Diocletian and Constantine I were two significant figures who presented imperial affairs ending the era of anarchy. Looking through their life story, many similarities associated with their power and organizational style can be noticed. Both agreed that anarchy could be regulated by multiform power; being soldiers, they considered the reform for army covering its mobility necessary for those ages. Moreover, emperors Diocletian and Constantine I recognized Rome and Italy’s unsatisfactory base to resist and accept the imperial force. Another similarity between them is that both were convinced that the empire should worship the right god regardless of religion.
Talking about the differences between the two emperors, some of them could be observed in their approaches. Diocletian followed Rome’s past and end periods, while Constantine considered future founding the history of Byzantium. In the Diocletian era, it could be seen that the precedents of power division that lasted until the 2nd century CE. The emperor Diocletian shared his power with his co-ruler Augustus, who, on the other hand, distributed control among other senior partners. In contrast, Constantine initially applied the rule of tetrarchy and, after its failure, introduced hereditary succession. In this system, Constantine replaced single praetorian prefects with regional prefects to divide administrative responsibilities. Their attitude toward newly emerging religions and imperial policy also significantly varied. Diocletian persecuted representatives of Christianity trying to revive the ancestral faiths. In comparison, Constantine converted to the new faith giving the status of “a permitted religion.”
Diocletian applied a new economic approach by controlling wages and prices, equalizing currency to a new gold piece, aureus, about 60 pounds of gold. Diocletian’s reform, however, failed, opening the way to more successful reform, Constantine’s gold solidus. Comparing Constantine’s and Diocletian’s reforms, it could be noticed that Constantine’s strategy appeared to be surprisingly fruitful. Constantine’s view was revolutionary, innovative, opening new religions, succession style, and currency reform. His laws representation extended to the broader sense of hereditary that founded the system of collegia, also known as hereditary state guilds that featured late-Roman social life. Moreover, he required colonus, local peasants, to live in the place indicated by the taxes and provide report of current state of their estate. Constantine’s revolutionary approach had a considerable impact on local rulers gradually transforming the image of empire.
Generally, the era of these rulers could be emphasized by the progress and prosperity of the Roman Empire on various scales. The reforms introduced by rulers led to economic and social growth. For example, provinces such as northern Italy had commercial and agricultural progress, while Constantinople and other cities showed urban development. The negative consequences included the disappearance of some languages and cultural features, especially in the Balkan region. At the time of these rulers, Europeans started searching for the precious metal, exploiting western Africa for newly available lands and resources. The reforms facilitated extreme social mobility by unifying people to complete the shared socially necessary tasks. Some local rulers started to implement the reforms and strategies like the colonus, navicularius, and curialis. Constantine had a new capital that gradually became the cultural and economic center of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, Diocletian decided to follow the traditional approach and stay conservative. The contrast between the two rulers could be seen in their attitude and relation to the innovations. Although the background of both rulers was similar, Constantine was more successful in implementing reforms.