Caligula: Insane or Arrogant?

Hey guys!

I'm no expert on the late Roman empire, I confess, but I have a little pet theory about Caligula.

I've been taught in school that Caligula was mad. But I have my own ideas... :sneaky:

The two primary evidences that I was taught of Caligula's madness are:

1. Built a temple to himself. :ave:

2. Tried to make his horse a senator. :inquisitive:

However, I think there is another interpretation. :deal:

1. Anybody with the powers of an emperor who was extremely full of himself would want to proclaim himself as a deity. Extremely obnixious, perhaps, but not insane.

2. I think this was hardly a sign of madness; rather a sign of wit! I think that Calligula was frustrated with the Senate (either because he was a jerk or because the Senate really was ineffective).

And what better way to express your contempt for the Senate than to enlist a horse in their ranks! :laugh4:

He would, in effect, be telling the Senators, "My horse could do this better than you." :laugh4::smug::laugh4:

So then the Senate had Caligula murdered. Of course, they told everybody that Caligula needed to be put away because he was insane, and since the guy was a jerk anyway, the people were fine with that.

And all the histories we have that reference Caligula are written by whom?

By people who would have had access ONLY to information which the Senate gave them, or people who were under the Senate's thumb!

So I think that the Senate did away with Caligula for political reasons because he was too much for them to handle!!! Then they masked it with the pretext that he was insane.

All the information that we have today is tainted with the Senate's "viewpoint!"

What do you guys think?

There is quite some revisionism going on, he humiliated the senate by with the horse thing. Everything (known) was written after his death, and supposedly people loved him. Building a temple or a shrine for yourself wasn't unusual at all. There are no signs of any misgovernment, Rome did fine under Caligula.

I agree with you, but also he was insane, all info that reached us can't be wrong, I agree most of it is bad propaganda from opposition but not all. I've read somewhere there was an after and a before in Caligula's behavior due to some mental(?) illness he suffered.

One thing I am completely sure is his horse was smarter than the rest of Senators.... ;)

So it's not a new theory? :embarassed: Rats; here I thought I'd come up with something brilliant. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

So it's not a new theory? :embarassed: Rats; here I thought I'd come up with something brilliant. :beam:

---

Afraid not, but you still thought it up by yourself :beam:

bumr. :laugh4:

Well, thanks anyway. :egypt:

Its was a mixture in my opinion of growing up in the lap of luxury, a sharp wit, and the ability to do whatever the hell he wanted to. As for the temple thing Julius caesar built four LARGE temples (not including smaller ones) for himself and he wasnt even an emperor technically.

Oh and they believe he had lead poisoning from the aqueducts

I found Caligula by Sam Wilkinson to be a good coverage of the revisonist view. Not sure how far I believe it, but he does present a good, reasoned argument that makes a lot of sense and has evidence to support it.

According to this theory Caligula wasn't mad - he was too good. He looked to be another Augustus or Caesar, i.e. a person who would take power further from the senate and shake up the Roman world. The senate didn't like this so he was dealt with in the same way as Caesar. As he was very popular with the plebs a massive cover up was set in motion; the mad dog was put down for the safety of the populace.

It's certainly made me a lot more thoughtful about the matter, less ready to accept the standard story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I found Caligula by Sam Wilkinson to be a good coverage of the revisonist view. Not sure how far I believe it, but he does present a good, reasoned argument that makes a lot of sense and has evidence to support it.

According to this theory Caligula wasn't mad - he was too good. He looked to be another Augustus or Caesar, i.e. a person who would take power further from the senate and shake up the Roman world. The senate didn't like this so he was dealt with in the same way as Caesar. As he was very popular with the plebs a massive cover up was set in motion; the mad dog was put down for the safety of the populace.

It's certainly made me a lot more thoughtful about the matter, less ready to accept the standard story.

---

My thoughts exactly.

I dunno if he was crazy or not, but I find some of his supposed speeches to be funny, in a gruesome way :clown:

EDIT: this place is an interesting, if innacurate summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNwLDsOcG_0

Personally, I liked the standard way in which Calligula was depicted in I.Caludius by Robert Graves. Btw, that's a nice read, though, of course, there is some fiction in it.

