Diocletian and Aurelian similarities

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 “… like with most of the third century emperors the sources …

are fragmentary, late and often unreliable”.

 Dr. Ilkka Syvänne

 

 

Never a truer word ….

 

I have already re-set Diocletian, lifting him right out of the murky “third century” (AD) and re-locating him to the Census period of the Nativity of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:1):

 

See my articles on this:

 

Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

(1)  Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

Augustus-like Diocletian likewise had a trustworthy right-hand, second self

 

(1)  Augustus-like Diocletian likewise had a trustworthy right-hand, second self

 

Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

(1) Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

Diocletian the Persecutor thereby becomes, all at once - as according to my previous research - Caesar Augustus of the Lucan Census; Hadrian; and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

That means that, for the full reconstruction of this archetypal tyrant-persecutor, we need to take bites from (supposedly) c. 170 BC (Antiochus); the Nativity Year (Augustus); the C2nd AD (Hadrian); and the C3rd AD (Diocletian) - four different centuries - and who knows what else!

 

Diocletian: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, is frequently compared with Aurelian: Lucius Domitius Aurelianus another of those dubious “third century” characters. 

 

Here are some examples of this:

diocletian and aurelian similarities - Search

 

Diocletian and Aurelian similarities

 

Diocletian and Aurelian shared several key similarities during their reigns:

 

• Both were Illyrian-born emperors who rose to power through military service.
• They both played significant roles in stabilizing the Roman Empire during the Crisis of the Third Century.
• Both emperors were involved in military reforms and strategic alliances to defend the empire against barbarian threats.
• They both implemented administrative changes to address the structural weaknesses of the empire.
• Both emperors were known for their monarchial ceremonies and attempts to elevate their status above the masses.
• Both emperors were involved in political reforms to ensure the stability and efficiency of the empire.
  These similarities highlight the commonalities in their approaches to governance and the efforts they made to restore order and stability to the Roman Empire. 

The Transformation of the Roman Empire: Aurelian and Diocletians Responses to Barbarian Threats | 🧠🔥History Learning Chunks

 The Transformation of the Roman Empire:

Aurelian and Diocletian’s Responses to Barbarian Threats

 

Explore how Aurelian and Diocletian’s responses to barbarian threats stabilized the late Roman Empire through military reforms and administrative changes.

 

Overview

 

This study examines how Aurelian and Diocletian, two prominent Illyrian emperors, responded to the increasing pressure from barbarian incursions in the third century CE. Their military reforms and strategic alliances were crucial in stabilizing the empire amidst political turmoil. These efforts laid the groundwork for Diocletian’s extensive administrative and structural changes that transformed the Roman state.

 

Context

 

The late Roman Empire faced significant internal and external pressures during the Crisis of the Third Century (235-284 CE), a period marked by military anarchy, economic instability, and political fragmentation. The barbarians from beyond the borders increasingly challenged Roman authority, particularly in Europe. This era saw the rise of emperors who often came from the provinces rather than Rome itself, reflecting the decentralization of imperial power. Among these leaders were a series of Illyrian-born emperors, including Decius (249-251 CE), Claudius Gothicus (268-270 CE), Aurelian (270-275 CE), and Diocletian (284-305 CE).

 

Their military prowess was essential in defending the empire against external threats, while their administrative reforms aimed to address structural weaknesses that had accumulated over centuries.

 

Timeline

 

• 235-284: The Crisis of the Third Century; political instability and frequent changes in emperors.
• 249: Decius becomes emperor; begins efforts to reassert Roman authority against barbarian incursions.
• 260: Capture of Emperor Valerian by the Persians, marking a low point for Roman military power.
• 268: Claudius Gothicus assumes power and defeats the Goths at Naissus (modern-day Niš in Serbia).
• 271: Aurelian establishes temporary forts along the Danube; begins systematic military reforms.
• 274: Aurelian concludes a peace treaty with Palmyra, securing Roman interests against Persian threats.
• 275: After Aurelian’s death, another Illyrian emperor, Probus (r. 276-282 CE), continues to strengthen the frontier defenses.
• 284: Diocletian becomes emperor; begins his extensive program of military and administrative reforms.
• 300: Diocletian establishes Tetrarchy (rule by four emperors) to stabilize governance across the empire.

