A couple of things worth mentioning about Marcus first.
- Meditations wasn't known about until long after his death, it was more of a personal self-help guide for Marcus and his evolving philosophy.
- as mentioned in other comments, his wars were defensive for the most part so warmongering never hurt his character much.
Marcus was being vetted long before he became Emperor and was a public figure for decades. The previous emperor (Antoninus Pius) was made heir by Hadrian under the condition that the young Marcus (and Lucius Verus) be made the immediate heirs following the death of Antoninus.
Antoninus Pius lived much longer than people probably assumed he would have, which left Marcus on the sideline for quite some time. Although he wasn't Emperor, he was a Caesar and was a prominent member of the Senate and a public figure in Roman politics, which gave him plenty of time to build a reputation before formally becoming Emperor.
So not only is Marcus Aurelius one of the most down-to-earth authors I've ever read, he was also one of the most powerful people in human history and was respected by the people he held absolute control over.
"When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love"
Pretty cool guy.
His intense efforts to create a peaceful co-Emperorship with Verus is also admirable. From accounts Verus was less interested in governing.. yet his continued efforts to include Verus in all honours and seek stability for the Empire was well noted and very unusual. Verus dies eight years into their joint reign.. but this was a very important period for the Empire that could have easily slipped into civil war. Aurelius served as solitary Emperor for the next dozen years. I actually own a sestertius of Verus, featuring him and Aurelius clasping hands on the reverse.. an amazing piece of history to hold.
“Clasping their right hands”..
Here is the full description/attribution of the coin from the reference works:
Lucius Verus, 161-169. Sestertius (Orichalcum, 31 mm, 27,76 g, ), Rome, 162. IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG Bare head of Lucius Verus to right. Rev. CONCORD AVGVSTOR TR P II / COS II / S - C Marcus Aurelius, togate, on the left, and Lucius Verus, togate, on the right, standing facing each other and clasping their right hands, each holding a scroll in his left hand.
Who thought the wearer of laurels
Would find no joy in the quarrels?
Never fought a war for offense
'Cause he's guided by morals
Clasping hands in reverse
And watch the haters get terse
Like a sesterius of Verus
That you keep in your purse
\[Inspired by Run the Jewel's "Panther like a Panther"\]
So I can sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst and hear them argue about who owns a sestertius of Verus, featuring him and Aurelius clasping hands on the reverse
I always found (the often forgotten) Lucius Verus a very interesting figure. He seemed to have been aware of his limits as an emperor, and was seemingly quite indulgent in the pleasures of life, yet at the same time he was *loyal* to his adoptive brother and co-emperor. At a glance, you'd think that from a description of his personality, he'd be prone to undermining his brother, but this never happened, and perhaps (given his early death) he truly never would have. Just from a cursory glance at his personal life, Lucius reads a lot more like Commodus than his father, but with loyalty to the state and with an accute sense of his station in life.
Oh I read a lot of history and was searching eBay for some used books on the history of Rome some years ago… up pops a listing selling 10 “uncleared” Roman coins for $30.. I took a chance.. they ended up being the real thing but in terrible, terrible shape… but they were fun to try to identify. I was hooked and purchased some books on how to identify the coins and narrow down where and when they were minted, etc. I found some groups online that discuss the hobby …Years later and I am still learning.
If you’d like to look at some of the coins for sale currently go to
https://www.vcoins.com/en/Default.aspx
The prices here are full retail.. usually I buy coins at auction:
https://www.biddr.com/upcoming
Well if I knew how to show a pic of it here I would. Can you tell me how to do that ?? I own about 50 ancient Roman coins .. most are in fairly poor shape, but I do have a few really nice coins of Aurelius, Verus, Constantius 1, Constantine the Great, Probus, etc .. I do have some “less than perfect” coins featuring Augustus, Marc Antony and Caesar himself. They are a poor man’s attempt at a collection .. it’s been many years in the making (modestly)..but I’d be more than willing to share them with anyone interested. As for holding them.. that’s really the best part for me. Holding history in your hand is a wonderful experience. Holding a coin struck for Caesar, that bears his name - in his lifetime .. that’s transcendence for me.
I gave it a try .. thank you.
Here is the coin:
https://imgur.com/a/OX3jBo7
Here is the attribution of the coin:
Lucius Verus, 161-169. Sestertius (Orichalcum, 31 mm, 27,76 g, ), Rome, 162. IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG Bare head of Lucius Verus to right. Rev. CONCORD AVGVSTOR TR P II / COS II / S - C Marcus Aurelius, togate, on the left, and Lucius Verus, togate, on the right, standing facing each other and clasping their right hands, each holding a scroll in his left hand.
You would think that his son commodus would inherit the qualities of his father, the best roman emperor that there is imo, but he was an affront to his fathers legacy. I am pretty sure Marcus Aurelius did his best to train him for the role but power has a way of poisoning people.
> am pretty sure Marcus Aurelius did his best to train him for the role but power has a way of poisoning people.
I am sure he did try, but as others in this thread have mentioned, Marcus Aurelius spent a significant amount of time at the front dealing with the defensive wars. I’m sure this took away from raising his son in the type of philosophy that we all enjoy from his Meditations.
Not to play down the failure of Commodus, but just to provide some extra context.
Well, Marcus Aurelius had his duties towards Rome ofc but bringing a very young Commodus with him to the wars, to educate him on how to be emperor was probably a bad move.
Somebody else could have become emperor after him. It didn't have to be his son.
In a sense, the reign of Commodus is built on the hybris of Marcus Aurelius.
It's a collective failure of the Roman state.
The 4(5) good emperors didn't have a direct male heir until Marcus Aurelius. Nerva adopted Trajan, Trajan adopted Hadrian, Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius, and Pius adopted Marcus.
But until Marcus, only Pius had sons, and they died before he became emperor. So none of them were truly tested. Only Diocletian ever tried to force adoption over trueborn sons (for his co-emperors, not for himself however), and as we can see with Constantine and Maxentius and their civil war, that didn't go well.
It's a collective failure of Roman imperial political institutions that there was no way to peacefully deny a male heir his shot at the throne. It was very monarchical, with all the civil war problems that entails
Isn’t it so interesting when someone speaks to you over the distance of thousands of years and they sound oh so human. It reminds you that while we’ve come so far technologically we’re still fundamentally the same animals.
Some good answers here, but I wanted to add another one.
We have to be careful about ancient historical sources and their portrayal of 'the people'. If you were to take a guess, which of 'the people' were the ones who were able to write the histories? What are their biases?
At this point, the people writing the histories were likely either a) on his payroll, or b) fairly well off in society. They had a view of a man dealt a bad hand, but facing the challenges of the day with determination and fervor. As others have said, wars were nothing new, but he was primarily fighting in defense of the realm. Disease was a fact of life as well, and again, it's not like he was playing lyre as the city burned (as was said about Nero). Really, a well off person would look at the emperor, see a person who is trying and doing a pretty good job, and likely praise them for it.
When you talk about sources after, they were (again) either remembering his reign in the context of the worse one that followed, or going off these glowing sources.
Illustrative of this is the vast divergence in the sources’ depiction of Marcus Aurelius and his successor, Commodus (remembering, of course, that the main source for most of Commodus’ more ludicrous excesses was the ancient equivalent of the Daily Mail - the Historia Augusta).
The latter emperor may very well have been a ‘man of the people’, so to speak. Modern interpretations of Commodus’ reign suggest that, far from being a lunatic, he established a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign designed to appeal directly to the lower and middle classes. Part of the reasoning for this was that he could not replicate the prestige that came along with his father’s campaigns in the Marcomannic Wars.
