Thoughts on the Reign of Commodus

Thoughts on Commodus

  • He was great! Hail Hercules Romanus!

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • He was okay but not great like his father

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • He was bad but not like Caligula, Nero or Elagabalus

    Votes: 14 70.0%
  • He was terrible! One of the worst emperors!

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Thoughts on the Reign of Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius :biggrin:

220px-Commodus_Musei_Capitolini_MC1120.jpg


Commodus is certainly a controversial figure and his reign has been viewed by the likes of Gibbon as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. Dio as well marks his rule as the point where Rome went from a "kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust." I have came across number of threads that take up the POD of Commodus never becoming emperor as a solution to the empire's problems. Is this a fair assessment?

From what I've read the Empire had already been put under great strain from the Antonine Plague and the Macromannic Wars. The empire was already "rusting" by the time Commodus took the throne. In my view Commodus even managed to improve the situation by bringing the wars to a conclusion. He is accused of giving up Aurelius gains but I'm unsure if making new provinces over the Danube would have been worth it? They were sapping the empire's strength and were very unpopular in the eastern provinces example Cassius' revolt. Commodus' reign, unlike his predecessor, looks to have been a period of peace and stability.

Commodus is also criticized for his disputes with the Senate. Commodus' conflict from the Senate seems to have stemmed from his failure to acknowledge Senatorial authority. This was largely caused by his use of freeman and equites. In a similar manner to Claudius, Commodus tended to trust these men because unlike the Senatorial class they had no aspirations for the throne. This would have uneven results during his reign as some proved efficient administrators and others failures.

His erratic behavior and megalomania is a valid criticism. He saw plots everywhere, some like Lucilla's were real, but others its less clear. His love for gladiatorial combat was also not ideal for an emperor. However Emperor Severus, from Dio, gives us an interesting defense of his behavior and points out the sports popularity with many in the Senatorial class ""But, you will say, Commodus actually fought as a gladiator. And does none of you fight as a gladiator? If not, how and why is it that some of you have bought his shields and those famous."

On one final point is that Commodus was always popular with the masses. The constant games he put on were largely for their benefit. He seems to have at times genuinely cared for the people of Rome, according to Dio when a fire broke out in the city, Commodus in person to arrived to help "For the conflagration could not be extinguished by human power, though vast numbers both of civilians and soldiers carried water, and Commodus himself came in from the suburb and encouraged them. Only when it had destroyed everything on which it had laid hold did it spend its force and die out."

To conclude, what are your thoughts on Commodus? Was he a great, good, bad or terrible emperor? Was the assassination of Commodus actually a positive development for the empire? With the benefits of hindsight we can see his death was followed by civil war and the reign of Severan Dynasty who fought many more wars and killed far more Senators than Commodus.

Eager to hear your thoughts on Commodus.
 
Commodus was a Emperor who handed power to an series of favorites which he then put to death in outbreaks of popular unrest, an seraglio of 300 girls and 300 boys, raging paranoia and openly tyrannical, who dress up as Hercules and demand he be worship as a living god (Which Emperors already had that with the Imperial Cult.) and rampage megalomania lead to a gladiator to strangle him to death. He was nothing like Marcus Aurelius, his father (Which might have not been his real father.)

Remember, he is the guy who thought it was good idea to refound Rome after himself. (The Colony of Commodus.)
 
Commodus was a Emperor who handed power to an series of favorites which he then put to death in outbreaks of popular unrest, an seraglio of 300 girls and 300 boys, raging paranoia and openly tyrannical, who dress up as Hercules and demand he be worship as a living god (Which Emperors already had that with the Imperial Cult.) and rampage megalomania lead to a gladiator to strangle him to death. He was nothing like Marcus Aurelius, his father (Which might have not been his real father.)

Remember, he is the guy who thought it was good idea to refound Rome after himself. (The Colony of Commodus.)

Glad you commented! I'll attempt a defense of Commodus on these matters because I doubt anyone else will.:p Feel free to shoot them down.

I'm of the impression that most of the over the top stuff comes from the unreliable Historia Augusta and can perhaps be dismissed as hyperbole. Renaming the city might seem crazy but the fire in Rome during his reign consumed a chunk of the city and Commodus then oversaw the rebuilding projects. So in theory he did refound Rome by rebuilding the city..... I also wanted to add that Cleander was most likely put to death because he failed to alert the emperor of the popular unrest. He tried to cover it up and cracked down on the people with Praetorian cav units killing many. After this Commodus really had no choice but to execute him to appease the mob or risk overthrow.
 
Last edited:
Marcus Aurelius may not have been the last emperor of the principate, but he certainly was the last princeps (as in the last emperor to follow Augustus' model of deferring some respect/authority to the senate). To be honest, I haven't made up my mind on Commodus fully, and part of the research I'm doing at the moment is examining the reigns of the "bad emperors" more critically than they are viewed by senatorial accounts of history.

1. His first act as emperor was to abandon his father's campaigns in Germania. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the more minor criticisms of his reign, since both Augustus and Hadrian (who were both extremely capable and competent emperors) set the precedent of abandoning foreign conquests and sticking to the Rhine-Danube-Euphrates border, and Commodus was effectively just sticking to a well-established policy doctrine that had been in place for 200 years (Trajan's conquests notwithstanding).

