Editing Maximian (section)

==Maximian appointed Augustus==
{{Multiple image
| image1            = Detail of a statue of Maximian.jpg
| image2            = MSR Maximien Hercule donnant le signal d'ouverture des jeux.jpg
| footer            = Fragmentary [[Relief#High relief|high relief]] statue of Maximian, [[Musée Saint-Raymond]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Capus |first=Pascal |url=https://www.villachiragan.saintraymond.toulouse.fr/partie-04-l-antiquite-tardive/ra-50-bis-ra-97-ra-98-maximilien-hercule-jeux |title=Maximien Hercule (?) donnant le signal d'ouverture des jeux |date=2019 |publisher=Musée d’Archéologie de Toulouse |isbn=978-2-909454-41-2 |language=fr-FR}}</ref>
| total_width       = 350
}}
Spurred by the crisis with Carausius, on 1 April 286,{{sfnm|1a1=Barnes|1y=1981|1pp=6–7|2a1=Potter|2y=2004|2p=282|3a1=Southern|3y=2001|3pp=141–42}}{{efn|The chronology of Maximian's appointment as emperor is somewhat uncertain ({{harvnb|Corcoran|2006|p=40}}; {{harvnb|Southern|2001|p=142}}). As explained before, it is sometimes argued that Maximian was directly appointed emperor in 285. This suggestion has not received much support ({{harvnb|Potter|2004|p=281}}; {{harvnb|Southern|2001|p=142}}; following ''De Casearibus'' 39.17).}} Maximian took the title of ''[[Augustus (honorific)|Augustus]]'' (emperor).<ref>Barnes, ''Constantine and Eusebius'', 7; Bleckmann; Corcoran, "Before Constantine", 40; Potter, 282; Southern, 141–42; Williams, 48.</ref> This gave him the same status as Carausius – so the clash was between two ''Augusti'', rather than between an ''Augustus'' and a ''Caesar'' – and, in Imperial propaganda, Maximian was proclaimed Diocletian's brother, his equal in authority and prestige.{{sfn|Williams|1997|pp=47–48}} Diocletian could not have been present at Maximian's appointment, as he was somewhere between [[Byzantium]] ([[Istanbul]], [[Turkey]]), where he is attested for 22 March 286, and [[Tiberias]], where he is attested from 31 May 286 through 31 August. {{sfnm|1a1=Barnes|1y=1982|1pp=50–51|2a1=Potter|2y=2004|2pp=282, 649}} [[Otto Seeck]] suggests that Maximian usurped the title and was only later recognized by Diocletian in hopes of avoiding civil war. This suggestion has not won much support, and the historian William Leadbetter has recently refuted it.{{sfn|Potter|2004|pp=282, 649}} Despite the physical distance between the emperors, Diocletian trusted Maximian enough to invest him with imperial powers, and Maximian still respected Diocletian enough to act in accordance with his will.{{sfnm|1a1=Potter|1y=2004|1p=282|2a1=Williams|2y=1997|2p=49}}

In theory, the Roman Empire was not divided by the dual ''imperium''. Though divisions did take place – each emperor had his own court, army, and official residences – these were matters of practicality, not substance. Imperial propaganda from 287 on insists on a singular and indivisible Rome, a ''patrimonium indivisum''.{{sfnm|1a1=Bowman|1y=2005|1p=70|2a1=Potter|2y=2004|2p=283, 65|3a1=Williams|3y=1997|3pp=49, 65}} As the panegyrist of 289 declares to Maximian: "So it is that this great empire is a communal possession for both of you, without any discord, nor would we endure there to be any dispute between you, but plainly you hold the state in equal measure as once those two [[Heracleidae]], the [[Kings of Sparta|Spartan Kings]], had done."<ref>''Panegyrici Latini'' 10(2)9.4, quoted in {{harvnb|Potter|2004|p=283}}</ref> Legal rulings were given and imperial celebrations took place in both emperors' names, and the same coins were issued in both parts of the empire. Diocletian sometimes issued commands to Maximian's province of Africa; Maximian could presumably have done the same for Diocletian's territory.{{sfnm|1a1=Potter|1y=2004|1p=283|2a1=Williams|2y=1997|2pp=49, 65}}