In the first act of Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000), Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor famous for being a Stoic philosopher, is portrayed by the actor Richard Harris. In the movie, Marcus is shown being smothered to death by his son, Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix. But is that really what happened?
In reality, Commodus was appointed co-emperor three years before Marcus Aurelius died…
Gladiator, of course, is a work of fiction, only loosely based on the historical evidence. For example, in the movie, Commodus is Caesar, and only becomes emperor as a result of his father’s death. In reality, Commodus was appointed co-emperor three years before Marcus Aurelius died, and they ruled side-by-side during this time.
Most modern historians believe that Marcus died from some contagious disease, perhaps the Antonine Plague, a devastating pandemic named after his imperial dynasty, the Antonines. This broke out in 166 CE and claimed many lives, probably including several people close to Marcus. Some modern scholars believe it may have been a form of the smallpox virus, although it’s difficult to know for certain.
The Historia Romana
Gladiator’s idea that Commodus may have murdered his father does find a little bit of support in one of the Roman histories, known as the Historia Romana. Its author, Cassius Dio, a historian who served as a senator under Commodus, actually suggests that Marcus may have been murdered, albeit not by his son’s hand.
[Marcus Aurelius] passed away on the seventeenth of March, not as a result of the disease from which he still suffered, but by the act of his physicians, as I have been plainly told, who wished to do Commodus a favour. — Cassius Dio
Dio appears to mean that Marcus’ physicians hastened his death, perhaps by giving him opium or another drug, hoping that Commodus would thank them for this. If Marcus seemed already to be dying, his physicians may have viewed this as an act of euthanasia rather than murder — although Dio implies that it was not done at Marcus’ behest. Moreover, it’s unclear how hastening his father’s death would benefit Commodus, unless perhaps the physicians thought it was possible Marcus might survive.
We should note that Dio reports this as hearsay, although he seems convinced that it’s true. All of the other ancient historians are content to attribute Marcus’ death to his illness. So the rumors of murder are not usually taken very seriously by modern historians.
Curiously, Dio proceeds to emphasize that Marcus took steps to ensure that Commodus would not be accused of causing his death.
When now he was at the point of death, he commended his son to the protection of the soldiers (for he did not wish his death to appear to be due to Commodus). — Cassius Dio
When a powerful Roman died, especially an emperor, it was very common for there to be suspicion of foul play. Other contenders for the throne might accuse Commodus of murdering his father, in order to challenge his right to rule. So Marcus was acting quite prudently by placing his son under guard during his final hours. That’s presumably why Dio blames Marcus’ death on the physicians rather than Commodus himself.
Dio’s account of Marcus’ death appears somewhat contradictory, though. We’re told Marcus believed he was “at the point of death”, in which case it’s puzzling why the physicians would feel the need to hasten his demise even further, perhaps only by a day or two. Of course, we can imagine explanations. Perhaps the doctors believed that Marcus was underestimating his ability to pull through. Perhaps they wanted to ensure Marcus died before he issued some last-minute decree, which may have harmed Commodus. It’s difficult to see, though, how Marcus could deny his son the right to succeed him, as in Gladiator, because Commodus was already well-established as emperor. Unfortunately, Dio offers no further explanation of the physicians’ alleged motives.
The Other Historians
A lower ranking government official, called Herodian, also provides a near-contemporary account of Marcus’ death.
When Marcus was an old man, exhausted not only by age but also by labors and cares, he suffered a serious illness while visiting the Pannonians [i.e., in Austria].
He says that Marcus became very weak as a result of the illness, which he endured for several days, until one night he lost consciousness, and died a day or so later. There’s no mention of any foul play.
Neither does our other main source for Marcus Aurelius’ life, the Historia Augusta, make any mention of any allegations that he had been murdered. This text was written several centuries later, although it draws heavily on the writings of earlier historians, closer to the events. Although the Historia Augusta is considered quite unreliable by modern scholars, its chapter on Marcus is believed to be one of the less problematic ones.
