Marcus Aurelius - Warrior, Philosopher, Emperor

by Frank McLynn

Today I review Marcus Aurelius, Warrior, Philosopher, Emperor by the biographer Frank McLynn. This book seeks to explore the figure and answer several questions: was Marcus Aurelius really the philosopher king he’s been identified as? Was he really one of the best Roman Emperors? How did his philosophy influence his life, and his legacy – both philosophically and in society – and the fall of the Western Roman Empire that was to happen a few hundred years after?

Marcus Aurelius is a fascinating character. He had strong philosophical principles, a huge amount of responsibility, invading tribes, plague and diplomacy to deal with. His co-emperor was – in the main- useless, his son the complete opposite of his father, an indulgent, cruel hedonist. Contemporary writers wrote positively in the main of Marcus despite all of these challenges, making him an excellent subject for a biography.

I also reviewed Antony Birley’s older biography of Marcus Aurelius and if you haven’t watched the review yet, spoiler alert - it quite lacking. The writing never created the space in which to cast a well-argued portrait of Marcus Aurelius. By contrast, Mclynn’s tome is large, with smaller print margins than one typically sees, and clocks in at 567 pages including the appendices. So, plenty of room to cover all aspects of Marcus Aurelius. It certainly succeeds in this regard. Marcus Aurelius’s upbringing, political decisions, religious decisions, philosophy, wars with the Parthians and Germanic tribes, military decisions, and legacy are all covered in a dense and informative way.

From war, to plague, to war...

The book follows a natural progression, from his younger life, his philosophy, legal reforms, early wars with Parthia, persecution of Christians, Marcomannic Wars, Antonine Plague, death and legacy, principally, his son Commodus. This progression makes sense and is perfectly fine – I would like titled chapters though seeing as most chapters had a core theme, although inevitably there are crossovers of politics, economics, religion etc.

Mclynn’s handling of the Marcomannic Wars was superb. The Marcomanni, Quadi and Iazyges tribes were a thorn in Marcus’s side and his handling in particular of the Iazyges - leaving them in political, non-fighting limbo with the promise of becoming allied to Rome - was extremely interesting. The fact Marcus managed military success over the Marcomanni and Quadi despite being absolutely overlooked in this aspect in his upbringing (in contrast with his co-emperor Lucius Verus) is impressive.

Similarly, the persecution of Christians was reviewed in a balanced manner, featuring contemporary writers and perspectives on the subject and clear analysis. Mclynn sheds light on many thinkers here such as Tertullian and Justin, incorporating the ancient narratives and their localized, contemporary effects. Although I didn’t necessarily agree with the conclusion, as I would give greater sway to the fact that Marcus was far more lenient than other Emperors, I can see Mclynn’s argument that Marcus was conservative and maintaining the status quo in many of his policies.

The conclusion was strange in that it seemed to get bogged down in detail. Although it – sensibly, to my mind – lays out the criteria for assessing a Roman Emperor’s success by the events that they couldn’t do anything about, what they could have done better with and the areas that they did excel in. But after pages of analysis, delving into various philosophers, policies and comparisons of the Antonine Plague – it never wraps things up in the end, because the conclusion had actually come at page 492-493 – stressing the importance of the plague, the difficulty of war on various fronts and dealing with religion, revolt, economics and politics. Marcus Aurelius had plenty thrown at him and as a politically conservative moderate he sought to bring what stability he could, whilst keeping various factions – the Senate, the equestrians, the common man – all happy. Which, Marcus did a pretty good job of.

Virtue & rationality

The positioning of the conclusion was strange – the philosophical influence section that came afterward could probably have gone in the appendices, or earlier – but the analysis is detailed, takes into account both ancient and modern viewpoints, and balanced. The philosophical analysis sometimes seemed flawed, to my mind – although Stoicism can easily be levelled as simplistic, idealistic and maybe unrealistic, there was no consideration of more fundamentalist and literal viewpoints such as Aristo, who was very much taking the philosophy’s teachings as purely literal, to Panaetius who modified it to incorporate preferred indifferents. Mclynn also seemed confused on the cosmogony, and the interplay of rational elements in the universe influencing irrational, such as with a permanent, infinite god (Zeus) and other gods, and everything else being temporary and recurring. These details are, admittedly, complicated and sometimes paradoxical. But I think Mclynn got confused on the sense of rationality being organised and intentional by the universe, whilst irrational elements remain within it because they do not need to be organised – in this sense Stoicism is a soft determinism rather than a hard one as Mclynn seems to believe.

Mclynn’s review of Marcus is intricate and balanced. Although conservative, Marcus showed a fairness in his legal decisions, a loyalty to some of the old guard of powerful aristocrats in the Empire, a dislike of the barbaric brutality of gladiatorial combat. He both loved and was frustrated by his childish co-emperor, passionate about his Stoicism and pessimistic about his lack of control of some aspects. But ultimately he is a fascinating figure who we can learn more from in his Meditations, his letters to Fronto, who seemed to combine the rare aspects of a hugely powerful figure whilst being humble, controlled and compassionate. To be able to peer in the mind of such a prominent and unique figure is particularly special.

Final Score

In summary, although I didn’t always agree with Mclynn, such as with his perspectives on Marcus’s handling of Christians verging towards cynical or impassioned, and the flaws of Stoicism, this is a superb biography. It’s detailed, explains the supporting casts of characters in not just the history but philosophy or religion (even in modern times). You will know most of what you wanted to know about Marcus from reading this biography, and plenty that you weren’t aware of even if you’re familiar with the material.

9/10