How bad was Caligula?

[Tanc49]

Caligula is reviled, basically synonymous with cruelty and madness in modern languages.
However, most sources were possibly adversarial and tend to ridicule him and be misinterpreted.
For example, the horse appointed as consul was not real but an insult to the Senate, the guys writing the history books.

So, how bad was he? Was he truly insane?

 

[Sertorius126]

It’s hard to assess whether Caligula was truly insane or not, however, it’s safe to say that he was a poor ruler, especially for the times he lived in. He attempted to impose a more autocratic rule with excessive brutality and viciousness, displaying none of the tact and cunning of Augustu, while at the same time he depleted the treasury for his own ostentatious tastes. His military campaigns were a failure and his attempts at annexing the empire’s client states were clumsy and disorganized. If an emperor manages to be hated both by the common mob and by the senators, you know he clearly got something wrong.

 

[Max Sinister]

Apparently he became worse after he survived a bad fever after one year of governing. Before he was just eccentric - there's a story how he made a contest for poets; worst one had to lick his poem off the board, was whipped and thrown into the tiber. Also, he was wasteful - Tiberius had collected several billion sestertii for the treasury, he managed to waste it during the first year.

 

[Raferty]

It is not a coincidence that the Emperors who had the most troubled relations with the Senate and the elite class in general tended to come off poorly in the histories written.

That being said, he didn't really last all that long and it is doubtful that the level of vitriol about him wouldn't at least have some small basis in tyrannical action. In addition, he was a fiscal wastrel.

 

[sarahz]

It’s hard to assess whether Caligula was truly insane or not, however, it’s safe to say that he was a poor ruler, especially for the times he lived in. He attempted to impose a more autocratic rule with excessive brutality and viciousness, displaying none of the tact and cunning of Augustu, while at the same time he depleted the treasury for his own ostentatious tastes. His military campaigns were a failure and his attempts at annexing the empire’s client states were clumsy and disorganized. If an emperor manages to be hated both by the common mob and by the senators, you know he clearly got something wrong.

Yes but was he hated by both?. There is some doubt about the first amongst historians these days (rather like the revision to views about Nero) The only thing we can really be sure of is that he did make an enemy of his chief of security and deliberately so. That could be considered a little unwise, certainly.

 

[Max Sinister]

It is not a coincidence that the Emperors who had the most troubled relations with the Senate and the elite class in general tended to come off poorly in the histories written.

Germany's president Gustav Heinemann once said something to the effect that you shouldn't point with your finger at other people, because inevitably three fingers will point back to you.

If Caligula was as bad as most people (including me) thought - why didn't any senator think up something to kill him off and save Rome? He essentially forced several senators to commit suicide (and leave their fortune to him), and even then they didn't.

 

[Sertorius126]

Yes but was he hated by both?. There is some doubt about the first amongst historians these days (rather like the revision to views about Nero) The only thing we can really be sure of is that he did make an enemy of his chief of security and deliberately so. That could be considered a little unwise, certainly.

Nobody complained of Caligula’s death, whereas people still laid flowers for Nero after his death, and at least three people pretended to be him to gather popularity in the East.

 

[stevej713]

It is not a coincidence that the Emperors who had the most troubled relations with the Senate and the elite class in general tended to come off poorly in the histories written.

That being said, he didn't really last all that long and it is doubtful that the level of vitriol about him wouldn't at least have some small basis in tyrannical action. In addition, he was a fiscal wastrel.

That's probably true. Most historians in Ancient Rome often had no pretensions about writing history for the sake of conveying accurate information, but were often writing politically-motivated works that were little more than propaganda. After Caligula's death, historians probably set out to tarnish his image as much as possible in order to be in good graces with the new folks in power. With that said, there's a reason why his reign was so short.

To sum up, Caligula was probably a very poor leader who antagonized powerful people, and after his death, historians further smeared his image to give his killers as much of a virtuous image as possible.

 

[Tanc49]

After Caligula's death, historians probably set out to tarnish his image as much as possible in order to be in good graces with the new folks in power. With that said, there's a reason why his reign was so short.

Although the guy after him probably wouldn't have been too much against Caligula.
Didn't Claudius forbid the damnation memoria?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think that people are too quick to say "Well, all the emperors with bad reputations were the ones who antagonised the senate, clearly it was just senatorial historians setting out to blacken their names." A man who's enough of a megalomaniac to have sex with and then murder his mother or declare war on the sea is also likely to be a real dick to those beneath him; conversely, a moderate and lawful ruler is also likely to respect his subjects' prerogatives. So I think we should expect a high level of correlation between "Total madman" and "Doesn't get on well with the senate", and between "Good ruler" and "Does get on well with the senate".

