Duo Emperors

[Cassius Loginus]

In the year 165AD two emperors reigned at the same time: Marcus Aurelius (seen in the movie Gladiator) and Lucius Verus.

 

1) How the power sharing really worked?

 

2) Was the return of the Republic two consuls system re-vitalised?

Edited October 20, 2007 by Cassius Loginus

[caldrail]

Return of republican twin consuls? Hardly, since the consular system still existed underneath the emperors. As to how the power sharing actually worked, its probable we'll never know, because it may well have been a gentlemans agreement between them or some arrangement foisted on them by someone else. Power sharing is done for two reasons in the roman empire. Firstly, because its a useful way of spreading the strain of rulership, but also because it allows a potential rival some room to breathe. Naturally there are flaws in such situations and without some clear understanding of limits or compatible personalities, the result is often conflict. For instance, Diocletians terarchy worked because Diocletian was a skilled diplomat with enough influence to ensure everyone behaved. Once he retired, the system broke down.

[Ingsoc]

As I understand it their equal status as emperors were only official but in practise it's was the more popular and experience Aurelius who control the emprie while Verus was his subordinate.

 

For example see this passage from Cassius Dio:

 

"Marcus Antoninus, the philosopher, upon obtaining the throne at the death of Antoninus, his adoptive father, had immediately taken to share his power Lucius Verus, the son of Lucius Commodus. 2 For he was frail in body himself and devoted the greater part of his time to letters. Indeed it is reported that even when he was emperor he showed no shame or hesitation about resorting to a teacher, but became a pupil of Sextus, the Boeotian philosopher, and did not hesitate to attend the lectures of Hermogenes on rhetoric; 3 but he was most inclined to the doctrines of the Stoic school. Lucius, on the other hand, was a vigorous man of younger years and better suited for military enterprises. Therefore Marcus made him his son-in‑law by marrying him to his daughter Lucilla and sent him to conduct the war against the Parthians." (Cassius Dio, LXXI, 1)

Edited October 20, 2007 by Ingsoc

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

From what I understand it was by all accounts an imperial partnership, but probably with Marcus Aurelius having the final say in things. Marcus seemed to be the one making the decision as to who would go and fight where, it was Aurelius who sent Verus to Parthia. Verus was the younger and more suited to the military demands of the empire, so I suppose it made sense to send the better suited man to war. Aurelius speaks highly of Verus and makes it clear in his writings that he considered Lucius Verus as his partner in governing the empire and commanding it's military forces.

 

The one thing that does gives us an indication that Marcus Aurelius had the edge over Lucius Verus is that Marcus carried the title "Pontifex Maximus" while Lucius was simply "pontifex". so although they were classed as co-emperors I think it's very probable that Marcus Aurelius was the dominant force.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

 

Here come Cassius Dio, Roman History, Libri LXXI, Cp. II (sec. IV)- III (sec. I):

"Lucius gloried in these exploits and took great pride in them, yet his extreme good fortune did him no good; for he is said to have engaged in a plot later against his father-in‑law Marcus and to have perished by poison before he could carry out any of his plans."

 

And here comes the Historiae Augustae, Verus, Cp. X, sec. I-IV:

"There was gossip to the effect that he had violated his mother-in‑law Faustina. And it is said that his mother-in‑law killed him treacherously by having poison sprinkled on his oysters, because he had betrayed to the daughter the amour he had had with the mother. However, there arose also that other story related in the Life of Marcus, one utterly inconsistent with the character of such a man. Many, again, fastened the crime of his death upon his wife, since Verus had been too complaisant to Fabia, and her power his wife Lucilla could not endure. Indeed, Lucius and his sister Fabia did become so intimate that gossip went so far as to claim that they had entered into a conspiracy to make away with Marcus, and that when this was betrayed to Marcus by the freedman Agaclytus, Faustina circumvented Lucius in fear that he might circumvent her."

 

And again (ibid, Cp. XI, sec. II-III)

"There is a well-known story, which Marcus' manner of life will not warrant, that Marcus handed Verus part of a sow's womb which he had poisoned by cutting it with a knife smeared on one side with poison. But it is wrong even to think of such a deed in connection with Marcus, although the plans and deeds of Verus may have well deserved it;"

 

These are some of the few insights that we can found of an ongoing dynastic conflict when we try to analyze the fabulous, manichean and contradictory history of the "five Good Emperors".

 

We ought to be extremely critical when approaching these accounts.

Edited October 21, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I think the official stance is that Lucius Verus died a natural death probably brought on by his opulence and over indulgence in banqueting and vice.it was a sickness known as Apoplexy that finally did him in.

 

Historia Augusta, Life of Lucius Verus

 

"When the war in Pannonia was settled, they returned to Aquileia at Lucius' insistence, and then, because he yearned for the pleasures of the city, they hastened cityward. But not far from Altinum, Lucius, while in his carriage, was suddenly stricken with the sickness which they call apoplexy, and after he had been set down from his carriage and bled, he was taken to Altinum, and here he died, after living for three days unable to speak."

Edited October 21, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[caldrail]

Ok, maybe we will know then!