The Tetrarchy: Galerius

[@EasternRomanHistory]

How would you rate Galerius? Was he a worthy successor of Diocletian and Constantius I?

[@arturleperoke3205]

Absolute Mega-Chad. Playing cat and mouse with a formidable bigger force as the Sassanians is huge! Truly from rags to riches! His big political flaw was Maxentius ascension in Italy. I wonder whether he was truly not in the position to remove Maxentius or whether he respected the idea of his Mentor Diocletian - the peace the tetrachic-system was bringing to the realm - too much to take further serious actions?

[@arturleperoke3205]

One of THE BEST channels on Roman History on KZbin 🔥🔥🔥

[@TomSeliman99]

You need to release these more often. They are good.

[@Carelock]

These Tetrarchy vids are 🔥

[@joaomarcosgoncalvesisaac3785]

Pls, can you continue to do the ranking bizantine emperors?

[@EasternRomanHistory]

I would like to, unfortunately, neither Athena nor myself are as free as we once were to make them.

[@dansmith4077]

Comment for the algorithm great video

[@Dbusdriver71]

Diocletian should be given credit for elevating Galerius, he was in a way, Diocletian's 'right arm'. He married into the family and proved reliable in both civil and military administration. Galerius has been scrutinized and has been 'painted' as inept, ineffective while also a risk taker and bold to the point or callousness. To me, he is a man of extremes. There is a lot of history to analyze. It would seem that Diocletian got the credit while Galerius got a lot of the blame, especially with the persecution of the 'Christians'.

[@bombombarabom3794]

To be honest with your last point I would argue that in general among wider populus Diocletian is still regarded as THE persecutor emperor, many of non historian and theologian folks I doubt even know Galerius and Decius unlike Diocletian

[@Dbusdriver71]

@bombombarabom3794 Galerius is a man of exchange, but you are right to say the Diocletian persecuted christians. But it is still debated on who persecute it the most of the two.

[@Marquinhos1901]

i love this format! I keep looking forward to the next one. I like the discussion format. both you and Dr. Byron are great. i meant to ask did you got to school to study this field? I work in law but ive studied the classics on my own for a long time. I wanna apply to a masters program but most of them require latin and greek as pre requisitie. Which is a shame cause I dont have that even though I feel like I know the historical narrative very well.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

Thank you very much. I am glad to hear you are enjoying them. Yes, I have read history up to a Master's level. I recommend either going to a summer Latin/Greek school to sharpen your language skills or find a course that has a language class built into it. The master's I took had a one month, intensive Latin course which I needed to pass before starting the degree.

[@TrajGreekFire]

even though I miss the music, I'm in love with this series

[@EasternRomanHistory]

The music I have reserved for my structured videos, it has not been forgotten.

[@michaeldunne338]

Great episode. Galerius is very interesting. I would agree that his military record against foreign enemies, his administrative skills and holding the Tetrarchy together placed him in a good light. I think the mishandling of Italy though, including his failed invasion around 307, following Severus II's defeat and death, was a bit of a black eye. So would put him down as a decent emperor. I did have a few of questions: 1) Why is there uncertainty over his campaign against the Persians taking Ctesiphon? It seems like some sources indicated he did, but then others seem kind of quiet about such a possibility. Given that Trajan and Severus both took the city, I would have thought there would have been some certainty about Galerius' 298/299 campaign. 2) Do you think he was a prime moving force behind persecuting the Christians as some ancient commentaries see to suggest? If so, would that be a strike against his record (given that he then had to issue his Edict of Toleration practically on his death bead, with bowels and what not rotting)? 3) Was his Edict of Toleration much different from Constantine's and Licinius' Edict of Milan in tone and content? 4) Did he continue persecuting the Manichaeans during his reign, up to his death, or were they covered by the Edict of Toleration? Apologies for all the questions. This episode kind of brought them to mind. Can't wait for the second Tetrarchy.

[@byronwaldron7933]

