The Emperor of Rome Commodus Research Paper

Roman history like Augustus, Charlemagne, and Pericles have soared into Western historical tradition while others like Commodus have received a far less respected legacy, being banished and disgraced with stories of megalomania and decadence. Of the character portrayals of Commodus both in film and literature, only two primary literary sources of Commodus exist. They are from Herodian and Cassius Dio. With such little information available of how Commodus truly was, much was left to the imagination. What could have been a great Roman emperor is now a hedonistic caricature depicted by films like Gladiator and writers like Dio. But why was Commodus depicted in that way? Was he truly a megalomaniac or a man wishing to gain true power?

Of the primary sources available, the information provided from these sources can lead someone to assume partial inaccuracy. Cassisus Dio for example, worked under Commodus as a senator. He wrote an 8-volume Roman history with a fairly biased perspective. This is because of Commodus' metaphysical war against the senate. Herodian, who was a minor Roman civil servant, wrote in a way meant to entertain people rather than provide historical accuracy. Meaning, these two and only two primary sources of Commodus could be fairly skewed and inaccurate due to desire to entertain readers or a disdain for the subject.

Another source talking about Commodus, the controversial Historia Augusta can also be taken lightly when identifying what kind of person Commodus was because this source served as a National Enquirer of Roman society. So while Commodus was depicted as a hedonistic man who was killed by a wrestler and had hundreds of concubines in films, in actuality, no one really knows how he was and what information is left can only provide a snippet of his personality and what he did as emperor. This essay is meant to provide a brief analysis of the information available of Commodus from secondary sources and the infamous only two primary sources available.

Lucius Aurelius Commodus was born to Faustina the Younger, maternal cousin and wide of Marcus Aurelius. In October of 166, Commodus was given the name of Caesar during a Roman victory celebration in regards to a 5-year long war against the Parthians[footnoteRef:1]. Three years later, both Marcus Annius and Lucius Verus died, leaving the sole emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius. Commodus then became the sole heir. Aside from these tragedies, the dozen-year struggle or the Marcomannic Wars and the Antonine Plague occurred, wreaking havoc on the empire. [1: Olivier Hekster, Commodus (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002).]

Commodus witnessed all this and in his youth, was looked after by Galen, a philosopher and physician. In 172, Commodus gained the title of Germanicus when he traveled with his father to Carnuntum, the headquarters of the emperor. He received another title while traveling to the East, Sarmaticus. After he received the title, he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries and then came back to Rome.

In November of 176, Commodus, then only 15, received the title of Imperator and celebrated a well-earned victory with his father late December of that year for defeating the Sarmatae and the Germani. January 1st, 177, Commodus received another honor, becoming the youngest consul during that time and making history yet again by holding the consulship a record seven times. Receiving a title of Augustus 178 and marrying Brutta Crispina, he traveled back along the Danube to resume the wars alongside his father.

His father died when he was 18 on March 17th, 180. That same year peace came with the Germanic tribes as he celebrated another victory in October. After that, Commodus remained in or near Rome for the remainder of his adult life having enjoyed popularity with both the army and the common people[footnoteRef:2]. During his sole reign, many wars were fought, specifically in Britain. However, that did not keep the empire from enjoying relative peace for the better part of a generation. What does this say so far of Emperor Commodus? [2: James H. Oliver, "Three Attic Inscriptions Concerning the Emperor Commodus," The American Journal of Philology 71, no. 2 (1950): 170.]

Compared to his depiction in the film, the secondary sources reveal a responsible, pragmatic and overachieving man who did what he had to for his family and people. He married a woman via an arranged marriage. Stayed by his father's side. Gained many titles early on in his youth. Held onto a kingdom with a reign of peace for several decades. So why is it that film versions of Commodus portray him in such a harsh and negative light?

Commodus helped suppress uprisings in Britain, assuming the title Britannicus in 184 and then Felix in 185. While he left day-to-day dealings of the empire to his favorites, he did spend time among the people of Rome as a chariot-race and gladiator[footnoteRef:3]. This was perhaps where depictions of him could have begun to go south. For it is around 190/191 that he began to identify himself with the legendary Hercules minting numerous coins and erecting statues showing himself in a 'grand fashion' with a club and lion's hide. People must have not liked his hubris and grandeur because he was assassinated prior to the New Year of 193[footnoteRef:4]. [3: Michael Rostovtseff and Harold Mattingly, "Commodus-Hercules in Britain," Journal of Roman Studies 13, no. 1-2 (1923): 91-109.] [4: M. P. Speidel, "Commodus The God-Emperor and The Army," Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 109-114.]

With secondary sources revealing a hard-working man in love with fighting and eventually with himself, the primary sources will start to provide a more insipid look at what people who did not like Commodus thought of the Roman Emperor, beginning with Dio. The following quotes are from Dio's book and serve as one of two only primary sources of Commodus.

He hated all exertion and craved the comfortable life of the city ... Commodus was guilty of many unseemly deeds, and killed a great many people ... I should render my narrative very tedious were I to give a detailed report of all the persons put to death by Commodus, of all those whom he made away with as the result of false accusations or unjustified suspicions or because of their conspicuous wealth, distinguished family, unusual learning, or some other point of excellence ... Commodus was wholly devoted to pleasure and gave himself up to chariot-racing...Commodus devoted most of his life to ease and to horses and to combats of wild beasts and of men. In fact, besides all that he did in private, he often slew in public large numbers of men and beasts as well ... Commodus, taking a respite from his amusements and sports, turned to murder and was killing off the prominent men...[footnoteRef:5] [5: Cassius Dio, "Cassius Dio -- Epitome Of Book 73," Penelope.Uchicago.Edu, last modified 2016, accessed April 30, 2016, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html.]

Examining the various quotes from Dio's book, there are similarities as seen in the secondary sources. For example, it makes sense Dio complained about Commodus killing or being responsible for killing many men. Commodus was a gladiator and participated in several battles. He could have killed countless men and enjoyed it, hence erecting status of himself in the light of Hercules.

Another activity mentioned was chariot-racing, which secondary sources claim Commodus took part in, showing some accuracy in Dio's depiction. However, some of the quotes seem a bit off and may be why film portrayals move towards the more 'sexually-deviant' realm. By saying Commodus devoted himself to pleasures and was guilty of numerous unseemly deeds, it makes Commodus seem like a devil who has no self-control and is as bestial as the beasts he slayed. It also made it seem like the Roman Empire at the time was full of chaos and fighting when in reality it was relatively peaceful aside from problems in Britain.

Herodian wrote in his work:

... with so many disasters befalling the city in rapid succession, the Roman people no longer looked with favor upon Commodus; they attributed their misfortunes to his illegal murders and the other mistakes he had made in his lifetime. He no longer concealed his activities, nor did he have any desire to keep them secret. What they objected to his doing in private he now had the effrontery to do in public. He fell into a state of drunken madness[footnoteRef:6]. [6: Herodian, "Herodian 1.14 - Livius," Livius.Org, last modified 2016, accessed April 30, 2016, http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-1.14/?.]

While there is not much evidence to suggest the empire went to the level of turmoil described, there was certainly upheaval in regards to Commodus' reign. Some of it came from his behavior like his constant races and public image, but the main conflict and perhaps the biggest reason for his assassination and the negative portrayal of him by Dio was his fight with the Senate. Here is where things truly reached a head and turned people against him as he became more egotistical and felt like not cooperating with the Roman elite,…