Talk:Commodus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article is on a subject of -importance within classical antiquity.

Contents

[edit] Calendar

What's the correct order of the months of Commodus's calendar? All the sources seem to agree that the months are Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius, but searching on the net I've gotten a few different accounts of what the correct order is, which months correspond to January–December. Everyking 20:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commodus: Life of

I note that the account of Commodus' life in the detailed entry at this site [1] is much less damning. Could it be that popular histories have over-done the demonization? Davidbrake

[edit] Character

I think the line "Though he has become a byword for insane caprice, it is difficult to assess his character from the written sources" in the character section is a little unwarranted.

This guy was very clearly an asshole: from giving himself 12 names (or however many it was) and frequently changing his name, to fighting opponents who wouldn't fight back in the gladiator arena, to charging huge sums for his worthless and vain gladiator appearances, to portraying himself as Hercules (a revered god) all over the place. It's no wonder his family deserted him.

I remember my dollege history teaching called him worthless, and the cover or jacket notes for the Penguin edition of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations describes him as worthless. I'm not a Western Civilization scholar, but the impression I get is that the sober predominant view among those who have expertise is that this guy was a jerk.

I don't know what's behind trying to lionize this guy, such as the section on the discussion page below that's questioning whether Commodus got an unnecessary unfair assessment on the Wikipedia page. Is it just because he was an emperor who fought in gladiator combat? We don't need to lionize wimpy schlumps and treat jerks as if they're heroes just because they do some things that might be impressive in a way if some of the details (vainglorious emperor, submissive opponents, robbery of state) were changed.

Anyway, bottom line, I think the sentence I quoted above should be edited out-- if someone who has familiarity with the written sources (I don't) feels the same way I do about it. Thanks. 67.85.225.175 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Swan

While I won't judge Commodus' character, spending just a few minutes reading Cassius Dio's account of Commodus is rather telling. I've marked this and will update the character section with Cassius Dio's account of some of Commodus' actions. Vorpala (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What is the source for the claim of 12,000 kills in gladiatorial combat? In Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he states that the emperor fought in the arena 735 times and rarely killed any opponent in public, although it was a different matter in his private fights.

Also, the article states that Commodus ordered a city to be wiped out. Which city? What is the source?

--Spondoolicks 20:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed these two claims, together with the claim that he was fully armed while his opponents fought with wooden weapons. Cassius Dio records in book 73 of his history that Commodus himself fought with a wooden sword and the public fights were not very serious. I have found no mention of a city being massacred although there's plenty of other bloodshed.
I think also there should be a disclaimer mentioning that the more scandalous stories of Commodus' behaviour may be, to some extent, propaganda. He was particularly unpopular with the senators (Cassius Dio was one of these) as they were heavily taxed, while the general public and the soldiers often received quite generous handouts and he retained some popularity with them. --Spondoolicks 11:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

"Commodus" is literally Latin for "convenient". What???--Codenamecuckoo 11:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My Latin dictionary doesn't define it so narrowly. It gives the definitions for the adjective commodus: "proper, fit, full; suitable, easy, opportune"; and when referring to a person, "pleasant, obliging". Derivatives include "commodity". -Silence 20:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Still not a very good description of him...--Codenamecuckoo 16:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you should think of his name as one might think of the name "Felix"? Vince In Milan 16:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incest

The article says the 'many ancient sources' support Commodus's incestuous love for Lucilla. I can't find any. Is this accurate?The Singing Badger 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Roman history, but if you can't find anything to substantiate it, it's quite probable that someone saw the movie Gladiadtor and decided to throw that in there. TheMrFrog

[edit] Commode

I wonder if Commodus was the impetus behind the word commode, which of course is another word for toilet. I didn't see anything in the article to say if Commodus was the inspiration or not.
JesseG 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data sheet

Below the picture of the statue of Commodus is the data sheet for his father. Anyone able to fix this?Ackander 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overly negative assessment?

I'm thinking the article may be slightly POV in its extremely damning and negative verdict on Commodus. Statements such as that Commodus "ruined the Roman economy" are probably impossible to back up and should thus be omitted. Some of his actions could also be seen in a more positive light than has been attempted. For example, the territories north of the Danube subdued by Marcus Aurelius were economically worthless and strategically extremely exposed; thus it made sense to abandon them. There are both precedents to this (the decision not to attempt to reconquer Germania in the reign of Tiberius, the decision not to annex Caledonia after the battle of Mons Graupius, etc.) and later, similar developments (e.g. the abandonment of the Agri Decumates and of Dacia). This is just an example of how some things could be interpreted in an alternative, more positive way. Whilst I haven't read the original sources, a lot of what is in the article sounds like quotes or paraphrases of typical Latin rhetoric (which was written by people who didn't like Commodus), but without being acknowledged as such. I believe the article might need an overhaul. --Helmold 21:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) "For each appearance in the arena, he charged the city of Rome a million sesterces, straining the Roman economy." Can this really have strained the Roman economy? I once read that a Roman auxiliary soldier in pre-third century imperial times received a pay of 250 denarii, i.e. 1000 sesterces, per year. This is an auxiliary soldier, who would have received considerable less than the standard legionary. In other words, with what Commodus received (if we believe Cassius Dio) he could have paid 1000 auxiliaries for a year. This may seem large, but the Roman army was dealing in terms of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In other words, I can't see how this could have actually ruined the Roman economy. The Roman state depended upon the economic well-being of the wealthy landowners; but what Commodus pocketed, if he pocketed it, could never have been enough to necessitate a tax increase so radical it could have bankrupted landowners, or indeed any tax increase at all. I'm not saying the statement should be deleted, but it would be very desirable that it gets backed up by evidence. --Helmold 21:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes of Commodus section

I deleted the entire Crimes of Commodus section since it appeared to be little more than a miscellany of Commodus' misdeeds and on the whole rather POV. I don't wish to whitewash Commodus, so of course the issues touched upon in the section ought to be included in the article, emphatically including the unpleasant ways in which Commodus rid himself of his enemies, real or imaginary. But this might be done in a slightly different form, and from a slightly more neutral point of view. --Helmold 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy section

I've also deleted the Legacy section, since it claims that Commodus' reign is considered as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. Whilst I've personally never read a scholar who believes this, it should be deleted even if there are people who hold this view, since "is considered" implies that there is a scholarly consensus about this. The other part of the Legacy section essentially repeated points made in previous sections of the article and was thus unnecessary. --Helmold 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Flow of Roman History

The content of this article doesn't mention the epilogue of his death and doesn't flow into the next dynasty of the Roman Empire. Roy Laurie 08:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The film gladiator

(There is no historical evidence suggesting Marcus Aurelius was murdered, much less by his own son.) I think that should be taken out. It is making reference to the fact that he was murdered in "Gladiator" the movie but it was not his own son that killed him. Can anyone tell me why it is there?