Marius

So i'm visiting my mother today, and I needed some reading material for the um, bathroom... Anyway I grabbed one of my old textbooks from university and set to work. While I was reading through a section discussing the effect of epidemic diesases that spread through the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty, I come upon a sentence that gave me pause. It said something to the effect that a bad epidemic of small pox ran through the Roman Empire in the late part of the 2nd century A.D, and even claimed the life of an emperor, Marcus Aurelius...Now this era of Roman History isn't exactly my best(I'm more of a Late Republic - Early Empire guy), but i'd never heard of this before...Is this just something i've missed all these years? Is this something that'd known for a fact, or at the very least, a widely accepted theory? Or is this simply a case of shoddy researching by textbook writers?

Salah

I've never read that Marcus Aurelius (d. at Vindobona, Rhaetia, on March 17th of 180 AD) died of smallpox. Though I can say that he wasn't hugged to death by Commodus

^^
WASN'T, forgive my earlier typo

Cicero

I have it in mind that he did of an infectious disease, but I thought that it was the plague.

skizzerflake

How about -

From - http://www.roman-empire.net/highpoint/marcaurelius.html

If the fortunes of war were with the Romans this time and the Quadi were seriously mauled in their own territory beyond the Danube (AD 180), then any joy was offset by the old emperor now being seriously ill. A long lasting illness, - he had for some years complained of stomach and chest pains -, finally overcame the emperor and Marcus Aurelius died on 17 March AD 180 near Sirmium.

It seems like if he had something spectacular like Plague or Smallpox, it would have been more of a story. Also, neither is consistent with a "long lasting illness". Personally, prefer the idea that he was done-dirty by Commodus. That's a better set up for the rest of the story,

HadleyH

My God! what does it matter to you of what Marcus Aurelius died of?????????

Will the knowledge change an iota of your life?????

Will it make you richer or more handsome? or happier???


Omg we all love ancient history ... but there is a limit!

Zeno

Are you joking? Why is it strange to want to know?
Isn't death one of the most important things in a life? Didn't Chroesus say to the Persian king one can not know what kind of life one has led until his death?

HadleyH

LOL

Yes it is.


But not other people's death.


Get my drift?

Edgewaters

Nope.

Half of history has to do with other people's death. And hardly anything that old has anything at all to do with my life; nothing I know about ancient Rome will make me "richer or more handsome". That isn't the point.

HadleyH

So what is the point.

Please do tell, i wanna know. Are you going to be a better person because you know that fact? are you going to go to a better "heaven" when you die?

Are you going to be a Higher Soul when you are dead because of that knowledge??


Do tell please.

Edgewaters

History is alot like sports or art: it's doesn't have any practical purposes in an individual's life. It probably enriches society, but it does nothing practical for the individual (except, of course, those who are professionally employed in the field).

If everything we did had some practical purpose, we'd be robots without any sort of art or culture. We'd just go around functioning.