Was Caligula Really Insane?

So the overrall consensus is he was a sadistic and sarcastic figure that was just misinterpreted and was emperor at the wrong time?
 
So the overrall consensus is he was a sadistic and sarcastic figure that was just misinterpreted and was emperor at the wrong time?
Yes and no, Caligula probably did fall to bouts of madness in the latter years of his Imperial rule due to stress and illness, but was incapable of ruling the Empire as Augustus did or deferring power as Tiberius. He was unprepared for the amount of power he wielded, though I would assume few would be either.

His increasing insanity as his reign went on likely brought the worst sadistic traits to the fore and his inability to deal with the Senate as Augustus had led to greater hostility among their ranks.
The sheer adulation of the population of Rome likely enhanced his own divine opinion of himself. While later writers complain about his assumption of godhood while alive, they laud Augustus' insincere humility, better a liar than the bald faced truth.

While Augustus lavished the Senate in the sweet scent of false power and praise to cover up the decaying corpse that was the Republic of Rome, Caligula laid bare the armour piercing truth to the Senate through his constant caustic commentary on their powerlessness in the face of his absolute authority.
They were puppets projecting the shadow of power whose strings were held by one unstable individual. It was the first taste of the harsh ugly truth and the Senate didnt like it. Tiberius ignored his power and responsibility so the Senate continued on through his reign as ignorant as Tiberius.

The Senate are rather two faced about their hatred of those Emperors who challenged their supposed power. Augustus actually used his resignation as a threat to the Senate on several occasions, to give him even more power or else he would put them back in charge and by then the Senate were too used to the status quo and were absolutely terrified of having control of the Republic again and refused him every time.

Ultimately Caligula probably was mad, but the events everyone remembers as his 'insane' acts were misinterpreted and the actual signs of his insanity are there and enough to back it up. But he has gone down in history as the byword for incredibly insane hedonistic absolute ruler because of that.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I don't think Caligula ( or Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus as he should properly be known as) was actually not as bad as people think he was, and his so called insanity, while almost certainly real, is in fact exaggerated by aggrieved senators.
Lets look at it like this shall we? You don't like the senate and you wish to undermine their authority. You cant do it outright, so what to do? Why, show them up as a bunch of asses by appointing a horse to a senior role ( awful equine pun their-sorry!) It was not so much an act of madness, as a deliberate ( though admittedly bit unhinged) but a move designed to appeal to the common people and against the senate.

We see this move being done consistently throughout imperial Rome, with Emperors allying with the common people against the rich, aristocratic senate and in doing so protecting each others lives. The people backed the emperor, while the emperor spend much of his time managing the bread dole or mass games simply to appease them. It was a delicate, dangerous balancing act and I think Caligula played brilliantly considering he was so young, had no proper education on statecraft and had spent much of his time in a military base. How can we tell this? Well, do we see Suetonius talking about caligula's atrocities against the lower classes? no. Most of his crimes involve purges, insults, or arrests surprise, surprise, of SENATORS. Notice a vibe here?

Let us also bear in mind that being an emperor is the most stressful job in the ancient world. Caligula was not only incredibly young, he had no idea how to run the state and had few credible role models to emulate! I think he tried to follow the example of two people close to him-his father, a military man who no doubt was quite brutish and violent in disposing of enemies and was assassinated by his uncle-hence paranoia and violence. And what about his predecessor with whom he spent much time Tiberius? A man who molested young children, had them run naked round his estate, was addicted to porn, detached from reality and was paranoid. Perhaps it was with him that Caligula got a bad role model and became slightly unhinged.

If we look at him like this, he was just a vulnerable, disturbed young man, with a abused past who tried to make the peasants happy but fell foul of political scheming of which he was utterly out of his depth. Its almost.....sad and makes you feel sorry for him really.
 
On the previous page you ( I think it was you) mentioned how not until after Caligula was all the work really lifted off the emperor's shoulders, and a bureaucracy to help the emperor was really established.

How wold one create such a bureaucracy? Or more rather, how and when was it created? If that makes sense.
 
On the previous page you ( I think it was you) mentioned how not until after Caligula was all the work really lifted off the emperor's shoulders, and a bureaucracy to help the emperor was really established.

How wold one create such a bureaucracy? Or more rather, how and when was it created? If that makes sense.

It was developed when the senate realized that young emperors was a bad idea! They knew it was their opportunity to reel in the emperors powers and in Claudius, an elderly, weak minded former member of the senate, they had the right tools at their disposal. All future heirs were groomed in by great teachers like Seneca for Nero ( who was not that bad or insane by the way) to help create more educated, knowledgeable, sophisticated men capable for rule.
 
On the previous page you ( I think it was you) mentioned how not until after Caligula was all the work really lifted off the emperor's shoulders, and a bureaucracy to help the emperor was really established.

How wold one create such a bureaucracy? Or more rather, how and when was it created? If that makes sense.
Excellent point.

Augustus made the position of Emperor essentially sole Supreme Court Judge of the Roman Empire. Augustus himself went through reams of legal information and intervened in judicial cases across the Empire that peaked his interest, but the man was beyond compare at his job. Tiberius sat in his estate in Capri and let others do all the work.

Many legal documents or laws that had to be signed were either held by hopelessly naive Senate staff at the docks of Capri waiting for an audience that would never come or were signed by Sejanus. Sejanus himself became incredibly attuned to the new position Augustus had created and it was through Tiberius' laziness that Sejanus managed to amass such power in order to attempt a coup.