….

 

Key Figures and Groups

 

Aurelian (r. 270-275 CE): A Roman emperor from Illyria known for his military prowess and administrative reforms. He is credited with stabilizing the empire through strategic alliances and defensive measures.

 

Diocletian (r. 284-305 CE): An Illyrian soldier who became emperor, Diocletian sought to strengthen and reform the Roman state after decades of instability. His rule marked a turning point in the history of the late Roman Empire. ….

….

Under Emperor Aurelian, Rome faced a critical juncture where barbarian incursions were overwhelming local defenses. His response included strategic alliances with Palmyra to divert attention from Europe while strengthening the Danubian frontier through temporary fortifications. Aurelian’s reforms also focused on streamlining military command structures and logistics, which laid the groundwork for future stability.

 

Explanation and Importance

 

The reigns of Aurelian and Diocletian were pivotal in shaping the late Roman Empire’s response to external threats and internal instability. Their efforts not only defended Rome against barbarian incursions but also restructured governance to ensure long-term stability. Aurelian’s military reforms and strategic alliances helped stabilize Europe, while his successor, Diocletian, introduced sweeping administrative changes through the Tetrarchy system.

 

These transformations were essential in addressing structural weaknesses that had accumulated over centuries of imperial expansion and subsequent contraction. By centralizing governance and restructuring military command, Diocletian’s reforms laid the foundation for a more resilient Roman state capable of withstanding future challenges. The legacy of these leaders underscores the critical role of effective leadership and institutional reform in navigating periods of crisis.

 

Comparative Insight

 

The transformation under Aurelian and Diocletian can be compared to the earlier Augustan period (27 BCE – 14 CE) when Emperor Augustus established a balanced system between republican institutions and autocratic power. Like Augustus, Aurelian and Diocletian aimed to stabilize governance through military and administrative reforms but with different emphases given the crisis context of their era.

 

Extended Analysis

 

Reforming Military Command: Aurelian introduced reorganizations that streamlined military command structures, allowing for more effective coordination against barbarian threats. This involved creating mobile reserves in key danger areas and establishing temporary forts along critical frontiers like the Danube.

 

Alliances with Palmyra: Strategic alliances such as those formed between Rome and Palmyra under Aurelian were crucial in securing Roman interests against multiple fronts, particularly when resources were stretched thin due to external pressures.

 

Administrative Reforms Under Diocletian: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy system divided the empire into four regions each governed by a pair of rulers (Augustus and Caesar), enhancing centralized governance and military coordination. This structural change aimed at long-term stability beyond immediate crisis management. ….

 

See also:

 

Gold, silver and coins; Aurelian and Diocletian

 

(6) Gold, silver and coins; Aurelian and Diocletian.doc

 

The varied evidence [1977] on the coinage reforms of Aurelian and Diocletian involving

gold and silver is brought together in an attempt to construct a consistent picture of

monetary events at the end of the third century AD.

 

            The general picture of the Roman Empire in the third century AD is one of chaos.

It is always assumed that the great inflation, which can be traced both from written sources and from the collapse of the silver coinage, aggravated the military and political disruption

to such an extent that the Empire all but fell. It needs to be repeated many times that there is little archaeological evidence which actually necessitates such a gloomy view;

but such repetition is fruitless without a considerable amount of archaeological synthesis

far beyond the bounds of this paper.

           

Two events at the end of the century, the currency reform of Aurelian in 273-4,

and the attempts at complete economic reform of Diocletian from 294 to 301,

are usually taken as marks of economic recovery ….

