Battle of Vindobona [Vienna]?
D. Spencer Hines
Roman commander at the "Battle of Vindobona" [Vienna] ---- ostensibly
fought circa 180 A.D., shortly before the death of Emperor Marcus
Aurelius.
"On my command, unleash Hell" ---- says General Maximus ---- or words to
that effect.
Is there any confirmed Historicity to this battle, or are we simply
observing Hollywood "creativity" at work.
If there is historicity, do we know the name of the Roman general who
commanded at Vindobona?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
tiglath
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:eO9UsmI2$GA.347@cpmsnbbsa08...
> In the excellent film _Gladiator_, we see Maximus [Russell Crowe] as
> Roman commander at the "Battle of Vindobona" [Vienna] ---- ostensibly
> fought circa 180 A.D., shortly before the death of Emperor Marcus
> Aurelius.
>
> "On my command, unleash Hell" ---- says General Maximus ---- or words to
> that effect.
Thoroughly enjoyable segue to his somber "they say no."
> Is there any confirmed Historicity to this battle, or are we simply
> observing Hollywood "creativity" at work.
The film doesn't give the battle any name. It simply says "in the northern
frontier." No need to add to Hollywood's creativity.
Marcus died in his military headquarters in Vindobona, possibly of plague.
Hollywood likes better to have him assassinated, cashing in on a mere
historical rumor, and in what appears to be the Roman camp near the battle
just won. Vindobona was a naval port, under Trajan it was the station for
the tenth legion, the legion of the imperial family. During his struggle
with the Marcomanni, Marcus Aurelius often stayed at Vindobona and finally
died there
The ancient source for these events is Dio Cassius, book LXXI, which
survives only in Byzantine excerpts. The emperor commanded the Roman
forces; the names of legates commanding each legion are not recorded.
Maximus would be such a legate, since he mentions numbers suggesting he
commanded a legion. I know of no blow-by-blow account of Marcus Aurelius'
Danube Wars. MA's philosophy seems to have received more attention than
his military campaigns.
The best modern biography, in spite of its date, is P. von Rohden's in
Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie, vol. 1, pp. 2279-2309 (1894), in German.
Theodor Mommsen (1818-1903), a great German historian, never completed his
projected four-volume history of Rome; the manuscript for the final volume,
covering the period from the fall of the republic to the collapse of
imperial authority in the west, was destroyed by fire in 1880. Mommsen --
far more than Gibbon -- had access to a great array of archaeological
evidence. His tremendous intellect allowed him to understand this evidence
in a broader context than most simple archaeologists. Mommsen extensively
discusses subjects that Gibbon barely mentions in passing. A great loss.
However, a century later, Alexander Demandt discovered extensive notes
compiled by two of Mommsen's students on his lectures between 1863 and 1886.
The result is a "reconstruction," which serves as a faithful rendering of
Mommsen's interpretation of the imperial age, now translated in "A History
of Rome Under the Emperors" by Theodor Mommsen, Barbara Demandt, Clare
Krojzl (Translator), Thomas Wiedemann. Hardcover - 656 pages 1 edition
(August 1996)
Routledge; ISBN: 0415101131. Those readers wishing detailed examination of
Roman struggles for territory or political power will not be disappointed.
His analysis of the response to barbarian incursions in the fourth century
is particularly compelling. However, not much light is shed on the events
of 180 A.D. under discussion.
I particularly like the assessment of the philosopher-emperor by John
Anthony Crook, Professor of Ancient History, University of Cambridge,
1979-84. Author of Law and Life of Rome.
"Marcus' choice of his only surviving son as his successor has always been
viewed as a tragic paradox. Commodus turned out badly, though two things
must be borne in mind: emperors are good and bad in the ancient sources
according as they did or did not satisfy the senatorial governing class, and
Commodus' rapid calling off of the northern campaigns may well have been
wiser than his father's obsessive and costly expansionism. But those who
criticize Marcus for ensuring the accession of Commodus are usually under
the misapprehension that Marcus was reverting to crude dynasticism after a
long and successful period of "philosophic" succession by the best available
man. This is historically untenable. Marcus had no choice in the matter: if
he had not made Commodus his successor, he would have had to order him to be
put to death. Marcus was a statesman, perhaps, but one of no great calibre;
nor was he really a sage. In general, he is a historically overrated figure,
presiding in a bewildered way over an empire beneath the gilt of which there
already lay many a decaying patch. But his personal nobility and dedication
survive the most remorseless scrutiny; he counted the cost obsessively, but
he did not shrink from paying it."
F.P. Groeneveld
: Is there any confirmed Historicity to this battle, or are we simply
: observing Hollywood "creativity" at work.
Well, everything else in the movie was hollywood crap, so I'll happily
venture a guess...
Cheers,
Derk
Carl Christensen
wrote:
I've only seen a preview so far, and there was an enormous explosion
that seemed more fitting to a Mission Impossible flick. What the heck
was blowing up like that back then, a big vat of olive oil?
---
Carl Christensen, Philadelphia, PA USA
car...@my-deja.com http://www.geocities.com/carlgt1