Can somebody please explain to me why Marcus Aurelius is seen as one of the best Roman Emperors? Is it because of his philosophizing? Didn't his reign fail to see the height of any of his Good Emperor predecessors? Is it because he was the last of the decent Emperors before the Empire experienced its first significant decline?
Wasn't that decline already brewing during his reign? Weren't the German borders growing increasingly unstable even during his reign?
Other urls found in this thread:
qz.com
twitter.com
who cares his name is really cool and hes got as neat beard
Verus had the better beard
What the fuck was with the perms?
He (and Lucius I guess) did a pretty damn good job preserving what the Romans already had, beating back the Parthians, Germanic tribes and a revolt, which is a lot more than you can say for some of the later emperors.
>Can somebody please explain to me why Marcus Aurelius is seen as one of the best Roman Emperors?
1. We have his diary, so he is relatable and easier to romanticize.
2. Modern man was fooled into thinking he should endure being fucked with instead of protesting, so a person who personifies this attitude entered pop culture.
3. He wasn't shit at his job.
How did a Crypto Atheist like Aurelius raise a kid who thought he was the Entire Olympian Pantheon?
>Aurelius
>raise
He was on the road half the time, doubt he raised shit.
And judging by his diary, he was the kind of person to complain about EVERYTHING, and then say its okay, I'll handle it, I am not even mad that *new rant starts*
"MEDITATIONS"? MORE LIKE: "MEDIOCRITY".
Not really much he could do about the G*rmans. He's tried his best to fuck them up but they were evolving as a society due to long contact with Rome by that point. Instead of being a bunch of divided tribes warring as much with themselves as with Rome, they were beginning to solidify into broader trans-tribal societies with the unified aim of pushing into roman territory for material gain.
I can't remember the numbers exactly but rome only had a fraction of the manpower the germanic tribes had at this point, or a little later. It's surprisingly rome didn't get krauted a long time befire it did.
the virgin tripfag:
>MUH DEMIURGE
>MAKING UP NONSENSE WORDS
>ATTENTION WHORE
>FRAGILE EGO
>MAXIMUM SPOOKED
>ALREADY FORGOTTON
The Chad Philosopher King:
>doesn't appeal to deities for his philosophy to work
>uses straightforward, everyday language accessible to everyone
>never even told anyone of his writing
>totally egoless and selfless
>understands how the world works without spooked x-tier theories
>people still seeking his advice millenia later
>totally egoless and selfless
He didn't have it built, he merely abided its construction. He also abided his sculptor making him more handsome
name another emperor of the time who agrandised himself less. (Vespasian maybe?)
>compared to some of the most egoistic people to ever live, he wasn't that egoistic
Yeah I can actually see him groaning about it after getting convinced into it by his family/advisors whatever.
>Topped by Paul
TARSUSED
I dunno, the head on his chest has some wicked as feathered hair going on
>mfw Romans rocked late 70's/early 80's hairdo's
Marcus Aurelius was one of maybe a dozen roman emperors (pre-schism) to truly give a shit about the state and its people
Lots of bad shit went down during his reign; brutal wars, plague, famine and natural disasters to name a few.
Conversely, Commodus had a very peaceful and uneventful reign.
Go figure that marcus' philosophy was one of making do with the hand you've been dealt
A great emperor does not necessarily rule through prosperous times and vice-versa obviously. He did a pretty good job.
He was a good ruler.
>2. Modern man was fooled into thinking he should endure being fucked with instead of protesting, so a person who personifies this attitude entered pop culture.
That's not the point of Stoicism at all. I hate how some left-wingers created a strawman Stoicism.
>left wingers out of nowhere
Hi /sp/.
GLORIOSUM
Recently, some people in the left started criticizing stoicism with this.
Read the Meditations, he is complaining about stuff all day long, and then saying he endures it.
This isn't stoicism, stoics shouldn't be bothered int he first place, but it is what Aurelius did.
On point.
You are fishing for rage, going out of your way to find garbage you dislike. I don't, and thus I don't read pop-philosophy.