 

 

 

Rethinking Christianity by Alister McGrath

 

 

In public debates with Dawkins, he dismissed the claims of the “New Atheists”

that Christianity was a fraud. Dawkins and his sort, McGrath now says,

“were aggressively asserting atheist beliefs, but posing as if they were

telling incontestable truths”.

 

Theologian Alister McGrath: Christianity is back because it answers the big questions

The Telegraph

Theologian Alister McGrath:

Christianity is back because it answers

the big questions

  

Story by Peter Stanford

03 Nov ….

 

Alister McGrath is releasing a new book, Rethinking Christianity:

A Thoughtful Guide to a Life-Changing Faith - Andrew Crowley for The Telegraph

 

Last year, a survey for the Bible Society, carried out by YouGov, made headlines. The number of Gen Z Britons attending church services, it declared, had soared by 16 per cent between 2018 and 2024. The news led to discussions in Parliament, and Church conferences trumpeting this “quiet revival”.

 

What made the claims so believable was a parallel narrative, more anecdotal but also more widespread, about young people embracing religion. You heard it everywhere, in opinion pieces, features and online chatter. It was the subject of entire books, such as Don’t Forget We’re Here Forever: A New Generation’s Search for Religion by the award-winning young writer Lamorna Ash.

 

Yet, even as interest in Christianity became more vocal, the statistics came into question. The Bible Society report was contested, and eventually withdrawn; the British Social Attitudes Survey then reported, over exactly the same period, a 9 per cent fall in 18 to 34-year-olds who described themselves as “religious”. Given the level of claim and counter-claim, this has become ground where angels fear to tread.

 

Alister McGrath is well aware. A former professor of divinity, now emeritus professor in science and religion at the University of Oxford … one of Britain’s best known and most respected Christian intellectuals.

 

This mild-mannered 73-year-old chooses his words with great care in his north Oxford flat as we try to sort out what is and isn’t happening.

 

McGrath is now emeritus professor in science and religion at the University of Oxford –

Andrew Crowley for The Telegraph

The central thesis of his new book, Rethinking Christianity, is that what the likes of Ash heard is absolutely correct.

 

The sea of faith around these islands is rising. “I am seeing,” he tells me, “a growth in young people wanting to talk about Christianity. Others have seen it, but right now no one really wants to emphasise it. It is probably best just to let it happen.”

 

The burnt fingers at the Bible Society, coupled with a still extant British reluctance to talk about Christianity – “We don’t do God”, as Alastair Campbell once put it, on behalf of Tony Blair – appear to have warned many commentators off. Not McGrath, though. This academic and author, best known as the biographer and champion of CS Lewis – both men were born in Belfast, albeit McGrath’s accent gives no hint of it – likes to step up when others hold back. He was, 20 years ago, the first leading Christian to lock horns in public with Richard Dawkins, following the publication of the evolutionary biologist’s global bestseller, The God Delusion.

 

In public debates with Dawkins, he dismissed the claims of the “New Atheists” that Christianity was a fraud. Dawkins and his sort, McGrath now says, “were aggressively asserting atheist beliefs, but posing as if they were telling incontestable truths”.

 

Damien Mackey: But see e.g. my article:

 

Hawking and Dawkins - science fiction cosmology

 

(2) Hawking and Dawkins - science fiction cosmology

 

In response, McGrath and his wife, Joanna Collicutt, a clinical psychologist and Anglican vicar, published a strong defence of religion titled The Dawkins Delusion. “I probably unwisely allowed myself to have a reasonably high profile,” he reflects.

 

Dawkins has, in recent weeks, been celebrating the 20th anniversary of The God Delusion, making appearances and writing articles (including in this paper). But the scientist is the deluded one, McGrath suggests. “The New Atheism seems to have tanked. It’s on its way out, because people have seen that it was never really answering the big questions.”

 

McGrath connects the revival of interest in Christianity with those years. “After my book came out in 2007,” he says, “a lot of young people who have come to Oxford contacted me, wanting to talk and tell me what their experiences were.” He thinks of those youngsters as two distinct groups: those who sought him out in the immediate aftermath of The Dawkins Delusion, and those who’ve done the same in the past decade. (In between, McGrath removed himself from the fray for six years, from 2008 to 2014, teaching at King’s College, London.)

