Talk:Diocletian

doesn't make sense

In introduction: "Of course this was purely a political favor done by a Senator after a blistering affair."

FAR notice

I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are not WP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again at Featured article review. buidhe 08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

With errors introduced since the 2008 featured version. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges this is noted at WP:URFA/2020A since October that you are re-working in userspace; how is that coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Re I've been quite busy, but the end is in sight; it'll likely take place sometime in April. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ping Any update on this? Were the changes implemented? Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Re Unfortunately no, I have not had the time to re-work this. FAR may be the best option; hopefully, I will have time at some point in the future, but at present I have grad school with basically no breaks until the end of next summer. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:OutdentThe more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil the FA criteria. Concerns are outlined below:

• There seems to be a reliance on ancient sources in some sections, which as buidhe points out above, might not be accepted today.
• There are other sources that I find skeptical, like Ref 83 which uses www.dot-domesday.me.uk and numerous blog posts from roman-emperors.org of which I could not find an author's name in the post, so I cannot confirm if author listed in this article is correct.
• There is a list of articles in "Further reading" which I think should be consulted and added into the article if able.
• There are other sources listed in "Bibliography" which are not used as footnotes in the article (like Banchich, Thomas M., Elliott, T. G. and Lewis, Naphtali) These should be used as footnotes or removed.
• The source formatting varies wildly, probably because sources have been added since its FAC promotion: some are missing years of publications for books, some missing ISBNs, and the CAH references do not indicate the full name of the author when lsited in the citations section (so the article only gives the author's last name).

I'm considering this a second notice for a possible FAR, and will indicate as such as WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Re Concur with your summary of issues; I will say that the www.roman-emperors.org (which is actually a scholarly work in spite of lackluster appearance) has changed formats recently in a very frustrating and unhelpful way, chief among them that they now remove the author's name. Archives can be used to confirm author names, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:

• On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:

1. The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
2. The article also cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has based their claim). Should those primary sources be excised?

• Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
• Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.

Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Mislink

Family tree entry for Constans is mislinked. Should be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans 47.205.124.128 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Troop numbers

In his military reforms section, it is stated that Lactantius criticized Diocletian for the troop increases. Treadgold also maintains that a large increase in the number of soldiers occurred in Diocletian’s reign. However, in the Wikipedia page about the late Roman Army, a relatively thorough analysis concludes that Treadgold is most likely incorrect in his observation between statements made by John of Lydus (who concluded about 400k effectives) and Zosimus (who concluded 581k). The Wiki page states the following (significantly paraphrased by me):

[Treadgold argues that John was stating the start of Diocletian’s reign, while Zosimus stated the end. However, Treadgold also concludes that the army size remained constant throughout the Crisis, which is absurd. Furthermore, Zosimus has been pegged as unreliable, given he stated 60,000 Alemmani deaths at Strasbourg in 357, while Ammanius stated 6,000-8,000. Finally, It would be strange for John to give out the number of men at the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, when he could easily give out the peak number of effectives. Finally, Agathias and Zosimus may have given out the official number of men, rather than the actual, as units may have been significantly damaged from the crisis and other wars.]

I simply want Diocletian’s page to be revised in order to reflect this analysis, given that Treadgold is most likely incorrect. However, am I still unsure if this is truly the right point of view, and if a true expert can patch me up, that would be great. Thank you! Aurelianberries (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unused sources

Removed from the article because they are generating Harvref errors: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Saint Wit's Martyrdom and Diocletian's Suicide!

Religion: He persecuted Christians, crucifying more than any other emperor. Around 304, he imposed very cruel death penalty on Saint Wit, a boy of 12 who refused to convert to roman pagan religion. He imposed the traditional polytheistic religion of the Romans. After abdicating, he committed suicide on December 3 311! 190.224.136.54 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

None of this can be used here without citations of sources that support it. General Ization ^Talk 04:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

info above is well known, problem with wikipedia fake encyclopedia is that is always contradicts itself: you need source even for logical point that oxygen is required for breathing, cellular respiration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.178.67.172 (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well known to whom? Apparently not to the many sources already cited in this article. And no, we don't need a citation to prove that the sky is blue, but we definitely do for the claims you've made above. See WP:BURDEN. If that's too much trouble, then move along please. General Ization ^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

well known to all, but, it goes to show how wikistupid you are like all one sided wmf administrators are... 1. on talk pages i dont need to source anythining, just point out whats wrong or what to correct and no, sky is not always blue, especially when rains, so again you are proven wrong as wikihypocrite and self contradictor and these wiki/wmf articles had all sorts of sources but they were wrong, i rest my case, DOH/DUH: Template:Redacted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.200.51.55 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for anything you expect others to add to the article, and the improvement of the article is the only reason you should post this (or any) information on this Talk page. Consequently, I have removed the link to an NBC News article that has absolutely nothing to do with Diocletian or the improvement of this article. And if you direct personal attacks and insults toward me or any other editor here again, you will be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotected to reduce the personal attacks. Apologies to any IP editors with genuine contributions to make, please hold onto them until the semi protection expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Suicide

