Caligula never goes mad

Hi!

I happened to be poking around on roman-empire.net and saw something interesting about Caligula:

"[Immediately after Caligula's accession] it seemed that better days were in store. Much was to be hoped from a prince who was young, popular and generous - and who began his reign by liberating prisoners, recalling exiles, publicly burning incriminating documents, and showing great determination in the unaccustomed business of administration. But after a few months Caligula fell ill, and he rose from his sickness in effect a madman; bereft of all moral sense but not of that distorted but occasionally acute intelligence which accompanies some forms of mania. The new nightmare was more terrible that that which had passed with Tiberius. "

What would have happened had Caligula not fallen ill and therefore kept his sanity? Undoubtedly he would not be assassinated and would reign a long time. Furthermore, he would have likely had children, so he wouldn't start declaring people as his successors simply because they were attractive (there's one butterfly right there: Marcus Aurelius becomes a full-time philosopher and doesn't become emperor because his relative was handsome).
 
Well if he had children that doesn't mean they'll become emperors, the tradition was that the emperor would choose a worthy successor and then adopt them, they weren't necessarily their actual children.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Well if he had children that doesn't mean they'll become emperors, the tradition was that the emperor would choose a worthy successor and then adopt them, they weren't necessarily their actual children.

Well, if you look at the Emperors who adopted their heirs, a lot of them didn't have eligible children. So it was more of a necessity to adopt your heir. But if you have a son, you will prefer him as your heir instead of a promising general.
 
Marcus Aurelius allowed Commodus to succeed him even though Marcus probably realized that his son would not make a good emperor. So we can probably assume that if Caligula had a son, he'd take the throne.

Intriguingly, as I checked roman-empire.net to confirm that Commodus had in fact been Marcus Aurelius's child, I came across this:

"The previous 84 years had seen just five emperors; during the next 104 years Rome should endure no less than 29. What really started the rot was that alone of the 'five good emperors', Marcus Aurelius had a son whom he had nominated as his successor. Marcus Aurelius had been 40 when he assumed the imperial purple gown of an office for which he had been groomed for more than twenty years. Lucius Aurelius Commodus had a number of elder brothers who had died early: he only 19 when he became emperor, and he proved to be a latter-day Nero.
He was an ill-conditioned youth whose education had been excellent though ineffective in practice".

So it sounds like having a son could make it less likely that your successor would be a capable ruler. The fact that you're a brilliant emperor does not mean that your son will be. A general, however, will likely already have a well-established track record and is more likely to be a good emperor (look at Vespasian)
 
Marcus Aurelius allowed Commodus to succeed him even though Marcus probably realized that his son would not make a good emperor. So we can probably assume that if Caligula had a son, he'd take the throne.

Intriguingly, as I checked roman-empire.net to confirm that Commodus had in fact been Marcus Aurelius's child, I came across this:

"The previous 84 years had seen just five emperors; during the next 104 years Rome should endure no less than 29. What really started the rot was that alone of the 'five good emperors', Marcus Aurelius had a son whom he had nominated as his successor. Marcus Aurelius had been 40 when he assumed the imperial purple gown of an office for which he had been groomed for more than twenty years. Lucius Aurelius Commodus had a number of elder brothers who had died early: he only 19 when he became emperor, and he proved to be a latter-day Nero.
He was an ill-conditioned youth whose education had been excellent though ineffective in practice".

So it sounds like having a son could make it less likely that your successor would be a capable ruler. The fact that you're a brilliant emperor does not mean that your son will be. A general, however, will likely already have a well-established track record and is more likely to be a good emperor (look at Vespasian)

In my opinion the effect the so-called "Good Emperors" had on the Roman Empire is largely overrated. One should not forget that during the Julio-Claudian and Severan dynasties the Empire was largely stable; conflict was confined to Rome itself. It is more that the Antonines ruled during a period of great stability rather then that they were the cause stability. Commodus is also not the disaster he is commonly made out to be. While undoubtedly foolish and incompetent, he hardly had such a great effect on the Empire as to be considered the author of its decline.
 
In my opinion the effect the so-called "Good Emperors" had on the Roman Empire is largely overrated. One should not forget that during the Julio-Claudian and Severan dynasties the Empire was largely stable; conflict was confined to Rome itself. It is more that the Antonines ruled during a period of great stability rather then that they were the cause stability. Commodus is also not the disaster he is commonly made out to be. While undoubtedly foolish and incompetent, he hardly had such a great effect on the Empire as to be considered the author of its decline.

Agreed. Commodus was by no means a brilliant emperor, but his reputation today is to a large degree undeserved. He wasn't a great ruler, but he wasn't that terrible either.

That said, the succession issue is an interesting one. If the ruling emperor names his son as his heir instead of selecting a qualified general, sooner or later an emperor is going to come around who isn't very well suited for the task at hand. And either the emperor hits a rough period, or he is deposed, with nasty consequences for internal stability. To be completly, nominating an heir isn't always going to be the most stable system either, but it is something to consider...
 
The Julio-Claudian Dynasty might survive longer. Depends on how this new Caligula chooses to govern since he isn't insane/a corrupt autocrat. He really didn't reign that long enough.
 
Agreed. Commodus was by no means a brilliant emperor, but his reputation today is to a large degree undeserved. He wasn't a great ruler, but he wasn't that terrible either.

That said, the succession issue is an interesting one. If the ruling emperor names his son as his heir instead of selecting a qualified general, sooner or later an emperor is going to come around who isn't very well suited for the task at hand. And either the emperor hits a rough period, or he is deposed, with nasty consequences for internal stability. To be completly, nominating an heir isn't always going to be the most stable system either, but it is something to consider...

Agreed. By the reign of Alexander Severus things were looking bright for the empire. The main problem was the fact that the anarchy that signified the change of dynasties lasted too long after 235. Let's think about it:

Julian-Claudian - Flavius (1 year of anarchy 68-69)
Flavius - Four Good Emperors (2 years of anarchy 96-98) - I don't consider Nerva a good emperor because he had disastrous results;
Commodus - Severus (1 year of anarchy 192-193)

Before 235, the empire found itself under a dynasty pretty quickly. But what followed the death of Alexander Severus was horrific...
 
Caligula

I don't know that much about him. I thought that there were problems even before he became emperor.
 
Top