About whether he was mad or not, I simply think that kidnapping his married sister, his strange orders concerning her death, his repressions... I doubt everything was manufactured by the Roman historians after his death. You know, there should be at least a grain truth in it. I admit, I am not an expert on Roman history but as far as I know the Senate power eroded a lot and the actual power came into the Emperors. The fact that the senators and his own Praetorian guard killed him means that he had stepped out the line.


P.S. I am growing increasingly sceptic about this revisionist wave, though I hope that it will lead to a debate that will work for the sake of history. Basically, I am for evolution, not revolution. ~:)

P.S.2 Lead poisoning or intermarriage between the old families, maybe both. Who knows...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

P.S.2 Lead poisoning or intermarriage between the old families, maybe both. Who knows...

---

High probability of being both, more taking into account they sum up and consequences passed down to future generations, but lead poisoning has less to do with aqueducts than to lead cups and glasses of sorts, wine and lead is worst combination than water and lead, also if it were for water, entire Rome had to be poisoned and not only the high class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

The fact that the senate and his own Praetorian guard killed him means that he had stepped out the line.

---

Death by praetorian was shockingly common for Roman emperors, and it was triggered for lots of reasons. High motives like saving the state from a tyrant were well behind ones like ambition on the part of high-ranking officer(s) or bribery. It's why each sucessive emperor handed out money and gifts, and did his best to seem a better employer than his predecessor and - most importantly - than any potential rivals.

Death by senate wasn't an uncommon hazard either. Caligula was the fourth in his family line if you include Caesar, and the second to die by senate dabbling.There were plots with degrees of senatorial support against Tiberius and Augustus. Which does rather tie to another point that it's useful to keep in mind. Rome hadn't had an emperor for very long, just long enough to forget the horrors of civil war. Powerful men dreamed of a return to the republic or the next best thing, a puppet emperor. Rightly or wrongly (another debate I'm interested in) Claudius is often portrayed as an idiot, malliable, easily led.

Quote:

---

About whether he was mad or not, I simply think that kidnapping his married sister, his strange orders concerning her death, his repressions... I doubt everything was manufactured by the Roman historians after his death. You know, there should be at least a grain truth in it. I admit, I am not an expert on Roman history but as far as I know the Senate power eroded a lot and the actual power came into the Emperors.

---

What's fascinating (to me) about history is the number of ways in which a certain known fact can be interpreted, and the way in which another tiny fact can change everything by its presence or absence. One historian will see a legion collecting sea shells as a sign of insanity on the part of the overall commander, and tie that to other evidence which supports it. Another will suggest it was a punishment for the disobedience alluded to in sources, and find further material to build that claim.

It's really quite wonderful IMO; the evidence gets a harder workout and a wider range of viewpoints are presented overall in such circumstances. Caligula under debate is a more interesting entity than the old monotone view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riedquat

lead!

---

Ah, the classic lead based make up. Bringing a whole new meaning to insanely beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Death by praetorian was shockingly common for Roman emperors, and it was triggered for lots of reasons. High motives like saving the state from a tyrant were well behind ones like ambition on the part of high-ranking officer(s) or bribery. It's why each sucessive emperor handed out money and gifts, and did his best to seem a better employer than his predecessor and - most importantly - than any potential rivals.

Death by senate wasn't an uncommon hazard either. Caligula was the fourth in his family line if you include Caesar, and the second to die by senate dabbling.There were plots with degrees of senatorial support against Tiberius and Augustus. Which does rather tie to another point that it's useful to keep in mind. Rome hadn't had an emperor for very long, just long enough to forget the horrors of civil war. Powerful men dreamed of a return to the republic or the next best thing, a puppet emperor. Rightly or wrongly (another debate I'm interested in) Claudius is often portrayed as an idiot, malliable, easily led.


What's fascinating (to me) about history is the number of ways in which a certain known fact can be interpreted, and the way in which another tiny fact can change everything by its presence or absence. One historian will see a legion collecting sea shells as a sign of insanity on the part of the overall commander, and tie that to other evidence which supports it. Another will suggest it was a punishment for the disobedience alluded to in sources, and find further material to build that claim.

