WI: Marcus Aurelius Lived Another 15-20 Years?

hasdrubal barca

What if Marcus Aurelius Lived Another 15-20 Years?

When I watch Richard Harris in the film Gladiator I get the picture of Marcus Aurelius as an ancient man just barely hanging on to life. When researching however you will find that Marcus Aurelius was a bit younger and died at the age of 58 in the year 180. I'm curious what would have happened had he lived another say 15-20 years and died around the same age as Augustus? What would have been the implications? Effect on Commodus? Empire's stability?
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Unless he discovers that his son Commodus is a cunt, or Commodus is made less of a cunt,* the onset of the crisis of the second century is only delayed.

*death being an acceptable route
 

nyar

Hard to say. Some of what Commodus is guilty of seems to be sensible. Withdraw to a more easily defended Danube boarder and peace negotiation with Rome's Germanic neighbors. Higher taxation of the wealthy Senatorial class to pay for expenditures. His excesses at the end of his reign may have been caused by the stresses of not being appreciated as a sensible leader. The history books are written by the victors and Commodus' assassins ultimately won. Maybe the decline was inevitible. The passing of Marcus Aurelius on March 17, AD 180 is more than likely attributed to years of plague exposure and continued poor health. Had he returned before completing his Marcomannic campaign things would have pretty much ended up at the same place Commodus placed them when he left the frontier and returned to rome.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

Well this depends on what happens to the whole Pompeianus situation? It should be noted there isn't necessarily a guarantee Aurelius was promoting Commodus as his sole heir and there was certainly a lot of speculation regarding Pompeianus which led to the letter to Avidius Cassius and his rebellion. Commodus was not promoted to Caesar until after all this.


So when is the POD?
 

tallthinkev

Donor
What ever would happen over the Danube, hold it or not, he should turn to the east. Being in the job longer gives him time to deal once and for all with Parthia.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

tallthinkev said:
What ever would happen over the Danube, hold it or not, he should turn to the east. Being in the job longer gives him time to deal once and for all with Parthia.
Click to expand...
What's there to deal with? Parthia was a spent force until Septimius Severus. They were already crippled by the campaign early in Aurelius's reign.
 

hasdrubal barca

tallthinkev said:
What ever would happen over the Danube, hold it or not, he should turn to the east. Being in the job longer gives him time to deal once and for all with Parthia.
Click to expand...

Here's some interesting points in regard to Aurelius thinking in 175. It might make an interesting POD if the revolt either doesn't occur or he rehashes the idea in 180-90's:

"The campaigning season of 175 brought a renewed assault on the Sarmatians. Marcus was now determined to make their territory and that of the Macromanni and Quadi into a province. He is in fact credited with the wish to exterminate the Sarmatians utterly. It is not quite clear how literally this statement should be taken. But the territory of the Marcomanni was already partially occupied by the African legion III Augusta and it may well be that Julius Pompilius Piso was occupying parts of the Sarmatian lands. But the campaign can barely have been under way when, in early spring, news was brought that Avidius Cassius had raised the standard of rebellion and had been recognized as emperor in most of the eastern provinces. "
Marcus Aurelius by Anthony Birley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top