What if Marcus Aurelius Had Died in 175

[mjwebb76]

In AD 175 the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius was near death. Upon hearing a false rumor of his death (and perhaps working in concert with the Empress Faustina) the leading Roman General, Avidius Cassius declared himself Emperor. In reality the Emperor would live for another 6 years, dying in AD 181, and Avidius Cassius was executed by his own soldiers. Marcus Aurelius would be succeeded by his 20 year old son Commodus one of the worst Emperors in history, the Emperor generally credited with ending the Pax Romana and setting the empire on the path to slow decline.

Therefore, the question I would pose to the group: what if Marcus Aurelius had died in AD 175. Would Avidus Casssius have come to the Imperial Throne? At this time Avidius Cassius would have been around 45 plausibly could have lived another 15-20 years meaning that if he came to the throne and if Commodus did succeed him he would have come to the Imperial Throne at the age of 30 rather than 20. Would this have been significant? In addition, Avidius was a far better general than Marcus. Would he have ended the German Wars in a more decisive fashion than Commodus (who basically just left and did not fully subdue the Germans)?

 

[Sertorius126]

First off, Aurelius died in 180 CE, not 181.

Avidius Cassius was a descendant of Syrian nobility, he had strong ties and influence in the East, that, coupled with the extensive powers granted him by Aurelius, allowed him to establish himself as pretender in the East, assuming power over the rest of the empire though it’s entirely another matter. Aurelius surrounded himself with capable lieutenants, most of them coming from the equestrian order and elevated to senatorial rank by decree of Aurelius. This men, in his vision, were meant to ensure a smooth and seamless succession for his son, and that’s exactly how things went in 180 CE, and also to counsel him regarding the best policy to follow, which didn’t work because of Commodus’ ineptitude and idleness. If Aurelius had died in 175 CE, his men would have closed ranks around Commodus and would have faced Cassius’ revolt. The soldiers were mostly devoted to the Antonine dynasty, and Cassius didn’t have enough influence in the Senate to be seriously considered as a candidate to the throne. In the end, he would have failed as he did IOTL.

Cassius was a capable military commander, but Aurelius handled his campaigns in the North rather well all things considered, assuming Cassius had been given command of operations there in 175 CE, I don’t think he would have gained much better results than Aurelius himself, and while it’s probable that he, had he been emperor, would have prosecuted Aurelius’ project of conquest in the North, it’s a rather moot point, because he wouldn’t have been emperor in any case.

 

[mjwebb76]

You are of course correct on the date. For some reason I always have in my mind that Marcus died in 181.

On the more relevant point, I am not sure I agree that the Western nobility would have closed ranks around Commodus. For example, in 175 Commodus was 13-14 years old. At that time, there had never been a child Emperor. Nero had been around 18 and was not exactly an example to emulated (hence why Hadrian did not name Marcus Aurelius as his direct heir in 138). If we believe Cassius Dio concern about her own safety and that of her family was what prompted Faustina to conspire with Avidius Cassius.

Therefore, I again suggest it is plausible that Avidius would have become Emperor. If he had my question is 1) do we have sufficient information to assess whether he could have continued the northern wars; 2) do we have sufficient information to assess whether another 15 years in a subordinate role would have improved Commodus.

 

[oca2073]

Supposing Avidius Cassius wins a civil war against Commodus, we will probably have an earlier Septimius Severus. A very strong militarily capable emperor who prioritizes the army over everything (expanding it and increasing pay), wages expensive campaigns trying to conquer marginal lands and so ultimately places the empire under greater and greater financial strain.

When he dies since Avidius Cassius has two sons they will fight over the empire in another round of civil war.

In other words things are slight worse than OTL for Rome. Possible faster descent into 3rd century crisis.

 

[Sertorius126]

You are of course correct on the date. For some reason I always have in my mind that Marcus died in 181.

On the more relevant point, I am not sure I agree that the Western nobility would have closed ranks around Commodus. For example, in 175 Commodus was 13-14 years old. At that time, there had never been a child Emperor. Nero had been around 18 and was not exactly an example to emulated (hence why Hadrian did not name Marcus Aurelius as his direct heir in 138). If we believe Cassius Dio concern about her own safety and that of her family was what prompted Faustina to conspire with Avidius Cassius.