It's really quite wonderful IMO; the evidence gets a harder workout and a wider range of viewpoints are presented overall in such circumstances. Caligula under debate is a more interesting entity than the old monotone view.


Ah, the classic lead based make up. Bringing a whole new meaning to insanely beautiful.

---

I admit it is a bad taste to answer in a historical discussion thread after almost-a-week-long break but the implacable RL forced me inot such an inconvenience. :bow:

Death by Praetorian sword was not that uncommon but my historical knowledge about the Ghulam guards, the Janissaries and similiar kind of elite guards shows that it takes some time from their creation to their degradation into band of brigands and blackmailers. I also admire the way Caligula managed to break both with the Senate and the army as it is well known that in the Roman history (and Byzantine) the two were rivals, not allies. Caligula also left the treasure empty, which is another issue showing his competence. It is also important to say that in his first years Caligula was considered to be a good ruler (and the reformist theory is tennuous here because the rulers make big changes in the beginning of their reign and Caligula certainly does not lead me to the conclusion that he was cautious to wait in the first two years of his reign ).

About Claudius: I believe he had the gift to pick good advisors and bad wives. Yes, he was relatively naive and easily manipuilated but his virtue to surround himself with capable administrators compensated that in his early years. About his late years: unfortunately, he is not the only man who failed because of his passion for younger woman.

Another PoV. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

I admit it is a bad taste to answer in a historical discussion thread after almost-a-week-long break but the implacable RL forced me inot such an inconvenience. :bow:

---

I feared I had scared you off.

Quote:

---

Death by Praetorian sword was not that uncommon but my historical knowledge about the Ghulam guards, the Janissaries and similiar kind of elite guards shows that it takes some time from their creation to their degradation into band of brigands and blackmailers.

---

The guard became rotten under Tiberius, largely due to Sejanus. A rapacious, vicious man in charge of the powerful armed body within Rome combined with an elderly, often absent (and arguably likewise vicious) emperor was an invitation to corruption.

Quote:

---

I also admire the way Caligula managed to break both with the Senate and the army as it is well known that in the Roman history (and Byzantine) the two were rivals, not allies.

---

Yes. Caligula appears to have worked with the plebs and equites well enough, but he and the senate were a prickly relationship. It doesn't appear that he slaughtered as many as Roman writers claimed, or at least there aren't that many named victims and most of them do seem to have been implicated in plots.

Quote:

---

Caligula also left the treasure empty

---

And yet Claudius abolished many of Caligula's taxes, refunded money to some citizens, and engaged on expensive excursions like the invasion of Britain and the construction of Ostia. It doesn't add up; Claudius must have had a sound treasury to do this.

Quote:

---

It is also important to say that in his first years Caligula was considered to be a good ruler (and the reformist theory is tenuous here because the rulers make big changes in the beginning of their reign and Caligula certainly does not lead me to the conclusion that he was cautious to wait in the first two years of his reign ).

---

Hmm. The old saying about power corrupting holds a lot of truth. Many historical rulers began as beloved young idols and ended up hated. Sometimes it took decades, others a matter of months. I think Caligula himself would have been more susceptible to this. His formative years were very difficult, his position in life never completely secure. He had not held the offices a young Roman in his position would have expected to, both a blow to his pride and a block of his chance to gain some experience. Gaining power, becoming beloved by the populace, using his will to shape his world - it's not hard to see a youngish man becoming intoxicated. It's a steady slope down from there.

BTW, that's where my own view of Caligula falls. Not mad, not a born again Augustus tragically cut down. A young man ill-prepared by life for the role he took, with a character that exacerbated the effects his decisions had on the traditional and power hungry elements of Roman life. Tactless, essentially. Augustus was successful because he was able to convince the senate he was working with them and for them. Caligula doesn't appear to have been as concerned with those niceties as he should have been. That's quite close to the view held by Anthony Barrett in his Caligula: the corruption of power.

Quote:

---

About Claudius: I believe he had the gift to pick good advisors and bad wives. Yes, he was relatively naive and easily manipuilated but his virtue to surround himself with capable administrators compensated that in his early years. About his late years: unfortunately, he is not the only man who failed because of his passion for younger woman.

