Caligula in Britain

In 40, Caligula organized an expedition to conquer Britain and cement his credentials, but the legionaries, like they did later in 43 under Claudius, probably mutinied, refusing to cross the Channel because of some superstition. Unable to convince them unlike Narcissus was later, Caligula in his usual way, decides to humiliate the soldiers hence the shells episode.
I wonder if he had been able to convince the soldiers to cross and invade Britain, he could not only have conquered something to add to his glory, but this could have delayed his death by scaling down his actions against the Senate, since he could here pretend to triumph that was refused to him IOTL. He could have, like Jonathan Edelstein suggested in a thread of his own, further implemented political reforms, restoring popular elections for offices.

Another question is about Caligula's abilities in the field of military operations. His name went from the time past in his infancy among soldiers accompanying his father Germanicus, but that isn't really a valuable training. Would he has been up for the task of commanding legions invading Britain, smart enough to follow advices from generals? How would he treat the defeated people? I note that he wouldn't be necessarily merciless, needing prisoners for a doubtless monumental triumph and not less monumental public games, but the whole political settlement is another matter. Also, would he stay in Britain just enough time to claim glory as Claudius did or would he stay longer?
 
He would have, like Claudius, delegated the actual military commanding and planning to more capable subordinates, while he gets the glory. I doubt he would have stayed very long, it wouldn't really give him any benefit to do so.
 
He would have, like Claudius, delegated the actual military commanding and planning to more capable subordinates, while he gets the glory. I doubt he would have stayed very long, it wouldn't really give him any benefit to do so.

Staying away from Rome at that point for a extended period of time would have been a bad idea.
 
Staying away from Rome at that point for a extended period of time would have been a bad idea.

Would be interesting to see a coup taking place against him while he's up north. I'd love to see a timeline with him fumbling to cobble together his legions in Britannia to retake Rome, only to lie in a pool of blood surrounded by his own men.
 
Would be interesting to see a coup taking place against him while he's up north. I'd love to see a timeline with him fumbling to cobble together his legions in Britannia to retake Rome, only to lie in a pool of blood surrounded by his own men.
I'm not so sure. One thing is certain is that the military liked dynasty's and, well, there's so far only been one dynasty. Any coup in Rome isn't going to last long without an army of its own, and I'd be pretty surprised if the commander of the Danubian legions (the eastern legions didn't really start to get involved in dynastic politics until Nero's death) is willing to march on Italy while the legitimate emperor is not only still alive, but conveniently at the helm of a large army that doesn't have much reason to defy him, assuming the invasion of Britain is going well.
 
Staying away from Rome at that point for a extended period of time would have been a bad idea.
Well, moving his court to Alexandria, beyond the main purpose of finding a place where people have not so much trouble as in Rome venerating him in the way of oriental monarchs, was likely a matter of survival: Rome had become dangerous for him, but he wasn't quick enough.
A point Caligula did show during his reign by repeatedly humiliating the Senate was that the real power was lying in his persona, not in the Senate and by extension in Rome. Of course, even if his triumph, the frequent games he gave, the creation of an alternate power base among equites and freedmen, would partially palliate his lack of support among elites, going further along the way of divine monarchy and moving away from Rome could cost him some popular support, but he at least would retain the loyalty of the army.
Concerning the army, I think Caligula is likely to follow the path of Gallienus in barring Senators from military commands since such an anti-senatorial move is something that fits Caligula's agenda, securing his hold on the army by rooting out senatorial influence and promoting equestrian commanders. But at the same time, how would react the current commanders coming from senatorial order, would they revolt and try overthrowing Caligula?
 
Concerning the army, I think Caligula is likely to follow the path of Gallienus in barring Senators from military commands since such an anti-senatorial move is something that fits Caligula's agenda, securing his hold on the army by rooting out senatorial influence and promoting equestrian commanders. But at the same time, how would react the current commanders coming from senatorial order, would they revolt and try overthrowing Caligula?

Gallienus had also the problem, that less and less senators were willing to take the risk of a military career. So it was rather easy or even necessary for Gallienus to reorganize the cursus here. Modern historians do not see an anti-senate policy here anymore, like the historians of the 19th century did.

In the 1st century AD we have a fully different situation. Caligula would probably just die a bit earlier, if he tries to disempower the legates.
 
I consider it an anti-senatorial move in the context of Caligula's reign, but you're right that here, this would likely cause an early end.
 
If Caligula stripped senators from military commands, it would be after his move to Alexandria.
At the time, he would surely have to settle the issues he caused in Judea, and I'm a bit confused over how the situation was solved; some sources imply his death put a halt to the whole thing, but other say judean prince Herod Agrippa, a close friend of Caligula, had ultimately convinced him to rescind his order.
In Syria, Publius Petronius is legate, and in Asia, it's Cassius Longinus, a renown jurist. I don't know from what background they were, but since Caligula appointed them, I guess they weren't close to the Senate.
 
I guess the risk of senatorial led military uprising is more likely in senatorial provinces, that it would somewhat mirror Vindex' uprising.
 
A total conquest ? That would require more than a decade in the best of scenarios, unless Caligula plans to send in half of the roman army.
 
That wasn't exactly what happened IOTL, unless you restrict Britain, or Britannia, to England.
Southeast gave in quickly enough after the Catuvellauni were defeated, with Atrebates, Iceni and even Brigantes rallying Romans, but Cambria (Wales) proved a hard nut to crack, local tribes being excited against Romans and united by Caractacus.
 
That wasn't exactly what happened IOTL, unless you restrict Britain, or Britannia, to England.
Southeast gave in quickly enough after the Catuvellauni were defeated, with Atrebates, Iceni and even Brigantes rallying Romans, but Cambria (Wales) proved a hard nut to crack, local tribes being excited against Romans and united by Caractacus.

There are several possibilities.
 
The total conquest of Britain by Caligula would have changed the history of the Roman Empire.
If you mean a conquest including Scotland and Ireland, I doubt, Caligula is interested in going that far. Why should he depart from the common practice. The romans were not interested in more than the South-East surrounded by loyal client-kings. This good old strategy failed in Wales immediately and in Mid-England shortly after. However, even if the romans manage to conquer all of the british isles, I doubt that they are able to reduce their manpower onsite soon. So this would not change that much in the near future.

If you mean, that a sucessful young Caligula can rule for 40 more years like young Augustus, than you are right. This would change everything. But to rule for 40 more years, Caligula has to change his mind. If not he dies anyways.
 
Top