Commodus

The description of the martyr Pionius’ body after his execution bears a remarkable likeness to a passage in the historian Herodian in which the appearance of the emperor Commodus is described. It seems most likely that the author of the Martyrium Pionii was inspired by Herodian.

The present study aims at examining the Roman foreign policy during the reigns of Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius as well as in the first half of the reign of Commodus. The main emphasis put here is on the regions of the Lower- and Mid-Danube. In addition to literary, numismatic and epigraphic sources, archaeological sources and research findings in particular will be evaluated for the ensuing argumentation.
For that matter, the principes’ decisions can be regarded as a result of structurally conditioned forms of individual depiction of power in contrast to or in connection with the emperors’ predecessors. These decisions can also be seen as reactions to certain domestic as well as foreign-policy constellations.
After an extensive preface, the presentation of source material, the analysis of the term ‘foreign policy’ and policymakers in regard of foreign policy in the Principate as well as with an underlying knowledge of Roman frontiers, the main body of this paper will be structured into four larger parts, followed by an appendix. Here, the description of the armies of Raetia, Noricum, and western Dacia provide the basis for the analysis of the decisions regarding the frontier policy pursued by the three named principes.
Chapter 2 deals with the development of frontier policies under Hadrian and thus provides the background of the analysis of Antonius Pius’ decisions on foreign-policy. In doing so, the author of this paper conceives the frontier policy undertaken by Hadrian in order to established the concept of an on-guard defense as point of origin for his successor’s policy.
In chapter 3 the author extensively covers Antonius Pius’ foreign policy. The text elaborates on how deliberately the emperor distinguished himself from his predecessor from the outset of his reign. Whilst Antonius Pius extended the frontiers of the Roman Empire, he remained true to his predecessor’s concept of fortified frontiers, which he enlarged. The emperor also resumed the policy of his predecessor in other areas, such as increasing the discipline within the army.
The author, however, rejects the notion that for the most part, the reign of Antonius Pius proceeded peacefully and without any major conflicts. He also dismisses the view that battles only took place at nearby frontiers and only to a manageable extent. This image, portrayed by literary sources, was revised insofar as that the emperor had to defy the empire’s opponents in tedious wars. He reacted on changes in the periphery of the frontiers and propagated his victories as well as his victoriousness. In addition, at least two attempts of usurpation prove that Antonius Pius’ reign was not undisputed. The image of a peacemaking emperor is attributed to his objectives of reign (Regierungsprogrammatik). The maxim of these objectives was the on-guard foreign policy of an empire, placed under the protection of the gods. Initially, even though the army of this empire was meant to act primarily as a deterrent, it was also, at all times, supposed to enforce the interests of the princeps, who was considered by the gentes, who lived extra fines. as the decision-making authority.
In chapter 4, the study of the foreign policy under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, as well as under the sole rule of the former, illustrates that the previously described concept was destined to fail. Here, the war with the Parthians, which was fought directly at the beginning of the dual leadership of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, resulted in power-political frictions. At that time, the military successes of Lucius Verus threatened the hitherto clear distribution of power between the two Principes. Hence, Marcus Aurelius was faced with the problem of having to prove his supremacy qua auctoritate. To scotch any potential criticism, the senior Augustus had to associate military success with his name. This is of vital importance for the prehistory of the Marcomannic Wars as these are regarded as a result of two key factors. On the one hand, Marcus Aurelius and his counsellors took the changes within the societies in the Transdanubian territories, which had started during the reign of Antonius Pius, very seriously. Marcus Aurelius and his counsellors had realized that they had to react preventively towards these changes. This, on the other hand, put the emperor in the position of having to produce his own military success, in order to legitimize his position through victories, having shown his personal victoriousness in the field.
In this study, archaeologically certifiable traces of destruction support the subsequent reconstruction of the Marcomannic Wars. As a result, two horizons will be gained as historically evaluable evidence from this kind of source.
Initially, the Roman offensive was directed at the Iazyges of the Hungarian lowlands. At that time, Rome was still at peace with the Marcomanni and Quadi. It was only after Rome had suffered a devastating defeat, presumably at the Lower-Pannonian frontier, that the Germani invaded the empire. They progressed as far as modern day Northern Italy, which etched deeply into the collective memory of the Romans. It was not until 171/172 A.D. that Rome found itself in the position of taking the war to the enemy’s settlement zones beyond the Danube. It can be established that the emperor tried to break the enemy’s coalition, particularly by diplomatic means. He thereby pursued the isolation of the Elb-Germannic gentes in Inner-Germania and intended to keep the Rhine-border calm.
The thesis presented in this chapter is that, after a forced ceasefire caused by the usurpation of Avicius Cassius, Marcus Aurelius intended to establish at least one new province: Marcomannia. Even though the Iazyges can be identified as the main adversaries in the Marcomannic Wars, the archaeological finding speak against alleged plans to seize the Sarmatian territory.
Chapter 5 deals with Commodus’ significant decisions, made after Marcus Aurelius’ death. In the years following the Danube Wars, which had been instigated by his father, Commodus initially appears to be a prudent Princeps, who realised a comprehensive construction project in the Danube provinces in cooperation with his counsellors. It was supposed to meet the latest requirements and was to be premised on the experiences of the war years, which can specifically be seen in the border fortifications and in the deployment of troops. The last chapter provides an overview on the development of Rome’s foreign policy. In the summary, the decisions on foreign-policy and the developments of the examined period of time will be discussed in terms of causes, manifestations and aftermath.