It merely states that Marcus died seven days after contracting some unnamed contagious disease, perhaps the Antonine Plague, although it could have been something else. It says Commodus visited him but Marcus had him ”sent away in fear that he would catch the disease”. It also states that Marcus abstained from food and drink in order to hasten his own death from the illness. This was a common form of euthanasia in the ancient world — it was, according to one account, also how Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, chose to hasten his own demise when he became ill in old age.
Then, being eager to die, he refrained from eating or drinking, and so aggravated the disease. — Historia Augusta
This account conflicts somewhat with Dio’s claim that the physicians had hastened Marcus’ demise. According to the Historia Augusta, Marcus actually chose to die, presumably because he was suffering from such severe illness. Why would his physicians risk hastening his death when Marcus was opting for euthanasia anyway?
Moreover, if this is true, Marcus’ intention, once more, may have been to eliminate any suspicion that Commodus, or someone else, had poisoned him. If Commodus was under guard, and Marcus was not consuming any food or drink, it would be difficult to blame him for poisoning or otherwise murdering his father.
According to the Historia Augusta, after his final conversation with Commodus, Marcus simply “covered his head as though he wished to sleep and during the night he breathed his last.”
Another late Roman historian, Aurelius Victor, states that Marcus “was consumed by disease at Bendobona [Vienna] in the fifty-ninth year of his life.” Finally, the Christian historian, Paulus Orosius, says only that “while staying in Pannonia [Austria], he died of a sudden illness.” As you can see, none of these historians blame Commodus, or anyone else, for murdering Marcus. They all attribute his death to the disease.
Conclusion
So was Marcus murdered by Commodus? All of the ancient historians appear to agree that Marcus was suffering from a severe illness, a contagious disease, perhaps the Antonine Plague, when he died. Most of them agree that he died from the disease, as we might expect, given that the mortality rate was around one-third. In my recent biography, Marcus Aurelius: The Stoic Emperor (Yale), I therefore blamed Marcus’ death on the plague but also mentioned Dio’s curious allegation.
Marcus Aurelius covered his head, as though going to sleep, and passed away quietly during the night of March 17, 180. He had ordered the Praetorians to guard his son, in order to scotch any rumors that Commodus was responsible for his death. Even so, Cassius Dio in his history insists that the emperor was killed by his own physicians, who wished to win Commodus’s favor by hastening his transition to sole ruler.
Marcus was aged almost sixty and had been in notoriously poor health most of his life. He was perceived as frail and prone to illness, although Cassius Dio considered him curiously resilient despite this. Nevertheless, given his age and physical condition, he was unlikely to survive the plague, if that is indeed what he contracted.
There is a very intriguing passage in the Meditations, which Marcus probably finished writing at least five years before his death.
There is no man so fortunate that there shall not be by him when he is dying some who are pleased with what is going to happen. Suppose that he was a good and wise man, will there not be at least someone to say to himself, “Let us at last breathe freely, being relieved from this schoolmaster? It is true that he was harsh to none of us, but I perceived that he tacitly condemns us.” This is what is said of a good man. But in your own case how many other things are there for which there are many who wish to get rid of you? You will consider this, then, when you are dying, and you will depart more contentedly by reflecting thus: “I am going away from such a life, in which even my associates in behalf of whom I have striven so much, prayed, and cared, themselves wish me to depart, hoping perchance to get some little advantage by it.” — Meditations, 10.36
He seems to anticipate being surrounded by individuals who would be pleased to see him gone, as they are tired of his disapproving looks, and hope to benefit from his death in some way. He doesn’t name Commodus, however, who was probably no older than fourteen when this was written.
We’ll never know for certain what happened, of course. It’s possible that Commodus murdered his father, and had him killed by his physicians. My considered opinion is that we should view Dio’s report merely as a rumor. Marcus probably died of natural causes, as a result of the Antonine Plague, or some other contagious disease.
—
Previously Published on Medium
iStock image