Caesar CXXXVII Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Saw episode 6 or 7 in history channels' "the rise and..." and two things caught me : 1. Aurelius moved in 168 to the German border in order to establish his position in Rome (as a military leader etc') . He needed to do that 7 years after his coronation ? 2. Aurelius was not a good military leader or that he was good- or bad+ or something like that . Like to read your opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Saw episode 6 or 7 in history channels' "the rise and..." and two things caught me :1. Aurelius moved in 168 to the German border in order to establish his position in Rome (as a military leader etc') . He needed to do that 7 years after his coronation ? 2. Aurelius was not a good military leader or that he was good- or bad+ or something like that . Like to read your opinion I think they left out some vital information... Marcus Aurelius had already established a presence on the Danube long before the relative permanence of 168-9. The invasion of the Marcomanni and the Quadi in 169 prompted the personal attention of the emperor. While he may or may not have been an effective commander, during his presence the Romans effectively advanced into Germanic territory while holding off further incursions across the Danube. Perhaps without his presence the Romans may have performed better, or perhaps not. It's really quite impossible to ascertain. From what little we can read into it, he seemed at least to have been relatively willing to delegate authority to legates and allow them to lead the fight. His presence may have been a shining example of his disdain for the political machinations in Rome as it was a desire to see the Germanic war through to a settled conclusion. Regardless, after Marcus Aurelius, it was nearly a century before the Germanic tribes posed a serious invasion threat again. The emperor's death at 59 years old and the policy changes of Commodus make it extremely difficult to estimate what ultimately may have happened, but situation was actually quite settled at the time of his death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk421 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) If I recall correctly Marcus Aurelius had wanted to continue the wars in the north and subdue the Germanic tribes north of the Rhine-Danube frontier. When he died in 180 his son Commodus reversed Marcus Aurelius's northern policy and made peace with the barbarians. This peace lasted quite some time but as some historians have pointed out, may have been bad for the Empire in the long term. Marcus Aurelius may not have been a great military leader but his policies were just and he is recorded in History for being a very strong leader and great Emperor. The Empire could have done much worse in this period as the challenges he faced were tremendous but Marcus Aurelius prevailed against overwhelming odds. With what had gone on during his 19 year reign I would suggest that the Empire could have even began a decline if it were not for Marcus Aurelius's leadership. This is my point of view and not intended to cause a stir, if so I apologize. Edited March 31, 2009 by tk421 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I believe that he was at least a decent military leader successfully facing attacks on the entire northern frontier at a moment when the empire and it's leadership was weakened by plague. He definitely spend a lot of time fighting the invaders so was at least a very dedicated leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelia Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) When Marcus Aurelius ascended the throne in AD 161, he was made joint Emperor along with Lucius Aurelius Verus. While Marcus Aurelius remained in Rome to carry out a series of law reforms, Verus went east to Parthia on a military campaign. It was only in 167 that Marcus Aurelius joined Verus in the campaign against the German tribes in the north. So it is possible that he (Aurelius) wanted to establish a reputation as a competent military leader by personally leading Roman troops. Edited March 31, 2009 by Aurelia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) That is a good point . It is true that Verus went east, but he apent his time in Antiochia, drinking, ****ing etc' while Avidius Cassius did the dirty job for him . Nonetheless, Verus had the supreme imperium . Antoninus Pius did not find it necessary to establish a military reputation ever Edited April 1, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 A good point indeed. If Verus established himself as a military leader he could have become a threat to the senior emperor by getting the support of the legions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 So it is possible that he (Aurelius) wanted to establish a reputation as a competent military leader by personally leading Roman troops. Possible? Almost a certainty. Roman emperors sought military glory to underpin their reputations with the public, to give themselves political credibility, and in some cases to impress other powers. It was after all to establish himself as a true Roman conqueror in the traditional sense that Claudius undertook the invasion of Britain. After all, Marcus Aurelius wasn't by nature a military man. He was known as a philosopher so he definitely had other reasons to personally lead troops than the pursuit of glory. With Marcus Aurelius however, beware of considering his reign in isolation. Hadrian had established a lasting peace previously both by the adoption of certain frontier policies but also by appeasement. Such tactics were bound to have a limited life and in Marcus Aurelius' reign, the dam burst. Antoninus Pius in my view did little more than live in Hadrians shadow, remembered as a great emperor because he so little to upset anyone, and certainly wasn't a man concerned with the frontiers in the way Hadrian had been. This lack of concern was bound to encourage foreign powers and alliances and eventually Marcus Aurelius was left to pick up the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Venustinius Cavus Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 Avidius Cassius seems to have been the Great general that both Verus and Aurelius relied upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miloslavius Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 (edited) Salve! The Emperor Marcus Aurelius is personally close to me because he also wrote in Slovakia near Granua River and to the winter camp Carnunte It's from us a bit down the road. Its timeless message and efforts in service for Imperium Romanum could tell young people chapters from a large living story. The test criterion will always be subjective. One legend has also reached a postage stamp. In the topic are hidden Christian themes. If you are interested, please see the PDF attachment. The text was not verified by any translator. Miraculous rain.pdf LAUGARICIO Trencin_Slovakia.pdf Edited April 19, 2021 by Miloslavius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.