Two IP editors have now changed the discussion of Diocletian's death from saying that "some" suggest that he committed suicide to that "[the] majority of historians" say this. The source cited does not support this claim, but the most recent editor introducing this claim says in their summary to this edit that "many other sources outside of wiki say so!" It is possibly true that this is the majority opinion – Brill's New Pauly says that he killed himself, though the Oxford Classical Dictionary merely says that he died – but we can't say so based on a forty-year-old source which says nothing of the sort! So: is this the majority opinion? What are the sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the edit you mention was the first and only edit by that IP. I strongly suspect (but cannot prove) that that IP was the same person who used multiple IPs to make this and other assertions concerning Diocletian in the section directly above this one, but pointedly refuses to provide any sources to support the contention. General Ization ^Talk 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this supposed suicide even belong in this article at all? I don't doubt that "some" people have suggested it, but it sounds like speculation without evidence, which doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. It is also difficult to reconcile this with the account given in the preceding paragraph about him being happy in his retirement. Richard75 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pronounciation

I saw in the article, I don't understand the symbols, but if they are not referring to dee-ock-lay-tee-an, it's wrong. Middle More Rider (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

His ethnicity and "promotion" by Aurelian in the lead

Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, the lead mentions what makes a person notable. This means it should include what Diocletian is known for: establishing the Tetrarchy, the foreign and economic policies, and the persecution of Christians. What the lead should not include is his ethnicity and some specific and little known aspect of his earliest career, as these are not what makes him famous. The details are not even known beyond Zonaras, Aurelius Victor (a simple soldier who rose to be dux of Moesia or domesticus at the time of his accession), and the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (Carus 14: military service in Gaul, soldier under Aurelian, Probus, Tacitus, and Carus).

It's not clear what kind of promotion he received under Aurelian, or if he even got one. See, for example, Timothy Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, p. 31:

Roger Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, p. 5:

Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, p. 23

p. 26

None of them give weight to his supposed promotion under Aurelian. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, I don't think it should be in the article, let alone the lead.

As for his ethnic or geographic background, Williams 1997 p. 23 calls him Illyrian in the general sense of the Balkans, while Rees 2004, Barnes 1993 and Waldron 2022 simply consider him to be hailing from the province of Dalmatia. Soidling (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that he was an Illyricianus is a very important aspect for his career as a Roman soldier and emperor, because Illyriciani had formed a military network or caste that gave Diocletian and the others the possibility to rise through the ranks, to have the support of the soldiers, and to be chosen and rule as emperors, hence it is to be mentioned in the lead section.

• Doležal 2022: Template:Tquote
• Odahl 2001: Template:Tquote
• Williams 1997, read the entire chapter "VIRTUS ILLYRICI". For their military network or caste, see in particular: Template:Tquote

Concering the info that Diocles had been promoted by Aurelian, you are unreasonably questioning a WP:RS, Wilkes 1992: Template:Tquote This is to be brought to WP:RSN if you want to remove it. – Βατο (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This is what Williams means by "Illyrian", read the page just before he introduces the chapter (p. 23): Template:Tq. Elsewhere he explicitly states that Diocletian came from Dalmatia. He understands Illyrian as coming from a broad geographic area rather than ethnicity. This is also how Dolezal interprets "Illyrian emperors", which is also a modern categorization.

And it still does not rule out the fact that nothing else is known of how Diocletian came to high military command under Carus. He may have had the help of his hometown colleagues but we just don't know. Both Barnes 1993 and Williams 1997 explicitly state so, and Rees 2004 only says he just rose up the ranks. And these are monographs dedicated to Diocletian, not like others that only mention Diocletian in passing. Soidling (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Williams, similarly to all the other scholars I quoted above, states Template:Tquote The info that Diocletian belonged to that caste is a very important fact for the subject of the article. – Βατο (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As I've demonstrated, Williams is referring to a very broad area (which is also how Barnes sees it), and even then, it is not known how he got the promotion. Williams also says nothing beyond the generalization that soldiers from Illyricum rose up the ranks and that Diocletian's first attestation was as dux Moesiae. Soidling (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

No, you've demonstrated nothing. You can't remove the well known fact that Diocletian belonged to the military caste of the Illyriciani, because it is very important for the subject of the article as a Roman soldier and Roman emperor.