 

“In the first period,” he explains, “their questions were all very defensive. ‘How on earth do we defend Christianity in the face of this [New Atheist] onslaught?’

 

They were mainly Christians – but [there were] also those outside Christianity who were interested in it but thought it was now an intellectual no-go area thanks to Dawkins.”

 

In response to Richard Dawkins (photographed for The Telegraph in July), McGrath published

a strong defence of religion titled The Dawkins Delusion - Andrew Crowley for The Telegraph

 

In 2014, after he had returned to Oxford and become professor of science and religion, the requests to meet him started coming in again. This time, however, the discussions were very different. “The tone and the subject of the questions had changed. In these conversations, there was a revival of interest – of people looking, and seeing Christianity as able to answer the questions they were posing.”

 

In McGrath’s experience, an increasingly uncertain world – politically, socially, economically and environmentally – has made many young people look again at religion. So, when they ask to talk to him, what guidance does he give them?

“That as human beings we are all looking for meaning, significance, purpose – and more than that. In my view, Christianity can engage all of these significantly and persuasively. This goes beyond beliefs, to where we’re dealing with the deepest longings and aspirations of humanity.”

 

….

 

McGrath has a clear advantage, to a new generation of seekers, in helping them hear those answers. He has walked the same path. He was a convinced atheist when he arrived at Oxford in 1971 as an 18-year-old undergraduate to study chemistry. “I grew up in the 1960s,” he recalls, “and got caught up in the atheist zeitgeist. I was convinced we were all on the brink of a new progressive, godless age.”

 

Among other things, in the sectarian atmosphere of 1960s Northern Ireland – torn between Protestantism and Catholicism – atheism felt like an escape. “As a 16-year-old, it was obvious. No religion, no religious tensions, no violence. End of problem.”

His parents weren’t “particularly religious”, he says, though enough for young Alister to keep his atheism to himself. As he arrived in Oxford, however, he was looking forward to meeting other atheists and deepening his attachment to it.

 

“But most atheists I met – and there were plenty, because it was so fashionable – just assumed that atheism was the obvious thing for an intelligent person to embrace. It did not require any further intellectual justification.” (Rather like Dawkins, as McGrath sees him.)

 

And then, among McGrath’s fellow chemists, this serious-minded atheist undergraduate found Christians who were only too willing to challenge him in conversation. “And they eventually overcame the seawalls of my defence, if I can put it like that.”

 

McGrath began going to church. It was CS Lewis “more than anyone”, though, who brought him back to God. “Reading his books was my introduction to an intellectually intelligent form of Christianity that was also highly accessible. Through him, I saw that Christianity was not just something at a spiritual level, but could be sustained intellectually.”

 

He continued his chemistry work to postgraduate level, but at the same time read for a theology degree.

 

CS Lewis’s books provided an ‘introduction to an intellectually intelligent form of Christianity’: McGrath (pictured at Oxford in 2005) - Corbis via Getty Images/Andrew Fox

 

It made him the perfect candidate in 2014 for Oxford’s professorship in science and religion. Those two spheres have, in the past four centuries, had a difficult relationship. Take the case of Galileo Galilei, declared a heretic in 1633 and put under house arrest for daring to contradict Rome and insist that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

 

Damien Mackey: But, for quite a different twist on Galileo, see my article:

 

Machiavelli in the name Achitophel, Galileo Galilei in the name Gamaliel

 

(3) Machiavelli in the name Achitophel, Galileo Galilei in the name Gamaliel

 

But McGrath suggests that he is witnessing a new rapprochement between the disciplines.

“It is much more convivial now. A lot more scientists are now feeling more confident in talking about their faith. Science is very good at helping us understand how our world functions, but when it comes to moral values or existential meaning – well, no.”