Therefore, I again suggest it is plausible that Avidius would have become Emperor. If he had my question is 1) do we have sufficient information to assess whether he could have continued the northern wars; 2) do we have sufficient information to assess whether another 15 years in a subordinate role would have improved Commodus.

Faustina’s role in all of that is very confusing. Part of the tradition portrays her as a gladiator lover bitch who conspired against her husband, the other as a devoted wife who would follow her husband to the gates of hell. It’s hard to say where the truth lies, but since Aurelius never spoke ill of his wife in his meditations, I generally believe she didn’t have any role in Cassius’ revolt.

I still disagree with Cassius ever becoming emperor, I think loyalty to Commodus was too strong by 175 CE for any revolt to succeed. But to answer your questions, as I said in the other post, Cassius would have very probably continued Aurelius’ campaigns, and perhaps, but that’s murky territory, he could have had a chance to establish the provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia as Aurelius had wished to do.

As for Commodus, if Cassius actually becomes emperor, he’s dead, simple as. No Roman emperor outlived his deposition, save for Vetranio and Romulus Augustus, the former having been loyal to Constantius II from the beginning, the latter when the empire had become worthless.

 

[starman]

Supposing Avidius Cassius wins a civil war against Commodus,

If Cassius held Egypt, the granary of Rome, he might've wielded enough leverage without excessive fighting.

we will probably have an earlier Septimius Severus. A very strong militarily capable emperor who prioritizes the army over everything (expanding it and increasing pay),

A key difference is that Cassius was a disciplinarian. He crucified soldiers who looted, and limited what sustenance they could carry on campaign.

wages expensive campaigns trying to conquer marginal lands and so ultimately places the empire under greater and greater financial strain.

What evidence he'd do that? Cassius did march on Ctesiphon, and Seleucia, but that was after Parthia menaced the Roman East.

When he dies since Avidius Cassius has two sons they will fight over the empire in another round of civil war.

Unless he presents one as the legitimate successor(?).

In other words things are slight worse than OTL for Rome. Possible faster descent into 3rd century crisis.

Maybe not...

 

[starman]

I still disagree with Cassius ever becoming emperor, I think loyalty to Commodus was too strong by 175 CE for any revolt to succeed

With hindsight, one may suggest a different approach. If Cassius knew much about Commodus, how unfit he'd likely be, he could've waited until his support waned, maybe by 184 or so, and then tried.

But to answer your questions, as I said in the other post, Cassius would have very probably continued Aurelius’ campaigns, and perhaps, but that’s murky territory, he could have had a chance to establish the provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia as Aurelius had wished to do.

Maybe but I was under the impression the northern wars were unpopular in the East. Still, had Cassius assumed responsibility for the whole empire, he'd probably have wrapped up the campaign properly. Btw had he done that, at least one key aspect of the third century crisis may well have been obviated or at least postponed.

 

[Sertorius126]

With hindsight, one may suggest a different approach. If Cassius knew much about Commodus, how unfit he'd likely be, he could've waited until his support waned, maybe by 184 or so, and then tried.

I think we already discussed about this somewhere else. To sum up my opinion, yes, he could have tried, but a lot of things can happen in 10 years, since in this TL Aurelius died in 175, and Cassius might not have been in royal favor any longer under Commodus. Egypt and the East are a good point where to start a revolt, but if the whole West backs Commodus, the sheer number of legions would crush Cassius. Cassius could have succeeded only in a very carefully planned usurpation, just like the one against Domitian.

Maybe but I was under the impression the northern wars were unpopular in the East. Still, had Cassius assumed responsibility for the whole empire, he'd probably have wrapped up the campaign properly. Btw had he done that, at least one key aspect of the third century crisis may well have been obviated or at least postponed.

Possibly, as I said above, that’s real murky ground there, there’s no way to make safe assertions about it.

 

[starman]

Egypt and the East are a good point where to start a revolt, but if the whole West backs Commodus, the sheer number of legions would crush Cassius.

Right, if the West backs Commodus. If Cassius is still in good shape, physically and politically, in c 184, and if Commodus's support has waned by then, that would've probably been his best chance.