Fair point re. the failed invasion. Re. the questions: 1. This idea largely stems from an influential modern historian, Timothy Barnes. He concluded, I think too confidently, that Galerius captured Ctesiphon, based on the fact that, as Constantine himself and also the Historia Augusta indicate, he operated in the vicinity of Ctesiphon, and the Historia Augusta notes that he advanced 'beyond' Ctesiphon. But advancing beyond Ctesiphon does not necessarily mean that the city itself was captured, and I think that if it had fallen Roman sources have mentioned it. Plenty of sources mention Carus' capture of the city only 15 years earlier, but none mention Galerius doing it. The Historia Augusta is making the point that, although superstitious people say it's not permitted by the gods for a Roman emperor to advance beyond Ctesiphon, citing the example of Carus being struck by lightning (the author also no doubt has Julian in mind), Galerius shows that this superstition is baseless. But rather than capture Ctesiphon, I think Galerius aimed for Khuzistan, where he targeted Gundeshapur, the notorious foundation of Shapur I where he kept his Roman prisoners. Gundeshapur was one of the Sasanian capitals up until the time of Shapur II and was possibly even more important than Ctesiphon at this early stage of Sasanian history. The Arabic historian Eutychius (using Persian sources) says that Galerius unsuccessfully targeted Gundeshapur, and the Arabic historian al-Tabari backs this up without naming the emperor. I suspect that Galerius sought to transcend rather than imitate Trajan, Lucius Verus and Septimius Severus. 2. Both Lactantius and Eusebius say that he was a prime moving force behind the persecution, and there seems to have been little interdependence between these two, as one was based in the west and the other in Syria. I think it likely. So yeah, it's a strike against his record. 3. Yes, Galerius' tone is grudging toleration. All persecution achieved was that Christians are no longer praying, and that's a bad thing, so please pray again and you can continue being Christians. The edict of Milan is revolutionary. While it included the restitution of confiscated property, the rhetoric is even more notable, as it speaks of 'freedom of religion' (libertas religionis). It is the first law in western history to advocate for religious freedom. The rhetoric itself appears to stem from Lactantius, who advocated for libertas religionis in his Divine Institutes. 4. The Manicheans are quite far outside my area of expertise, but I don't think we hear any more about them for the remainder of the Tetarchic period (after the law made against them in 302). I presume Manicheaism was still prohibited, but perhaps they had gone into hiding. Theodosius I later targeted them as well.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@byronwaldron7933 thank you for the fairly extensive responses to my questions. The idea that Galerius may have aimed for Gundeshapur is very interesting. I think Susa was within that area too, a two day march, which I believe held at least some symbolic importance too (a second capital of the Achaemenids?). I noticed that Julian declined to take Ctesiphon decades later, so have to wonder if the Persians had sufficiently strengthened the city (and others in the area) after Carus, to withstand a siege. As for the Manichaeans, yes it seems history kind of went silent on them until the end of the fourth century (in laws against them; with Saint Augustine discussing them).

[@byronwaldron7933]

@@michaeldunne338 That's a great point re. the fortifications. Considering the fact that Ctesiphon fell four times between 116 and 283, and yet does not appear to have been captured by a foreign enemy between 283 and 637, probably Sasanian fortifications became a factor. Certainly Julian thought it was too well defended to capture. Odaenathus already appears to have struggled, but in his defense the Historia Augusta tells us that multiple satraps came together to defend the area against the Palmyrene advance (probably Shapur was in the east at the time, as was the case with Bahram II when Carus invaded). Indeed, Susa was a capital (I think it was also an imperial residence under the Seleucids). I think Khuzistan was very fertile, thus its importance from Elam onwards. The Iran-Iraq War was fought over the same area. Ah yes, Augustine was an ex-Manichean, wasn't he? Those poor Manicheans didn't have it easy. Diocletian accused them of being a Persian fifth column, but Bahram I and II and their chief priest Kerdir persecuted Mani and his followers.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

Thank you very much. First, the some sources speak of Galerius campaigning towards Ctesiphon but not actually taking it suggesting that he advanced but did not capture the city unlike Carus, who is explicitly said to have sacked the Persian capital. Hence the ambiguity, I am inclined to think he did not but what we are told is that Galerius struck into Media. Secondly, the Christian sources certainly paint him as the instigator of the Christian persecutions and was the bloodiest of all the original Tetrarchs, second being Diocletian. Persecuting anyone is a cruel and negative thing for a ruler to do but it is not something unusual during the third century/ early fourth century. Third, Lactantius, (34) quotes, Galerius' Edict saying: '... we have perceived that at present they neither pay reverence and due adoration to the gods, nor yet worship their own God, therefore we, from our wonted clemency in bestowing pardon on all, have judged it fit to extend our indulgence to those men, and to permit them again to be Christians, and to establish the places of their religious assemblies; yet so as that they offend not against good order. ...' 30 April AD311. Basically, Galerius took the 'if you cannot beat them join them' approach to toleration, making toleration conditional that they pray for the emperor and the empire. Four, I don't the fate of the Manichaeans. I hope this answers some of your questions.

[@Jinseual]

What a coincidence I'm about to upload a video about the tetrarchy in a few days, in my other channel.

[@EasternRomanHistory]

Nice!

[@deathendings6313]

First!!!