El artículo analiza el desarrollo de la figura del Prefecto del Pretorio, que desde sus comienzos fue una de las más importantes dentro de las instituciones de estado romanas, pero que con la llegada de los cambios políticos después de la muerte de Marco Aurelio, aumentó su protagonismo hasta el punto de gozar de más poder en ocasiones que el mismo emperador. La coyuntura inestable y las fuertes prerrogativas de las que gozaba convirtieron a ese alto funcionario, mitad militar y mitad burócrata, en un personaje clave dentro de las intrigas políticas romanas, que desde su posición inigualable fue capaz a menudo de eliminar al emperador mediante una conspiración para ocupar su lugar. La situación se hizo tan grave llegado el siglo iv que Constantino decidió retirarle el mando de tropas y las funciones militares, convirtiendo al Prefecto del Pretorio en un juez supremo y organizador del suministro.

Quatre passages de l'Histoire Auguste relatent que l'empereur Commode “portait Anubis”. Deux de ces textes permettent de préciser que l'empereur agissait ainsi lors de processions, et qu'il transportait en fait un simulacrum du dieu canidé, en tête des pompes isiaques. Apulée, dans sa description de la fête du Navigium Isidis, place en tête du cortège des dieux un personnage jouant le rôle d'Anubis, avec son encolure de chien. Il doit donc s'agir d'un ministre à la tête coiffée d'un masque imitant la tête d'Anubis. Ce spectacle n'étonnait déjà plus à l'époque de Tibère, à en croire Appien qui nous dépeint Marcus Volusius échappant à la proscription de 43 a.C., en revêtant pareil déguisement. La vraisemblance de l'anecdote paraît confirmée par une peinture de l'Iseum de Pompéi mettant en scène un homme coiffé du masque noir d'Anubis. Un peu plus tard, Juvénal se moque aussi de cette pratique, également raillée par le Pseudo-Cyprien, au milieu du IIIe siècle. Quelques documents figurés hellénistiques tardifs, et surtout d'époque impériale, nous livrent des images de personnes portant le masque d'Anubis. Le titre d'Anuboforus porté à Vienne, dans la vallée du Rhône, par un certain Lepidus Rufus, sur une inscription de la 1ère moitié du IIIe siècle de notre ère, doit désigner les personnages qui avaient l'honneur de jouer le rôle d'Anubis, en portant son masque de canidé.

It is argued that, when the emperor Commodus struck coins with reverse legend celebrating Fortuna under the epithet Manens surrounding a unique depiction of her seated and holding a horse by the bridle, he may have done so in order to celebrate his lucky escape from a potentially fatal accident involving a horse.

On the reverses of certain coin issues of Abydos is shown a scene which can be interpreted as rather depicting Alexander the Great at the time of his crossing of the Hellespont.
Alexander’s crossing in 334 BC is significantly connected to the concept of the δορίκτητος χώρα (spear-conquered territory), a basic ideological feature during the Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian age — with interesting connotations extended also to the Roman world.
The first of these issues was struck in the name of Commodus as caesar; the suggested more precise dating of this coin emission, framed in the appropriate historical context, is quite revealing about the raison d’être for the use of the theme. Additionally, the possibility of a somehow latent anniversary (with regard to Alexander’s crossing) is also examined, at a timing hinted by a tight chronological frame. Moreover, an analogous comparandum has been sought in the Roman Provincial coin series of Smyrna, and more precisely in the case of an issue minted in the name of young Marcus Aurelius, illustrating the ‘dream of Alexander’ on the reverse.
Further issues of Abydos with the crossing scene, struck in the names of Septimius Severus, young Caracalla, Severus Alexander and Maximinus Thrax, are included in the discussion.
The whole matter can largely benefit by insights concerning the perception of the past of a city during the imperial times, alongside with the transformation of a historical of fictional past into a symbolic construct, a so-called “lieu de mémoire”.