 

[Sertorius126]

Right, if the West backs Commodus. If Cassius is still in good shape, physically and politically, in c 184, and if Commodus's support has waned by then, that would've probably been his best chance.

On that we’re agreed.

 

[oca2073]

If Cassius held Egypt, the granary of Rome, he might've wielded enough leverage without excessive fighting.



A key difference is that Cassius was a disciplinarian. He crucified soldiers who looted, and limited what sustenance they could carry on campaign.



What evidence he'd do that? Cassius did march on Ctesiphon, and Seleucia, but that was after Parthia menaced the Roman East.



Unless he presents one as the legitimate successor(?).



Maybe not...

Uh no. Having Egypt doesn't guarantee a a civil war victory though I would grant it's likely as Cassius is militarily gifted. But the war would be as detrimental as the one waged in 193, probably worse as the Marcomannic Wars were still in full swing. Cassius was also not above looting, as his eastern campaign showed he brought back a ton of spoils and destroyed Seleucia utterly (after the city surrendered to him). Also the point is that his whole career has been military orientated so his rule would probably favour the army excessively, over and above say Hadrian, Pius, Aurelius who did not have military backgrounds. Even under them the Roman treasury was at a breaking point due to military expenses. Cassius strikes me as one who is super ambitious like Severus (declaring for emperor immediately after the death of Aurelius), and ambitious people are generally fond of conquest. Cassius is also from Syria like Severus who married into a prominent family there, and they have a cultural propensity to share inheritance between brothers, so it's definitely possible.

 

[Sertorius126]

Uh no. Having Egypt doesn't guarantee a a civil war victory though I would grant it's likely as Cassius is militarily gifted. But the war would be as detrimental as the one waged in 193, probably worse as the Marcomannic Wars were still in full swing. Cassius was also not above looting, as his eastern campaign showed he brought back a ton of spoils and destroyed Seleucia utterly (after the city surrendered to him). Also the point is that his whole career has been military orientated so his rule would probably favour the army excessively, over and above say Hadrian, Pius, Aurelius who did not have military backgrounds. Even under them the Roman treasury was at a breaking point due to military expenses. Cassius strikes me as one who is super ambitious like Severus (declaring for emperor immediately after the death of Aurelius), and ambitious people are generally fond of conquest. Cassius is also from Syria like Severus who married into a prominent family there, and they have a cultural propensity to share inheritance between brothers, so it's definitely possible.

Severus was African actually, he was born in Leptis Magna.

Hadrian did have a military background, he followed on Trajan’s footsteps and decided to be a military tribune for longer than the standard young Roman noble, in Africa there are still remains of some of his speeches to the army inscribed on stone, he displays great competency and knowledge of military matters. Severus on the contrary didn’t have any more military background than any normal Roman governor. It’s not a matter of backgrounds, it’s a matter of how the empire has evolved through time, increasing attacks on the frontiers made the role of the general, thus the role of the soldier, increasingly important, so much so that the emperor couldn’t possibly identify himself outside the military sphere. And yet an emperor still needed to balance things out. Elagabalus and Alexander did too little and they got killed, Caracalla did too much and he also got killed. The question is not if Cassius would have favored the army, that’s not really up to debate, but whether he would have managed to keep the right balance like Severus did.

As for the civil war, it all depends on the support given to Commodus and on when and where it starts. In either case, I’m of the opinion that if Cassius makes the right moves every time like Severus did, he can bring an end to the whole affair in not too long, while leaving the empire still strong, which it was in OTL after 197, since Severus led several campaigns outside the empire’s borders. Either that, or Commodus and his lieutenants crush him right away.

 

[oca2073]

Severus was African actually, he was born in Leptis Magna.

I know that but the Severan dynasty was heavily Syrian in terms of its cultural practices, because they married into a prominent Syrian family, which was their main supporters.

Hadrian did have a military background, he followed on Trajan’s footsteps and decided to be a military tribune for longer than the standard young Roman noble, in Africa there are still remains of some of his speeches to the army inscribed on stone, he displays great competency and knowledge of military matters.

