This is the first post in a series concerning the Roman Emperor Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus (Commodus). I've had to split this topic into several posts, as the sweep of the subject is too grand to fit a single narrative.
It bodes ill when your name calls forth the image of a toilet. But it is not Commodius' fault. The word 'Commode' did not appear in French until 1680. In hindsight, the young Commodus had it all. His father was the illustrious Marcus Aurelius, no less. As it turned out, Aurelius, 'The Philosopher King', would be the last of the 'Five Good Emperors'. His death in 180 AD marked the end of Rome's Golden Age. The stability and prosperity established from the time of Augustus was about to wither, dry up and flop to the side.
The Emperor Commodus was brought forth to the popular imagination due to the film Gladiator (2000), directed by Ridley Scott. A very enjoyable film, by the way. The writing and acting were outstanding, even though historical accuracy was a little off. But that is okay; liberties were taken for viewer enjoyment and breathtaking threatre. Russell Crowe played his part well- this was Crowe at the height of his fame and acting abilities. As I recall, the plot turned on the fact that Marcus Aurelius had recognised his son's inadequacy to rule and, on his deathbed, had entrusted the empire to his general, Maximus (Crowe). In the film, Maximus would act as an interim caretaker and champion the restoration of the glorious Republic. However, Commodus forstalled his father's dream and seized the throne through his evil machinations, and poor Maximus was enslaved and doomed to fight as a gladiator. The man, Maximus, did not exist as a historical figure. In the film, this fictional character acts as a dramatic anchor on which the action turns and writhes. At this stage in Roman history, the 'Glorious Republic' was beyond restoration and twas never to be again, from Augustus until the end.
This post is rapidly turning into a commentary on Gladiator. This is not my original intention. In conclusion, I will say that the opening battle scene between the Romans and Germanic tribes was awesome and epic. Moving on. By the way, Gladioli II is not very good.
There is little doubt that Marcus Aurelius was a wise, competent and highly intelligent ruler. He would likely have divined that his son and heir was unfit to rule. That being the case, why did he put forth his son for the purple? Could it be that Commodius' character defects were not evident when young and only became apparent later under the severe strains and pressures of autocratic rule? However, as argued further on, Aurelius was in a bind when selecting an heir. Regardless, at the time of Aurelius' death (58), by plague, Commodus was eighteen and, indeed, too young to ascend to the throne as sole ruler. To have ultimate power and wealth assembled on such young shoulders was a recipe for a 'Shit Show' unless those shoulders were guided by prudent and sagacious advisers- more on this in the next thrilling instalment. The wise Aurelius had already made Commodus co-ruler when he was just sixteen. This ploy served two purposes: at the time, Aurelius and Commodus were on the western frontier fighting the pugnacious and very naughty Macromani. In this way, Commodus received firsthand war experience and tuition from perhaps the smartest emperor Rome had ever had. Secondly, this would smooth the transmission of power at Aurelius' death. The death of the reigning emperor and the accession of the new was always a perilous time for Rome. A transition, primarily based on heredity, was generally the 'Golden Ticket' but rarely achieved. However, it is worth remembering that there was always a gaggle of ambitious and rich senators /generals crouching in the shadows, ready to usurp the position if circumstances allowed. The lure of the ultimate accolade spurred men to risk all, though most would fail. This situation would inevitably lead to much bloodshed and, on occasion, civil unrest and outright civil war.
Perhaps Aurelius hoped that his wise counsel and 'on-the-job training' would mould his young son into a capable ruler. No doubt, he would have made sure that there were competent advisors to guide the fledging emperor in his early years of rule. His plans were derailed by his early demise. Even the wise Aurelius couldn't have foreseen this untimely problem- 'Of Mice and Men'. Of course, he could have bypassed his son entirely and appointed an emperor based on merit. This would be a recipe for war. Influential individuals would coalesce and influence a disgruntled Commodus, urging him to take the throne by force. The populace would likely support young Commodus. The mob had an uncanny knack for adhering to the children of popular Romans (for example, consider Germanicus and Caligula). Aurelius was well-loved by the common folk and ruled with a sagacious guiding hand. And there was a further problem.
Let us imagine a situation where Aurelius appointed a successor based on his knowledge, political acumen and wisdom, and the juvenile Commodus accepted this political move without rancour. Commodus would have plenty of assets to enjoy a comfortable private life. Why bother to become ruler of Rome's vast territories. It would undoubtedly involve gruelling admin work and vexatious conundrums to ponder. Better to have a quiet life on a country estate far away from the turbulent political machinations of Rome. Better to contemplate a peaceful life of idle/idyll wealth far removed from the irksome intrigues of senators and the incessant rumbling of common folk only interested in the free dole and blood-soaked arena. However, there is a manifest problem with this scenario. Political reality must intervene. There is a saying: 'A plurality of Caesars is no good thing'. Even a sagacious successor possessing a mild and compassionate temperament must be aware that the male offspring of the previous incumbent is a potential focus for future intrigue and plot. However, it cannot be denied that emperors gifted with abundant clemency and compassion will unlikely remain enthroned for long. Ruling the Roman empire was not for the meek and mild. The meek may inherit the world in a work of fiction, but not in this life.
Best to have a potential usurper removed from the political chessboard. Quietly, if possible. Accidents can be contrived and executed with skilled expediency. Do we remember Caesar's son by Cleopatra, Ceasarion (Little Caesar)? No, of course not. Caesarian was executed under the orders of the then Octavian in 30 BC; Caesarian was seventeen. Perhaps this was unnecessary, as Caesarian could never have wielded political power in Rome. Nonetheless, Octavian reasoned that a man bearing Caesar's name was too powerful a symbol to be left alive. Whatever Aurelius thought about Commodius' ability to rule Rome's vast empire, he no doubt wanted him to survive following his death. The filial bond between a father and son is beyond rational measure.
Enough rambling for now. The next post in this series will discuss the events following Commodius' succession and its immediate ramifications.
No comments:
Post a Comment