Marcus Aurelius\' function on the Danube

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Most of us know that MA had no military experience, so that leaves me wondering what his personal function was being with the troops in the field for so many years. This question relates to both ostensive and real reason(s) for his presence on the frontier.

Earlier, while Rome was expanding further north beyond Hadian's Wall, MA's adoptive father, Antoninus, apparently never felt a need to visit the front. And he never had military experience. Both men shared the same deficit, but for some reason (or several) Marcus was compelled to be with the legions on the Danube.

I can guess what they were but would like to see what others come up with.

What was his official capacity at the front and what was (were) the underlying reason(s) for him being there ?

[Praefectusclassis]

Most probable reason: leaving a large army alone to fight a miserable war against a serious threat is a recipe for usurpation.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Jasper,

Yes, that's a good reason. However, Marcus took the precaution of sending his Praetorian Prefects to take command of the army (of course, no one is 100% trustworthy).

But, if that was the main reason, why was Lucius Verus sent to the Eastern front to oversee operations against Parthia ? That war was relatively short and conclusive, unlike the one taking place in Europe.

So, it seems there's some kind of policy at work here. In the first century, the emperors sent generals (e.g. Corbulo, Agricola and Vespasian) to suppress uprisings and fight large wars but kept them on a short leash by recalling them early enough before they gainned too much popularity.

But why this change in policy where the emperor must personally be at the front in the late second century ?

True, in the first century we have emperors like Claudius visiting Britain and Domitian taking command of his Dacian war. But although the former felt politically insecure from his ascension, he also felt that a two-week visit was sufficient to bolster up his position. As for Domitian, the sources would have us believe that he wanted to equal or surpass his father and bother's military expliots out of sheer jealosy.

I can't believe this to be the case with Marcus - a stoic would not think in such terms. And if he simply felt insecure, why maintain a permanent presence on the front instead of making periodic, short visits ?

[Praefectusclassis]

Praetorian Prefects

And you do not want to count the number of usurpations from that rank!
Lucius Verus was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius and therefore 'safe'. One must not forget that it was Augustus who started the policy of keeping high-command in the family. And between Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, there was a dangerous number of revolts: Vindex, Galba, Vitellius, Vespasian (all 69 AD and Vindex never made it), Saturninus (under Domitian) and Avidius Cassius under Marcus Aurelius himself.

[Flavius Promotus]

Several possibilities in my opinion:

-the presence of the emperor should bolster an army's fighting spirit
("let's show him how good we are, and maybe we get a donative bonus"), and this was deperately needed at that time.
That the emperor is also the supreme religious authority and the mediator between mankind and the gods may also have played a role. With Roman confidence shaken by the plague and a number of military desasters, divine support came in handy. Remember the story where Marcus was praying to the gods for support before a battle and then (coincidence!) a war-machine of the enemy was suddenly struck by lightning. Everybody understood this as a result of the emperor's prayers.

-the coordination of long range supply lines and the installation of special commands and of administrative emergency solutions may work faster if the authorities in charge do not have to write a letter to the emperor before each difficult decision (legatus X: "legatus Y has ordered this and that, but that is an infringement of my powers - what should I do?")

-furthermore, there is one important example of emperors in the field still missing from Theodosius's list: M. Ulpius Traianus. He definitely spent a lot of time directly in the war zones (Dacia, Parthia). And although his successor Hadrian did not have to fight many wars (the revolt in Judaea being an exception), he spent a lot of time inspecting the border garrisons.
This behavior was not very popular in Rome, and Antoninus Pius reacted by staying there most of his reign. Maybe rather Antoninus was the exception than Marcus.

Just my two cent

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Flavius,

What you suggest is more along the lines of my thinking, which is that Marcus Aurelius acted to provide positive reinforcement (i.e. boosting morale, acting as Supreme Pontiff, and bypassing bureaucracy thus improving supply lines, etc..)

I try to imagine the contrast of fighting under the eye of an imperial lackey or under the Emperor himself. The latter's mere presence (I would think) would goad me into a state of zeal as opposed to cowing me into submission (i.e. negative reinforcement). Marcus' regime seemed stable enough on the whole when we see his relationship with the Senate, People, and army. The army may not have felt a huge amount of loyalty to him, but they knew he was the legitimate successor to Antoninus, Hadrian, Trajan, and Nerva. So, there was little or no need to fear the army in his particular case, IMO. Besides, the army always preferred dynastic successors.

One must not forget that it was Augustus who started the policy of keeping high-command in the family.

True, but family members aren't always equivalent to the Emperor. Lucius Verus was co-emperor which was unprecedented.

between Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, there was a dangerous number of revolts: Vindex, Galba, Vitellius, Vespasian (all 69 AD and Vindex never made it), Saturninus (under Domitian) and Avidius Cassius under Marcus Aurelius himself.