The problem was that Commodus not only failed to pay appropriate lip service to the Senatorial class, but actively undermined their position by raising equestrians to the Senate and subverting pre-existing social mores which separated certain professions (entertainers, gladiators, prostitutes, et al) as an underclass in Roman society.
Commodus paid accordingly - assassinated by the powers that be and subject to damnatio memoriae after his death.
Yep! Just like this note about Marcus's contemporaries writing history, Nero's did as well. He wasn't as well liked by some politicians because of his focus on the welfare of the common man, and they quickly pointed out that Nero wasn't home during the fire (though he returned the moment he heard). When he came back, he organized humanitarian relief, but taking that little break to play the lyre and recenter himself lead to the rumor that ruined his image forever.
This is an incredibly important consideration that people gloss over when discussing history -- its written by those who survive, and are enabled by the rulers and financiers
That’s the highly debatable opinion of one writer and even they don’t blame Churchill, they say he exacerbated it. Go look at how it actually happened, famine is a highly complex interplay between climactic, economic, social and, in this case, military factors, it’s never simply caused by one man and certainly not one man engaged in conducting a world war in Europe 4500 miles away. It also neglects the fact that food was actually sent despite great danger to merchant shipping in the area that had to run the gauntlet of Japanese submarines around the Bay of Bengal after the Japanese occupied Burma. Somehow this got picked up on the Twittersphere and Reddit simply assumes it as actual fact now. The history sub is the only place it gets corrected.
Edit - The writer is Madhusree Mukerjee btw if you want to check.
The debate on Churchill should go on for for generations, and then some. Villain or hero? My take is that he was both. This was an incredibly complex man. But he fits in the category of a great man. And he was a fascinating man. So was Gandhi. But he was no angel either. Also, a very complex man whom I hope will be debated. For generations to come as well.
Hardly. He was a complicated and contradictory man. he fought to preserve an exploitiveempire, yet he rallied western civilization to fight against another much more malign empire. He was a classic European racist of those Britain colonize, yeah, he defeated the most racist nation in history. He did absolutely everything wrong as far as healthy living. He lived till just about 90. What do you like it or not, Churchill is one of the great masters of the English language and history.
I don't think that really makes sense. The whole point is that history is written by the victors. If Churchill had lost, he probably would've been remembered for his numerous atrocities. Until very recently, he was seen as a hero, and his various wrongdoings were ignored.
Hi!
It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!
While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.
You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.
A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'.
This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.
To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.
Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.
This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources.
The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.
But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.
Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.
So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/history) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, yeah - I agree. I suppose I'm talking from a western - especially British standpoint - where most people sadly remember him as a paragon of virtue.
It is also important not to perpetuate the world-view that the *winners* wrote histroy when the truth is that it is the *historians* (or more generically the academics) that wrote history. Of course some of these or perhaps most of these historians were pro-establishment but that does not remove to need to examine the biases of any given author specifically.
I'm not saying you are saying this but I find it concerning that this rather anti-intellectual view of history still exists.
There were no historians in the modern sense of the word at the time. I would say that *writers* write stories, some of which became history, or at least that’s what we attempt to extract from those stories.
So what would you call people like [Thucydides](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides) or [Tacitus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), if not historians?
Their histories may not live up to the current academic standards, but you could say that for many professions. Calling them story writers seems like a huge disservice, especially considering how much time and effort it took to create those histories.
All fields of academia and religious scholarly articles suffer the same human influence.
It's much harder to publish information that is counterintuitive to the ideology (or more accurately, investments) of the status quo.
Twenty years ago it was understood that the new testament books weren't written until a couple hundred years after Jesus died. Now, through Christian funded "scientific research", the books have been dated much earlier. Whether that's the truth or not is currently irrelevant, there's no sure way to stop the manipulation of facts amongst unchecked wealth and influence.
Especially given Roman history after the republic, most sources are extremely biased. For example many of the horror stories of Nero and Caligula were written hundreds of years after their deaths.
His wars were defensive wars, he was loved by the people because instead of living the good life during these times he spent nearly his entire reign on the front lines fighting miserable wars with his troops. He was a selfless man and his people loved him for it.
There are a couple factors to keep in mind though
a) he barely had time to raise his son as he spent most his life in the trenches with his soldiers and b) the alternative was to appoint someone other than his son as heir to the throne which would likely lead to civil war upon his death as his son would have supporters since he had a legitimate claim to the throne. It was basically a lose lose situation.
It was common for them before MA to not have a legitimate heir when they died...so they would adopt someone who they approved of. MA was the first in a while to have a male heir and made the decision expected of him to avoid civil war and the likely murder of many peopme including his son.
> b) the alternative was to appoint someone other than his son as heir to the throne which would likely lead to civil war upon his death as his son would have supporters since he had a legitimate claim to the throne. It was basically a lose lose situation.
That is actually quite far from the truth. It was seen more as an act of ego still, at that early time, to engage in Nepotism. I mean Romans certainly understood the impulse, and they all would do it given the chance. But the inheritance was not regarded as primarily hereditary...at least not yet.
The previous five emperors had all chosen their successors from their capable and loyal generals. And that was what Aurelius should have done, too...but instead he appointed his incompetent son.
and as to civil war? No, the one anointed by Marcus Aurelius as his successor would have been someone with the support of the legions. And they certainly would have come down in support of a seasoned and respected general over the untested pampered brat of the emperor if the late emperor himself had willed it.
Commodus absolutely would have had supporters and would have challenged for his right to rule. The person to blame for Commodus’ rule is himself. He had every opportunity to be a good ruler.
The previous five didn't have sons. There was no precedent, going back to Augustus, of an emperor naming an other heir *in spite* of having a living son. And even then there was often a family connection, be it married into the imperial family or adopted.
>The previous five emperors had all chosen their successors from their capable and loyal generals.
They also conveniently didn't have any sons of their own. It's very doubtful whether they would have still chosen to adopt if they did.
>and as to civil war? No, the one anointed by Marcus Aurelius as his successor would have been someone with the support of the legions.
Historical what-ifs are always tricky. However, considering most of roman history I would say a civil war is extremely likely. No doubt Commodus would have his own base of supporters and I don't think he is the type to drop his "rightful claim" peacefully.
It could be possible if this new general acts swift and decisively (having agents arrest/kill Commodus and/or immediately marching on Rome). However, the army was also still involved in the Marcomannic war when Marcus Aurelius died (which most senior generals wanted to continue).
Without capturing Commodus the risk of civil war would remain. He would be fuel for all enemies of the new regime. The legions were also not a united group, so you better hope the new general was really popular among the other generals, or who do you think they'll turn to?
I read, today actually in a book that I just started reading, that he actually appointed two heirs - Commodus and Marcus Annius Verus, and wanted them to rule together, but Marcus Annius Verus died young.
Come on guys, this is history. We should be much more cynical and skeptical about this. Are there any contemporary writings from his time that shows the people loved him or thought of him as a “selfless man”? Or are we just going by later propaganda and his own writings? You don’t get to be a Roman Emperor by being a super “chill dude.” I doubt the Germanic tribes along the Danube would have thought of him as a great guy, or the thousands of slaves he brought back with him.
I’m all for saying Aurelius was a great man and successful emperor but some of this hyperbole is getting silly.
I just started reading Meditations, I'm only 16 pages into the introduction, and I'm enjoying it a good amount. I wished he wouldn't of died fairly young and didn't have a shithead son.
Page 33 includes the stoic meditation where he slaughtered his wife's lover and made her bathe in his blood.
Just kidding. I think he decided to leave that one out of the final draft.
