One of the discussion questions asked, for what reasons did Commodus withdraw from
Rome’s imperial frontiers early in his reign? Is there a positive interpretation to be made of his
actions? Commodus withdraw from Rome’s imperial frontiers during his first five months in his
reign due to the fact that he wished to extend Roman control across the Danube. Commodus
seemed to have very little interest in the governmental affairs or the true leadership aspect of his
position, despite the fact that he did care about conditions of the Roman masses. In my opinion it
was good that Commodus stepped down because there had been way too many emperors before
him with no knowledge or interest in the task of ruling and the effects were detrimental, and had
Commodus chosen to stay in his position, it would only have been more of the same. His actions
were widely criticized across Rome because Commodus supposedly participated in numerous
gladiatorial games. He went against his father’s wishes and against his own advisers. I think the
positive interpretation for his actions was that he made a peace treaty with Marcomanni and
Quadi which supplied the limited Roman’s communications and manpower. Although many
criticized Commodus for this treaty.
Another question brought to light in the discussions asked, what were the sources of
Roman law, and why were the jurists so significant in its proper interpretation? In Rome, the
creation of its fundamental law was known as one of the highest achievements. Rome's Law was
admired for its "firm yet flexible nature". The law was based off of the twelve tables that were
made to give equal access to all of the Roman citizens. As situations would occur, the governing
body would look at previous cases to get an idea of how to rule in current affairs and how to
make decisions in future cases. However, in Roman law precedent was not binding. Another
thing that contributed to the jurisdiction was what class ...
