Nathan Ray

History 201

Midterm

Politics

- In electives monarchies the vacancy of the throne is a moment big with danger

and mischief. The Roman emperors, desirous to spare the legions that interval of

suspense and the temptation of an irregular choice, invested their designed

successor with so large a share of present power as should enable him, after their

decease, to assume the remainder without suffering the empire to perceive the

change of masters.

Gibbon is correct to emphasize the importance of the Adoptive System in the Roman

empire. Appointing the successor to the empire allowed emperors to choose a trusted

individual they knew was capable of running and continuing the empire. Additionally,

the appointed successor would have been by the emperor’s side throughout his reign

and would already be knowledgeable about the problems he would need to confront as

emperor. In a hereditary system, the successor to the emperor would have been raised in

comfort and luxury, would likely not have had an extensive political career, and would

be less sensitive to the problems of the empire. The adoptive system allowed emperors

to avoid all these problems. This system was so effective, that it was largely responsible

for the period of the “Five Good Emperors”, beginning with Trajan and ending with the

Marcus Aurelius and the rule of his son, Commodus. The end of this period, beginning

with Septimius Severus, brought about the beginning of the end of the Roman empire.
Society

- The pride, or rather the policy, of Diocletian engaged that artful prince to

introduce the stately magnificence of the court of Persia. He ventured to assume

the diadem, an ornament detested by the Romans as the odious ensign of

royalty…The sumptuous robes of Diocletian and his successors were of silk and

gold; and it is remarked with indignation that even their shoes were studded with

the most precious gems. The access to their sacred person was everyday rendered

more difficult by the institution of new forms and ceremonies.

The end of the tradition of Barracks Emperors, beginning with Diocletian, alienated

the senate and the legions from the imperial administration, centralizing more power to

the emperor. The addition of more ceremonies and embellishments to the office of

emperor further distracted the imperial administration from the concerns of the empire.

Moving the imperial court from Rome to Illyria literally distanced the emperor from the

heart of the empire and made him less likely to be personally concerned with issues

effecting the empire.

Economics

- The system of Diocletian was accompanied with another very material

disadvantage which cannot even at present be totally overlooked: a more

expensive establishment, and consequently an increases in taxes and the

oppression of the people…The number of ministers, of magistrates, of officers,

and of servants who filled the different departments of states was multiplied

beyond the example of former times. And when the proportion of those who
 received exceeded the proportion of those who contributed, the provinces were

oppressed by the weight of the tributes.”

Additionally, Diocletian weighed down the finances of the empire with his extensive

bureaucracy. As each minister, magistrate and officer wanted to follow Diocletian’s

example, they also dressed in finer clothes, accumulated large courts of followers, and

distanced themselves from their people. This exponentially increased the cost of

running the empire, as assistants hired assistants, who in turn hired more assistants,

much like modern corporations, where more money is being spent on management and

administration than the actual production of goods and services. This would lead to the

debasing of the Denarius and inflation in the Roman economy. Paying the legions with

increasingly less valuable money diminished the empire’s control over its own military.

This bureaucracy also drastically increased the amount of time it took to get things done

in the empire, further weakening its ability to maintain itself.

Religion

- A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity

may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman empire.

While that great body was invaded by open violence or undermined by slow

decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men,

grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally

erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol.
 Diocletian’s persecution of Christians was ultimately unsuccessful and actually led to

the expansion of Christianity as martyrs provided a highly visible demonstration of the

passion of their beliefs, further spreading the knowledge of Christianity throughout the

population. The sight of these martyrs praying and singing as they died evoked

sympathy for Christianity in the Roman empire. Diocletian’s persecution of this religion

contributed to the downfall of the empire by fruitlessly expending resources in an

attempt to destroy a growing cultural and political movement. Had Diocletian ignored

the Christians, like many Roman emperors had done with Judaism, they would have

likely contributed to the stability of the empire, as the church would in later years, and

would likely not have become as powerful as they did.

Art

- All the other quarters of the capital and all the provinces of the empire were

embellished by the same liberal spirit of public magnificence and they were filled

with theaters, temples, triumphal arches, porticoes, baths, and aqueducts,…all

variously conducive to the health, the devotion, and the pleasures of the meanest

citizen.

Art itself did not so much contribute to the fall of the Roman empire as the way the

empire used art to pacify its population. Festivals in Rome could last up to weeks, as if

there was any kind of mistake in the enacting of the ritual to close the festival they

would have to start over from the beginning of the festival, usually days earlier. These

festivals served to placate the slave and working-class population of the empire. The

government, as well as wealthy individuals, sponsored these festivals at great cost, not
only the cost of paying for the various entertainments, but also the cost of lost labor as

no work would be done during the entirety of the festival.