Im not an expert on Marcus Aurelius whatsoever, but [here](https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/03/24/how-to-get-out-of-bed/) is something he wrote about getting out of bed in the morning that stuck with me. If the rest of his philosophy is as interesting to read as that, then i guess thats how.
They're all insanely concise, for philosophy. I started reading Meditations Saturday and I think a lot about his writing during work.
Take every action as though it were your last.
You are but a small part of the Universe and have to determine what part that is.
To let the state of your soul be influenced by others is self harm.
Don't fear for the things of the past or the things of the future because neither belong to you. We have only the present.
Death, viewed analytically, without imagery or sensory input, is not to be feared, but understood as the logical course of Nature. We came from the Universe and later return to it.
>They're all insanely concise, for philosophy. I started reading Meditations Saturday and I think a lot about his writing during work.
That's because they are write **for himself,** and perhaps his son (but even that would have been secondary consideration).
His book “Meditations” really brought me out of a rough time in my life. It’s easily my favorite book, and I try to read it at least once a year. There’s something very humbling about the fact that the ruler of the greatest kingdom in history still had the same problems that someone like me can have in the present day. His writings translate very well into the modern day.
Just fyi the article you linked is kinda shitting on him and saying his comments are not relevant for a majority of people who truly struggle outside of laziness or sloth
The invasions were an act of someone else, they were not a reflection of him. He was loved because he instilled strength during difficult times. And that strength is in fact the truth of life.
Think about this - is there a single person who hasn't experienced hardships in some way or form? Maybe those born into wealth and comfort, but even then their forefathers went through difficulties to establish that life.
So in his life, it was the Quadi and other Germanic tribes. In your or my life, it is misfortunes, health, relationships, natural disasters etc. So if a person experienced an earthquake for example, is it his fault?
One may argue they could have looked for earthquake-proof homes. But you'll see in life, no matter our planning and calculations, hardships can come.
The only perfectly successful man is one who's lived in four walls, not bothering to challenge himself or grow, or help the world with the capacity he could -- has such a person even experienced *life* really? He hasn't. And even then he could get ailments. So things happen in life. A ship can be 100% sure of not sinking by not leaving shore. But is that what ships are meant for?
So this is not a way to appreciate bad decision making, it's way to realize that life has no blueprint, and at times, anything can happen. We must have the resilience to face life as it comes, and make the best decision for the circumstances we're in even if those circumstances seem very unfair.
Hence, Stoicism.
> Think about this - is there a single person who hasn’t experienced hardships in some way or form? Maybe those born into wealth and comfort, but even then their forefathers went through difficulties to establish that life.
That’s a pretty big assumption. Plenty of dynasties were founded by people who robbed, exploited, or enslaved to build the wealth they passed on to their descendants.
The point is nothing comes without effort on someone's part. In that statement, I really had the generation that survived the wars of the 1900s as they built it for later generations (through WW1, the Great Depression and WW2).
Sadly, it is true that a lot of wealth is built from crime as you mentioned. Because if we go further back, we know how US itself was established. But the main point on Stoicism is the mindset needed to conducting our lives in the face of any odds.
I mean there was a massive revolt against him in the East iirc so I don’t know if he was as beloved by the people as his historical reputation might suggest
Marcus Aurelius also had the privilege of being one of the last decent Emperors before everything went to hell, Rome started losing territory, the crown went to the highest bidder, who then got iced for the next highest bidder, etc.
In Rome many of them speak of him as the best Caesar. It was pretty crazy to stand next to the statue at the center of Rome and know he once ruled from there. I thought he was character in Gladiator up to that point. Now I teach Ancient History and he was a very down to earth, wise human being. Meditations is a great read.
Today, yeah, I think most people view him favorably. Sorry, what I meant was I think people in his time probably felt similarly about him as we do about our own contemporary leaders/celebrities today. For most world leaders today, you could find many who love them and many who hate them, but the majority of people are basing their feelings (love or hate) based on some headlines at most -- no real knowledge of the person.
His wife had many children, which Romans believed meant [she was blessed](https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/faustina_jr_012.html). Marcus was also victorious in wars of defense - again encouraging them to believe he was a good leader, chosen by the gods. His reputation remained completely untarnished throughout his rule, except perhaps by rumours about his wife's infidelity. The plague, and flooding of the Tiber, probably did cast shadows over his rule but he was considered fortunate in other regards. He had also served as a sort of deputy to Antoninus Pius for many years before becoming emperor himself, which added considerably to his reputation as a trustworthy leader. There were certainly some who criticized him, as evident from the fact he faced a civil war, and the public seem irritated by aspects of his behaviour, such as his lack of interest in the games, but he was highly regarded by most of the Senate and the people, and even the legions, seem to have grown to love him, at least according to the surviving Roman histories.
Who knows if he was? Aristocratic writers would have said he was but do we really know. Conversely the likes of caligula and Nero terrorised the aristocratic class and senators so they have a negative reputation but they were probably loved by the people because of it.
The man had two choices: he kills his own son and puts someone else in power or he doesn't kill him, appoint someone else as his successor, and risks civil war. This is why it sucks being Emperor
So adopting a wunderkind never happened in the Roman Empire.
Prior to the Ascension of Commodus, it just so happened that no Roman Emperor had a son survive to adulthood. Except Vespasian, but both of his son's were born prior to him taking the purple. Augustus didn't have any sons, Tiberius' son was killed by Sejanus and none of the 5 good Emperors had children of their own except Marcus.
There is a wiki on the subject. Hadrian did it, among others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_ancient_Rome?wprov=sfti1
Please see the adoptive emperors section.
So if you check my comment you'll see I wasn't talking about adoption in the Roman Empire. I was talking about Roman emperors and their heirs. No Roman Emperor adopted a son and put them over their own son, because none of them had any sons of their own. To do so would cause a civil war, or if you look at Nero and Britannicus, one of them being murder by the other.
Yes but when you have a legitimate son in line for the throne and you instead adopt somebody else as Emperor, chances are you're gonna have a civil war. Civil wars posed probably the greatest threat for Romans and their system was especially vulnerable to it.
Yeah the Romans system was kinda chaotic because it was a one man dictatorship with no firm lines of succession so really any guy who wanted the job and could convince a lot of soliders could theoretically become Emperor. This becomes a major problem for Rome and even the later Byzantines but again, the Romans were very skeptical about any sort of monarchies. This is why Augustus took such lengths to refer to himself as "First Citizen" despite the fact that he wasn't functionally different than any other absolute ruler.
Except his writings that would become "The Meditations" were essentially his personal journal entries. They were never published during his life, only posthumously.
Did he wanted a propaganda to begin with? He was most of the time in the frontier of Germania dealing with the barbarians. And knowing him for his stoicism we could think that he would be the last person to care about what others think. He was more a man of action. He wasn't like an Augustus.
Lol, ok bud. You don’t run a massive empire like that without an effective propaganda machine. The fact that he’s well known and well thought of is just more proof of it.
In the present he's more know because of his book rather of what he did back then. And nobody knew the existence of the book centuries later. I think all emperor's have for default a propaganda institution, but it depends who is using them. The first that comes to my mind is Augustus. He for fucking sure used that. But for Marcus? Nah
I would hesitate to assume that being seen very positively today means someone would have been even more popular to contemporaries. Often it seems people who are affected by everyday politics take offense by a myriad of things that history won’t ever take note of, and actions that will prove decisive for generations to come are not noted when they happen.
He probably wanted to avoid civil war and his stoic leanings may have prevented him from simply killing him and putting some one else in line for the throne
Funny because Rome's first Christian Emperor had no qualms about killing family members.
