How bad was Caligula?

[Epictetus]

The BBC has published an interesting article about Caligula by Mary Beard. I liked this passage:

And no Roman writer, so far as we know, ever said that he made his horse a consul. All they said was that people said that he planned to make his horse a consul.

The most likely explanation is that the whole horse/consul story goes back to one of those bantering jokes. My own best guess would be that the exasperated emperor one day taunted the aristocracy by saying something along the lines of: "You guys are all so hopeless that I might as well make my horse a consul!"

And from some such quip, that particular story of the emperor's madness was born.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23455774

She also talks about how modern works, like I, Claudius, has influenced current popular opinion about emperors. It's a short article, but she has some good points.

[M. Demetrius]

Just a couple of generations later, strange fables follow politicians in all eras, don't they? Amazing how many people think Nero had a violin and played it while Rome burned.

[Michael Kerr]

I was reading an article basically saying the same thing about Caligula & Nero & how they received a lot of bad press from ancient writers especially Suetonius. Link below

http://listverse.com/2013/04/29/9-reason...you-think/

Also another link showing how similar statues of Caligula look to the evil young king Joffrey Baratheon from "Game of Thrones". It's as if the producers based the character of Joffrey on Caligula.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/joffr...oman-ruler

Regards
Michael Kerr

[CenturionDecius80]

Unfortunately, I think quite a bit of "history" that many folks know is influenced by television and movies more than it should be.

Though, it doesn't bother me much. I enjoy movies like Caesar and Cleopatra, the series Spartacus and Rome, History Channel specials on Rome, etc. I think it comes down to the person who has their interest piqued by said production to do the leg work and not rely on his or her "facts" solely from the show.

For example, Spartacus the series. Overly stylized, gore aplenty, inaccuracies abound....but before that show, my interest in Spartacus was merely in passing. That show sparked me to say "wait a minute, I want the real story"! I then wanted to learn more....

So a movie like Caligula that has Incitatus parading around as Consul is silly, and sadly, many think it as fact, I agree with Mary Beard that it is up to us to dig deeper and learn the truth.

[Lyceum]

I only glanced through the article, so bear that in mind if I'm repeating stuff.

Firstly the problem with "motivation" is that it assumes a certain level of corelation between how the ancients thought and we think. So many of the gestures in Roman culture we laugh at or think of as absurd made absolute sense to them. Everything from shifting through bird shit to, yes, communing with the gods.

Many of Gaius' exploits as reported throughout the sources seem to be relatively consistent with, or clever reworkings of, typical Roman behaviour. Though that is not to exonerate him and he certainly was weirder than the others.

Also examination of the epigraphic evidence seems to suggest that overall, he did ok. Neronian sources like Seneca also paint a completely different picture.

Monster? Sure if you've got a few million and a famous name and resident in Rome or nearby coloniae. Much of the hostility towards the emperors in (relatively) recent scholarship has been due to the erroneous kinship felt between academics and the senatorial elite. Or in the deliberate use of Rome as a malum exemplum post Luther.

[Nathan Ross]

Rehabilitating Caligula is nothing new - it's been going on since at least 1903. Trouble is, if we chuck out all the dubious-sounding anecdotes about him, there's not much left. Even if he wasn't as nuts as later senatorial writers liked to make out, he doesn't seem to have done much of worth.

But it wouldn't be surprising if he went off the rails a bit, considering his background. I think Anthony Barrett (in Caligula: the corruption of power, 1989) sums it up pretty well:

"... the great mystery is not why things went wrong, but why any intelligent Roman could possibly have imagined that things might go otherwise. To make an inexperienced and almost unknown young man, brought up under a series of aged and repressive guardians, master of the world, almost literally overnight, on the sole recommendation that his father had been a thoroughly decent fellow, was to court disaster in a quite irresponsible fashion."

Incidentally, was Domitian the 'bald Caligula' that Mary Beard refers to? I've never heard of any emperor called that...

[Nathan Ross]

the erroneous kinship felt between academics and the senatorial elite..

Yes. As with anyone described in ancient soures as 'bad' or 'unpopular', we should always try and ask 'bad for whom?' and 'unpopular with whom?'

[Lyceum]

Fantastic quote. Though yes, (if I may a quick critique?) its worth mentioning that very intelligent Romans experienced in realpolitik did allow that to happen. Was he so inexperienced? He grew up in the Imperial household (I'm buying into the princeps ut magnus pater familias model a bit here) surrounded by power. Moreover we're not under Claudius yet so we don't have the example of a severely "privatised" government lead by freedmen and amici quite yet.

Also youth, too, is relative. Look at Augustus' grooming of his would be heirs. They're doing all sorts as "youngers". Once you have the full toga on...

"his father a decent fellow" A decent fellow, highly talented, a favourite, the right connections...Germanicus was a good candidate. In Roman thought many of these traits ought to have passed on to Gaius, especially if he were the one in receipt of the death mask so, yes.