Despite positioning himself as a contemporary eyewitness and heir to Thucydides, Herodian has generally been judged to be a poor historian prone to the use of compression , formulaic scenes, and even free invention. This paper examines Herodian's application of a specific plot type to conspiracies against the emperor by praetorian prefects. The use of this plot type reveals something of Herodian's understanding of history and historical methodology, while also serving an important narrative function in his text. Keywords Herodian – ancient historiography – Severan dynasty – Cassius Dio – Historia Augusta – third century AD

The Marcus Aurelius' Marcomannic wars reshaped the Roman world. Their impact can be seen in every Danubian provinces, with evident consequences for many years after Marcus Aurelius' reign period. Because of the war damages and economic decline, in association with the plague spreading, provincial populace was under pressure. In this turbid context some events occur and can be observed in the field even in time of Marcus Aurelius' successor. The damage suffered by three Roman sites situated in South-Carpathian Dacia at Râmnicu Vâlcea, Stolniceni, Ocnița (all of them are in Vâlcea County), very close one and other, seems to be dated at the beginning of Commodus' reign period. Chronological data can be offered by the Râmnicu Vâlcea I hoard, of which hiding moment have to be place in that time. Although, in South-Carpathian Dacia a hoard horizon was formed in this historical context.

Bu çalışmada, Parion kent merkezinde konumlandırılmış olan Roma Hamamı’nda ele geçen Herakles tipindeki heykel parçasının ön değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Söz konusu eser, Hamam’ın 4 nolu mekânında, geç dönemde inşa edilmiş olan yapıda spolia (devşirme) olarak kullanım görmüştür. Baş, kollar ve belden aşağısı eksik olarak gün yüzüne çıkarılan heykel parçasının, ikonografi k ve stilistik özelliklerine bakılarak benzer örnekleri ile kıyaslanmış olup, tanımlama ve analizi yapılmıştır.

Статья посвящена изучению риторических стратегий христианина Аполлония и префекта претория Перенния в «Мученичестве Аполлония» (BHG 149; BHO 79). Префект и мученик явно выходят за рамки ролевой модели «судья – обвиняемый». Немалую роль здесь играют факторы, о которых нам прямо ничего не сказано: социальный статус оппонентов, полученное ими образование, аудитория, перед которой мученик произнес свою вторую речь, и ее взаимоотношения с Аполлонием и Переннием (вполне вероятно, что многие слушатели были знакомы и с мучеником, и с перфектом). Обе стороны имели заранее подготовленный план действий, который они и проводили в жизнь.
The article deals with the rhetorical strategies of the Christian Apollonius and the prefectus pretorii Perennius in the «Martyrdom of Apollonius» (BHG 149; BHO 79). The prefect and the martyr clearly go beyond the role model of «judge – accused». A significant role here was played by the factors about which we are not informed: the social status of the opponents, their education, the audience before which the martyr delivered his second speech, and the relationship between this audience and Apollonius and Perennius (it is likely that many listeners were acquainted with both martyr and prefect). The two parties had the beforehand prepared plans of action that they were fulfilling.

This article tries to analyze the different ways in which vision of Commodus’ character is created in two major epic movies on ancient Roman history, ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’ and ‘Gladiator’. In the former, the greatest vice of the young emperor is negligence of his duties, in accordance with what ancient written sources tell about his fall. Being a gladiator’s true son, he is not suited to fulfill his public role. Therefore he becomes tyrant and false god when the burden of power gradually leads him into madness. Finally he finds his death in the duel fought against Livius, a true heir to Marcus Aurelius’ moral virtues. In the second movie the major concern of the filmmakers is to show Commodus as an evil and cruel man, in the direct opposition to the righteous Maximus. In order to do it convincingly for modern spectators, the director focuses on personal qualities of main characters, as they are presented both in private and in public. Their conflict forms a center of the plot and the core of spectacle of power located in the Coliseum. The amphitheater on the one hand is conceived as a metaphor of Roman public life, and on the other is presented as more universal formula, the arena where good and evil collide, impersonated by the general turned gladiator and the maniac turned emperor.