 

What of artificial intelligence? “I could use AI to tell me where to buy pizza, but it doesn’t know what a pizza is. It is a linguistic world which is derived from observing human beings.” Still, he doesn’t think it’s to be dismissed. “We need to have our eyes wide open at the deep questions it raises, and the risk of crossing a particularly dangerous frontier.”

 

If he’s sceptical of the claims being made about AI, what about the charge regularly directed at the Church of England – namely, that it’s in terminal decline?

 

“I am very sympathetic to Anglicanism, and attend my local Anglican church, but I was disappointed by Justin Welby, who wasn’t particularly inspirational or an original thinker. And Sarah Mullally is the same.”

 

….

 

The BBC isn’t helping, he believes, having cut its religious output hugely in recent decades. “It is losing its way in terms of coverage of religion. I do find myself wishing that they would just have serious theologians just talking…” He pauses for a moment, then adds, in a rare flash of humour: “But I appreciate that that would not attract very many listeners.”

 

On the positive side, though, he feels he is “seeing a quiet re-entry of religion into the political domain”. He points to the Prime Minister, who speaks of the influence of his Catholic upbringing, and the Leader of the Opposition, who has spoken openly about her relationship with faith. I add that there are noisier candidates: Reform, like other Right-wing groups across Europe, has been trying to draw Christianity into their arguments around national identity; one proposed policy, for instance, would ban disused Christian churches from being repurposed as mosques. What does McGrath think of such actors? “There is this new interest [in Christianity], and different people are taking that in different directions,” he says diplomatically. “Some are more appropriate than others.”

 

What he wants to see above all: a return of Christian virtues to public life. “We are living in a culture where what is good is ‘what I want’. What we need is for people to be challenged, with a concept of good that is bigger than any one of us.”

 

Rethinking Christianity: A Thoughtful Guide to a Life-Changing Faith (TN Nelson, £14.99) is out now

 

The deadly persecutions of Trajan Decius

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Decius Valerinus –

the Senate recognized him as emperor, giving him the attribute Traianus 

in reference to Emperor Trajan.

 

 

Plenty of names here for consideration, Traianus being particularly interesting.

Trajan Decius is thought to have reigned in c. 250 AD, about 130 years after the death of the emperor Marcus Ulpius Traianaus (Trajan) (d. 117 AD). However, since the conventional dating for the better-known (though still poorly known) Trajan is some 3 centuries out, it becomes almost inevitable that his namesake, Trajan Decius – who is even more poorly known (see below) – has been wrongly estimated.

 

Let us boil down all of this, as I did in my article:

 

Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

(3) Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him

 

even re-using the same Introduction.

 

Introduction

 

Was history merely rhyming, in the case of the emperor Domitian’s supposed emulation of (the presumably earlier) Augustus, or was it, rather, repeating?

 

Caesar Augustus (cf. Luke 2:1) must have been a highly significant figure in ancient history to have attracted so many who are considered to have been his emulators - or those characters who have been dubbed ‘a New Augustus’.

 

But he, despite his importance, is quite poorly understood – at least according to my reconstructions of him. For one, Caesar Augustus was a Seleucid Greek, not a Roman. He was that tyrannical tormentor of the Maccabees, king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, rather than that moderate and respectable Roman ruler of text book representation.

 

He was one aspiring to be divine (‘Epiphanes’ means God Manifest), but considered by his enemies, instead, to have been a Mad Man (‘Epimanes’).

The Maccabeans labelled him a “butcher”, an “unholy wretch”, and the “most defiled of all men” (cf. 2 Maccabees 7:29, 34).

 

And he was the Grecophile (because he was a Greek) homosexual, Hadrian:

 

A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian

 

(4) A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian

As Hadrian, he was also the prophet Ezekiel’s ill-fated King of Tyre:

 

Putting a face to Ezekiel’s Fallen King of Tyre

 

(6) Putting a face to Ezekiel's Fallen King of Tyre

 

Hadrian, in fact, called Tyre a Metropolis,

“Great City”, Mother of other cities.

