning of your words in context convey the idea I was refuting. I'm really tired of people crying strawman because their argument turned out to be ridiculous.

I have actually neither denied nor affirmed Diocletian as a cause of such civil wars. I have instead offered you other things to think about, but these apparently went over your head.

 

[LightSpectra]

If it went over my head, it's because I'm not used to the inane dialect of Calgacus-land. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with a saner mode of communication before trying again.

 

[sydhe]

But Dachs, the collapse can't have been his fault because he died before it happened. QED.

He abdicated in 305 and died in 311, by which time the succession plan was thoroughly dead.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: I am not sure about what caused the civil wars in Rome at the time of Diocletion, but the cause of incivility in this thread is quite clear. Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889