Après l'usurpation d'Avidius Cassius, le voyage de Marc Aurèle dans les provinces hellénophones de l'Empire (175-176) fut l'occasion de redéfinir le style et les modalités d'exercice du pouvoir impérial après un ébranlement qu'on ne doit pas sous estimer. Il importait d'abord de signifier la reprise en main d'un Orient dont on avait perdu momentanément le contrôle, ce qui passait notamment par un important mouvement de personnel. Il fallait ensuite réaffirmer la stabilité de la dynastie en assurant à l'héritier de l'Empire une loyauté indéfectible : le voyage fut l'instrument de la mise en avant du jeune Commode. Enfin, cela passait nécessairement par la reconstruction d'un consensus dans un cadre culturel qui s'adressait avant tout aux élites civiques. Ces différents aspects occupent toutefois des places bien différentes dans l'historiographie antique qui gomme et déforme tant la dimension militaire et répressive du voyage que sa portée dynastique, et met surtout l'accent sur la restauration d'un consensus politique autour de l'Empereur.

en kamp om Principatets ideologiske fundament af Christopher Vassaux Noe Commodus var det tragiske klimaks på antoninernes aera; en tosset kejser-den direkte modsaetning til sin fader, den stoiske Marcus Aurelius. Dette synspunkt kommer i høj grad fra en tradition, hvor man har ladet Cassius Dios og Herodians ekstremt kritiske holdning til Commodus vaere styrende. Herfra kommer fortaellingen om Commodus som en skør og brutal kejser uden fornuft, der var ligeglad med statsledelse og i stedet legede gladiator i arenaen. 1 I denne artikel vil jeg problematisere denne fremstilling, ikke for at rehabilitere Commodus som sådan, men for at saette hans styre ind i en poli-tisk og ideologisk kontekst, der kan nuancere billedet af ham og hans regeringstid. Konkret handler artiklen om at saette Commodus' styre ind i Septimius Severus' selvis-cenesaettelsesprogram, hvilket tjener til at få en dybere forståelse af de ideologiske spaendinger, der var i tiden. Angiveligt var Commodus udskaeldt af både eliten og folket, som vi kan laese hos Cassius Dio, 2 men i et eller andet omfang blev han stadig idealiseret af den første severiske kejser: "Han chokerede os saerligt ved at kalde sig selv søn af Marcus og bror til Commodus og ved at tildele Commodus heroisk haeder-ham, som han tidligere havde overfuset. I en tale, han holdt for Senatet, hvori han hyldede Sullas, Marius' og Augustus' strenghed og brutalitet som den sikre vej og anklagede Pompejus' og Caesars' mildhed for at resultere i deres egen un-dergang, leverede han en slags forsvarstale for Commodus og angreb Sena-tet for at vanaere ham på urimelig baggrund set i lyset af at flertallet af dets medlemmer levede mere forkasteligt. " (Cass.

Resumen: Cómodo ha sido visto como un emperador disoluto que lanzó por el despeñadero los logros del Siglo de Oro de los Antoninos. En el presente artículo intentaremos analizar una de las primeras decisiones que tuvo que tomar el jo-ven emperador: proseguir o terminar las campañas dirigidas por Marco Aurelio. Sostendremos a lo largo de este trabajo que las decisiones estratégicas y militares de Cómodo fueron racionales en relación con el pensamiento militar romano del siglo ii, aportando al debate historiográfico una nueva visión sobre dicho gober-nante y la toma de decisiones por parte de los emperadores. PalabraS clave: Cómodo, Grand Strategy, Marco Aurelio, Antoninos, Imperio romano

Abstract: Commodus has been considered as a profligate emperor who threw over all the Golden Age achievements during the Antonine dinasty. In this article we will try to analyze one of the first decisions that the young emperor had to make, whether to continue or quit the campaigns commanded by Marcus Au-relius. Throughout this work we shall support the idea that strategic and military decisions of Commodus were rational regarding the Roman military thought of the Second Century, so we will contribute to Historiographical debate with a new vision of Commodus and of how Roman emperors made their decisions.