And, as correctly stated by Wilkes (1992), a reliable source that you are unresonably questioning, it is known that Aurelian trained his countrymen, Aurelius Victor:

Template:Tquote – Βατο (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do you revert the part that have Barnes and Williams' reasonings? You are not engaging with what Williams and Barnes says about the interpretation "Illyricum" and his career. We need to give WP:DUEWEIGHT to a broader consensus, and most of the biographers (Barnes, Williams, Rees) don't believe there are good sources regarding his early career. Wilkes is in the minority view when he asserts that he got Aurelian's promotion, and including it has the risk of giving it an WP:UNDUE weight. And like Historia Augusta, Aurelius Victor only shows that they were soldiers under emperor Aurelian, not that Aurelian personally promoted Diocletian to certain positions. Soidling (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As per the sources, the info in the lede can be reworded as such: Template:Tquote Completely removing the fact that he belonged to the Illyrian caste is not acceptable, it must be mentioned somehere in the lead section. Concerning Illyricum, Diocletian was born in Dalmatia, one of the main areas of the region of Illyria/Illyricum, no reason to question it. – Βατο (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If you removed the part about Illyrian interpretation on the basis of the opinion of "one scholar's interpretation", the part that Diocletian was "trained" by Aurelian also deserves to be removed, since it only rests on Wilkes' interpretation per WP:UNDUE. Soidling (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wilkes' statement that he was trained by Aurelian is not an interpretation, it is documented, Aurelius Victor:

Template:Tquote – Βατο (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've explained how this only shows they served under Aurelian and Probus, not that they were "trained", which has a specific and loaded meaning. It is also not how Barnes, Rees and Williams interpret it. That is 3-1. Per your own reasoning, it does not deserve to be there. Soidling (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the article should distinguish ethnic Illyrians (those that can be identified with pre-Roman inhabitants) with geographic naming of the region under the Roman Empire. I think the article blurs this. Even if Williams was generalizing, Timothy Barnes (Constantine 2011) says Aurelius Victor was using a term of broad geographic application when he referred to "Illyricum", not of specific origins. Soidling (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The info provided by Aurelius Victor is not just that "they served under the command of Aurelian and Probus" but that "they acquired military experience under the command of Aurelian and Probus". And it is in agreement with what Wilkes states. Also Odahl states something similar: Template:Tquote

Concerning the distinction you are proposing about the term "Illyrian/Illyricianus", the wikiling can be directed to Illyrian emperors, which is the relevant article that explains the specific subject. – Βατο (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point regarding the Illyrian distinction but regarding Aurelius Victor, I don't see how it can be different. Diocletian may have very well been promoted by Aurelian but it could also mean a simple military service. And per WP:RS, the article needs good secondary sources, rather than a primary source, and Wilkes holds only a minority view among the secondary sources, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. I said, that is 3 to 1. And even if Wilkes was correct, it's not what Diocletian is famous or known for and should not be in the lead per WP:CONTEXTBIO. It's pretty evident. You've also reverted more than three edits in 24 hours, I believe, going against the policy. Soidling (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Another by Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, p. 210 states clearly that there is no good information about his career:

Template:Tq

That's now 4-1 against Aurelian's "training" of Diocletian. It makes no sense to include a very specific interpretation taken by only one scholar, especially in the article lead. Soidling (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not make more than three reverts in 24 hours. Taking into account the sources and available information, a possible rewording of the lede may be: Template:Tquote If you want to make another wording, propose it please. Concerning Wilkes' and Odahl's information in article's body about schooling/training and promoting under Aurelian and Probus, it can be reworded by attributing the statements to the authors, while also keeping Barnes' and Williams' statement. – Βατο (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with it overall, but "caste" feels loaded for an encyclopedic article about a Roman figure and "topmost pinnacle" could be a bit WP:PEACOCK. How about Template:Tq or Template:Tq It's only a suggestion. Tweak it as you like. Soidling (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and reworded it as you suggested. – Βατο (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

"κόμης δομεστικών" Diocletian was the Comes Domesticorum, the senior commander of the domestici? Interesting. The main article claims that a number of the tetrarchs of the Tetrarchy were also former domestici. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Diocletian's title as emperor.

There should be a separate section for emperor in the east after 1 April, 286 when he split the empire. Hazythundermc (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

What prose presently written in the article body would support presenting the information that way? Quote it directly, please? Remsense ‥ 论 17:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Here:

Roman Emperor

• Solo-reign
• Co-reign
• 20 November 284 – 1 April 286
• 1 April 286 – 1 May 305 (East)

Predecessor

Carinus

Successor

• Galerius (East)
• Constantius I (West)

Co-emperor

Maximian (in the West) Hazythundermc (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You didn't do as I asked, but regardless I'm seeing here that he was emperor from 284 to 305, which is what the article presently says. I'll ask again: what prose presently written in the article would support that in this interval, he was at some point "Roman emperor", but something else at another point? We don't get to indulge in whatever periodizations excite us when presenting basic key facts to the reader, and to do so here would be to misconstrue what sources say about these changes. It's clunky and not what the infobox is for. Remsense ‥ 论 17:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)