When I say military background, I means successful military reputation and victories prior to becoming emperor. Hadrian had no military reputation and was virtually unknown before succession.

Severus on the contrary didn’t have any more military background than any normal Roman governor.

True but my only point was that having a military background increases the chances you will focus on the military as emperor.

It’s not a matter of backgrounds, it’s a matter of how the empire has evolved through time, increasing attacks on the frontiers made the role of the general, thus the role of the soldier, increasingly important, so much so that the emperor couldn’t possibly identify himself outside the military sphere. And yet an emperor still needed to balance things out. Elagabalus and Alexander did too little and they got killed, Caracalla did too much and he also got killed. The question is not if Cassius would have favored the army, that’s not really up to debate, but whether he would have managed to keep the right balance like Severus did.

No Severus did not keep it in a right balance, he waged far too many offensive wars and had little to show for it. This is not the days when Rome could wage campaigns and expect it to pay for itself, everything lucrative had been eaten up. Also he gave way too much power to the Praetorians and moving the empire towards eastern despotism would have bad ramifications for future stability, the Senate was actually a stabilizing force compared to the equestrians who would plot for the purple all through the next century and beyond. A good emperor needs a powerful Senate/senators, and he needs them on his side, as opposed to marginalizing the whole institution and promoting equestrian favourites ect...

 

[Sertorius126]

I know that but the Severan dynasty was heavily Syrian in terms of its cultural practices, because they married into a prominent Syrian family, which was their main supporters.



When I say military background, I means successful military reputation and victories prior to becoming emperor. Hadrian had no military reputation and was virtually unknown before succession.



True but my only point was that having a military background increases the chances you will focus on the military as emperor.



No Severus did not keep it in a right balance, he waged far too many offensive wars and had little to show for it. This is not the days when Rome could wage campaigns and expect it to pay for itself, everything lucrative had been eaten up. Also he gave way too much power to the Praetorians and moving the empire towards eastern despotism would have bad ramifications for future stability, the Senate was actually a stabilizing force compared to the equestrians who would plot for the purple all through the next century and beyond. A good emperor needs a powerful Senate/senators, and he needs them on his side, as opposed to marginalizing the whole institution and promoting equestrian favourites ect...

Don’t know about nothing to show for it, they were all successful in their purpose, stabilize the borders. Not all wars need to be glamorous to achieve results.

The very first act of Severus’ reign was to dismiss the pretorian guard and replace it with his own soldiers. He delegate some of his affairs to the pretorian prefect, true, but once he had turned too despotic, he had him promptly executed. Severus kept his power in balance because it was never threatened in his entire reign. Keeping power, mantaining a strong empire and securing a stable succession, all by whatever means necessary, make you a good emperor, and Severus did all of that.

The thing about Senators, few of
them were good generals, an emperor needed commanders he could trust, and who, while gathering prestige and power, wouldn’t hinder the emperor himself, and the great majority of those came from the equestrian order, Aurelius too employed mostly equestrians whom he had turned senators by his decree. The system Severus created worked, his successors ruined because Caracalla brought it too far and Elagabalus and Alexander didn’t do enough. We clearly have different ideas about what makes a good emperor and that’s all right, just want to say that stronger, central rule doesn’t necessarily equal evil rule in ancient times.

 

[oca2073]

Don’t know about nothing to show for it, they were all successful in their purpose, stabilize the borders. Not all wars need to be glamorous to achieve results.

He also expanded the empire in Mesopotamia, Britain, North Africa, ect. All of which proved to be impossible to hold. I'm not saying he didn't need to wage some campaigns to restore stability but he way overdid it in my opinion. Especially his British campaign.

The very first act of Severus’ reign was to dismiss the pretorian guard and replace it with his own soldiers. He delegate some of his affairs to the pretorian prefect, true, but once he had turned too despotic, he had him promptly executed. Severus kept his power in balance because it was never threatened in his entire reign. Keeping power, mantaining a strong empire and securing a stable succession, all by whatever means necessary, make you a good emperor, and Severus did all of that.