In the array of numismatic examples recalling the figure of Alexander the Great during the Roman imperial times, quite recently came to be added a series of coin issues of Abydos, in Troas. It has been suggested that the scene illustrated on these issues depicts a crossing of the Hellespont. This case study can benefit from further commentary on the historical links that provide reasons for the use of the theme, especially in relation to its first appearance (issue in the name of Commodus as caesar). Besides presenting the coin issues known so far, certain interpretation remarks are posed within a broader historical context.

The Quintilii. Land Ownership, Intellectual Interests, and Social Advancement of Provincials in the Roman Senate.
The Quintilii are a famous aristocratic family from Alexandreia Troas, who belonged to the Roman Senate for four generations during the Antonine period. The last two generations are considered close friends of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. This lecture tries to connect this fact on the one hand with the intellectual, even philosophical interests of the members of this family, on the other hand with the situation of their properties.

Die Quintilier sind eine berühmte aristokratische Familie aus Alexandreia Troas, die in der Antoninenzeit vier Generationen lang dem römischen Senat angehörte. Die letzten beiden Generationen gelten als eng befreundet mit Kaiser Marc Aurel. Dieser Vortrag versucht diese Tatsache einerseits mit den intellektuellen, ja philosophischen Interessen der Angehörigen dieser Familie, andererseits mit der Lage ihres Grundeigentums in Verbindung zu bringen.

The goal of the paper is to show the mintage of Commodus in the wide context using the critical analysis of the written sources. There are few periods in the Commodus' mintage activity. The earliest one is linked to beginnings of the emperor's public activity. There are coins with the unusual or rare iconography adapted especially for Commodus from that period. The second period was to the years 184-185 AD. It is the time of autonomous rules of Commodus. In this period the coins of Crispina and posthumously Marcus Aurelius were struck. In the third period which lasted until Commodus' death the emperor was the only issuer of coins. It was the time of the most intensive production of coins and the most variable iconography. Then some new types of coins emerged, some of them were adapted by the next emperors. The diffusion of patterns moved from Rome to provincial cities and from province to Rome. The Commodus' monetary system is well fit in the 2nd century mintage. His insanity can be seen in the iconography. Hovever,it is rather breaking of the common norms, not stupidity. It is the new concept for ruling implemented in mintage in creative, intelligent and refined way. There were sometimes associations to older coins being a prove of the ancient Romans numismatic knowledge.
The author investigated i.a. posthumous denarii of Commodus linking their emissions with Pescennius Niger. As the first coins of Pertinax the author indicates denarii with the Ops effigy. The presented quantitative data and conclusions were based on the presend author research, to which the data from auction houses avaible on the acsearch.info were used. The author proved their representative character and validity. Because of their large number they gave broad research possibilities.

Youthful Roman males were regarded as passing through a period of ‘rebellion and experimentation.’ Youths idolised individuals who rebelled against authority and lived their lives in extravagance; they fell in love, and experimented with their sexuality. In essence, youth is seen as a time in which adolescents lack self-control. Thus, typically, they were slaves to their passions and desires, especially for pleasure, love and glory. For Roman Emperors, these same characteristics of youth are ubiquitous.

This paper examines the ‘youthful interest’ of hunting and gladiatorial fights and consider its role in the construction of the perceptions of the youthful emperor Commodus. I argue that, corrupted by his youth, power and fortune, Commodus was perceived as abandoning himself to the most debauched of pleasures with unrestrained ferocitas. Thus, this preconception of youth leant itself to the narratives recording their reigns. This produced an ambiguous perception, as the young emperor is presented as descending from displaying virtus in a manner appropriate for a youth, into the behaviour of a corrupt emperor.

The senatorial acclamations which end Commodus' Life in the Historia Augusta are the only archival document of the Historia Augusta whose inauthenticity could not be proved in a decisive way. The examination of what seems to be two fragments of the Acta Senatus does not indeed prohibit accepting the author's  assertion when he claims to quote them from Marius Maximus, contemporary biographer of commodus and source of the first Vitae of the collection. Whitout excluding the possibility of some reelaboration by the latter  instead of the biographer of the Historia Augusta, we are tempted to consider them as authentic. Suetonius in his Twelve Cesars often relies on the testimony od documents drawn from the senatorial and imperial archives, but without producing entire abstracts of them. His successors, like marius Maximus, and, much later, the author of the Historia Augusta, seem on the contrary to have inserted a great number of them (true of false ones), and something of imposing size, in their imperial biographies.