Plus, not every emperor whom the senate didn't like was tarred with as black a brush as Caligula or Nero. Claudius and Domitian, for example, had a troubled relationship with the senatorial class, but whilst they're portrayed negatively, I don't think anybody's ever claimed that Claudius had sex with his sister and then cut her open to eat his unborn baby, as Caligula is supposed to have done.

For example, the horse appointed as consul was not real but an insult to the Senate, the guys writing the history books.

Well, some modern historians have suggested that it was an insult. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

If Caligula was as bad as most people (including me) thought - why didn't any senator think up something to kill him off and save Rome? He essentially forced several senators to commit suicide (and leave their fortune to him), and even then they didn't.

There were actually several conspiracies, it's just not that none of them succeeded until the last one (obviously). Nor is it unusual for tyrants to avoid being murdered -- Hitler committed suicide after he was defeated in a foreign war, for example, and Stalin died of natural causes, and they were both unquestionably pretty awful.

 

[Sertorius126]

Plus, not every emperor whom the senate didn't like was tarred with as black a brush as Caligula or Nero. Claudius and Domitian, for example, had a troubled relationship with the senatorial class, but whilst they're portrayed negatively, I don't think anybody's ever claimed that Claudius had sex with his sister and then cut her open to eat his unborn baby, as Caligula is supposed to have done.



Well, some modern historians have suggested that it was an insult. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct.

And even when it came to Nero, criticism mainly concerns his artistic displays, nothing quite as graphic as Caligula’s tales of insanity.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

And even when it came to Nero, criticism mainly concerns his artistic displays, nothing quite as graphic as Caligula’s tales of insanity.

I mean, there was that whole incest thing, not to mention murdering his wife then castrating and marrying a male slave who looked like her...

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

Well, Seneca the Younger was at one point almost executed by him for possibly being associated with some of the multiple conspirators against him, and his writings reflect the view that he had a quite unstable and erratic personality.

 

[Sertorius126]

I mean, there was that whole incest thing, not to mention murdering his wife then castrating and marrying a male slave who looked like her...

Exactly, the worst slander told about him was about kicking his wife’s belly in a fit of rage, and coming to regret it shortly after, nothing quite like that time Caligula forced a guy to jump from the Tarpeian Rock or that one time he laughed cause he was thinking about killing his guests at dinner, or, my all times favorite, when he prevented people from resurfacing after they’d collapsed in the water from a bridge he himself had built. Honestly, I could go on and on about all the horrible stuff said about Caligula, when it came to Nero however 85% is “he sang here” “he danced there” “he forced people to play and act” “he ashamed himself by taking competitions seriously” and things like that.

 

[isabella]

Nobody complained of Caligula’s death, whereas people still laid flowers for Nero after his death, and at least three people pretended to be him to gather popularity in the East.

Well Claudius was a good emperor and was loved (or at least accepted) by the people and under the stable reign of Claudius nobody had reason for regret Caligula’s death...
90% of the things who were said against Nero and Caligula were most likely slanders (including the whole incest thing for both)...
Surely Nero had a much happier and stable infancy than Caligula who was likely damaged by his infancy (but after everything happened to his family is pretty easy understand why he was so traumatized and desiderous of absolute power and revenge)

 

[Sertorius126]

Well Claudius was a good emperor and was loved (or at least accepted) by the people and under the stable reign of Claudius nobody had reason for regret Caligula’s death...
90% of the things who were said against Nero and Caligula were most likely slanders (including the whole incest thing for both)...
Surely Nero had a much happier and stable infancy than Caligula who was likely damaged by his infancy (but after everything happened to his family is pretty easy understand why he was so traumatized and desiderous of absolute power and revenge)

Indeed. Although I wouldn’t really say Nero had a “happy” infancy. He grew up with no father, his adoptive family didn’t surely love him, and his mother was Agrippina. I’d say he had a stabler infancy than Caligula, more like.

 

[Max Sinister]

Well, Seneca the Younger was at one point almost executed by him for possibly being associated with some of the multiple conspirators against him, and his writings reflect the view that he had a quite unstable and erratic personality.

...and forced to commit suicide. Despite offering Nero his considerable fortune if he was allowed to live.

 

[Max Sinister]

To sum up, Caligula was probably a very poor leader who antagonized powerful people, and after his death, historians further smeared his image to give his killers as much of a virtuous image as possible.

But he wasn't killed by some senator, not even indirectly, but one of his bodyguards, after he made too many jokes at his expense.

 

[Sertorius126]

But he wasn't killed by some senator, not even indirectly, but one of his bodyguards, after he made too many jokes at his expense.

Senators, and probably some equestrians too, specifically employed Cassius Cherea to murder Caligula, since he certainly wasn’t aligned with the pretorians that picked Claudius as emperor, or else he’d have lived. Very few people ever survived long after killing an emperor, it’s not something he’d have done just because he personally loathed the man, although it surely played a big part.