Marcus Aurelius: Reasons He Wasn't a Great Emperor

[guy]

At another site we discussed a coin of Marcus Aurelius. I flippantly remarked that I didn't think Marcus Aurelius was a great emperor despite Richard Harris's powerful portrayal of him in the movie Gladiator.

 

 

I was soon challenged for daring to criticize the annointed Marcus.

 

I quickly came up with several reasons for my statement. I wanted to offer them here for critique by the folks at UNRV. I already know the many reasons he is a much beloved and respected emperor. I wanted to take the opposite side of the argument.

 

 

Quote

Reasons Marcus Aurelius wasn't a great emperor:

 

1. He broke the string of the five previously competent emperors (the Antonine or Adoptive Emperors) whose succession was based on competence rather than inheritance. Instead, he chose his natural son, the incompetent and possibly psychotic Commodus.

 

2. He needlessly persecuted Christians and other minorities to maintain the Pax deorum (or peace of the gods).

 

3. He foolishly allowed his feckless and corrupt co-emperor Lucius Verus to waste valuable resources during the inept invasion of Parthia for Verus's pursuit of personal glory. Verus later brought back the plague (known as the Antonine plague) from his Eastern campaign, killing millions of Romans and possibly Aurelius himself.

 

4. He instigated fruitless and wasteful wars of aggression against the Germanic tribes, rather than making peace (which Commodus later did).

 

5. He trusted his duplicitous, manipulative, and possibly unfaithful wife, Faustina the Younger.

 

6. He allowed uncertainty and instability to develop in the Empire. This forced the effective and previously loyal general Avidius Cassius to mistakenly rebel when Cassius thought Aurelius was dead. Cassius later died in his unwise rebellion. Cassius would have been a competent and worthy successor to Aurelius. Cassius lacked only one qualification: He was not Aurelius' natural son.

Edited August 12, 2018 by guy

[Ursus]

I think the first point is all that is really needed. He should have spent less time on his philosophical meditations and more attention finding a worthy heir.

[caldrail]

Greatness is largely opinion after all. For every great man, you'll find someone with something nasty to say about him. Whilst I agree Marcus Aurelius wasn't perhaps the best emperor ever to sit on the throne, I would have tio describe him as a relatively lacklustre leader. Then again, what are we comparing him with? Very few emperors made an impression. Many had gotten there by foul means and really only wanted to be important than do important things.

 

The fact that Marcus Aurelius was more inclined to philosophy merely indicates the character he was. Other great leaders in history had similar inclinations that did not interfere with their reputations. What we're missing here is that despite Marcus Aurlius's personal goals, despite the fact he warred with germanic tribes to restore order, he didn't really achieve anything noteworthy. That's what a Roman was remembered for. Peace? Prosperity? Only if he had won it by force of arms. Only if he had earned that elusive glory that was so essential for elevation to heroic status. Unfortunately for our lacklustre emperor, he tended to leave the fighting to his better qualified generals, thus never accrued the reputation among his contemporaries that would read of and admire today.

[Kosmo]

1. He broke the string of the five previously competent emperors (the Antonine or Adoptive Emperors) whose succession was based on competence rather than inheritance. Instead, he chose his natural son, the incompetent and possibly psychotic Commodus.

 

2. He needlessly persecuted Christians and other minorities to maintain the Pax deorum (or peace of the gods).

 

3. He foolishly allowed his feckless and corrupt co-emperor Lucius Verus to waste valuable resources during the inept invasion of Parthia for Verus's pursuit of personal glory. Verus later brought back the plague (known as the Antonine plague) from his Eastern campaign, killing millions of Romans and possibly Aurelius himself.

 

4. He instigated fruitless and wasteful wars of aggression against the Germanic tribes, rather than making peace (which Commodus later did).

 

5. He trusted his duplicitous, manipulative, and possibly unfaithful wife, Faustina the Younger.

 

6. He allowed uncertainty and instability to develop in the Empire. This forced the effective and previously loyal general Avidius Cassius to mistakenly rebel when Cassius thought Aurelius was dead. Cassius later died in his unwise rebellion. Cassius would have been a competent and worthy successor to Aurelius. Cassius lacked only one qualification (in Aurelius

[guy]

 

 

Thanks everyone for reading and replying to my post.

 

One day, if I find the time, I will rebut some of the criticisms to my tirade against Marcus Aurelius.