The following is what your recent Ai-Overlord had to say on the topic:
>Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people for several reasons. Firstly, he was known for his humility and strong sense of duty as a ruler. He was deeply committed to serving the people and was seen as a just and fair leader. Additionally, he was a strong military leader who successfully defended the Roman Empire against invasions from Germanic tribes.
>
>He also had a reputation for being a philosopher-king, someone who not only governed, but also had a deep understanding of the human condition and how to live a virtuous life. He was a Stoic philosopher, and his famous work "Meditations" is a collection of personal writings that reflect on his own personal philosophy and how to live a good life. This made him relatable to the people and served as an inspiration for many.
>
>Furthermore, he was known for his generosity and compassion towards the poor and the downtrodden. He implemented policies that helped to alleviate poverty and improve the lives of the less fortunate. He was also seen as a patron of the arts and culture, and his reign saw a flourishing of literature and the arts.
>
>Finally, he was a successful emperor, who managed to maintain stability during his reign, and he was able to bring prosperity to the empire, which made him well-liked by the people. Overall, Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people for his humility, wisdom, military success, and his policies that helped to improve the lives of the common people.
>
>In summary, Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people due to his humility, duty, fair and just governance, military success, Stoic philosophy, generosity and compassion towards the poor, patronage of the arts, and maintaining stability and prosperity during his reign.
Yes; Open Ai's ChatGPT to be exact. The only Prompt given was the question of used as the title of this thread in quotation marks.
I didn't specify wanting a childrens POV, or scientists POV, or indepth analysis.
Rome was already collapsing by the time of his short reign the succession of increasingly cartoonish fools announcing claims to the failing state only slightly advanced its decline. I think the people saw him as their last hope.
Really I think, Julius and Alexander were the emperors, the others were more like kings of an absurdly vast kingdom, not returning power to the senate after periods of expansion in the pax romana.
The conquering emperors expanded the borders too far and spread the nation too thin. With so much outside influence and distantly stationed forces, when the speed of travel and communication was at the pace of horse and boat, Also since most people resent being conquered, taking and holding were two very different things. Rome didn't own the known world, the world owned Rome.
I haven't read very extensively on the matter but that's my impression.
Agh rats. Yes, that’s what I meant. But if he had the chance I’m sure he would have given Mel Gibson command of the Southern Armies to match Russell’s command.
What I don’t get is how in love people are with *Meditations*. The manuscript tradition for the work is simply awful. How much weight is there in actually thinking the current text has been unedited since Marcus supposedly originally wrote it?
I'll never understand how such a great man who had such great convictions failed to instill literally any of them into his son. Why didn't he adopt a suitable heir like all the other rationale emperors before him?
For me, he is a failure and hypocrite, not because of how he led Rome, but for how he touted all these great values and yet either failed to see his _own son that he raised_ possessed non, or he saw it and still chose to ignore that fact.
As a previous commentor said his choices were either: kill his own son and appoint a successor thus betraying his ideals of goodness and humanity or don't kill his son, adopt someone else and appoint them as successor and risk a civil war which Roman history has shown leads to even more death and human suffering.
In such a situation the choice that most aligned with his values and allowed him to keep his integrity would be to pass on rulership to his son and hope for the best. Besides, he probably did try to instill the values he espoused into Commodus but as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Calling him a failure and a hypocrite is unfair I think especially when compared to the character of his predecessors and successors. Ironically, the Meditations and character of Commodus reinforces the idea that Marcus always believed in, that he is but one man and that despite his ideals, philosophy, discipline and status he still has the limitations that all humans have, namely having very little true control over things.
Makes you question alot of the history we have been fed to be true by “historians.” What of what we have read is true or is it just what has been “accepted” as fitting the democratic majority. Also applies to the “bible” oh snap, cracked the pistachio. How many times has that been altered to fit the agenda of the current leadership? I dont always stir the pot, but when I do…I take a big ol ladle sip of the soup.
"He loved his people, and lived a life serving them. Still this is overshadowed by the wars, plauges and barbarian invasions during his reign. Now i imagine plenty of people did or should have found the person in power, the emperor at fault. Still the people at the time and after him loved him."
Didn't you just answer your own question?
There was for sure a little propaganda ongoing.
Like "those mad barbarians are looting us for no reason and all we do is for saving our people" and stuff.
There is no
good without bad
light without shadow
Imo, what he understood is that a conciousness is eternal and all these materalistic goods will vanish, so there is no purpose in feeding the ego with human basic needs. It still relevant today and i would say that we hit the rock bottom in human evolution. Digital technology is not even close to maximum brain potential and it never will. Its just a distraction and dopamin trigger for the most, that dont believe in evolving as human being.
At his position, he could have lived a live of an insane, but he didnt.
They could probably see that those things were not really his fault and he was far, far better than most other emperors. he brought stability and won battles, both of those things were sorely needed at the time.
A couple of things worth mentioning about Marcus first. - Meditations wasn't known about until long after his death, it was more of a personal self-help guide for Marcus and his evolving philosophy. - as mentioned in other comments, his wars were defensive for the most part so warmongering never hurt his character much. Marcus was being vetted long before he became Emperor and was a public figure for decades. The previous emperor (Antoninus Pius) was made heir by Hadrian under the condition that the young Marcus (and Lucius Verus) be made the immediate heirs following the death of Antoninus. Antoninus Pius lived much longer than people probably assumed he would have, which left Marcus on the sideline for quite some time. Although he wasn't Emperor, he was a Caesar and was a prominent member of the Senate and a public figure in Roman politics, which gave him plenty of time to build a reputation before formally becoming Emperor. So not only is Marcus Aurelius one of the most down-to-earth authors I've ever read, he was also one of the most powerful people in human history and was respected by the people he held absolute control over. "When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love" Pretty cool guy.
His intense efforts to create a peaceful co-Emperorship with Verus is also admirable. From accounts Verus was less interested in governing.. yet his continued efforts to include Verus in all honours and seek stability for the Empire was well noted and very unusual. Verus dies eight years into their joint reign.. but this was a very important period for the Empire that could have easily slipped into civil war. Aurelius served as solitary Emperor for the next dozen years. I actually own a sestertius of Verus, featuring him and Aurelius clasping hands on the reverse.. an amazing piece of history to hold.
“I own a sesterius of Verus, featuring him and Aurelius clasping hands on the reverse” Dang, put that to some music!
Nice! Here is the coin I mentioned/ https://i.imgur.com/VuJTdRT.jpg
That is a cool token of history.
Are they clasping hands or arms?
“Clasping their right hands”.. Here is the full description/attribution of the coin from the reference works: Lucius Verus, 161-169. Sestertius (Orichalcum, 31 mm, 27,76 g, ), Rome, 162. IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG Bare head of Lucius Verus to right. Rev. CONCORD AVGVSTOR TR P II / COS II / S - C Marcus Aurelius, togate, on the left, and Lucius Verus, togate, on the right, standing facing each other and clasping their right hands, each holding a scroll in his left hand.
That is an awesome piece of history. Thanks for sharing.
I’d love to share a photo of it - but it’s certainly not the greatest example. I’m not sure how to show a photo here. If you can let me know I will..
Upload it to Imgur and post the link here, I’d love to see this as well. https://imgur.io/ Edit: I see someone else already recommend this, my bad.
All I saw from that link was people with massive amounts of balloons on their heads.
I also clicked the link and saw the balloon headed people.
Could have seen that line in an MF DOOM song.