 

 

Now, the emperor Hadrian is one of those many who are regarded as having been an emulator of Augustus, and even:

 

[Hadrian] a reincarnation of Augustus

 

(3) Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus

 

Assuredly, Hadrian was an Augustus redivivus!

 

But what about Nero?

 

While the insane, God-aspiring Nero Caesar Augustus can be likened to both identities of Caesar Augustus (above), Hadrian and Augustus, he even having been described as ‘a New Augustus’, I cannot, however, conclude that Nero was yet another alter ego of Augustus – even if we put aside the highly sanitised version of the latter, as he is so often presented, and focus on the tyrannical madman version as can be found in Antiochus ‘Mad Man’, and Hadrian in his excesses.

 

Chronologically, and for other reasons, I do not believe that Nero can be compressed into a Caesar Augustus, but that Nero was ‘a new Augustus’ as his emulator. 

 

Let us pause here for a moment to get our heads around the radical new version of Greco-Roman imperial history that I have so far proposed.

 

Conclusion 1.

 

All of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, Augustus, and Hadrian, need to be wrapped up into the one parcel, as just the one Census emperor at the time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(3) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

More names to be added

 

… we need also to add, radiating out from our base above, the Census emperor Diocletian, who may serve to reinforce the Luke 2 narrative.

 

Prior to my connecting of Diocletian with any census, though, I had found that some scholars were comparing him with Augustus, but especially with the latter’s alter ego (my view), Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. I wrote of this in my article:

 

Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

(6) Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

….

 

Christian History for Everyman

 

The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’.

….

This pattern can partly be perceived from the following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at:

https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/

 

…. When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death. The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.”

 

…. Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian – most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at:

https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html

 

Diocletian and the Great Persecution

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: This was rather, so I think, the Seleucid Greek persecution of the Jews.

 

…. The Great Persecution, from A.D. 303 to 311 [sic], was a time of sudden transition and massive change in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want to focus on.

….

 

The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church

 

Though it's popular to believe that Christians were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true.

 

Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting eight years.

 

The "Great" Persecution?

 

…. It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders.

 

He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor.

 

They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the Scriptures to be burned.

In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see them destroyed or taken over.

 

While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not.

 

It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death.

….

 

Professor Gunnar Heinsohn, for his part, considered Diocletian to have ruled at the very time of Augustus, as noted in the above article:

 

“This transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly responsible for their implementation”.

 

Gunnar Heinsohn

 

By now I was thinking that, if Diocletian - yet another presumed emulator of Augustus - was an actual contemporary, or even more, of Augustus, then there ought to be evidence of a universal Census during Diocletian’s reign.

 

And so I commenced my article:

 

Census of emperor Diocletian

 

(6) Census of emperor Diocletian

 

with this comment:

 

 

If Diocletian, a mirror-image of the emperor Augustus, was, in fact, said Augustus - whom I had already identified with the Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, and with the emperor, Hadrian - then it would be reasonable to expect a significant census of the kingdom to have been issued by Diocletian (cf. Luke 2:1).

 

And my readers were not to be disappointed.

 

In part, I wrote:

 

…. So, as that thought about emperor Diocletian likely issuing a census came to me today (30^th June, 2026), I checked the Internet, and immediately found this truncated piece (my emphasis):

Census - Oxford Reference

“The systematic assessment and registration of people and property by the Roman state. *Diocletian reformed the institution to provide the basis for his new tax regime, with a new Empire-wide census probably completed by 296. ...”.

 

“… a new Empire-wide census …”.

Cf. Luke 2:1: “… a census should be taken of the whole empire”.

 

Zvi Uri Ma‘oz tells of more than one census from the emperor Diocletian, and in reference to the governor of Syria (cf. Luke 2:2):

bisaac,+25+009+Ma'oz+02.pdf

….

