Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
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.

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.