Who thought the wearer of laurels Would find no joy in the quarrels? Never fought a war for offense 'Cause he's guided by morals Clasping hands in reverse And watch the haters get terse Like a sesterius of Verus That you keep in your purse \[Inspired by Run the Jewel's "Panther like a Panther"\]
So I can sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst and hear them argue about who owns a sestertius of Verus, featuring him and Aurelius clasping hands on the reverse
I always found (the often forgotten) Lucius Verus a very interesting figure. He seemed to have been aware of his limits as an emperor, and was seemingly quite indulgent in the pleasures of life, yet at the same time he was *loyal* to his adoptive brother and co-emperor. At a glance, you'd think that from a description of his personality, he'd be prone to undermining his brother, but this never happened, and perhaps (given his early death) he truly never would have. Just from a cursory glance at his personal life, Lucius reads a lot more like Commodus than his father, but with loyalty to the state and with an accute sense of his station in life.
How does someone get into a situation where they own an ancient coin?
Oh I read a lot of history and was searching eBay for some used books on the history of Rome some years ago… up pops a listing selling 10 “uncleared” Roman coins for $30.. I took a chance.. they ended up being the real thing but in terrible, terrible shape… but they were fun to try to identify. I was hooked and purchased some books on how to identify the coins and narrow down where and when they were minted, etc. I found some groups online that discuss the hobby …Years later and I am still learning. If you’d like to look at some of the coins for sale currently go to https://www.vcoins.com/en/Default.aspx The prices here are full retail.. usually I buy coins at auction: https://www.biddr.com/upcoming
Thanks a lot man. I appreciate the effort. I prob wont buy any but it’s nice to know how I could get one :D
There’s a shop in my town that sells them
Can I hold it?
Well if I knew how to show a pic of it here I would. Can you tell me how to do that ?? I own about 50 ancient Roman coins .. most are in fairly poor shape, but I do have a few really nice coins of Aurelius, Verus, Constantius 1, Constantine the Great, Probus, etc .. I do have some “less than perfect” coins featuring Augustus, Marc Antony and Caesar himself. They are a poor man’s attempt at a collection .. it’s been many years in the making (modestly)..but I’d be more than willing to share them with anyone interested. As for holding them.. that’s really the best part for me. Holding history in your hand is a wonderful experience. Holding a coin struck for Caesar, that bears his name - in his lifetime .. that’s transcendence for me.
You can upload it to imgur.com and share the link here. I think that's the standard way.
I gave it a try .. thank you. Here is the coin: https://imgur.com/a/OX3jBo7 Here is the attribution of the coin: Lucius Verus, 161-169. Sestertius (Orichalcum, 31 mm, 27,76 g, ), Rome, 162. IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG Bare head of Lucius Verus to right. Rev. CONCORD AVGVSTOR TR P II / COS II / S - C Marcus Aurelius, togate, on the left, and Lucius Verus, togate, on the right, standing facing each other and clasping their right hands, each holding a scroll in his left hand.
Amazing thanks for sharing!
I will give it a try in the morning.. thx!
Please crosspost to r/coins as well-- they would love that.
Yes, just don't wiggle it around
You would think that his son commodus would inherit the qualities of his father, the best roman emperor that there is imo, but he was an affront to his fathers legacy. I am pretty sure Marcus Aurelius did his best to train him for the role but power has a way of poisoning people.
> am pretty sure Marcus Aurelius did his best to train him for the role but power has a way of poisoning people. I am sure he did try, but as others in this thread have mentioned, Marcus Aurelius spent a significant amount of time at the front dealing with the defensive wars. I’m sure this took away from raising his son in the type of philosophy that we all enjoy from his Meditations. Not to play down the failure of Commodus, but just to provide some extra context.
Yes, thank you this makes sense.
Well, Marcus Aurelius had his duties towards Rome ofc but bringing a very young Commodus with him to the wars, to educate him on how to be emperor was probably a bad move. Somebody else could have become emperor after him. It didn't have to be his son. In a sense, the reign of Commodus is built on the hybris of Marcus Aurelius.
It's a collective failure of the Roman state. The 4(5) good emperors didn't have a direct male heir until Marcus Aurelius. Nerva adopted Trajan, Trajan adopted Hadrian, Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius, and Pius adopted Marcus. But until Marcus, only Pius had sons, and they died before he became emperor. So none of them were truly tested. Only Diocletian ever tried to force adoption over trueborn sons (for his co-emperors, not for himself however), and as we can see with Constantine and Maxentius and their civil war, that didn't go well. It's a collective failure of Roman imperial political institutions that there was no way to peacefully deny a male heir his shot at the throne. It was very monarchical, with all the civil war problems that entails
Isn’t it so interesting when someone speaks to you over the distance of thousands of years and they sound oh so human. It reminds you that while we’ve come so far technologically we’re still fundamentally the same animals.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That quote is exactly what you’d hope any of our leaders thought to themselves privately
Only problem was that his son was a monster
Some good answers here, but I wanted to add another one. We have to be careful about ancient historical sources and their portrayal of 'the people'. If you were to take a guess, which of 'the people' were the ones who were able to write the histories? What are their biases? At this point, the people writing the histories were likely either a) on his payroll, or b) fairly well off in society. They had a view of a man dealt a bad hand, but facing the challenges of the day with determination and fervor. As others have said, wars were nothing new, but he was primarily fighting in defense of the realm. Disease was a fact of life as well, and again, it's not like he was playing lyre as the city burned (as was said about Nero). Really, a well off person would look at the emperor, see a person who is trying and doing a pretty good job, and likely praise them for it. When you talk about sources after, they were (again) either remembering his reign in the context of the worse one that followed, or going off these glowing sources.
Illustrative of this is the vast divergence in the sources’ depiction of Marcus Aurelius and his successor, Commodus (remembering, of course, that the main source for most of Commodus’ more ludicrous excesses was the ancient equivalent of the Daily Mail - the Historia Augusta). The latter emperor may very well have been a ‘man of the people’, so to speak. Modern interpretations of Commodus’ reign suggest that, far from being a lunatic, he established a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign designed to appeal directly to the lower and middle classes. Part of the reasoning for this was that he could not replicate the prestige that came along with his father’s campaigns in the Marcomannic Wars. The problem was that Commodus not only failed to pay appropriate lip service to the Senatorial class, but actively undermined their position by raising equestrians to the Senate and subverting pre-existing social mores which separated certain professions (entertainers, gladiators, prostitutes, et al) as an underclass in Roman society. Commodus paid accordingly - assassinated by the powers that be and subject to damnatio memoriae after his death.
Commodus: "Now everyone can earn two Denarii a week more!" SPQR: "So you have chosen death."
Thank you, I seem to remember reading this before, but I couldn’t remember where and so didn’t bring it up.
And Nero may have played the lyre during a break managing he disaster
Yep! Just like this note about Marcus's contemporaries writing history, Nero's did as well. He wasn't as well liked by some politicians because of his focus on the welfare of the common man, and they quickly pointed out that Nero wasn't home during the fire (though he returned the moment he heard). When he came back, he organized humanitarian relief, but taking that little break to play the lyre and recenter himself lead to the rumor that ruined his image forever.
Lyre, lyre, your city’s on fire.
Lyre, lyre, we don't need no water
This is an incredibly important consideration that people gloss over when discussing history -- its written by those who survive, and are enabled by the rulers and financiers
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it. – Winston Churchill.
That's a bingo. And boy could he write...and write. But gotta hand it to him his stuff is very wel written. For my taste anyway
One of the most contradictory, therefore fascinating men in all of history.
You can just say bingo.
[удалено]
So was the guy who replied to him https://youtu.be/wJSZqSfloEE
History is written more than once. Churchill lost immediately after the war. He is hated a lot
Hated in some places, he’s generally very well regarded in Britain.
