Caligula Avoids Breakdown

It's recorded that during the first two years of his reign, Caligula was a noble and moderate ruler. As well-known, he had a break down and became Caligula as we know today.

Now, let's say he avoids drinking so much wine (avoiding the possible lead poisoning) or manages to keep his problem under control. What sort of ruler would a reasonable Caligula be like? Without his assassination, who would be the appointed heir?
 
Neat POD. I have heard though, that a lot of the stories about Caligula aren't quite true, and that he was, for the most part, uninvolved in Roman politics, and thus it was easy for nasty myths to come about later on about his mental stability. I will profess ignorance of Roman history, however, and will defer to the knowledge of anyone better versed than I.
 

The Vulture

Banned
I have a feeling he'd probably keep mostly out of politics and leave most of the work to the bureaucracy. As Roberto noted, a lot of the stories about him are probably greatly exaggerated or blatantly untrue.
 
If he hadn't been quite mad enough to be assassinated, then, assuming he stuck around for a few more years, the role of the emperor as executive authority would be significantly diminished, placing much more power with the Senate and other bureaucratic bodies. That could lead to an interesting political precedent in the Roman government.
 
If he hadn't been quite mad enough to be assassinated, then, assuming he stuck around for a few more years, the role of the emperor as executive authority would be significantly diminished, placing much more power with the Senate and other bureaucratic bodies. That could lead to an interesting political precedent in the Roman government.

Rome becomes a sort of constitutional monarchy?
 
If he hadn't been quite mad enough to be assassinated, then, assuming he stuck around for a few more years, the role of the emperor as executive authority would be significantly diminished, placing much more power with the Senate and other bureaucratic bodies. That could lead to an interesting political precedent in the Roman government.

He was actually more democratic than anything else. :eek:

Earlier in his reign, he moved a little bit more power to the people, focusing a bit more on elections. The Senate and Caligula were not friends, and a Caligula that continues to reform the Roman Empire might end up with a proto-democracy. Not a true democracy, mind you, and the Emperor would still be strong (unless the Senate checked future Emperors and it became the Roman Republic again, which is possible if he did too much reforming), but a step in the right direction. Either way, I see the power of the emperor ultimately decreasing in the long run; either the nobles get pissed off and take a lot of their old power back after Caligula's death, or a democratic base forms and we see a Roman democracy within a few centuries. This is long term enough that anything could happen, of course, but a Roman democracy would be pretty neat, and certainly possible.

Neat POD. I have heard though, that a lot of the stories about Caligula aren't quite true, and that he was, for the most part, uninvolved in Roman politics, and thus it was easy for nasty myths to come about later on about his mental stability. I will profess ignorance of Roman history, however, and will defer to the knowledge of anyone better versed than I.

From my understanding, the stories were exaggerated, but not strictly untrue. He wasn't nearly as insane as the stories say, but in his later years, he was still off-kilter. Avoiding that would still be able to affect Roman politics.
 
So this is strictly speculative, but I'm picturing a process that's somewhere between the English Civil War and the creation of the Magna Carta (which are obviously both important events in the history of OTL's quintessential constitutional monarchy).

Caligula dies after a lifetime of leaving Rome to the Senate, and his successor attempts to reinforce Imperial rule. The Senate's gotten quite used to being in power, so they don't like this much. So, if something happens that weakens the emperor's power enough that the Senate can force him into agreeing to a set of restrictions, you have the foundation for a possible future "constitution".

EDIT: Solo's comment above has really interesting parallels (and contrasts) with what I was crafting.
 
Caligula was fairly young...28 when he was murdered. If he had lived as long as Claudius, that gives him a nice, long reign of 38 years (38-76). Caligula doesn't strike me as someone who will let the Jews get out of control. Depending on whether or not you consider his insistence on putting a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem part of his "losing it" or not, you could get an early Jewish War if he still insists on it in 41, which has lots of run-on effects dealing with the development of Judaism, Christianity, etc.
 