---

I never do know what to make of Claudius. Honestly, I don't. The idiot picture doesn't work for me, nor does the genius pretending to be an idiot, nor the poor man led about by women. Robert Grave's fictional version doesn't work for me either. None of those views feel complete, it's like they all miss something key. I think it's because few historians blend the views and stark verdicts which insist idiot/genius/whatever are more concerned with pushing their argument than reviewing all of the evidence.

Your logic about the money for the British campaign made me reflect on it. I admit I never noticed the British campaign was barely 2 years after the Calligula reign. But 4 legion expedition is not the same as the 8 legions the Romans mustered against Parthia. I also believe that the Augustus system still worked very well and gave enough money to compemsate the losses. A less extravagant ruler could have filled the treasure again. But this is just an assumption.

Anyway, I liked the idea of young Caligula corrupted by the supreme power. Maybe a little bit madness does not contradict this and only contributed to his failure. Whether everything about his tyranny was true: probably not. The next generations like to add more to the story. But there must be much truth in this legend. Who knows?

In fact, Calligula was not the last in the chain of mad rulers that add flavour to the history. Rulers like Nero, Elagabal of the Roman Empire; later, another mentally sick person (though in different way) will rule France under the name of Charles VI; and also other members of the royal houses in England (Henry VI, I think), Spain (Charles II Habsburg of Spain)... But that's another story.

Finally, I can not miss my favourite Caludius. I have the feeling that you are not the only one who has difficulty to define his behaviour. Even in the forementioned "I. Claudius" (just an example) it never became clear if he was genius, lucky fool or anything else. My opinion is that he just had good advisors and wisdom in anything that does not include women. Another assumption. ~;)

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

Your logic about the money for the British campaign made me reflect on it. I admit I never noticed the British campaign was barely 2 years after the Calligula reign. But 4 legion expedition is not the same as the 8 legions the Romans mustered against Parthia. I also believe that the Augustus system still worked very well and gave enough money to compensate the losses. A less extravagant ruler could have filled the treasure again. But this is just an assumption.

---

Combined with major building works, handing out money in vast quantities, and dropping taxes, it doesn't make sense. Claudius must have had a treasury to draw on; he spent a lot and spent constantly throughout his reign.

I assume you mean Augustus' 8 legions? Augustus with the plump treasury and collection of veterans left over from the civil wars, attacking a fabulously rich country which would bring great glory to any Roman who pacified it? Augustus who could not afford to fail, because that would shatter his image and invoke the shadow of Carrhae.

Parthia was a very different beast to Britain, and as such merited more effort. The three most famous for waging war there - Pompey, Crassus and Augustus - were all working in very different circumstances to those the later emperors had. The faltering republic was an easier base for large scale military action; once there was an emperor everything had to tie back to him. That cuts down a lot of the possibilites for personal funding, personal ambition, and so on. Crassus could chuck his personal fortune behind his war; under an emperor he wouldn't have been so free to do that because it would overshadow the emperor's glory.

4 legions and a sea invasion of a relatively unknown land is still a massive undertaking. Remember also that the campaign included a lot of miscellaneous expenses such as building work and bribing locals. In the east there was infrastructure to work with; Britain didn't have anything the Romans would have considered worth using. Spending would have begun long before the ships left port; there's evidence that Caligula had laid the foundations and was planning a British invasion himself. Claudius wouldn't have had the 2 years to build up funds, and we can tell from the fact it took 2 years before launch that he didn't inherit a nearly complete invasion setup.

Quote:

---

Anyway, I liked the idea of young Caligula corrupted by the supreme power. Maybe a little bit madness does not contradict this and only contributed to his failure.

---

I'm not keen to accept any accusations of historical madness unless there's overwhelming proof of it. It's an accusation which was thrown out time and again for centuries, in multiple cultures, as an excuse to remove a ruler. I'm not convinced Nero was mad either. Egotistical, malicious, vicious, sadistic, self-absorbed and deluded, yes. Mad, no.

So many of the deeds ascribed to madness make sense when viewed from the right angle. If you're a musician with an ego the size of a planet, surrounded by cronies who praise your singing and playing to the heavens, it makes a good degree of self-absorbed sense to sing a lament when your capital city burns. It's epic, even heroic, to sing a lament - if you live with your head in the clouds.