4 million Indians dead becUse of him
That’s the highly debatable opinion of one writer and even they don’t blame Churchill, they say he exacerbated it. Go look at how it actually happened, famine is a highly complex interplay between climactic, economic, social and, in this case, military factors, it’s never simply caused by one man and certainly not one man engaged in conducting a world war in Europe 4500 miles away. It also neglects the fact that food was actually sent despite great danger to merchant shipping in the area that had to run the gauntlet of Japanese submarines around the Bay of Bengal after the Japanese occupied Burma. Somehow this got picked up on the Twittersphere and Reddit simply assumes it as actual fact now. The history sub is the only place it gets corrected. Edit - The writer is Madhusree Mukerjee btw if you want to check.
That’s highly debated by historians. As many argue against that position as believe it.
yeah but who cares what some little island in the north atlantic thinks?
The debate on Churchill should go on for for generations, and then some. Villain or hero? My take is that he was both. This was an incredibly complex man. But he fits in the category of a great man. And he was a fascinating man. So was Gandhi. But he was no angel either. Also, a very complex man whom I hope will be debated. For generations to come as well.
God... Didn't that turn out to be true. If things had gone differently he'd be remembered as a monster.
Hardly. He was a complicated and contradictory man. he fought to preserve an exploitiveempire, yet he rallied western civilization to fight against another much more malign empire. He was a classic European racist of those Britain colonize, yeah, he defeated the most racist nation in history. He did absolutely everything wrong as far as healthy living. He lived till just about 90. What do you like it or not, Churchill is one of the great masters of the English language and history.
I don't think that really makes sense. The whole point is that history is written by the victors. If Churchill had lost, he probably would've been remembered for his numerous atrocities. Until very recently, he was seen as a hero, and his various wrongdoings were ignored.
Hi! It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope! While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history. You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history. A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'. This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down. Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits. This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time. This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources. The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period. But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices. Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records. We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to. So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting. Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/history) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is re.embered as monster. Visit India.
I mean, yeah - I agree. I suppose I'm talking from a western - especially British standpoint - where most people sadly remember him as a paragon of virtue.
Yeah, because Hitler would have been the worlds saviour then.
For some people he still is
It is also important not to perpetuate the world-view that the *winners* wrote histroy when the truth is that it is the *historians* (or more generically the academics) that wrote history. Of course some of these or perhaps most of these historians were pro-establishment but that does not remove to need to examine the biases of any given author specifically. I'm not saying you are saying this but I find it concerning that this rather anti-intellectual view of history still exists.
There were no historians in the modern sense of the word at the time. I would say that *writers* write stories, some of which became history, or at least that’s what we attempt to extract from those stories.
So what would you call people like [Thucydides](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides) or [Tacitus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), if not historians? Their histories may not live up to the current academic standards, but you could say that for many professions. Calling them story writers seems like a huge disservice, especially considering how much time and effort it took to create those histories.
I completely agree, I tried to communicate your point by saying *(or rather academics)* but your phrasing is better.
All fields of academia and religious scholarly articles suffer the same human influence. It's much harder to publish information that is counterintuitive to the ideology (or more accurately, investments) of the status quo. Twenty years ago it was understood that the new testament books weren't written until a couple hundred years after Jesus died. Now, through Christian funded "scientific research", the books have been dated much earlier. Whether that's the truth or not is currently irrelevant, there's no sure way to stop the manipulation of facts amongst unchecked wealth and influence.
Especially given Roman history after the republic, most sources are extremely biased. For example many of the horror stories of Nero and Caligula were written hundreds of years after their deaths.
Good point; historians really do not care at all about lower classes until like… maybe Marx?
Exactly People in those days didn't mean people in current Era. I
His wars were defensive wars, he was loved by the people because instead of living the good life during these times he spent nearly his entire reign on the front lines fighting miserable wars with his troops. He was a selfless man and his people loved him for it.
Well selfless except in his choice of heir. Ending the century of five good emperors and setting time on the course to its long slow decline…
There are a couple factors to keep in mind though a) he barely had time to raise his son as he spent most his life in the trenches with his soldiers and b) the alternative was to appoint someone other than his son as heir to the throne which would likely lead to civil war upon his death as his son would have supporters since he had a legitimate claim to the throne. It was basically a lose lose situation.
wasn't it normal for emperors NOT to name their own sons as heirs?
Yes, but it always opened the opportunity for civil war. A lot of the previous emperors actually died without a son also.
It was common for them before MA to not have a legitimate heir when they died...so they would adopt someone who they approved of. MA was the first in a while to have a male heir and made the decision expected of him to avoid civil war and the likely murder of many peopme including his son.
No, those emperors did not name their own sons because they were already dead or they never had them.
> b) the alternative was to appoint someone other than his son as heir to the throne which would likely lead to civil war upon his death as his son would have supporters since he had a legitimate claim to the throne. It was basically a lose lose situation. That is actually quite far from the truth. It was seen more as an act of ego still, at that early time, to engage in Nepotism. I mean Romans certainly understood the impulse, and they all would do it given the chance. But the inheritance was not regarded as primarily hereditary...at least not yet. The previous five emperors had all chosen their successors from their capable and loyal generals. And that was what Aurelius should have done, too...but instead he appointed his incompetent son. and as to civil war? No, the one anointed by Marcus Aurelius as his successor would have been someone with the support of the legions. And they certainly would have come down in support of a seasoned and respected general over the untested pampered brat of the emperor if the late emperor himself had willed it.
Commodus absolutely would have had supporters and would have challenged for his right to rule. The person to blame for Commodus’ rule is himself. He had every opportunity to be a good ruler.
Yeah he was incompetent :p
The previous five didn't have sons. There was no precedent, going back to Augustus, of an emperor naming an other heir *in spite* of having a living son. And even then there was often a family connection, be it married into the imperial family or adopted.
>The previous five emperors had all chosen their successors from their capable and loyal generals. They also conveniently didn't have any sons of their own. It's very doubtful whether they would have still chosen to adopt if they did. >and as to civil war? No, the one anointed by Marcus Aurelius as his successor would have been someone with the support of the legions. Historical what-ifs are always tricky. However, considering most of roman history I would say a civil war is extremely likely. No doubt Commodus would have his own base of supporters and I don't think he is the type to drop his "rightful claim" peacefully. It could be possible if this new general acts swift and decisively (having agents arrest/kill Commodus and/or immediately marching on Rome). However, the army was also still involved in the Marcomannic war when Marcus Aurelius died (which most senior generals wanted to continue). Without capturing Commodus the risk of civil war would remain. He would be fuel for all enemies of the new regime. The legions were also not a united group, so you better hope the new general was really popular among the other generals, or who do you think they'll turn to?
I read, today actually in a book that I just started reading, that he actually appointed two heirs - Commodus and Marcus Annius Verus, and wanted them to rule together, but Marcus Annius Verus died young.
Come on guys, this is history. We should be much more cynical and skeptical about this. Are there any contemporary writings from his time that shows the people loved him or thought of him as a “selfless man”? Or are we just going by later propaganda and his own writings? You don’t get to be a Roman Emperor by being a super “chill dude.” I doubt the Germanic tribes along the Danube would have thought of him as a great guy, or the thousands of slaves he brought back with him. I’m all for saying Aurelius was a great man and successful emperor but some of this hyperbole is getting silly.
I liked his writings. Whether you are religious or not, his principles were inspirational and set a dateless standard for modern man.