2. He hated the senate. It's remarkable how strong the correlation between hating the senate and being a "bad emperor" according to classical history is. As far as I'm concerned, the senate was largely responsible for destroying the Republic and creating the Empire, and then they got fed up with the institutional system that they effectively made possible. They may have been correct with regard to Nero or Caligula, but the senate even antagonized and plotted against the more capable emperors like Hadrian, Claudius, and Domitian, so as far as I can tell, senatorial history isn't a proper gauge for determining good from bad emperors.

3. He was paranoid and insane. This may be fair, but keep in mind that most primary sources for the history from this time period that we have are the writings of historians who were also senators, and as I pointed out above, I don't think the senate are good judges of what makes a good emperor. Stories like him trying to name Rome after himself or trying to rename the months of the year after himself may be exaggerated because the people who wrote these histories hated Commodus personally. Also, it's not exactly revolutionary or unprecedented for an emperor to name months after himself or his relatives (July and August much?). Plus, when you're the most powerful man in the world and no fewer than six (or possibly eight, depending on what you believe about Tiberius and Claudius) other emperors have been assassinated or deposed by the senate and praetorians, it's not like his paranoia would be unfounded. And that's not small, because by this point there had only even been sixteen emperors so far, so that could be as many as half of all emperors, which is not an insignificant number. Maybe he was *overly* paranoid, but as the Year of the Four Emperors shows clearly, the senate will turn on anyone if it looks like they're on the losing side of a power struggle.

4. He fought as a gladiator in the Coliseum. I dunno about this one. It may have been unprecedented or strange for the time, but as far as I can tell he may have just been trying to enjoy himself while working a hard job (roughly like US presidents playing golf maybe?) and doing a kind of manual labor to appear more relatable to the people of Rome. Or he may have just liked killing people, this one may be up to interpretation.

All-in-all a complicated guy, which isn't helped by the amount of bias in the sources. Either way, I don't think assassinating emperors who don't have a clear heir is in any way a sustainable solution, so as bad as he may have been, it may have been better for the empire in the long run if he had died of natural causes. If anything, setting a precedent of assassinating emperors just because they're "bad" is one of the trends that caused the 3rd century crisis.
 
Last edited:
Commodus was a Emperor who handed power to an series of favorites

Every emperor handed power to a "series of favorites". That's just how emperors consolidate power, they appoint their friends and family members to important positions. That's not even specific to emperors, even democratically elected rulers do this today, that's the whole point of political parties, so this is hardly a meaningful criticism. Not that I'm a huge fan of Commodus, just playing devil's advocate
 
Every emperor handed power to a "series of favorites". That's just how emperors consolidate power, they appoint their friends and family members to important positions. That's not even specific to emperors, even democratically elected rulers do this today, that's the whole point of political parties, so this is hardly a meaningful criticism. Not that I'm a huge fan of Commodus, just playing devil's advocate

I mean, every Emperor did that, yes, but I am sure Commodus the one who put most of them to death whenever things looked to shift the blame from himself.
 
4. He fought as a gladiator in the Coliseum. I dunno about this one. It may have been unprecedented or strange for the time, but as far as I can tell he may have just been trying to enjoy himself while working a hard job (roughly like US presidents playing golf maybe?) and doing a kind of manual labor to appear more relatable to the people of Rome. Or he may have just liked killing people, this one may be up to interpretation.

Great analysis! Wanted to add that Commodus seems to have picked up the habit from watching Lucius Verus as a child who also liked to fight as a gladiator. According to Dio, Commodus never actually killed anyone in the arena as a gladiator "in public he refrained from using steel and shedding human blood". So it was basically just the emperor running around with a wooden sword and his opponent probably letting him win.;)
 
I mean, every Emperor did that, yes, but I am sure Commodus the one who put most of them to death whenever things looked to shift the blame from himself.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Again every Roman emperor put some people to death, when absolute power is on the table, those are the stakes. Claudius had his own wife executed when he discovered she planned to overthrow him. Augustus had a 15 year old boy (Caesarion) hunted down and assassinated, and he also forced many of his daughter's lovers to commit suicide (some of which were his allies in the senate). Tiberius had his close friend and ally Sejanus executed. Imperial rule is nasty by definition, and people are gonna get executed, Machiavelli taught us that. Sometimes allies become enemies (Octavian and Marc Antony much?) that's just one of the realities of high-stakes politics, not sure that Commodus is uniquely cruel or unjust for that
 
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Again every Roman emperor put some people to death, when absolute power is on the table, those are the stakes. Claudius had his own wife executed when he discovered she planned to overthrow him. Augustus had a 15 year old boy (Caesarion) hunted down and assassinated, and he also forced many of his daughter's lovers to commit suicide (some of which were his allies in the senate). Tiberius had his close friend and ally Sejanus executed. Imperial rule is nasty by definition, and people are gonna get executed, Machiavelli taught us that. Sometimes allies become enemies (Octavian and Marc Antony much?) that's just one of the realities of high-stakes politics, not sure that Commodus is uniquely cruel or unjust for that

And again, that's all true. But in the end, Commodus was among the worst and the worst at putting people to death.