He failed at succession horribly. He maintained a strong empire at the expense of economical fundamentals that would come back to bite his successors. My point about the Praetorians is that he expanded their size and then lavished goodies upon them to improve his chances of staying in power. This was the beginning where Praetorians began to be spoiled by successive emperors because they came to expect and demand it. Maybe he didn't see the consequences of his acts, but they were negative to future stability and that counts in one's legacy.

The thing about Senators, few of them were good generals, an emperor needed commanders he could trust, and who, while gathering prestige and power, wouldn’t hinder the emperor himself, and the great majority of those came from the equestrian order, Aurelius too employed mostly equestrians whom he had turned senators by his decree. The system Severus created worked, his successors ruined because Caracalla brought it too far and Elagabalus and Alexander didn’t do enough.

The difference is that Aurelius raised them to the Senate and treated them as equals. Severus kept them as equestrians and marginalized the Senate's importance. Eventually the equestrians came to hold all the power, and unlike the Senate, they are not a collective institution that particularly favours stability or continuity...

 

[Sertorius126]

He also expanded the empire in Mesopotamia, Britain, North Africa, ect. All of which proved to be impossible to hold. I'm not saying he didn't need to wage some campaigns to restore stability but he way overdid it in my opinion. Especially his British campaign.



He failed at succession horribly. He maintained a strong empire at the expense of economical fundamentals that would come back to bite his successors. My point about the Praetorians is that he expanded their size and then lavished goodies upon them to improve his chances of staying in power. This was the beginning where Praetorians began to be spoiled by successive emperors because they came to expect and demand it. Maybe he didn't see the consequences of his acts, but they were negative to future stability and that counts in one's legacy.



The difference is that Aurelius raised them to the Senate and treated them as equals. Severus kept them as equestrians and marginalized the Senate's importance. Eventually the equestrians came to hold all the power, and unlike the Senate, they are not a collective institution that particularly favours stability or continuity...

Severus didn’t fail in the succession, his children succeeded him and nobody questioned that, that’s what I mean for stable succession. His sons both intensely hated each other, that’s what ruined things and that’s not on him.

Pretorians were always spoiled since Tiberius. Claudius was the first emperor to lavish donatives on them. Didius Julianus bought the empire from them. Severus did what was necessary to ensure he stayed in power, which is what every emperor did until Rome was no longer capital.

Aurelius was a genuinely good guy, but he didn’t treat his subordinates as equals. No emperor, no matter what they claimed, did. In his meditations, he says he’s the one meant to bring order, peace and justice because that’s his responsibility, and he’s sure that he would succeed because he always acted with fairness in everything and because he knew what was best in every occasion. He had loyal lieutenants, true, but he always stressed that he was the emperor, that the empire was his responsibility and his alone, and in succession plan, he counted on his lieutenants to guide Commodus and make him a worthy emperor, one who could lead the empire to safety, not someone who would share the lead with others. Treating the Senate respectfully doesn’t mean treating Senators as equals, it just means masking autocracy more effectively.

 

[oca2073]

Severus didn’t fail in the succession, his children succeeded him and nobody questioned that, that’s what I mean for stable succession. His sons both intensely hated each other, that’s what ruined things and that’s not on him.

When you appoint as two co-emperors, two brothers who hate each other, for reasons of family to succeed you, that's not responsibly planning a succession.

Pretorians were always spoiled since Tiberius. Claudius was the first emperor to lavish donatives on them. Didius Julianus bought the empire from them. Severus did what was necessary to ensure he stayed in power, which is what every emperor did until Rome was no longer capital.

Yes he did what he could to stay in power because he had no legitimacy and he only won by promising massive pay raises to all the troops. I'm not questioning the necessity of his actions, only that they were bad for the empire. The difference between him and previous emperors is he massively increased Praetorian pay, bonuses, and retirement stipends. He did this not to "buy an empire" but after he was relatively secure in power, after having replaced the Praetorians with his own men.

Aurelius was a genuinely good guy, but he didn’t treat his subordinates as equals. No emperor, no matter what they claimed, did. In his meditations, he says he’s the one meant to bring order, peace and justice because that’s his responsibility, and he’s sure that he would succeed because he always acted with fairness in everything and because he knew what was best in every occasion. He had loyal lieutenants, true, but he always stressed that he was the emperor, that the empire was his responsibility and his alone, and in succession plan, he counted on his lieutenants to guide Commodus and make him a worthy emperor, one who could lead the empire to safety, not someone who would share the lead with others. Treating the Senate respectfully doesn’t mean treating Senators as equals, it just means masking autocracy more effectively.