This article made a lot of noise in the "Stoic community". And there were some others.
The stoic community should've been more stoic about it, and brushed it off. Those events don't depend on them, and thus their development shouldn't bother them.
They should not be angry, but should correct the mistakes of the article, since this is the virtuous thing to do.
They should, if they could. I don't think they can. Of the publications I read, zero have been reviewed and edited following comments from readers. Also people who read the article rarely read the comments, and would always respect the article above the comments under it if they are in opposition.
That is, correcting the mistake in the article is on par with correcting the rainy weather on your wedding day. Just deal with it, as the left inside forwards would say.
They must answer the mistakes on the article, regardless of what the website does or how many people read it.
"Why should I have a column after a few years my body will turn to dust and my spirit will disappear in a few decades nobody will now who marcus aurelius is but those who know little about me will think I was a asshole who liked making columns "
>why Marcus Aurelius is seen as one of the best Roman Emperors? Is it because of his philosophizing?
Pretty much, yeah. He was a decent ruler, but neither great nor particularly impactful. This board loves him because muh humanities mostly.
Historically his reputation is also helped a lot by how highly stoicism was thought of by christians, how shit his son was in comparison, and his being one of the "five good emperors", whose election through adoption was a very discussed subject in the legitimacy debates of the middle ages and early modern period.
Stoicism isn't easy to modern men it would be less easy for a fucking emperor, so excuse him if he had to writte a book in order not to go Nero on everybody
It's a just a diary with little pedagogical use, that's why I hate when people think that reading it gives you an understanding on Stoicism. Also, the philosophy aspires for the perfect virtue but this only can be achieved by the Sage which is kind of a metaphorical Buddah who is always happy.
he continued (and ended) the golden age of competent roman emperors
he wasn't genius but was very decent and just guy who honestly did his best to serve as an emperor
his greatest mistake was not continuing the tradition of adopting competent heir as an successor which lead to one of worst shitters (commodus) taking over
the relationship with faith was different back then
romans perceived mythological heroes (and gods too, to an lesser extend) as chad celebrities that everyone should emulate
The adoptions were mostly because the Emperors had no biological sons.
Nerva was old and childless.
Trajan had no sons and chose a nephew
Hadrian had no son and chose Antoninus to be Emperor while Marcus Aurelius was young.
Antoninus had no sons
Yeah. To understand Stoicism, Epictetus is the best. After that, Seneca and Musonius. To understand Musonius' fragmenets you need to understand Stoicism and have read Epictetus.
there was a story how aurelius wife cucked him with some gladiator and thats why commodus liked arena so much but it probably was senate propaganda
Yeah pretty much. People always harp about the five good emperors being chosen for the good of Rome, but only Trajan and Pius actually had a great career before being chosen, Hadrian and Aurelius were both related to their predecessors and chosen without a strong showing of competence beforehand.
I think he was a virgin when he married, his wife was his first. In meditations he says something like he didn't experience sex early but late I think in the introduction when he thanks everybody
It is hard to know a lot about controversial Roman figures since Romans called everyone they disliked promiscuous.
So, people who liked Scipio Africanus called him a model Roman who had the virtues of temperance and chastity. Those that disliked him say he had a weakness for pretty girls.
Yes. He wrote that he didn't have sex earlier than the right time, but even a little later. Probably didn't have sex in the day he married for some reason?
>Those that disliked him say he had a weakness for pretty girls.
as opposed to being gay?
No.
The "model Roman" was a tough bastard who didn't care for a luxurious life and pleasure. His acts would be based on civic virtue, not pleasure.
They considered that if you are too attracted by pretty girls/boys, you lost your independence and became a slave to them (and to your base desires).
>When you wanna fug but he keeps talking about the morality and virtuosity of sex
More like
>When you wanna fugg, but you are scared someone might find out and tell him, and he'll write it in his faggy diary so historians two millennia later will talk about it.
Fuck off with your buzzfeed articles
>and a revolt
Macus' wife is such a cunt. The revolting general was a good and loyal man who who only did it because Marcus' wife convinced him that Marcus was dead.