In the end, Commodus insanity and his brutal misrule is what caused the Year of the Five Emperors, and ended over 80 years of stability and prosperity. All thanks to him.
 
And again, that's all true. But in the end, Commodus was among the worst and the worst at putting people to death.

In the end, Commodus insanity and his brutal misrule is what caused the Year of the Five Emperors, and ended over 80 years of stability and prosperity. All thanks to him.

Well actually, it was his assassination that caused the Year of the Five Emperors, if he had lived a long life, he almost certainly would have appointed an heir, who may have been a worse or better emperor. Also, prosperity didn't immediately end after Commodus, that's a pretty simplistic view of Roman history. The Severan period wasn't marked by the sort of chaos and uncertainty marked the 3rd century crisis, and it's unfair to trace the underlying institutional causes of the fall of Rome to Commodus alone. It takes a lot more than one bad emperor to destroy a state as stable and long-lasting as the Roman Empire (which is how Rome survived so many bad emperors), and Commodus didn't put the final nail in the coffin any more than Nero or Elagabalus
 
Well actually, it was his assassination that caused the Year of the Five Emperors, if he had lived a long life, he almost certainly would have appointed an heir, who may have been a worse or better emperor. Also, prosperity didn't immediately end after Commodus, that's a pretty simplistic view of Roman history. The Severan period wasn't marked by the sort of chaos and uncertainty marked the 3rd century crisis, and it's unfair to trace the underlying institutional causes of the fall of Rome to Commodus alone. It takes a lot more than one bad emperor to destroy a state as stable and long-lasting as the Roman Empire (which is how Rome survived so many bad emperors), and Commodus didn't put the final nail in the coffin any more than Nero or Elagabalus

Maybe it is an simplistic view on Roman History, and it would be wrong for placing the blame on others, but I have such low standards for the man, I would rather and would defend bloody Nero then Commondus any time of the day.
 
2. He hated the senate. It's remarkable how strong the correlation between hating the senate and being a "bad emperor" according to classical history is. As far as I'm concerned, the senate was largely responsible for destroying the Republic and creating the Empire, and then they got fed up with the institutional system that they effectively made possible. They may have been correct with regard to Nero or Caligula, but the senate even antagonized and plotted against the more capable emperors like Hadrian, Claudius, and Domitian, so as far as I can tell, senatorial history isn't a proper gauge for determining good from bad emperors.

3. He was paranoid and insane. This may be fair, but keep in mind that most primary sources for the history from this time period that we have are the writings of historians who were also senators, and as I pointed out above, I don't think the senate are good judges of what makes a good emperor. Stories like him trying to name Rome after himself or trying to rename the months of the year after himself may be exaggerated because the people who wrote these histories hated Commodus personally. Also, it's not exactly revolutionary or unprecedented for an emperor to name months after himself or his relatives (July and August much?). Plus, when you're the most powerful man in the world and no fewer than six (or possibly eight, depending on what you believe about Tiberius and Claudius) other emperors have been assassinated or deposed by the senate and praetorians. And that's not small, because by this point there had only even been sixteen emperors so far, so that could be as many as half of all emperors, which is not an insignificant number. Maybe he was *overly* paranoid, but as the Year of the Four Emperors shows clearly, the senate will turn on anyone if it looks like they're on the losing side of a power struggle.

I have been thinking about the reasoning behind Commodus' paranoia and dislike of the Senate. It probably stems from the attempted assassination of Commodus in 182. This was only a few years into Commodus' reign and he was only in his early twenties at the time. Claudius Pompeianus attempted to stab Commodus and according to Dio said "See! This is what the senate has sent you." This is not a good way to start off emperor/senate relations. My guess is Commodus never trusted the Senate again and this is why he turned to freeman/equites. This then lead to the Senate feeling underappreciated and hating him even more.
 
I have been thinking about the reasoning behind Commodus' paranoia and dislike of the Senate. It probably stems from the attempted assassination of Commodus in 182. This was only a few years into Commodus' reign and he was only in his early twenties at the time. Claudius Pompeianus attempted to stab Commodus and according to Dio said "See! This is what the senate has sent you." This is not a good way to start off emperor/senate relations. My guess is Commodus never trusted the Senate again and this is why he turned to freeman/equites. This then lead to the Senate feeling underappreciated and hating him even more.

I've heard something similar about Domitian, who is often viewed as a "bad" emperor and had a poor relationship with the senate. Some historians think this may have stemmed from a crucial part of his early life: Domitian was in Rome, and was only 18 years old during the Year of the Four Emperors. He was in the city when Galba was assassinated, when Otho committed suicide, and when Vitellius was dragged out into the forum and murdered, while the senate flipped sides with every victorious army marching in. This is a pretty plain demonstration that by this point in history the senate had no real loyalties except to whichever way the political wind was blowing, and it gave him a less naive perspective on the perils of his own office than Vespasian or Titus probably had
 
Last edited:
Top