This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIllyria andIllyrians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCroatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject ofHistory on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city ofRome andancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
This article is within the scope of theRoman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are notWP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again atFeatured article review.buidhe08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: 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.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil theFA 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 useswww.dot-domesday.me.uk and numerous blog posts fromroman-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).
@Z1720: Concur with your summary of issues; I will say that the www.roman-emperors.org (which is actuallya 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.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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?
The articlealso 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 basedtheir 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?
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)[reply]
Religion: Hepersecuted 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 traditionalpolytheistic religion of the Romans. After abdicating, he committed suicide on December 3 311!190.224.136.54 (talk)04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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!— Precedingunsigned comment added by186.178.67.172 (talk)04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:(Redacted)— Precedingunsigned comment added by177.200.51.55 (talk)04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.GeneralIzationTalk04:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 tothis 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)[reply]
Does this supposed suicide even belong in this article at all? I don't doubt that "some"[weasel words] 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)[reply]
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:
No valid evidence attests Diocletian's career before 284, when he wasdomésticos regens (Victor, Caes. 39.1; HA, Carus 13.1) or κόμης δομεστικών(Zonaras 12.31), i.e., commander of a special corps which always attended theemperor.6
Roger Rees,Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, p. 5:
Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletian was born in Dalmatia about 240. Known then simply as Diocles, the future emperor was from a poor family.He worked his way through military service, perhaps in Gaul.When on the elite bodyguard for the emperor Carus, he was granted theconsulship in 283. Carus died in suspicious circumstances soon after acampaign had been launched against the Persians; his sons Numerianand Carinus succeeded him, but Numerian died soon afterwards, thevictim it seems of assassination. Troops loyal to the late emperorpromoted Diocletian to the throne
Stephen Williams,Diocletian and the Roman Recovery,p. 23
Apart from natural curiosity it is not important that we know next to nothingabout his early years. The influences which mattered were undoubtedly in the army,which he joined some time before 270 and whose composition was undergoing greatchanges. [...] For several generations it had been the recruits from the Danubeprovinces, including Dalmatia, who had filled the ranks, and then the lower officerposts, of Rome's finest legions. [...] Bysheer results, these Danubian professional soldiers worked their way up through thecrisis years to the highest commands.
It is in the decade following Gallienus that we first hear the briefest mention ofDiocles. He was, it seems, Dux Moesiae, that is, commander of sizeable forces on thelower Danube front of Moesia (roughly modern Bulgaria). The literary sources arescattered: the two Victors, Eutropius, Lactantius, and later writers such as Zosimusand Zonaras, who drew on material now lost. The notoriously unreliable HistoriaAugusta describes him serving in Gaul (where he received omens of future rule), butthis is not corroborated.
None of them give weight to his supposed promotion under Aurelian. PerWP: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)[reply]
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:"In a sense, this book is dedicated tothe "Illyrian Emperors", i.e. those emperors who were born in the Western Balkans and saved, stabilised, and reformed the empire. This line begins with Claudius II (268— 270) and then moves on to Quintillus (270), Aurelian (270—275), and Probus (276—282).3 After a brief interruption by the reigns of Carus and his two sons (282—284), whose birthplace we do not know, the Illyr-ians continued their run with Diocletian (284—305) and three of his colleagues: Maximian (285—305), Constantius (293—306), and Galerius (293—311). A 4th-century historian said of them: "Illyricum was actually the native land of all of them: so although they were deficient in culture, they had nevertheless been sufficiently schooled by the hardships of the countryside and of military service to be the best men for the state". 4 This is not the end of the Illyrian Emperors: Severus (305—307), Maximinus Daia (305—313), Licinius (308—324), and Constantine himself (306—337) can also be counted among them."
Odahl 2001:"The elevation of Diocletian to the imperial throne by bloodshed and civil war might have presaged just another violent and ephemeral reign amid the chaos of the third-century imperial crisis. However, this was not the case as his long and largely successful rule marked the beginning of a recovery in the fortunes of the Roman world. Known for his practical wisdom,Diocletian early gained the respect of other tough and patriotic Illyrian peasants who had risen through the ranks with him, and who would serve him loyally as he devised manifold reforms for the many problems facing the Roman Empire. One such man was Flavius Constantius, the father of Constantine. He was slightly younger than Diocles; but he had followed his older Illyrian comrade into the Protectors, and fought with him against Goths on the Danube, against Zenobia in Syria, and against Germans in Gaul. They had both received high commissions in the Roman army; and while Diocletian was commanding the imperial Protectors in the eastern Persian campaign, Constantius was serving as governor of Dalmatia in the western Illyrian region. When the contest with Carinus came, Constantius sided with Diocletian and held key troops in central Europe loyal to his military comrade and fellow countryman. Over the next few years Diocletian would reward Constantius and other loyal Illyrians by bringing them into his government and by making them co-emperors in his new order. Aurelius Victor commented that "Illyricum was indeed the homeland of all these men, and, although they were little versed in culture, they were sufficiently imbued with the hardships of country and military life to be the best men for the state. As the fortunes of Constantius rose with those of Diocletian, so would the prospects of his son Constantine."
Williams 1997, read the entire chapter "VIRTUS ILLYRICI". For their military network or caste, see in particular:"The Illyrian generals had at last broken through to the topmost pinnacle of power, and henceforth the purple remained almost exclusively in the hands of their caste.18 A succession of soldier-Emperors — Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Carus — spent almost the whole of their short reigns in continuous and victorious wars."
