old_abe

In 286 AD the Roman Empire was divided into 2 parts for the first time, and then the different Roman rulers prefered such system and Constantine I even decided to make not just 2 parts but 4. And my question is was such divided Roman Empire really divided? I mean did its emperors feel that they were not separate rulers of separate countries but the authority of the one united Roman Empire, just only with several augusti? Did such Empire have any common officials for all parts of it?

Vir0n

After Diocletian became Emperor in 285, the empire was truly administratively divided and then united, and then divided, and then united, and then divided....

The first Tetrarchy was formed when Diocletian split the empire into Eastern and Western halves, sharing his rule with his friend Maximiam. Diocletian did this because of the difficulties administrating and defending such a large empire. It seems that they were intended to be administratively separate, but act as partners towards a common goal (with Diocletian remaining as pater familias). From the top down there were two separate bureaucracies. They further divided administrative duties by appointing two Caesars as VP's, each of whom were to become Augustus upon dealth or abdication of their respective ruling emperor. This was supposed to form a system of succession, but never truly took hold.

The initial Eastern and Western empires were held together by the cooperation and friendship of the two emperors. Within another generation all parties went back to fighting over sole control - which occurred when Constantine I became sole Emperor, uniting the empire until again splitting it among his three sons after his death. I assume that most of the lower-level administrative divisions remained during all of the fighting at the top, but this is not clear in the sources that I have read.

I really find the whole thing somewhat confusing, so maybe someone with an expertise in Roman history might want to comment?

Nikd

The main problem to control in this time a vast empire, like the Roman, was for me bad communications, to send a message or to move an army from Rome to would take in the best occasion days and in the worst months. If we consider that the responsibility to run this empire was in the shoulders of one man only whou was encircled by flaterrers, ambitius, dangerous, with no conscience humans, then we realize that you must have a really strong character and nerves from steel to simply survive in this environment.
The establishment of imperial goverment was possible cause Augustus :
1. Was a genius.
2. Controlled ALL the army
3. The Senate preffered more to enjoy life than to rule.

So it's obvius that a professional army soon or later would try to make politics.
The only way to rule effective the empire (without the fear that the emperor will be murdered in a few days) was to divide the power of the army and split the empire in parts (making the work of administration more easy).

The only false in this system was the resignation of Diocletanus, which according to Toynbe, was a self confutation, thus leading to bloody civil wars and therefore more impoverishment of the empire.
Plus that for a border of such length needed 3.000.000 army, not only 500.000.