Emperor Commodus: History vs. Hollywood Myth
This essay analyzes the historical record of Roman Emperor Commodus, whose legacy has been shaped largely by two biased primary sources — Cassius Dio and Herodian — alongside the controversial Historia Augusta. Drawing on secondary scholarship, the paper traces Commodus' early life, military achievements, and political conflicts with the Roman Senate to argue that his reputation as a megalomaniacal hedonist is a distortion. Rather than the decadent tyrant depicted in films like Gladiator, the historical evidence suggests Commodus was a pragmatic, accomplished ruler whose power struggle with the Senate generated much of the negative propaganda that has defined his legacy for centuries.
- Introduction: The Problem of Commodus' Legacy: Legacy distorted by film and biased ancient sources
- Primary Sources and Their Limitations: Dio, Herodian, and Historia Augusta assessed for bias
- Early Life and Military Achievements: Commodus' titles, campaigns, and early accomplishments
- Commodus as Gladiator and Self-Styled Hercules: Public persona, gladiatorial role, and Hercules imagery
- The Primary Sources Examined: Dio and Herodian: Primary source quotations analyzed for accuracy and bias
- Commodus and the Senate: The Real Conflict: Senate power struggle as source of negative propaganda
- Conclusion: Reassessing Emperor Commodus: Commodus rehabilitated as capable, misrepresented ruler
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper directly confronts the problem of source bias, noting that both major primary sources had personal or professional reasons to portray Commodus negatively — a sophisticated historiographical move that anchors the argument.
- It balances primary source quotations with secondary scholarly context, allowing the author to critique ancient accounts without dismissing them entirely.
- The contrast between Commodus' documented military and political accomplishments and his cinematic portrayal creates a clear argumentative through-line that holds the essay together.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source criticism — evaluating not just what ancient authors wrote but why they wrote it. By identifying Dio's senatorial bias and Herodian's preference for entertainment over accuracy, the author models how historians assess the reliability of primary sources before drawing conclusions about historical figures.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by framing the gap between Commodus' popular reputation and historical reality, then systematically addresses the unreliability of the available primary sources. It proceeds chronologically through Commodus' life using secondary scholarship, then introduces primary source quotations for critical analysis. The argument culminates in the Senate conflict as the root cause of historical distortion, with a conclusion that rehabilitates Commodus as a more capable ruler than tradition suggests. Approximately 900 words across seven logical sections.
Introduction: The Problem of Commodus' Legacy
Figures in Roman history such as Augustus, Charlemagne, and Pericles have soared into the Western historical tradition, while others like Commodus have received a far less respected legacy — banished and disgraced with stories of megalomania and decadence. Of the character portrayals of Commodus in both film and literature, only two primary literary sources exist: those of Cassius Dio and Herodian. With so little information available about how Commodus truly was, much was left to the imagination. What could have been remembered as a great Roman emperor is now a hedonistic caricature depicted in films like Gladiator and in the writings of Dio. But why was Commodus depicted that way? Was he truly a megalomaniac, or a man wishing to gain genuine imperial power?
Primary Sources and Their Limitations
Of the primary sources available, the information they provide can lead a reader to assume partial inaccuracy. Cassius Dio, for example, worked under Commodus as a senator. He wrote an eight-volume Roman history from a fairly biased perspective, shaped by Commodus' metaphysical war against the Senate. Herodian, who was a minor Roman civil servant, wrote in a way meant to entertain readers rather than provide historical accuracy. These two — and only two — primary sources of Commodus could therefore be significantly skewed and unreliable, driven either by a desire to entertain or by personal disdain for the subject.
Another source discussing Commodus, the controversial Historia Augusta, can also be treated with skepticism when trying to identify what kind of person Commodus truly was, as it served as something of a tabloid publication of Roman society. So while Commodus has been depicted in film as a hedonistic man who was killed by a wrestler and kept hundreds of concubines, in actuality no one really knows how he was; what information survives provides only a glimpse of his personality and conduct as emperor. This essay offers a brief analysis of the available information about Commodus drawn from secondary sources and the two infamous primary accounts.
