The story of Marcus Aurelius and his son, who succeeded him as emperor, is one of intrigue, power struggles, and tragedy.
Despite knowing the potential dangers of his son’s character, Marcus chose to name him as his successor. But why did he make this decision? What factors influenced his choice?
In this article, we will delve into the historical context and explore the possible reasons behind Marcus Aurelius’ controversial decision.
Join us as we uncover the secrets of one of Rome’s most fascinating emperors and his ill-fated heir.
Why Did Marcus Aurelius Choose Commodus
There are several factors that may have influenced Marcus Aurelius’ decision to choose his son, despite knowing the potential dangers of his character.
Firstly, it is important to understand the political climate of the time. Marcus Aurelius was a sickly emperor, and rumors of his death had spread across the empire. This led to a civil war, with Avidius Cassius being acclaimed emperor by the Egyptian legion. Marcus survived, but he was aware that Cassius presented a potential threat and he was cautious about a situation like this arising again.
Secondly, Marcus may have wanted to ensure a smooth succession. By naming his son as his successor, he could avoid any uncertainty or power struggles that may have arisen if he had not named a clear heir.
Thirdly, it is possible that Marcus wanted to protect his son from danger. By bringing him to the military camp in Pannonia and having him take the toga virilis, signifying that he had become an adult Roman citizen, Marcus may have been trying to build support for him among the northern legions and put him in a position to assume power.
Lastly, it is important to note that Marcus may not have been fully aware of his son’s character at the time of his decision. While Commodus turned out to be a bad emperor, his character at this point was probably unknown to Marcus. However, it is clear that Cassius was known to be a brutal man and Marcus and the Senate perhaps feared the possibility that he would claim the throne and become a tyrannical ruler.
The Historical Context: Rome In The 2nd Century AD
The 2nd century AD was a time of relative stability and prosperity for the Roman Empire. It was a period known as the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, which saw the empire expand to its greatest extent and enjoy a period of economic growth and cultural flourishing.
During this time, the empire was ruled by a series of “Good Emperors,” who were known for their wise and just rule. These emperors included Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. They oversaw a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for nearly a century.
However, the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD marked the end of this era of stability. His son Commodus succeeded him to the throne, and his reign was marked by corruption, debauchery, and incompetence. This led to a period of decline and chaos that lasted for several decades.
The reasons for this decline are complex and multifaceted. Some historians point to economic factors, such as inflation and overreliance on slave labor. Others point to political factors, such as the breakdown of the Roman political system and the rise of military dictatorships.
Regardless of the specific causes, it is clear that Rome in the 2nd century AD was a complex and dynamic society. It was a time of great achievement and prosperity, but also a time of great challenges and uncertainty. The decision by Marcus Aurelius to name Commodus as his successor marked a turning point in Roman history, one that would have far-reaching consequences for centuries to come.
The Character Of Commodus: A Portrait Of A Troubled Prince
Commodus was the son and heir of Marcus Aurelius, and he ruled Rome from 180 to 193 A.D. Despite his hereditary right to the throne, Commodus was despised by the people due to his cruel and bestial disposition. He was known for his arbitrary and vicious rule, which precipitated civil strife that ended 84 years of stability and prosperity within the empire.
Commodus’ character was troubled from the start. He quickly came to terms with the invading German tribes along the Danube after his father’s death, a move that was seen as a betrayal by many Romans. He also changed his name to Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus, perhaps in an attempt to legitimize his rule by associating himself with his revered father.
Commodus’ rule became increasingly arbitrary and vicious over time. He executed a number of leading senators after a failed assassination attempt by his sister Lucilla in 182. He then had his chief minister executed in order to appease the army in 186, and allowed the minister’s successor to be killed by a rioting crowd three years later. Political influence then passed to the emperor’s mistress and two advisers.
Commodus’ mental state also deteriorated over time. He gave Rome a new name, Colonia Commodiana (Colony of Commodus), and imagined that he was the god Hercules, entering the arena to fight as a gladiator or to kill lions with bow and arrow. His advisors had him strangled by a champion wrestler on December 31, 192, following his announcement the day before that he would assume the consulship, dressed as a gladiator.
The Succession Crisis: Why Marcus Aurelius Had To Name A Successor
The succession crisis that arose during Marcus Aurelius’ reign made it imperative for him to name a clear successor. As a sickly emperor, rumors of his death had spread across the empire, leading to a civil war and the potential for power struggles if he were to die without naming an heir. Additionally, the threat presented by Avidius Cassius, who was acclaimed emperor by the Egyptian legion, made it necessary for Marcus to ensure a smooth succession and avoid any uncertainty or danger. By naming his son Commodus as his successor, Marcus may have also been trying to protect him from harm and build support for him among the northern legions. While Commodus’ character was unknown at the time of Marcus’ decision, it is clear that Cassius was known to be a brutal man, and the possibility of him claiming the throne and becoming a tyrannical ruler was a concern for Marcus and the Senate. Therefore, in light of these circumstances, Marcus Aurelius had no choice but to name a successor in order to maintain stability and prevent further political crises.
The Dilemma Of Choosing An Heir: The Pros And Cons Of Commodus
Choosing an heir is a difficult decision for any leader, and Marcus Aurelius was no exception. While Commodus was eventually proven to be a disastrous choice, there were some potential advantages to choosing him as successor.
One advantage was that Commodus was Marcus’ biological son. In ancient Rome, a natural succession from father to son was what most emperors wanted. By choosing Commodus, Marcus may have been adhering to this tradition and ensuring that his bloodline continued to rule.
Another advantage was that Commodus was already familiar with the workings of the empire. As co-emperor, he had already been involved in some of the decision-making processes and had some experience in ruling. This could have made the transition smoother and less disruptive than if a completely new ruler had been chosen.
However, there were also some disadvantages to choosing Commodus. As mentioned earlier, his character was unknown at the time of Marcus’ decision. It is possible that Marcus may have perceived him as a “problem child”, but felt he had no better option than his son as successor.
Additionally, Commodus was not well-liked by many in the empire. He was known for his reckless behavior, narcissism, and psychopathic tendencies. This could have made it difficult for him to gain the support of the people and maintain stability in the empire.
Ultimately, it is impossible to know exactly what factors influenced Marcus’ decision to choose Commodus as his successor. However, it is clear that there were both potential advantages and disadvantages to this choice.
The Legacy Of Marcus Aurelius And Commodus: Lessons From Ancient Rome
The legacy of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus is a complex one, with both father and son leaving a lasting impact on ancient Rome.
Marcus Aurelius was known for his philosophical writings, particularly his Meditations, which are still studied today. He was also a successful military leader, leading campaigns against the Germanic tribes in the north. However, his reign was marked by economic difficulties and political instability.
Commodus, on the other hand, is remembered as one of the worst emperors in Roman history. He was known for his cruelty and extravagance, spending vast amounts of money on gladiatorial games and other entertainments. His reign was marked by corruption and incompetence, and he was eventually assassinated in a plot led by members of the Praetorian Guard.
Despite these differences, there are lessons to be learned from both Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Marcus’ emphasis on philosophy and self-reflection can be seen as a model for leadership today. His commitment to duty and the common good is an example that leaders can follow.
Commodus, meanwhile, serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of good governance. His reign shows how easily a ruler can become corrupt and how quickly a once-great empire can fall into decline.
Overall, the legacy of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus is a complex one, but it offers valuable insights into leadership, governance, and the challenges of maintaining a stable society.