 

Apart from Diocletian, the other names that I have added to the ever-growing list of alter egos for Augustus are Caligula and Trajan, who apparently stands in need of some historical and architectural complementation:

 

Where has Trajan’s Forum gone?

 

(6) Where has Trajan’s Forum gone?

 

Trajan I have duly identified with his presumed successor, Hadrian:

 

Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

(6) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

Caligula

 

Caligula was, like Antiochus, quite insane, extremely self-indulgent, and desirous of being worshipped.

He best connects with Caesar Augustus, as does Diocletian, via comparison with the alter ego of Antiochus:

 

Caligula and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’

 

(10) Caligula and Antiochus 'Epiphanes'

 

“What, therefore, do Caligula and Antiochus Epiphanes have in common,

as their reigns pertain to the Jews? Both reigned during a time when the Jews

were abandoning their God and breaking covenant with him on a national scale. The one ruler officially desecrated the Temple, while the other planned to do so. Both rulers were involved in the emperor cult that required

worship from those they ruled”.

 

Edward L. Bromfield

 

“Despite the debate over the precise details of their reigns, there’s no denying

that Caligula and Nero left an indelible mark on Roman history and

popular imagination. Their names have become synonymous with

the worst excesses of power and the corrupting influence of absolute rule”.

 

History Tools

 

One area in which Caligula intertwines with Augustus is with his honouring of the man (official) who was a virtual second emperor to Augustus, Marcus Agrippa.

 

Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

 

(10) Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

 

“Another reason that Caligula produced coins depicting Agrippa

was that it connected him to Augustus because, as mentioned above,

Agrippa was one of Augustus’ closest friends”.

 

Was Agrippa, in fact, ‘one of Caligula’s closest friends’?

 

‘Caligula’ (nickname) bore the very name of Augustus: Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.

 

A note: By way of further confirmation of the legitimacy of my multi-identifying Caesar Augustus - whose well-known ‘second’, or signet man, was Marcus Agrippa - is that his alter egos generally had prominent seconds.

 

I broadly discussed this fascinating situation in my article: 

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(10) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

For instance, the right-hand man in the case of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was Philip the Phrygian (2 Maccabees 5:22): “He appointed governors to cause trouble for the people. In Jerusalem he placed Philip, a man from Phrygia who was more evil than Antiochus himself”.

 

I Maccabees 6:14-15: “Then he summoned Philip, one of his Friends, and put him in charge of his whole kingdom. He gave him his diadem, his robe, and his signet ring …”. 

 

This Philip became the King of Jerusalem, Herod ‘the Great’ Agrippa/Marcus Agrippa, who was second to Augustus.

 

The same situation ought to apply as well to Caligula, exalting Marcus Agrippa.

 

In the case of Hadrian, the second (I am presuming) was, again a Herod, the less well-known Herodes Atticus (a name that also connects with Marcus Agrippa via his wife).

 

In the case of Diocletian, Maximian may have been that right-hand man: “Soon after securing sole control, Diocletian named Maximian as Caesar and, a year later, promoted him to Augustus”.

How Emperor Diocletian prevented Ancient Rome from imploding - History Skills

And so on.

 

Conclusion 2.

 

Potentially to be added to:

 

Augustus Caesar of Luke 2:1 = Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ = Hadrian

 

are:

Caligula = Trajan = Diocletian

Phew!

 

What can we make of all of this?

 

Sources for Decius are ‘fragmentary, late and unreliable’

 

As we are going to learn, we have precious little solid information about Trajan Decius.

 

With regard to our composite Augustus above (our composite Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the great persecutor of the Jews), and Caligula, we have in Trajan Decius the same combination ‘Gaius Caesar’.

That applies, again, to Diocletian: Caesar Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus.

 

With regard to our composite Trajan/Hadrian above, we have in Trajan Decius the name Trajan (Traianus), and the common persecution factor.

 

With regard to Diocletian above, we have the similar name of Valerinus (for Decius) and Valerius (for Diocletian), and the Great Persecution factor in common.