Concering the info that Diocles had been promoted by Aurelian, you are unreasonably questioning aWP:RS,Wilkes 1992:"The army chose another of the Illyriciani to succeed him. Carus, who may have come from Narona in Dalmatia, was another competent general but died on campaign in Persia after reigning only ten months. In the Autumn of 284the army, while on its march back from the east, chose another of the Illyriciani, C. Valerius Diocles, later known as Diocletian, and the Roman Empire entered a new era. Aged around 40 at his accession, Diocletian was another of the Illyriciani schooled and promoted by Aurelian, and had risen from a humble origin in Salona on the Dalmatian coast." This is to be brought toWP:RSN if you want to remove it. –Βατο (talk)20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Williams means by "Illyrian", read the page just before he introduces the chapter (p. 23):The general region of the Balkans, loosely termed 'Illyricum', had become as synonymous with soldiery traditions as Prussia in our own era. 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)[reply]
As mentioned above, Williams, similarly to all the other scholars I quoted above, states"The Illyrian generals had at last broken through to the topmost pinnacle of power, and henceforth the purple remained almost exclusively in the hands of their caste." 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)[reply]
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 asdux Moesiae.Soidling (talk)22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:
"Illyricum was the homeland of all of them. For all their lack of culture, their upbringing in the hardships of the country and military lives proved to be the best possible for the state. Whereas it is common knowledge that upright and learned men become more ready to perceive faults, those with an experience of life's hardships, while judging everyone by their merit, pay less attention to such things. And they look up to Valerius (Diocletianus) as a father, as one would to a mighty god. But the harmony of these men was proof that their natural ability and use of sound military experience, such as they had acquired under the command of Aurelian and Probus, almost made up for their lack of noble character." –Βατο (talk)22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 giveWP: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 anWP: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)[reply]
As per the sources, the info in the lede can be reworded as such:Trained byAurelian, Diocletian belonged to theIllyrian caste, which had reached the topmost pinnacle of power in the Roman army. Completely removing the fact that he belonged to the Illyrian caste is not acceptable, it must be mentioned somehere in the lead section. ConcerningIllyricum, Diocletian was born in Dalmatia, one of the main areas of the region ofIllyria/Illyricum, no reason to question it. –Βατο (talk)22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 perWP:UNDUE.Soidling (talk)22:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wilkes' statement that he was trained by Aurelian is not an interpretation, it is documented, Aurelius Victor:
"But the harmony of these men was proof that their natural ability and use of sound military experience, such as they had acquired under the command of Aurelian and Probus, almost made up for their lack of noble character." –Βατο (talk)22:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:"Soldiers and civilians alike were shocked at the assassination of the great Aurelian. There was a confused interregnum for several months until an old senator named Tacitus and then his brother Florian were each recognized as emperors for a few months in the winter of 275—76. However, the eastern armies eventually proclaimed Probus, another tough Illyrian soldier who had retaken Egypt for Aurelian, and he soon gained Wide support and ruled for six years (276—82). In an effort to slow down the swift demise of emperors, Probus punished the murderers of Aurelian and arranged for his heroic mentor to be deified. He continued the practice of promoting talented Illyrian soldiers to high commands in the military and over the provinces - Diocletian and Constantius are both mentioned as Illyrians who received training and preferment under Probus. He also continued to honor Sol on the coins and medallions of his reign as had Aurelian."
Concerning the distinction you are proposing about the term "Illyrian/Illyricianus", the wikiling can be directed toIllyrian emperors, which is the relevant article that explains the specific subject. –Βατο (talk)23:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 perWP: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 givenWP: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 perWP: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)[reply]
Another by Pat Southern,The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine,p. 210 states clearly that there is no good information about his career:
"The only information about his career derives from Zonaras, who says that he held a military command in Moesia, and from Aurelius Victor, who affirms that Diocles was the commander of the protectores domestici of Numerianus. There is nothing to elucidate what Diocletian acheived between these two posts.
That's now 4-1 against Aurelian's "training" of Diocletian. It makes no sense to include a very specific interpretation taken byonly one scholar, especially in the article lead.Soidling (talk)00:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Diocles rose through the ranks of the military early in his career, serving underAurelian andProbus, and eventually becoming acavalry commander for the army of EmperorCarus. Diocles belonged to the military caste of theIllyriciani, which had reached the topmost pinnacle of power in the Roman army. After the deaths of Carus and his sonNumerian on a campaign inPersia, Diocles was proclaimed emperor by the troops, taking the name "Diocletianus". 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)[reply]
I'm fine with it overall, but "caste" feels loaded for an encyclopedic article about a Roman figure and "topmost pinnacle" could be a bitWP:PEACOCK. How about"In the time of increased prominence of Illyrian soldiers, Diocles rose through the ranks [...]" orAs with other Illyrian soldiers of the period, Diocles rose through the ranks of the military early in his career, serving underAurelian andProbus, and eventually becoming acavalry commander for the army of EmperorCarus. After the deaths of Carus and his sonNumerian on a campaign inPersia, Diocles was proclaimed emperor by the troops, taking the name "Diocletianus". It's only a suggestion. Tweak it as you like.Soidling (talk)02:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"κόμης δομεστικών" Diocletian was the Comes Domesticorum, the senior commander of thedomestici? Interesting. The main article claims that a number of the tetrarchs of theTetrarchy were also former domestici.Dimadick (talk)10:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: whatprose 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)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.jpg)