Early Life and Military Achievements
Lucius Aurelius Commodus was born to Faustina the Younger, the maternal cousin and wife of Marcus Aurelius. In October of 166, Commodus was given the name Caesar during a Roman victory celebration marking the end of a five-year war against the Parthians.1 Three years later, both Marcus Annius and Lucius Verus died, leaving Marcus Aurelius as the sole emperor of Rome, and Commodus as the sole heir. Alongside these personal tragedies, the dozen-year struggle known as the Marcomannic Wars and the Antonine Plague occurred simultaneously, wreaking havoc on the empire.
Commodus witnessed all of this and in his youth was looked after by Galen, a philosopher and physician. In 172, Commodus earned the title of Germanicus when he traveled with his father to Carnuntum, the headquarters of the emperor. He received another title, Sarmaticus, while traveling to the East. After receiving that honor, he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries and then returned to Rome.
In November of 176, Commodus — then only fifteen — received the title of Imperator and celebrated a hard-won victory with his father in late December of that year for defeating the Sarmatae and the Germani. On January 1st, 177, Commodus received yet another honor, becoming the youngest consul of his era and making history by holding the consulship a record seven times. Receiving the title of Augustus in 178 and marrying Bruttia Crispina, he traveled back along the Danube to resume the wars alongside his father.
His father died when Commodus was eighteen, on March 17th, 180. That same year, peace came with the Germanic tribes, celebrated with another victory in October. After that, Commodus remained in or near Rome for the remainder of his adult life, having enjoyed popularity with both the army and the common people.2 During his sole reign many wars were fought, particularly in Britain; however, this did not prevent the empire from enjoying relative peace for the better part of a generation. Compared to his depiction in film, the secondary sources reveal a responsible, pragmatic, and overachieving man who did what was necessary for his family and his people — one who entered an arranged marriage, remained by his father's side, accumulated titles early in his youth, and maintained a reign of relative peace for several decades. So why do film versions of Commodus portray him in such a harsh and negative light?
Conclusion: Reassessing Emperor Commodus
Emperor Commodus was not a man who sought to keep hundreds of concubines or neglect his empire. He was an accomplished military figure who sought to wrest power from the Senate. While Dio, as a senator, had every reason to cast him in a negative light, Commodus led Rome to several military victories and worked to ensure the peace of the empire. Whether or not his self-aggrandizement through statues and coins ultimately reflected a dangerous narcissism is left for readers to decide. Regardless, the Commodus of the historical record bears little resemblance to the figure portrayed in Gladiator.
1 Olivier Hekster, Commodus (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002).
2 James H. Oliver, "Three Attic Inscriptions Concerning the Emperor Commodus," The American Journal of Philology 71, no. 2 (1950): 170.
3 Michael Rostovtseff and Harold Mattingly, "Commodus-Hercules in Britain," Journal of Roman Studies 13, no. 1–2 (1923): 91–109.
4 M. P. Speidel, "Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army," Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 109–114.
5 Cassius Dio, "Cassius Dio — Epitome of Book 73," Penelope.UChicago.edu, last modified 2016, accessed April 30, 2016, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html.
6 Herodian, "Herodian 1.14 — Livius," Livius.org, last modified 2016, accessed April 30, 2016, http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-1.14/.
Dio, Cassius. "Cassius Dio — Epitome of Book 73." Penelope.UChicago.edu. Last modified 2016. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html.
Hekster, Olivier. Commodus. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002.
Herodian. "Herodian 1.14 — Livius." Livius.org. Last modified 2016. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-1.14/.
Oliver, James H. "Three Attic Inscriptions Concerning the Emperor Commodus." The American Journal of Philology 71, no. 2 (1950): 170.
Rostovtseff, Michael, and Harold Mattingly. "Commodus-Hercules in Britain." Journal of Roman Studies 13, no. 1–2 (1923): 91–109.
Speidel, M. P. "Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army." Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 109–114.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.