Diocletian was a well known Roman emperor from 284 to 305 AD. During his early years, he saw the falling of the Roman empire, and several civil wars that caused Rome to end up being in a bad state. Throughout his life as emperor, he put an end to Rome’s adverse empire, thus created more than a thousand years of stability within Rome. As an emperor, Diocletian set up many reforms; military and economic, along with his interaction with Christians. Diocletian’s new role as emperor in 284 AD, had many problems that he needed to face. The first of his concerns were to, “...bring them mutinous and increasingly barbarized Roman armies back under control and to make the frontiers once again secure from invasion,” (Ralph W. Mathisen). He also wanted to restore “effective” government and economic success to the Roman empire. Diocletian felt as if extreme measures were needed to solve the problems, and that, “...it was the responsibility of the imperial government to take whatever steps were necessary, no matter how harsh or innovative, to bring the empire back under control,” (Ralph W. Mathisen). He was then able …show more content…
The Great Persecution was said to be, “...a horrible, difficult time for Christians...Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death,” (Paul Pavao). During this time period, Diocletian wanted to convert the Christians back to paganism which meant the emperor at the time would be considered God. If any Christians were caught by Diocletian they, “...could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor,” (Paul Pavao). Also, if the Christians gave up copies of scriptures to be burned, they would be given “great favor.” After Diocletian retired in 305 AD, Galerius, Constantine, and Maximian carried out the persecution in the east and west, causing it to end by 311
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Claudius was a significant ruler of the early Roman imperial era. He reigned from AD 41-54. He was easily influenced by those with questionable agendas, such as his last two wives and his freedmen, yet his principate was deemed successful. His expansion of the empire, his new reforms and his control over the senate were all beneficial to the state and and his rule was one which paved the way for those who ruled after him.
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
Different from the Decian persecutions, Valerian wanted to take out the Christian church by simply banning it’s activities altogether. Beginning with the first edict he ordered, the church’s property and religious ceremonies were to be seized by the imperial officials and any religious ceremonies that would have been halted, or if continued, members would have most likely been arrested and sent to trial. This has been implied through the later rescript of toleration that Gallienus would eventually put out to the empire. Even while the property of the church was being seized and the edict was also causing public ceremonies to be halted, the Christians would have continued to hold their religious activities in secret and away from the public. The damage to the Christians in the Roman Empire before the second
Diocletian and Constantine had policies that were similar yet different in many ways. Diocletian ruled from 284-305 A.D. During his time as emperor, he divided the empire into four prefectures. This also separated the Roman Empire into east and west. The west was known as the Western Roman Empire and the east was known as the Eastern Roman Empire. Diocletian did not allow Christians in his empire and therefore persecuted them.
...s a new Emperor. In 527 CE, Justinian was named Emperor and he was from a long line of Roman emperors. He did many great things to improve Rome such as reforming the Roman laws. He crushed the Vandals in Africa made Carthage part of the “true Roman Empire again. (Tignor, 2011, p. 296) He went head on with the Barbarians from the “old Rome” and was able to gain back most of the control. He created many more churches and made his mark for more than a thousand years of the future Rome.
Dionysius I of Syracuse garnered a reputation as a warmongering tyrant who harmed his people with his oppressive regime. However many surviving sources that explore his rule were written by people who were ideologically opposed to perceived tyrants. It is therefore quite possible that aspects of Dionysius rule where left out or exaggerated to suit the author`s anti-tyrannical agenda. It is the intention of this paper to argue that Dionysius rule did in fact benefit Syracuse more than he harmed it during his lifetime. His domestic and foreign affairs will be explored in order to show how he in fact benefitted the Syracusan state as well as the majority of its people. It will however also be argued that his legacy did harm the Syracusan state but that overall Dionysius rule was beneficial in his lifetime.
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
414-443. Antony Kamm The Romans: An Introduction Second Edition, Published in 2008, pages 47, 93. Dio Cassius Roman History (as presented in Antiquity 2). Augustus (Octavian) Res Gestae Divi Augusti (as presented in Antiquity 2). Eck, The Age of Augustus, p.45 (as presented in Antiquity 2).
In the third century AD, the Roman Empire was thrown into chaos through several civil wars due to a lust for power; many people were only interested in how influential they were, rather than acting for the benefit of the country. Since the Roman Empire was constantly expanding and becoming more powerful, Diocletian, the emperor at the time, deemed it to be too big to be ruled by only one emperor. The Empire was split into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire didn’t last long; it fell during the 5th century AD when it was conquered by the barbarians. The Eastern Empire lasted a thousand years before it finally fell at the hands of the Turkish.
In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
One significant reason for the decline of the Roman Empire was political instability because poor leadership weakened and confused the community of Rome. During the 50-year period of 235 to 285 CE, there were twenty-two emperors with ‘assassinations’ as a frequent reason of deaths. In return, the government was unstable and could not be trusted. Also, as an enemy sight, the empire was weakened and vulnerable to invasions. In one sentence, frequent deaths of emperors led the corruption and an unstable government, which resulted in the decline of ancient Rome.
Constantine I (February 27, 280 C.E.- May 22, 337 C.E.), also known as Constantine the Great, was the first Roman emperor to not only abolish persecution of Christians, but he was also the first to convert to Christianity in 312 A.D. Around 200 years later, in 496 A.D. Clovis I (466 C.E.- 511 C.E.), the King of the Franks, converted to Christianity, in which he was called a “new Constantine” . Constantine and Clovis’ reign through Christianity were alike in the way that they decided to convert. However, the two emperors were different in their commitment to God and their impacts on the church and state.
During the first half century after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Roman government including governors in the eastern provinces took no active measures against Christians. The attitude of the higher Roman authorities had always been that Christianity was merely a sect of Judaism, and as such, were entitled to share in its privileges as a recognized religion. In 64 A.D. this attitude suffered a severe alteration. On July 19, 64 A.D. occurred the great fire of Rome. Half a million people were left homeless. Popular rumor persistently asserted that the fire was started by incendiaries acting under the orders of the Emperor Nero. It was said that Nero wanted the city burnt down so he could build a new city which was to be re-named after himself. Nero felt that something must be done to deflect the public indignation against him. To do this he contrived that accusations should be brought against the Christians. So Nero began an aggressive persecution of the Christians in Rome. Those who confessed their guilt were brought to trail. During these trials a great number of other Christians were uncovered and were also brought to trial. Oddly enough, these people were not charged with starting the great fire of Rome, but rather for “hatred of the humankind.”
The persecution of Christians that went on in the first, as well as the second century, was random and local. Nero was the emperor that started the persecution of Christians. After the Great Fire of Rome, the Christians were blamed and called arsonists, as well as causing them to receive vicious deaths in Rome. During the second century, the Christians were often just ignored. Even at the end of the 5 Good Emperors reigns, Christians still didn’t represent a large part of the Roman society.