Caligula was fairly young...28 when he was murdered. If he had lived as long as Claudius, that gives him a nice, long reign of 38 years (38-76). Caligula doesn't strike me as someone who will let the Jews get out of control. Depending on whether or not you consider his insistence on putting a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem part of his "losing it" or not, you could get an early Jewish War if he still insists on it in 41, which has lots of run-on effects dealing with the development of Judaism, Christianity, etc.

Raising a statue of himself wasn't him losing it I would say. Nero didn't hesitate to stroke his own ego.:cool:
 
From my understanding, the stories were exaggerated, but not strictly untrue. He wasn't nearly as insane as the stories say, but in his later years, he was still off-kilter. Avoiding that would still be able to affect Roman politics.

Well even without the sudden loss of sanity, he probably wasn't the most competent of monarchs. Tiberius left Rome absent of competent/threatening successors. Tiberius is presumable responsible for the death of most of Caligula's family as Germanicus and his lineage was rife with potential threats to Tiberius's rule. Caligula, was kept close at hand, and probably wasn't given the best imperial education given from the start of his ascension he rapidly squandered Tiberius' considerable treasury.
 
Earlier in his reign, he moved a little bit more power to the people, focusing a bit more on elections. The Senate and Caligula were not friends, and a Caligula that continues to reform the Roman Empire might end up with a proto-democracy. Not a true democracy, mind you, and the Emperor would still be strong (unless the Senate checked future Emperors and it became the Roman Republic again, which is possible if he did too much reforming), but a step in the right direction. Either way, I see the power of the emperor ultimately decreasing in the long run; either the nobles get pissed off and take a lot of their old power back after Caligula's death, or a democratic base forms and we see a Roman democracy within a few centuries. This is long term enough that anything could happen, of course, but a Roman democracy would be pretty neat, and certainly possible.

Fascinating.

Just how far could he go before the Senate says 'Hey there bucko! We've had enough of you!'?

Caligula was fairly young...28 when he was murdered. If he had lived as long as Claudius, that gives him a nice, long reign of 38 years (38-76). Caligula doesn't strike me as someone who will let the Jews get out of control. Depending on whether or not you consider his insistence on putting a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem part of his "losing it" or not, you could get an early Jewish War if he still insists on it in 41, which has lots of run-on effects dealing with the development of Judaism, Christianity, etc.

Could that cause even more schisms than OTL? Can we even have a Jewish Civil War, so to speak?

Caligula dies after a lifetime of leaving Rome to the Senate, and his successor attempts to reinforce Imperial rule. The Senate's gotten quite used to being in power, so they don't like this much. So, if something happens that weakens the emperor's power enough that the Senate can force him into agreeing to a set of restrictions, you have the foundation for a possible future "constitution".

What would be the most likely form of that "constitution"? Any ideas?
 
Caligula, was kept close at hand, and probably wasn't given the best imperial education given from the start of his ascension he rapidly squandered Tiberius' considerable treasury.

Not necessarily squandered. While he did waste a decent chunk of money, a lot of the money he did spend was for various good causes. You're right, though. He did a lot of good things, but he was not the most able of administrators.

Fascinating.

Just how far could he go before the Senate says 'Hey there bucko! We've had enough of you!'?

Probably not that much further than OTL. Historically, the Senate saw minor democratic elections as a way to appease the masses. They didn't have enough power to actually do much, so who cares if a few low level officials are elected? If it gets expanded to the point where some more powerful officials are elected, however, an already unhappy Senate is not going to be amused.
 
So this is strictly speculative, but I'm picturing a process that's somewhere between the English Civil War and the creation of the Magna Carta (which are obviously both important events in the history of OTL's quintessential constitutional monarchy).
I was thinking this plus some parts of the Venetian Republic. With checks and ridiculously bureaucratic ways of doing things to stop the big families dominating. But in reality doing so anyway. Or something.

I think with a quasi-constitutional monarchy, it'd be defined by periods of The Emperor and The Senate trying to dominate each other, neither able to get rid of the other, depending on who had the better political movers and shakers at the time.

Which would bring lots of instability and possibly civil war between the factions. (Similar but different to the ECW) Poor+Aristocratic Senate vs King + Non-represented/power-hungry Middle Class
 
Top