I do mean "relative equals" of course not actual equals. There's no dispute that when you elevate powerful people to a powerful body like the Senate you mean to treat them more as equals as opposed to keeping them in equestrian rank and then doing everything possible to strip the Senate of all its power. The latter is about not treating subordinates as relative equals, Severus was a decisive break from the Principate, just as big as Domitian was, but in contrast to Domitian his precedent destabilized the empire. Again Severus was under different circumstances than Aurelius, I'm just criticizing his actions not their necessity.

 

[Sertorius126]

When you appoint as two co-emperors, two brothers who hate each other, for reasons of family to succeed you, that's not responsibly planning a succession.



Yes he did what he could to stay in power because he had no legitimacy and he only won by promising massive pay raises to all the troops. I'm not questioning the necessity of his actions, only that they were bad for the empire. The difference between him and previous emperors is he massively increased Praetorian pay, bonuses, and retirement stipends. He did this not to "buy an empire" but after he was relatively secure in power, after having replaced the Praetorians with his own men.



I do mean "relative equals" of course not actual equals. There's no dispute that when you elevate powerful people to a powerful body like the Senate you mean to treat them more as equals as opposed to keeping them in equestrian rank and then doing everything possible to strip the Senate of all its power. The latter is about not treating subordinates as relative equals, Severus was a decisive break from the Principate, just as big as Domitian was, but in contrast to Domitian his precedent destabilized the empire. Again Severus was under different circumstances than Aurelius, I'm just criticizing his actions not their necessity.

I mean, I’m no father, but I’d rather take the risk and hope that my boys manage to at least stay away from each other’s hair rather than kill one of them to make sure that the other succeeds safely. Severus probably gave Geta power so that he could protect himself, that’s the best he could do given the circumstances.

I get what you’re trying to say, but I just see things differently. The empire needed stronger central authority, and needed soldiers loyal to it. Severus created a more autocratic system, although in the end if it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else. The Roman Empire was always meant to become a military autocracy, since it had no deep cultural ties to bind it, nor any fixed loyalty to a single dynasty, that boat sailed long ago with Nero.

 

[Atamolos]

Severus created a more autocratic system

Before Severus --> One man had absolute power legitimized by the armed force of the legions
After Severus --> One man had absolute power legitimized by the armed force of the legions
Therefore --> "Severus made the empire more autocratic"

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't understand the problem? The empire was always a military autocracy. Augustus didn't win the civil wars with his enlightened worldview or impressive public works, he did it by force of arms, and none of that changed after his death.

But to address a few points of earlier posts:

1. Cassius controlled Egypt therefore he would win a civil war: Just like Pescennius Niger? Or Zenobia? Just because Vespasian did it once does not mean that eastern usurpers are destined for success because of Egypt's grain supply. Grain was also grown in Africa and Sicily, so it's not as if everyone in Rome would instantly starve if Cassius cut off those supplies. All Commodus and his regime would have to do is keep the legions fed and they likely wouldn't defect. The eastern provinces didn't host a large enough portion of the empire's forces until well into the 3rd century for a revolt to be viable if the West maintained face.

2. The Western elites wouldn't back Commodus because he was young: The late western empire proves that backing child emperors was certainly a popular move by generals of all stripes, and its unlikely that the military elites of the early and middle empire would be any different.

 

[Sertorius126]

Before Severus --> One man had absolute power legitimized by the armed force of the legions
After Severus --> One man had absolute power legitimized by the armed force of the legions
Therefore --> "Severus made the empire more autocratic"

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't understand the problem? The empire was always a military autocracy. Augustus didn't win the civil wars with his enlightened worldview or impressive public works, he did it by force of arms, and none of that changed after his death.

Yeah, that was my whole point, Severus just did what any Roman emperor was meant to do. The real difference is that Severus openly shifted higher ranks from senators to equestrians, generals attached to the emperor and his interests, while before him emperors still had to bother with integrating Senators within imperial framework.