Roman History 01: Why is Marcus Aurelius amongst the best Roman emperors?

Anybody that knows me personally, knows my passion and interest with history especially my avid curiosity of the Roman Empire. So when discussing the great historical figures of the vast 1000 year old empire, often the question of "who was the best leader" gets asked.

Now it goes without saying that each emperor brought a different set of attributes to the table however it is clear which emperors stood out above the majority. Trajan extended the empire to it's greatest extent, Augustus formed the foundation of the empire and Hadrian kept the entire empire stable and strengthened the borders. These are achievements that many prior to them failed miserably so their names are worth noting.

So who was the best and why already? Okay I am getting there. The emperors especially the better ones had negatives and flaws in which I believe if they were exposed to the occurrences between the period of 161CE - 180CE they would have capitulated. This period was the reign of Marcus Aurelius. A brief overview of his character I noticed when reading his "meditations" was of how accepting the emperor was willing to learn and accept others. Marcus in this "diary" sought to order his thoughts and balance his mind to ensure power did not cloud his decisions.

Marcus was liked by the senate (not such an easy lot to get liked by) and by the common roman people other known as the plebeians. The emperor/s had big boots to fill when they ascended to the thrown but their adoptive father being the Emperor Antoninus Pius mentored them on the responsibilities of maintaining the empire and allowed them to hold titles below him which gave them legal experience.

Marcus shared the title of co-emperor with his brother Lucius Verus who died around 169CE. Now I find many would say who did he conquer for me to say that he was the best but instead I say rather what did he prevent. Now straight from the get go the Parthians sparked against the Mesopotamian border and Lucius Verus (the better militarily of the two) took legions to face them. Leaving Marcus in Rome to then to face a Germanic invasion along the Danube. This was bad as legions had been more occupied with Parthia when the tribes crossed the river. This halt of the influx of Goths, Franks and Gauls was successful but a wave of what is thought to be smallpox rippled over the empire killing millions including Lucius Verus.

The emperor therefore was tackling an invasion north of him and a pandemic across the empire, all the meanwhile making sure the army was pleasant and the senates demands were being met. This is not easy. Now I believe the greats are not always the one who conquer the most land but in this case the one to preserve the empire so much that it was unscathed at the end of his reign. A leader who is considered to be one of the best in England is Alfred the Great and he essentially did the same thing without the problem of a pandemic and murderous senate breathing down his neck.

So even after all them problems the empire did not dip in quality of Trajan's or Hadrian's standards. The same can not be said about his predecessor Commodus but the stoic and preserver of the flourishing empire against all odds for me in Marcus Aurelius.