In the reign of Diocletian events somewhat similar occurred. The Britons again revolted; Egypt was again the scene of fresh discord and confusion, and though the various attempts to throw off the Roman yoke still proved abortive, the general decline of intellectual power among the Roman people became so apparent that fresh enemies arose against her in almost every quarter. The Veneti, who, four centuries before, had given Julius Cæsar[332] no little trouble ere he reduced them to subjection, perceiving the weakness of Rome and the impunity with which her territory had been ravaged by the Northern hordes, rose in arms against her, and exercising an arbitrary dominion over the seas that washed their coasts, exacted tribute from all strangers, and for a while successfully bade defiance to Rome, whose mariners dreaded the navigation of the Bay of Biscay. [Sidenote: Constantinople founded, A.D. 323.] [Sidenote: Its commercial advantages, and harbour.] The reign, too, of Diocletian, who seems to have had an especial dislike for Rome and the senate, saw the commencement of a new system of imperial government, which, afterwards more fully developed by Constantine, led to the removal of the chief seat of government to Constantinople, a change which exerted a vast influence on commerce, and essentially altered the course of navigation. The splendid position of Constantinople, especially for all purposes of sea-borne trade, has been fully noticed by every author who has treated of this subject; and it seems probable that, when brought into communication with the whole of Europe, by means of the railways now fast approaching completion, it will rival in greatness any commercial city of the continent. The new route to India by way of the Suez canal, of which advantage will, no doubt, be taken by the establishment of a line of steamers to Port Said, cannot fail to afford it such facilities for becoming a great depôt for the produce of the East Indies, that it will be the fault of its government and of its merchants if it does not again assume and surpass the rank it held soon after its re-construction by Constantine the Great. Gibbon’s description of its position is as applicable now as ever.[333] “The imperial city,” he remarks, “may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus. The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbour; and the southern is washed by the Propontis, or Sea of Marmora: the basis of the triangle is opposed to the west, and terminates the continent of Europe.”