"Yes. As with anyone described in ancient soures as 'bad' or 'unpopular', we should always try and ask 'bad for whom?' and 'unpopular with whom?'"

YES. I agree wholeheartedly, we forget how humongous the Empire was and how varied.

Incidentally speaking of attempts to rehabilitate him I'm on board providing its not taken too far. Or rather, I'm onboard to recontextualise him. However my favourite ever piece on Gaius was a first year undergraduate essay produced by a friend of mine when we were younger. It was terrible, and failed, but was hilarious. It essentially came down to "what if he was just having a laugh"

Ok I'm laughing like a weirdo since I'm selling it short. I wish I still had the file!

[Conal]

BBC2 tonight at 9pm. Mary has a whole show devoted to Caligula.

[Nathan Ross]

It essentially came down to "what if he was just having a laugh"

That's actually not a bad suggestion!

As for Caligula's experience or otherwise, I suppose (depending on how much we believe the sources) that living on Capri with jolly old great-uncle Tiberius would have given him a keen appreciation for the effects of power, but perhaps not so clear a notion of its mechanisms.

For the senate, this possibly wasn't such a bad thing - the empire seemed to roll along with only the lightest of hands on the tiller at this point, and they may have assumed that a young inexperienced ruler would have been content to enjoy the trappings of power without interfering too much with their own control of government. In which case, the problem was Caligula's rather perverse sense of humour - his unwillingness to treat the senate with respect, and his apparent contempt for everyone around him, including certain rather touchy officers of the Guard...

[Vindex]

... living on Capri with jolly old great-uncle Tiberius would have given him a keen appreciation for the effects of power, but perhaps not so clear a notion of its mechanisms.

Although another supporter of Caligula-wasn't-as-bad-as-he-was-painted club, I rather thought Tiberius was a first class administrator who knew the workings of the Senate and the full implication of politics under the "new" republic led by one man. Surely Caligula would have learnt how hard a job governing Rome and the Empire was as well as what power the Emperor had?

[Nathan Ross]

Surely Caligula would have learnt how hard a job governing Rome and the Empire was as well as what power the Emperor had?

Oh sure - we can assume that there was more going on at Capri than kinky sex and random executions. But, as Jass mentioned above, previous imperial heirs-designate were often given an active and responsible role to acquaint them with the exercise of power and its limitations: leading armies, governing provinces and giving speeches to the senate. Other than his funeral oration for Livia, Caligula seems to have had no public role at all before his accession, no responsibility for anything.

This is what I meant by the effects of power - he would have seen various family members die in suspect circumstances, he would have seen the senate cowed by the Praetorians, and he would have experienced and learned about Tiberius's methods for clinging onto power. But he would had no practical experience of what holding that power actually feels like, and what it entails. Not surprising if he found it dangerously intoxicating...

[Michael Kerr]

Hi maybe I am relying too much on Robert Graves books but could you really rule Rome effectively from Capri or did Tiberius rely on a strong man in Rome like Praetorian Prefect Sejanus to keep order in Rome just like Caligula had Macro, until he tired of him. I am not suggesting that Tiberius left everything to others but maybe he left domestic issues & security to be handled by others & concentrated on approving foreign & military appointments, diplomacy, taxation & overall maintenance of empire from Capri so not much time for leisure I assume. Just on “I Claudius"I remember a Black & white BBC production before I Claudius called The Ceasars made in 1968 where Tiberius who was played by Andre Morell didn't come out as bad as George Baker's character did in I Claudius. Getting back to the topic Wouldn't the strong arm tactics & development of corrupt practices of the Praetorian Guard to cow & “bleed" the Senate & Knights of money ensure that Tiberius & Caligula got “bad press" from ancient writers (a few were senators)? I think at this early stage of Principate, the Praetorians or Sejanus in particular with the emperor on Capri got the taste of power & saw the benefits of keeping emperors isolated & would became such a thorn in the side for later emperors with their greed & reputation as “kingmakers".
Finally it seems to me that Roman writers tended to be biased against young emperors compared to say Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Antonius Pius or Trajan etc. who more fit their ideals of how a strong mature Roman emperor should act.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Epictetus]

Well, ruling always depends upon having strong, capable people under you. Physical location doesn't have to matter - look at Hadrian, who was always wandering. Lines of communication between Hadrian and his subordinates followed him wherever he went.

I'm not sure age has much to do with how historians portrayed emperors. There seems to be a lot of literary tropes. You can see dualism and contrasts: Marcus Aurelius was wonderful, but his co-emperor Lucius Verus (who happened to be younger) was terrible. This setting off one against the other seems to be very popular. Seutonius, the Historia Augusta, even perhaps Dio did it, to varying extents.

By the way, how was the Caligula documentary on the BBC last night? Normally their shows take months to be shown outside the UK, so I might have a long wait before I can watch it.

[Dan Howard]

Malcolm McDowell will always be the real Caligula to me.