Why did M. Aurelius make Commodus his heir?

[Yehudah]

Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus made his son Commodus his co-Augustus a few years before his death on March 17th of 180 AD. Commodus then became sole emperor for twelve years, and became famous for his brutal personality and his lethargy as a ruler. Many consider him to be worse than any of the other "bad" emperors; e.g. Caligula, Nero.

 

Marcus Aurelius himself was the last of a chain of emperors who had been adopted based on merit and connections, rather than parentage. Surely such a wise and intelligent ruler could see the negative traits in Commodus?

 

So why didn't Marcus Aurelius adopt a more capable young man, or appoint a friend or family member in the Senate to suceed him? Perhaps his ego gave way - the desire to make a dynasty of his own? Or (more likely) Commodus simply wasn't as bad as the traditional portrayals make him out to be.

 

Discuss.

[caldrail]

Whether Commodus wasn't quite as bad as protrayed in the historical sources is not going to excuse his deeds, because he certaibnly wasn't a good man. However, he was the son of Marcus Aurelius, who needed to ensure the progression of rule was assured. By making Commodus co-emperor for a few years before his death, he was able to groom his successor and tried to make him an able ruler, plus it also dissuaded others from attempting a coup when Marcus Aurelius died. A throne without an assigned heir would be a recipe for disaster.

 

It has been said of some emperors that they deliberately made a bad man their heir, so that they would be remembered fondly. Whether that's actually true I can't say - it certainly says much about the attitude of the Roman public for thinking that - but then it might simply be that Marcus Aurelius wanted his son to 'grow up and lead a good life' as fathers do. In that he failed, but then, the temptations of power, wealth, and luxury are not easily dealt with.

 

However, your question was why he didn't promote a more able man, instead of his own son. Perhaps that would invite political and violent contests for power. On the other hand, as emperor, Marcus Aurelius was surrounded by people claiming to be able and worthy, thus he might have chosen his son on the basis of 'better the devil you know'.

[GhostOfClayton]

Also, what evidence do we have that Commodus went 'bad' before M. Aurelius' death? With the sensible and stoic hand of the older, wiser man on his tiller, Commodus would have had much less in the way of absolute power. Could it be that once he was sole ruler, that power corrupted him, in the same way as it probably did with Nero and Caligula? Ok, if you watch 'I, Claudius', Caligula was probably well off his trolley from an early age, but I believe Nero was corrupted by the power.

Edited November 23, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[Kosmo]

These are valid arguments. Still Marcus could have done what Hadrian did for him when he was young, pick an old, experienced, childless co-emperor, like Antoninus Pius have been, to act like a quasi regent.

If Commodus was as bad as the stories make him probably it would have not mattered and he would have shown his true colors anyway. But if he was just caught in a bad pattern of conspiracies and repression, like other emperors before him, an experienced co-emperor would have helped by both improving the quality of his administration in the early years and by deterring conspiracies like that of Augusta Lucilla, his sister. This first conspiracy occurred 2 years in his reign, before Commodus could be blamed of anything and suggests a high degree of unrest not necessarily correlated with the abilities of the emperor.

I think a 2 emperor system could have worked because Commodus has never shown much interest in administration.

The troubled reign of the first purple-born emperor is a very good evidence of how little romans cared about dynastic loyalty.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think Marcus Aurelius chose Commodus as it would have made for a smoother transition of power. There weren't many great candidates for the position outside of the Imperial family, so Aurelius might have chosen his own son rather than an another weak leader, as by choosing his son he could have avoided a civil war after his death, something that might have broken out with another heir. Civil Wars between claimants to the Imperial throne were endemic in later times. Perhaps Aurelius thought that having Commodus in power would make for a better long term option rather a civil war.