 

Dr. Ilkka Syvänne introduces the sources for Trajan Decius as follows (2011):

 

The Reign of Decius

 

(3) The Reign of Decius

 

“Just like with most of the third century emperors the sources for the reign of Decius are fragmentary, late and often unreliable.

 

In fact, the best of our sources from the point of view of military methods date from the sixth century. These are the works of Jordanes (Getica), Zosimus (New History), and Maurice (Strategikon) …. Jordanes’ Getica can be shown to be very unreliable or utterly false in places …”.

 

Although there is evidence for the existence of a Trajan Decius, he – as a C3rd AD character – is a fictitious composite based upon Caesar Augustus – Trajan/Hadrian. According to my reconstruction of ancient history above, the Great Persecution undertaken by Decius and his composite manifestations would have been aimed at the Jews, rather than the Christians.

It was the deadly persecution of the Seleucid king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.

 

Although, with my collapsing of the time of king Antiochus into the period of the Nativity of Jesus Christ, those who had witnessed the Child Jesus would have lived - and perhaps died - under the Great Persecution of the tyrant ‘Epiphanes’:

 

Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom

 

(3) Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom

 

Once we have crystallised Trajan Decius as a Trajanic persecutor of the Jews at the time of the Maccabees, then the details that we have of his persecution fit very well with that of Antiochus and his henchman, literally standing over the citizens to force them to honour the pagan gods:

Traianus Decius - Numiscurio

 

“In the chaotic mid-third century, a period collectors often refer to as the “Barracks Emperor” era, the accession of Gaius Messius Quintus Decius felt like a stern, metallic echo from a more disciplined past”.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: It was, in fact, that “past”.

 

“When you hold an antoninianus of this emperor, who ruled from 249 to 251 AD, the first thing you notice is the name he chose for his coinage: TRAIANVS DECIVS.

 

By adopting the name of the great Trajan, he wasn’t just claiming a title, he was issuing a manifesto”.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: No, he wasn’t. He was that same Trajan.

 

“He … believed that the only way to save a crumbling Rome was to return to the rugged, traditional virtues that had once made her the master of the world.

 

The General Who Didn’t Want a Crown

 

Decius’s rise to power was a classic tragedy of the Third Century. A respected senator and a battle-hardened military commander, he was the trusted right hand of Philip the Arab. When the Danubian legions revolted in 249 AD, Philip sent Decius to restore order, believing his loyalty was beyond reproach. However, the soldiers, weary of Philip’s perceived weakness and “foreign” eastern influence, saw in Decius a true Roman of the old school. They proclaimed him emperor against his will. In a bitter twist of fate, Decius was forced to lead these very legions against his friend and benefactor at the Battle of Verona. Philip fell, and the Senate, perhaps sensing a return to order, welcomed Decius with open arms and the honorific of a new Trajan.

 

The Libellus: A Mandate for Ancient Piety

 

Decius viewed the internal decay of Rome as a spiritual crisis. He believed the Roman gods had turned their backs on the Empire because the citizens had turned their backs on the old rites. In 250 AD, he issued an unprecedented imperial edict: every citizen in the Empire was required to perform a public sacrifice to the gods and the genius of the Emperor”.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: This is the very same stern edict about which we read in I Maccabees 1:41-53: 

 

Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people and that all should give up their particular customs. All the nations accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the holy ones, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice pigs and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane so that they would forget the Law and change all the ordinances. He added, ‘And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die’.

 

In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. Many of the people, everyone who forsook the Law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.

 

“Upon completion, they were issued a libellus, a small papyrus certificate of compliance. For the growing Christian community, this was a death warrant.

 

Unlike previous local persecutions, this was the first systematic, empire-wide effort to enforce traditional paganism. High-profile martyrs like Pope Fabian fell during this time, while others fled or apostatized. From a numismatic perspective, the coins of this period are a visual litany of “The Great Restoration,” featuring the personifications of the Roman provinces and the gods of the Pantheon, all standing as a bulwark against “foreign” superstitions”.