I am hoping the collective wisdom of this fine forum can assist me with a question I have been pondering recently. How could one of the last great rulers of Rome and one of the most influential people associated with stoicism raise a leader like Commodus?

How does one of the best and most revered rulers of any empire allow such a failure of discipline with regards to succession? He had to know his son was not fit to rule? How did such a spectacular miscalculation occur from someone who was supposed to remove emotion from decisions?

I can’t figure it out either

IIRC, a member here is a Greek and Roman history teacher or professor. (Oat Action Man, perhaps?)

Hopefully, they'll be along shortly.


One thought I had was that he may have just been a stereotypical "preacher's son". That is, kids who are subject to overly strict/harsh upbringings can oftentimes rebel pretty hard against that once they're finally let off the leash. So perhaps he went along with his father's style until his father's death, and then rebelled hard against that once he was free to do as he pleased. If so, his father may not have had a chance to recognize what he would become, since Commodus may not have started to go off the rails until after his passing.

[smarty-pants] Well, with a name like Commode-us, he was bound for a crappy life. [/smarty-pants]

Seriously, though, it's an interesting question. I've just started doing some Aurelius reading, and will quickly admit I'm just scratching the surface.

It is a psychological question really. I see this all the time in business. The kid never had to struggle like the old man. Very few leaders have sons that fill their shoes. The old expression of shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in a generation.

This is commonly seen today and as I’m reading through the Old Testament again now the same question struck me. There were very few Godly kings of Israel. Most were wicked. Every few generations a good one would come along and set everything right again. Then one of his sons would take over and go back to being wicked. Like slaughtering innocent people, “shrine prostitution” at the temple and sacrificing their own children to idols wicked.

He had 14 children. Only 5 lived to adulthood, 4 daughters and Commodus. There was a lot of disease in that time and it’s likely the best of his progeny was among the 9 who perished young.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
IIRC, a member here is a Greek and Roman history teacher or professor. (Oat Action Man, perhaps?)

Hopefully, they'll be along shortly.

I'm interested in hearing some of our members who study Roman history respond, as well.

I'm actively reading Gibbons's 'Decline and Fall' at the moment. Just a couple dozen chapters in, and this sort of thing seems to have occurred often in the annals of emperors trying to pass on their throne to their progeny. So far (read up to Constantine) the general rule is, the kids didn't work out worth a damn. There is quite the competition for "most evil, self-centered, immoral, violent, paranoid, bloodthirsty individual to wear the Imperial purple" and Commodus surely is in the running.

Marcus Aurelius is so far one of the few Roman Emperors with any redeeming characteristics whatsoever, based on what I've read in Gibbon. About the worst thing he did was direct the succession to his unprepared and unsuitable son.

As to what in Commodus's upbringing brought about his issues? I don't know how much blame to put on Daddy, hopefully the Roman history experts will know. That said, the job description of Roman Emperor is long on power, short on accountability, the pay is high but the retirement plan generally seems to be getting betrayed and killed by someone you trust, often because you've made them fear what you may do to them, but sometimes due to ambition or revenge.

Not something that would tend to promote modesty, kindness, trust or moderation. I think that sort of structure could warp anyone, though of course not all of them came into the job equally sane, and not all became equally twisted. It does seem many of the ones that were most humane had very short reigns, though.

If I was back then, and trying to raise someone who would have a reasonably long reign and prosper as a Roman Emperor, and cause more good than ill in so doing, I'm darned if I know what I'd teach them using the ethics and knowledge available at the time.

I would have to assume Marcus Aurelius tried to teach his son Stoicism, but if so, surely that either didn't take or wasn't enough by itself.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: joel9507,

Kids those days. Whaddayagonnado, am I right?

I was too young at the time . No clue how it happened .

I also believe that a man can only do so much. To focus so much on achieving greatness, often seals failure at their greatest responsibility.

If you need a more modern context, you might ask Joe Biden the next time you see him.

I’ve never thought about that specific example, but why some offspring turn out good and others terrible even when raised under virtually identical conditions within the same household has been something I’ve wondered about for decades. I’ve seen more examples of that than I care to think about.

Differences in the children of the same parents and upbringing makes me believe that differences in our genes, i.e., the nature in the “nature versus nurture” debate is extremely important, and couple that with differences in nurture, i.e., upbringing, then that’s another variable that can have huge effects.

How many times have we known people who were excellent at performing a particular job or tasks such as the shooting most of us here are familiar with, but were hopeless when it came to teaching others? Just because someone had the upbringing as well as the intellect and temperament to be a really good and moral person doesn’t mean they were capable of producing offspring with the same characteristics—and especially if they had poor material to work with. I’m often reminded of the line from West Side Story: “... the best of us is no damn good!”

Marcus Aurelius attempted to raise Commodus in the way he himself had elected to grow up - by ascesis, philosophy, discipline. An ascetic and philosophical upbringing works only if the youngster in question himself elects and openly desires it. If an intelligent youth is forced to grow up that way, he can become incredibly sybaritic, anti-intellectual and corrupt. Simply because he has been denied all the pleasures and good rights of youth and life. Commodus simply hated the way he was forced to grow up, and considered his dad’s philosophy as folly.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
It is a psychological question really. I see this all the time in business. The kid never had to struggle like the old man. Very few leaders have sons that fill their shoes. The old expression of shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in a generation.

In business, they trace it to a desire (subconscious or not) to find a successor who won't be better than them to show how great they are.

I suppose it is possible Marcus was aware of his son’s shortcomings and did all he could to try and prepare him for leadership.

Had Marcus denied Commodus the throne he might be indirectly signing his death warrant. That is a difficult decision that was probably further compounded by the staggering number of children Marcus Aurelius lost. Marcus knew that whoever assumed power would have to see Commodus as a threat and would have dealt with him accordingly.

The previous four (maybe five?) rulers of Rome did not have a son. This gave them the unique advantage of hand selecting their successor and grooming them for their extremely difficult occupation. Marcus did not enjoy this same scenario.

I believe the decision to co rule with Commodus was Marcus’s attempt to teach his son the qualities of a strong and good leader. This was also the best way to protect his son. Whether he truly understood how bad his son would become is debatable. I’m not sure if Marcus ever considered his decision to favor one would mean the eventual death of the other. We was not stupid so the thought could have occurred in his mind.

It is certainly an interesting problem to ponder.

Maybe he took after mom?

Keith Richards probably saw it all go down . Ask him .

So the movie Gladiator was bullshit?

I’m sure all the inbreeding didn’t help.