One of the tougher emperors to acquire in the price range I wanted to pay & have the older bust. Thankfully one did and it was perfect. :hail: Marcus Aurelius (161 - 180 A.D.) AR Denarius O: M ANTONINVS AVG GERM SARM, Laureate head right. R: TR P XXX IMP VIII COS III, Roma standing left holding Victory and spear. 3.5g 19.38mm RIC 352; RSC 929a; BMC 669
Cool coin, I am glad you finally found one you liked. I find MA coins suffering from the "hey I have heard of that guy" price affect. Basically, if an emperor's name is mentioned in major motion pictures, you can expect them to sell for much more than similarly rare coins. Even Julius Caesar portrait coins are not THAT scarce, but you would never know that from the prices they bring.
I am glad to see you found one you like, Mat, and I can see why. He does seem to have a very intense expression on his face, like he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders (which he probably did around 175 A.D when he was trying to keep the germanic tribes from overrunning the eastern frontier). Nice coin, Mat!
Although I'm not a great fan of Marcus Aurelius, I am still haunted by Richard Harris's powerful depiction of him in the movie Gladiator. guy
The I, Claudius remake should be interesting: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/hbo-bbc-team-i-claudius-196865 guy
OH NO. I clicked 'Like' before I saw it was a remake. Why would you want to remake I, Claudius?! Its already powerful and moving. And its not like Graves' work has changed since the original was released... EDIT: wait - its the BBC and HBO? I changed my mind again. That's going to be awesome.
I have mixed feelings about a remake, too. At least, the BBC / HBO version will have interesting visuals. :devil: guy
I oppose any remakes of Roman historical fiction until they run out of original subjects based on about 100 other Roman stories worth the attention. My first choice would be based on Julia Maesa who whold have been around for the 193 AD mess followed by the reign of her brother in law before you even got to the parts she played first hand in Elagabalus' rise and fall. That is at least a two season mini-series. I'd like to see a single movie on Probus which could show the dangers of telling guys with big knives that their services were no longer necessary because they had done a good job. Why have we not had a Constantine the Great epic? That is at least three seasons worth of good stories followed by another on the behavior of his sons after his death. Nero saw a lot of good stuff in the I, Claudius saga but could star in his own right even if he had no part in the things leading to the fall of Claudius. Valerian could be a good story even if it were written to star Shapur? Hollywood has proven themselves unable to handle Alexander but there are many less well known figures with stories worth telling before beating the same old horse again and again. Please! No more Commodus movies.
I bet Cinemax would be interested in that sick little bugger Elegabalus. Actually his whole family I still think would be an interesting little soap opera. I think one problem is cultural translation. I mean, how do you translate to US audiences just how offensive raping a Vestal Virgin was? We understand that act against anyone is offensive, but it would not resonate with us like it would the Roman populace. Chris
Reasons Marcus Aurelius wasn't a great emperor: 1. He broke the string of the five previous competent emperors (the Antonine or Adoptive Emperors) whose succession was based on competence instead of inheritance. Instead, he chose his natural son, the incompetent and psychotic Commodus. 2. He needlessly persecuted Christians and other minorities to maintain the Pax Deorum (or peace of the gods). 3. He foolishly allowed his feckless and corrupt co-emperor Lucius Verus to waste valuable resources during his incompetent invasion of Parthia for Verus's pursuit for personal glory. Verus later brought back the plague (known as the Antonine plague) from his Eastern campaign, killing millions of Romans and possibly Aurelius himself. 4. He instigated fruitless and wasteful wars of aggression against the Germanic tribes, rather than making peace (which Commodus later did). 5. He trusted his duplicitous, manipulative, and possibly unfaithful wife, Faustina the Younger. 6. He allowed uncertainty and instability to fester in the Empire. This forced the effective and previously loyal general Avidius Cassius to mistakenly rebel when Cassius thought Aurelius was dead. Cassius later died in his unwise rebellion. Cassius would have been a competent and worthy successor to Aurelius. He lacked only one qualification (in Aurelius’ eyes, at least): He wasn’t his natural son. The stoic Marcus Aurelius was a very thoughtful “philosopher king.” He was also very indecisive and weak. His lack of leadership and poor choice of heir (Commodus) helped to precipitate the crisis of the third-century Empire. :veryangry: guy
Guy, I can see what you are saying, but would really only agree with the fact he did not adopt a competent successor, but his son. He couldn't do much against his co-emperor, since theoretically he had just as much power. The Christians, remember, were a new, forceful, evangelic oriental mystery religion whose prostelatyzing(sp?) did upset a large contigent of the Roman population. I don't hold MA up with Trajan, Constantine, or Augustus, but I would say he was a slightly better than average emperor. Its hard to rank them since so many were assasinated before we could really see what they could do.
To stop myself going of subject, I'm going to post a new thread. "Your favorite Roman Emperor" to include why and a coin from that emperor.