 

Till then, here is an interesting video about the bizarre Faustina-Avidius Cassius-Marcus Aurelius love triangle:

(Broken link to video)

 

 

Quote

Emperor Avidius Cassius Of The Roman Empire

 

In 175 he was proclaimed Roman Emperor after the erroneous news of the death of Marcus Aurelius; the sources also indicate he was encouraged by Marcus's wife Faustina, who was concerned about her husband's ill health, believing him to be on the verge of death, and felt the need for Cassius to act as a protector in this event, since her son Commodus was still young (13). The evidence, including Marcus's own Meditations, supports the idea that Marcus was indeed quite ill, but by the time Marcus recovered, Cassius was already fully acclaimed by the Egyptian legions of II Traiana Fortis and XXII Deitoriana.

 

At first, according to Cassius Dio, Marcus, who was on campaign against tribes in the north, tried to keep the rebellion a secret from his soldiers, but after the news had spread among them, he addressed them. In this speech that Dio attributes to Marcus, he laments the disloyalty of "a dearest friend", while at the same time expressing his hope that Cassius would not be killed or commit suicide, so that he could show mercy. The Senate declared Cassius a public enemy.

Here is another video that touches on the subject. (See 30:00 to 39:00)

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by guy

[Caius Maxentius]

I've always thought of Aurelius as a good emperor who came to power at a challenging time. The long wars and plague which were not his fault put his administration and leadership to the test, and he didn't do badly, but as Caldrail suggests, he didn't do great either. I wonder if Pius or Hadrian would have done much better given the same circumstances.

[DecimusCaesar]

I've never quite understood Edwrad Gibbon's claim that the age of the Good Emperors, which includes the reign of Marcus Aurelius, was a golden age. Didn't the Roman army suffer horrific casualties in his wars against the Marcomanni? Not only that, you also have one of the worst ever plagues to hit Europe taking place during his reign, with millions dead.

 

Marcus Aurelius was hardly to blame for the plague, but I hardly think his reign was a Golden Age for the Roman people.

[caldrail]

1. This accusal is very unfair. Commodus was 18 when Marcus Aurelius died so it would have been hard for the father to correctly asses the adult behavior of his son and spot eventual future problems. Aurelius also died fairly young at age 58 after a sudden illness so he probably expected to have more time to educate his heir. Commodus was picked for succession since he was just 5 old when he became Caesar in 166. In 176 he became Imperator and in177 Augustus, becoming formally co-ruler at age 16. If his father would have decided after this to pick another heir/co-emperor is certain that eventually a power struggle would have ensued, maybe as a civil war. Even The 5 Good Emperors were adopted because of the importance of dynastic legitimacy. Commodus was adult so raising another emperor to act as a regent for him like Antoninus Pius did for him was unnecessary and risky. The only way Marcus Aurelius could have picked another heir without pushing the empire to crisis was to kill his own son and this a too high expectation even for a stoic.

 

Romans matured a lot sooner than we do these days (teenagers were not invented back then) plus youngsters from high status families were groomed for their careers generally speaking. After all, Commodus was co-emperor for a few years before Marcus Aurelius died so I guess he'd gotten some idea of the lads potential.

 

Choosing his son (which he did - despite at least two hollywood epics to the contrary) was simply a means to ensure a smooth transition of power as it would have been known and accepted by the majority ahead of time. In fairness however the smoothness was never going to be guaranteed.

[DecimusCaesar]

Romans matured a lot sooner than we do these days (teenagers were not invented back then) plus youngsters from high status families were groomed for their careers generally speaking. After all, Commodus was co-emperor for a few years before Marcus Aurelius died so I guess he'd gotten some idea of the lads potential.

 

Didn't upper-class Roman males become adults at the age of 14 on average?

[Lucius Venustinius Cavus]

I noticed while doing just a general reading of Avidius Cassius, that Faustina supposedly feared the growing power of Lucilla's husband, Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus. But he turned down the thrown several times after the death of Marcus, so that does not seem to hold water. It seems to me that she was every bit the schemer, perhaps instigating Cassius to claim the throne after the erroneous news of the Emperors death reached him. Up until declaring for the Purple, Avidius Cassius was well loved by both Verus and Aurelius. On another forum it is stated he did not even mint coins, which is very rare. Perhaps he did it to safeguard Aurelius' legacy and family. He is a very interesting man with an even more interesting bloodline.