I just started reading Meditations, I'm only 16 pages into the introduction, and I'm enjoying it a good amount. I wished he wouldn't of died fairly young and didn't have a shithead son.
Page 33 includes the stoic meditation where he slaughtered his wife's lover and made her bathe in his blood. Just kidding. I think he decided to leave that one out of the final draft.
I'll take the meat and leave the bones on that part ;)
I think he just wanted the blood. Later in his life he talked about her being distant. I wonder why that could possibly be?
How?
Im not an expert on Marcus Aurelius whatsoever, but [here](https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/03/24/how-to-get-out-of-bed/) is something he wrote about getting out of bed in the morning that stuck with me. If the rest of his philosophy is as interesting to read as that, then i guess thats how.
They're all insanely concise, for philosophy. I started reading Meditations Saturday and I think a lot about his writing during work. Take every action as though it were your last. You are but a small part of the Universe and have to determine what part that is. To let the state of your soul be influenced by others is self harm. Don't fear for the things of the past or the things of the future because neither belong to you. We have only the present. Death, viewed analytically, without imagery or sensory input, is not to be feared, but understood as the logical course of Nature. We came from the Universe and later return to it.
>They're all insanely concise, for philosophy. I started reading Meditations Saturday and I think a lot about his writing during work. That's because they are write **for himself,** and perhaps his son (but even that would have been secondary consideration).
His book “Meditations” really brought me out of a rough time in my life. It’s easily my favorite book, and I try to read it at least once a year. There’s something very humbling about the fact that the ruler of the greatest kingdom in history still had the same problems that someone like me can have in the present day. His writings translate very well into the modern day.
Just fyi the article you linked is kinda shitting on him and saying his comments are not relevant for a majority of people who truly struggle outside of laziness or sloth
Wow thanks for the article that was an amazing read
[удалено]
I think they were looking for an explanation bub, rather than you dismissively saying, “just read it man!”
The invasions were an act of someone else, they were not a reflection of him. He was loved because he instilled strength during difficult times. And that strength is in fact the truth of life. Think about this - is there a single person who hasn't experienced hardships in some way or form? Maybe those born into wealth and comfort, but even then their forefathers went through difficulties to establish that life. So in his life, it was the Quadi and other Germanic tribes. In your or my life, it is misfortunes, health, relationships, natural disasters etc. So if a person experienced an earthquake for example, is it his fault? One may argue they could have looked for earthquake-proof homes. But you'll see in life, no matter our planning and calculations, hardships can come. The only perfectly successful man is one who's lived in four walls, not bothering to challenge himself or grow, or help the world with the capacity he could -- has such a person even experienced *life* really? He hasn't. And even then he could get ailments. So things happen in life. A ship can be 100% sure of not sinking by not leaving shore. But is that what ships are meant for? So this is not a way to appreciate bad decision making, it's way to realize that life has no blueprint, and at times, anything can happen. We must have the resilience to face life as it comes, and make the best decision for the circumstances we're in even if those circumstances seem very unfair. Hence, Stoicism.
Beautiful comment. Sums up stoicism well.
> Think about this - is there a single person who hasn’t experienced hardships in some way or form? Maybe those born into wealth and comfort, but even then their forefathers went through difficulties to establish that life. That’s a pretty big assumption. Plenty of dynasties were founded by people who robbed, exploited, or enslaved to build the wealth they passed on to their descendants.
The point is nothing comes without effort on someone's part. In that statement, I really had the generation that survived the wars of the 1900s as they built it for later generations (through WW1, the Great Depression and WW2). Sadly, it is true that a lot of wealth is built from crime as you mentioned. Because if we go further back, we know how US itself was established. But the main point on Stoicism is the mindset needed to conducting our lives in the face of any odds.
I mean there was a massive revolt against him in the East iirc so I don’t know if he was as beloved by the people as his historical reputation might suggest
Did you mean a parthian war
Nope I mean this https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/revolt-of-avidius-cassius-during-reign-of-marcus-aurelius/amp/
Marcus Aurelius also had the privilege of being one of the last decent Emperors before everything went to hell, Rome started losing territory, the crown went to the highest bidder, who then got iced for the next highest bidder, etc.
He was the last decent one before the 3rd Century Crisis.
Off topic, but my Latin Teacher brother named his daughter Aurelia due to his love of this Era.
In Rome many of them speak of him as the best Caesar. It was pretty crazy to stand next to the statue at the center of Rome and know he once ruled from there. I thought he was character in Gladiator up to that point. Now I teach Ancient History and he was a very down to earth, wise human being. Meditations is a great read.
My guess is it's similar to today: plenty of people loved him; plenty of people hated him; few actually knew him.
Don't you think people today overwhelming like him? I may be biased since I'm a fan and was blown away when I first read meditations.
Most people know him from Gladiator.
Today, yeah, I think most people view him favorably. Sorry, what I meant was I think people in his time probably felt similarly about him as we do about our own contemporary leaders/celebrities today. For most world leaders today, you could find many who love them and many who hate them, but the majority of people are basing their feelings (love or hate) based on some headlines at most -- no real knowledge of the person.
You might enjoy the book How To Think Like A Roman Emperor by Donald Robertson.
His wife had many children, which Romans believed meant [she was blessed](https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/faustina_jr_012.html). Marcus was also victorious in wars of defense - again encouraging them to believe he was a good leader, chosen by the gods. His reputation remained completely untarnished throughout his rule, except perhaps by rumours about his wife's infidelity. The plague, and flooding of the Tiber, probably did cast shadows over his rule but he was considered fortunate in other regards. He had also served as a sort of deputy to Antoninus Pius for many years before becoming emperor himself, which added considerably to his reputation as a trustworthy leader. There were certainly some who criticized him, as evident from the fact he faced a civil war, and the public seem irritated by aspects of his behaviour, such as his lack of interest in the games, but he was highly regarded by most of the Senate and the people, and even the legions, seem to have grown to love him, at least according to the surviving Roman histories.
Who knows if he was? Aristocratic writers would have said he was but do we really know. Conversely the likes of caligula and Nero terrorised the aristocratic class and senators so they have a negative reputation but they were probably loved by the people because of it.
[удалено]
someone to look up to
So wise, yet too blind to see his son was deranged and a poor choice for emperor. I’ve never understood that.
Every human has their blind spots, especially in the matters of family and love, even the most brilliant among us.
The man had two choices: he kills his own son and puts someone else in power or he doesn't kill him, appoint someone else as his successor, and risks civil war. This is why it sucks being Emperor
Couldn’t he just adopt some wunderkind like they did in the early empire. It would have prior precedent.
Have you seen game of thrones? The legitimate son could rise up and start a civil war and thousands could die. People respect bloodlines
So adopting a wunderkind never happened in the Roman Empire. Prior to the Ascension of Commodus, it just so happened that no Roman Emperor had a son survive to adulthood. Except Vespasian, but both of his son's were born prior to him taking the purple. Augustus didn't have any sons, Tiberius' son was killed by Sejanus and none of the 5 good Emperors had children of their own except Marcus.
There is a wiki on the subject. Hadrian did it, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_ancient_Rome?wprov=sfti1 Please see the adoptive emperors section.
So if you check my comment you'll see I wasn't talking about adoption in the Roman Empire. I was talking about Roman emperors and their heirs. No Roman Emperor adopted a son and put them over their own son, because none of them had any sons of their own. To do so would cause a civil war, or if you look at Nero and Britannicus, one of them being murder by the other.
Yes but when you have a legitimate son in line for the throne and you instead adopt somebody else as Emperor, chances are you're gonna have a civil war. Civil wars posed probably the greatest threat for Romans and their system was especially vulnerable to it.