IMO, none of these examples are applicable to the discussion because those were all special cases. Nero destabilized his regime by damaging relations with the Senate and later the People. Besides, Vindex was a non-entity (i.e. he had no troops). Galba had only two legions. In spite of these revolts under Nero, the vast majority of the army was loyal to him. He was a fool to have committed suicide.

As for Vitellius and Vespasian, well at that point there was no political stability since every successor was a usurper who could only count on a portion of the legions to support him. Vespasian was just the last man standing, so he won. Saturninus' revolt was a very minor and isolated incident. Domitian was worshiped by the army. Avidius Cassius only made a bid for the purple after hearing a false report of Marcus Aurelius' death, so this was not technically a "revolt".

-furthermore, there is one important example of emperors in the field still missing from Theodosius's list: M. Ulpius Traianus

I purposely omitted Trajan because he was one of the few emperors who was qualified to personally take command of an army and did so. First of all, he was already in command of several legions before he officially took office. But more than that, I think the power vacuum left in the wake of Domitian's assassination wasn't completely filled by the ascension of Nerva who was only elected by the Senate. Trajan basically had the loyalty of the Western half of the Empire, but probably wanted to maximize his popularity with the army in the East. So, he went to the East to fight the Dacians and Parthians winning stunning victories. Thus, he was the one who solitified the fragile dynasty started by Nerva.

Trajan's only predecessors who could have done this were Tiberius and Vespasian, but they had largely peaceful reigns and both could count on family members to carry out anything on a large scale (e.g. Titus and Germanicus).

As you said, Flavius, Hadrian was qualified and was in command during the second Jewish Revolt, but he was the one who incited it in the first place while he was touring the region with his entourage. So, it was a coincidence of him being there when the revolt erupted.

Good discussion, guys

[S SEVERUS]

Perhaps the war was for Marcus simply to important to be directed from Rome. It was indeed a savage and brutal war with severe setbacks for the Army. He even wanted to end it with the creation of a new province (or several provinces?).

Greetings

Geert

[Flavius Promotus]

I purposely omitted Trajan because he was one of the few emperors who was qualified to personally take command of an army and did so.

I understand

S SEVERUS: Marcus allegedly (or perhaps really) thought of establishing two new provinces - Marcomannia (southern area of the Czech Republic and parts of Slovakia) and Sarmatia (basically the Hungarian plain). Commodus was later chastised for not proceeding with this plan, but the empire was most likely just too exhausted for long term territorial gains.

An inscription found near Budapest (from classis Flavia Pannonica) mentiones vexillationes of this fleet in S(armatia?) and? [??? Markomannia???], but the inscription is in a bad condition and should not be overinterpreted...

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Avete,
Great answers,all.
Would it be presumptious of me to offer my conjecture?
Just a very weird thought but wasn't MA married to Nero's mother?
If so,given her drive and ambition,MA wouldn't be the first guy to
leave home to aviod an even greater threat than the enemy.
I may be completely off here. My knowledge of this period and later
is very limited.

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Andy,
I think you're confusing Marcus Aurelius with Claudius.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

:oops: Thanks,Jasper.
I knew something was amiss.
Some of what I think of as the middle period gets a little muddled.
I appreciate your correcting my great blunder.
20 lashes and back to the Limes for me.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Andy,

No one owns this thread (except maybe our webmaster of course :wink: ).
So please do join in.

Although MA wasn't married to Nero's mother, his wife wasn't that much better than she was, so your point still applies :wink:

I hadn't thought of it from that angle. Although, I think MA sometimes brought her along.

[Sassanid]

Can anyone recommend a good book on MA, and particularly his military campaigns.

Many thanks,

Andrew

[Theodosius the Great]

Can anyone recommend a good book on MA, and particularly his military campaigns.

Hi, Andrew !

Your best bet is to read the biography of "Marcus Aurelius" by Anthony Birley. I have this book which also takes the reader step by step through the scenes on the column of MA. Afaik, there are few details of his campaigns from the surviving literary sources. I've checked old threads on this forum and everyone seems to concur that this book is the best one on MA.

This is also the best book on the column of MA, incidently. Most scholars and even many RAT members scoff at it, saying it's just a bad imitation of Trajan's. Not me, I love it. Partly because it shows the army fighting a challenging campaign, unlike the Dacian Wars which were tough but ultimately won in a short time. The deeply cut relief, I think, is far superior from an artistic point of view.

[Sassanid]

Theodosius,

Many thanks - looks like I should be able to get a copy quite easily.

I definitely agree, MA generally fought more more challenging campaigns than Trajan. Not that he had much choice in the matter.

Andrew