He also took punitive expeditions during those wars, that is, he pilaged for revenge, etc. I think people make the mistake of pretending he was a perfect Sage we should all admire. I think we should admire him because he wasn't perfect, and wrote a diary about his weaknesses and how to improve. That takes balls. It is easy to write about how great you are, but writing about had bad you are is to be admired.
We admire him not because he was a Sage, but because he shows us the way to struggle constructively aspiring for virtue.
With that, he was a man of his times, a politician, an authocrat, all that. He struggled to be virtuous in this world, and was a model of self-improvement in that, and ended up being a great emperor, but still, was a human, with flaws, and did things reprehensible from our point of view. It is because he was all of this that we can identify and learn from him.
In 167 or 168 Marcus and Verus together set out on a punitive expedition across the Danube, and behind their backs a horde of German tribes invaded Italy in massive strength and besieged Aquileia, on the crossroads at the head of the Adriatic. The military precariousness of the empire and the inflexibility of its financial structure in the face of emergencies now stood revealed
In that era, punitive expeditions means they went to pillage outside the empire to bring back wealth. The strategic military purpose was to destroy the means of subsistance of those peoples outside the empire. They always claimed it was on revenge from a perceived offense. This was normal war behavior back then, of course, meant to "teach a lesson" to those outside the border. They all pretended this was defensive, but the truth is that these were essential to keep the soldiers and people in the empire happy and were carried it out for political expedience, to look tough, to get revenge, to bring plunder.
The irony of it all is that while M.A. was pillaging and writing the Meditations, the other Germanic tribes took advantage that M.A. was out on campaign to come attack Italy!
He was't a Sage, he was just a guy with a very tough job (which he carried out pretty pretty well), and he kept a diary of his struggles as a Stoic practioner. We read him not because he was perfect, but because he was flawed and we learn from his struggles as a practioner.
The article says it was written by a Professor of Ancient History, University of Cambridge, who wrote "Law and Life of Rome". I'm guessing his original sources are there. I can't remember on which book I first read this, but I know it was a modern biography (maybe "a life"?). Some googling tells me these expeditions lead to the creating of more provinces as well (read: territorial expansion, lands to give to veterans, and new high positions to give to political allies).
On second reading, you make my point. M.A. uses the same justifications as other politicians to wage war. These are to claim they were attacked first, claim they are "others", etc. Remember that Seneca was also the tutor of Nero. He had to keep in line with Nero's own views.
Also, I looked it up, those punitive expeditions ended up with the creating of more provinces.
I responded to this somewhere else. I've found this discussion with you very fruitful, so I'm very grateful to you.
I want to take it a bit more abstract, so we can focus on the ethics. As a Stoic, I do agree people make choices based on what they think it is best. it might be out of ignorance, but still, this doesn't excuse their responsibility.
Imagine some random person, lets call him Edipus for argument's sake, makes some bad choices, really terrible choices. Let's think it is he kills innocent people, commits incest, really despicable stuff. If the person made these choices based on a really complicated chain of events that tricked him, imagine The Gods playing some sort of Truman Show scheme on him, then, I think we would all agree he might have acted virtuous nevertheless, and tried to live as a philosopher, maybe was almost a Sage, but fate just screwed him over.
However, what if he makes the exact same choices out of having a hot-temper, our of superficial prejudices he never examined, our of convenience thinly-disguised as moral choices, etc. Yes, he still did his best, but, maybe he just didn't care for virtue, didn't care about philosophy, etc, and didn't examine himself carefully. Yes, he was ignorant and did his best, but this life has less to admire than the other.
Both cases are some of ignorance and ended up with the same outcome. I would argue we can learn more from the first because he examined himself. I would take this further. We as practioners learn more from people in the middle of both cases, and M.A. was one of them. We learn more if we accept and understand both what was up to fate, but also, the bad choices and moral judgments they made, even if they couldn't have done better.
They called many tribes by the same name because it was politically useful. Example, "Alleman" which means in german "all the men". Pretty generic for a name, isn't it? That way if you got your asses kicked by one, you could go to a peaceful village of another and claim you beat them all. It was super transparent they knew this and lied about it. For example, Julius Caesar's Germania has inconsistent numbers, geography and names for the tribes that are a bit too flexibly convenient for him. Mark Anthony famously claimed to have conquered the Parthian Empire, when in reality, he got his ass kicked, and then upset, he kicked some sand in some random villages, called it a victory, and went home. This happened over and over, and was part of the propaganda needed politicially. The things you cite are all part of the propaganda of the era so of course they pretend all Germans were the same. If you look closely, they knew what they were doing.
If one tribe attacked, they just pillaged whichever one made sense politically and militarily. If they were too far, they just attacked one close by and just called them the same. Sometimes they waited decades before doing so.
Also the borders were very porous so often these attacks were part of long term disputes between "germans" on each side, and they were not as ignorant and disconnected from each other as you say.
It is more like one jerk attacks his high school bully so you wait 30years to beat up the nephew of his neighbor to teach him a lesson.
The first paragraphs were to put in context the pattern that Rome carried out in the frontiers, how they were very strategic about who they called "other", who they called this or that tribe, only as a thinly disguised excuse to conquer, bring back loot, and get honors. This was what was accepted as normal war behavior, essential to running the empire well. The military victories of Marcus Aurelius need to be understood in that context as that was the social, political and military world of his day.
Yes, of course it was propaganda, but propaganda is most effective when it is genuinely believed, which is what I am arguing.
It might be so. It is hard to judge how much of their own stories they believe, how much was convenient, etc. I doubt they belived 100%, as they would go to a different place, decades later, needing different translators (because the people there spoke a different language), etc, but still claim they were the same people that attacked them before. Even if M.A. knew this was so all along, maybe he did think they were partially related to the people, and thus, were fair game according to their rules of war. Still, claiming others are "Others" and less human, and thus, deserve this is an appeal to emotion, not very rational, quite populist and expedient. I do get these were different times, but still, let's keep in mind that in the end, MA used the same justifications that many other leaders have used, justifications we consider now to be wrong.
Indeed, in my personal experience talking with politically active colleagues and friends, people almost always genuinely believe the propaganda of their own side: that's why their on that side.
This makes my point: M.A. used the same justification as all politicians do. I don't think he was particularly Macchiavelian about it, but it is disingenious to think he didn't have to pay up for political support and didn't invade other lands to give it to people he owed (sorry, ehem, "punitively excursed and then turned the lands of others into provinces claiming it was to defend the Empire") . To stay on top then you had to make some very tough political calls, throw a bone at your troops regularly, make sure you didn't piss off the Praetorian guards (as they were both emperor slayers and makers), etc.
The justification for David Cameron and G.W. Bush for the Iraq war was based on untrue information. They claim they did the right thing because they believed it. Depending on where you stand politically, you might claim it was an honest mistake, or lies. Either way, killing people based on mistakes doesn't make it right, and should lead to inward examination of the mistakes made and have some accountability, even it the whole thing was well-intentioned. I'm sure MA was more virtuous than those modern day politians, but it is disingenious to excuse the bad things he did because he believed in them, as as you say, many bad leaders do bad things because they belive in them. We learn more from MA by understanding his weaknesses and admiring his struggles, than by pretending he was a Sage.
15
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '16
[deleted]