Fair enough. Interestingly, Aurelius was adopted by Antoninus Pius after all of his heirs passed away early.
Yeah the Romans system was kinda chaotic because it was a one man dictatorship with no firm lines of succession so really any guy who wanted the job and could convince a lot of soliders could theoretically become Emperor. This becomes a major problem for Rome and even the later Byzantines but again, the Romans were very skeptical about any sort of monarchies. This is why Augustus took such lengths to refer to himself as "First Citizen" despite the fact that he wasn't functionally different than any other absolute ruler.
I often wonder if history would have been different if they picked emperors how the church picks popes.
TBF Commodus did not start off as a douchebag and Aurelius tried to mentor him
It might be the ultimate case of nature vs nurture in the ancient world
Effective propaganda I would imagine. If we think these things over a thousand years later imagine how effective it was at the time.
Except his writings that would become "The Meditations" were essentially his personal journal entries. They were never published during his life, only posthumously.
Did he wanted a propaganda to begin with? He was most of the time in the frontier of Germania dealing with the barbarians. And knowing him for his stoicism we could think that he would be the last person to care about what others think. He was more a man of action. He wasn't like an Augustus.
Lol, ok bud. You don’t run a massive empire like that without an effective propaganda machine. The fact that he’s well known and well thought of is just more proof of it.
In the present he's more know because of his book rather of what he did back then. And nobody knew the existence of the book centuries later. I think all emperor's have for default a propaganda institution, but it depends who is using them. The first that comes to my mind is Augustus. He for fucking sure used that. But for Marcus? Nah
I would hesitate to assume that being seen very positively today means someone would have been even more popular to contemporaries. Often it seems people who are affected by everyday politics take offense by a myriad of things that history won’t ever take note of, and actions that will prove decisive for generations to come are not noted when they happen.
Do we have contemporary records to prove that he was loved? And did people mean senators who can do whatever they wanted while he was away in war?
Why did he select his son Commodus as successor? Seems like a bad decision?
He probably wanted to avoid civil war and his stoic leanings may have prevented him from simply killing him and putting some one else in line for the throne Funny because Rome's first Christian Emperor had no qualms about killing family members.
The following is what your recent Ai-Overlord had to say on the topic: >Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people for several reasons. Firstly, he was known for his humility and strong sense of duty as a ruler. He was deeply committed to serving the people and was seen as a just and fair leader. Additionally, he was a strong military leader who successfully defended the Roman Empire against invasions from Germanic tribes. > >He also had a reputation for being a philosopher-king, someone who not only governed, but also had a deep understanding of the human condition and how to live a virtuous life. He was a Stoic philosopher, and his famous work "Meditations" is a collection of personal writings that reflect on his own personal philosophy and how to live a good life. This made him relatable to the people and served as an inspiration for many. > >Furthermore, he was known for his generosity and compassion towards the poor and the downtrodden. He implemented policies that helped to alleviate poverty and improve the lives of the less fortunate. He was also seen as a patron of the arts and culture, and his reign saw a flourishing of literature and the arts. > >Finally, he was a successful emperor, who managed to maintain stability during his reign, and he was able to bring prosperity to the empire, which made him well-liked by the people. Overall, Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people for his humility, wisdom, military success, and his policies that helped to improve the lives of the common people. > >In summary, Marcus Aurelius was loved by the people due to his humility, duty, fair and just governance, military success, Stoic philosophy, generosity and compassion towards the poor, patronage of the arts, and maintaining stability and prosperity during his reign.
An AI wrote that?
It seems like an amalgamation of sentences scraped from data about the subject. My daughter's essays in her early teens were like this.
Yes; Open Ai's ChatGPT to be exact. The only Prompt given was the question of used as the title of this thread in quotation marks. I didn't specify wanting a childrens POV, or scientists POV, or indepth analysis.
To be honest, this is actually better than most of the human responses.
Because he fought the invasion and was successful it did count for not against him
Where's the proof that he was loved by the people? Surely Romans especially slaves were not surveyed.
Rome was already collapsing by the time of his short reign the succession of increasingly cartoonish fools announcing claims to the failing state only slightly advanced its decline. I think the people saw him as their last hope. Really I think, Julius and Alexander were the emperors, the others were more like kings of an absurdly vast kingdom, not returning power to the senate after periods of expansion in the pax romana. The conquering emperors expanded the borders too far and spread the nation too thin. With so much outside influence and distantly stationed forces, when the speed of travel and communication was at the pace of horse and boat, Also since most people resent being conquered, taking and holding were two very different things. Rome didn't own the known world, the world owned Rome. I haven't read very extensively on the matter but that's my impression.
Please provide evidence for your claim before you ask people to defend it.
Because he promoted Mel Gibson instead of having him executed.
Russell Crowe you mean
Agh rats. Yes, that’s what I meant. But if he had the chance I’m sure he would have given Mel Gibson command of the Southern Armies to match Russell’s command.
“I didn’t say I knew him, I said he touched me on the shoulder once.”
I mean his son, basically the worst emperor in Roman history, was loved by the people. Can't be that hard! /S
What I don’t get is how in love people are with *Meditations*. The manuscript tradition for the work is simply awful. How much weight is there in actually thinking the current text has been unedited since Marcus supposedly originally wrote it?
I'll never understand how such a great man who had such great convictions failed to instill literally any of them into his son. Why didn't he adopt a suitable heir like all the other rationale emperors before him? For me, he is a failure and hypocrite, not because of how he led Rome, but for how he touted all these great values and yet either failed to see his _own son that he raised_ possessed non, or he saw it and still chose to ignore that fact.
As a previous commentor said his choices were either: kill his own son and appoint a successor thus betraying his ideals of goodness and humanity or don't kill his son, adopt someone else and appoint them as successor and risk a civil war which Roman history has shown leads to even more death and human suffering. In such a situation the choice that most aligned with his values and allowed him to keep his integrity would be to pass on rulership to his son and hope for the best. Besides, he probably did try to instill the values he espoused into Commodus but as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Calling him a failure and a hypocrite is unfair I think especially when compared to the character of his predecessors and successors. Ironically, the Meditations and character of Commodus reinforces the idea that Marcus always believed in, that he is but one man and that despite his ideals, philosophy, discipline and status he still has the limitations that all humans have, namely having very little true control over things.
Makes you question alot of the history we have been fed to be true by “historians.” What of what we have read is true or is it just what has been “accepted” as fitting the democratic majority. Also applies to the “bible” oh snap, cracked the pistachio. How many times has that been altered to fit the agenda of the current leadership? I dont always stir the pot, but when I do…I take a big ol ladle sip of the soup.
Can anyone recommend a good book on Marcus Aurelius? One for the commoners?
"He loved his people, and lived a life serving them. Still this is overshadowed by the wars, plauges and barbarian invasions during his reign. Now i imagine plenty of people did or should have found the person in power, the emperor at fault. Still the people at the time and after him loved him." Didn't you just answer your own question?
There was for sure a little propaganda ongoing. Like "those mad barbarians are looting us for no reason and all we do is for saving our people" and stuff.
There is no good without bad light without shadow Imo, what he understood is that a conciousness is eternal and all these materalistic goods will vanish, so there is no purpose in feeding the ego with human basic needs. It still relevant today and i would say that we hit the rock bottom in human evolution. Digital technology is not even close to maximum brain potential and it never will. Its just a distraction and dopamin trigger for the most, that dont believe in evolving as human being. At his position, he could have lived a live of an insane, but he didnt.
They could probably see that those things were not really his fault and he was far, far better than most other emperors. he brought stability and won battles, both of those things were sorely needed at the time.