Dr. David Gwynn

So there's a well-established precedent for this.

And Diocletian probably did hope that that was what would be sufficient.

Exactly.

So this idea of just sharing power, having two people with the title Augustus, that's not going to surprise

anybody, and that's probably where Diocletian was originally planning to leave the situation.

The problem is, firstly, Diocletian himself

discovers that, firstly, there are major internal problems with the government, with the economy that need close attention, but there's also the Persian threat and the need to stabilize the Danube, and he can't do all of those things from the east.

Maximian, because he has to keep half an eye on the Rhine River, fails to defeat Carusius.

Carusius will actually end up being murdered by his own subordinate, Electus, who then carries on with the revolt.

But Maximian fails in that aim.

Basically Diocletian, pragmatically again, tried to just have a shared power between two rulers, which then remains in place for a decade, very nearly.

But then he came to the radical decision that two is not enough.

That actually there are so many pressures, so much needing changing.

that he's going to do something that has never been done before, and that is create a tetrarchy.

And remarkably, he's going to get this one right as well.

He once again just looks to the Balkans.

So again, people not from the high aristocracy, but soldiers of proven ability, proven intelligence, who Diocletian clearly believes can work within the system.

And he finds two more.

Flavius Constantius, Constantius Chlorus, as he's often known, the father of Constantine.

But that's not why he was chosen.