As the Empire went on the Praetorian Guard Commander was increasingly recognised as the one of the greatest legal authorities second to the Emperor himself. Much work would inevitably be dumped on them by impatient or overworked rulers that was intended for the Emperor.
So future Emperors would look to their Praetorian Commanders to have a sound legal mind as well as military skill.

A small legal staff would grow around the Praetorian Commander and Emperor to deal with paperwork and advise them on legal matters from various parts of the Empire. Another group would deal with letters from concerned citizens over what they argued were unfair judgements in local courts.
It could simply be the Emperor seeing all these letters and legal papers and saying "Cant we get someone to deal with all of these?"

I hope that has been of help of to you and good luck on the Timeline!
 
Excellent point.

Augustus made the position of Emperor essentially sole Supreme Court Judge of the Roman Empire. Augustus himself went through reams of legal information and intervened in judicial cases across the Empire that peaked his interest, but the man was beyond compare at his job. Tiberius sat in his estate in Capri and let others do all the work.

Many legal documents or laws that had to be signed were either held by hopelessly naive Senate staff at the docks of Capri waiting for an audience that would never come or were signed by Sejanus. Sejanus himself became incredibly attuned to the new position Augustus had created and it was through Tiberius' laziness that Sejanus managed to amass such power in order to attempt a coup.

As the Empire went on the Praetorian Guard Commander was increasingly recognised as the one of the greatest legal authorities second to the Emperor himself. Much work would inevitably be dumped on them by impatient or overworked rulers that was intended for the Emperor.
So future Emperors would look to their Praetorian Commanders to have a sound legal mind as well as military skill.

A small legal staff would grow around the Praetorian Commander and Emperor to deal with paperwork and advise them on legal matters from various parts of the Empire. Another group would deal with letters from concerned citizens over what they argued were unfair judgements in local courts.
It could simply be the Emperor seeing all these letters and legal papers and saying "Cant we get someone to deal with all of these?"

I hope that has been of help of to you and good luck on the Timeline!

Ok, thanks for clearing this up. Speaking about the TL, I was thinking about Drusus overhauling the way the state of affairs were being mannaged, and creating some form of bureaucracy.

It was developed when the senate realized that young emperors was a bad idea! They knew it was their opportunity to reel in the emperors powers and in Claudius, an elderly, weak minded former member of the senate, they had the right tools at their disposal. All future heirs were groomed in by great teachers like Seneca for Nero ( who was not that bad or insane by the way) to help create more educated, knowledgeable, sophisticated men capable for rule.
I agree completely on your point about Nero.
 
Ok, thanks for clearing this up. Speaking about the TL, I was thinking about Drusus overhauling the way the state of affairs were being mannaged, and creating some form of bureaucracy.


I agree completely on your point about Nero.

Firstly....yay! A Nero apologist! We really need a TL done for him really.
Secondly, I don't know much about Drusus, but is he really the sort of person to create a sophisticated bureaucracy? Military men in history tend to err to the authoritarian side of rule. Oh....and when Caligula does appear in your TL ( if he does make a big part) could please give him a different personality? i think that given a different upbringing he could have been a good ruler.
 
Hard to say really. Roman sources are notoriously bias (it's hard to find ones that aren't) and Suetonius could almost be compared to the Roman equivalent of the Daily Mirror. However, there is definitely something off about Caligula, perhaps not "insane" but very sadistic and possibly jaded about his position.
 
Firstly....yay! A Nero apologist! We really need a TL done for him really.
Secondly, I don't know much about Drusus, but is he really the sort of person to create a sophisticated bureaucracy? Military men in history tend to err to the authoritarian side of rule. Oh....and when Caligula does appear in your TL ( if he does make a big part) could please give him a different personality? i think that given a different upbringing he could have been a good ruler.

Well from what I can gather on Drusus he was showing promise both politically in Rome and military wise, though he did have a temper. Immersing himself in the inner workings of Rome is kind of gonna be his escape from Agrippina (as well as maybe a military campaign or two)

As for Nero, yes, we really need a TL on Nero. I especially dislike how he is portrayed with the fire. I mean when the fire was over, he was out there personally helping people out of the rubble...
 
Also about Caligula...yes, he will be different. He wasn't in Capri with Tiberius this time, and he's gonna get to spend a decade working with Drusus, so he'll be better prepared.

Hard to say really. Roman sources are notoriously bias (it's hard to find ones that aren't) and Suetonius could almost be compared to the Roman equivalent of the Daily Mirror. However, there is definitely something off about Caligula, perhaps not "insane" but very sadistic and possibly jaded about his position.
The bold part made me lol.
 
He probably wasn't the batshit-stark-raving-pencils-up-nose-going-wibble insane of popular perception... but even dismissing the more outragous accusations in the sources as blatant bias there does seem to be firm indication that he wasn't particularly stable.
 
If we look at him like this, he was just a vulnerable, disturbed young man, with a abused past who tried to make the peasants happy but fell foul of political scheming of which he was utterly out of his depth. Its almost.....sad and makes you feel sorry for him really.

Only in the sense I feel sorry for a mad dog.

I don't know if he was insane - my personal feelings are that we don't have enough data to judge it fairly (even if the accounts are true there's simply not enough information for a proper diagnosis) - but presenting Caligula as a victim of circumstances when his actions are making those circumstances worse . . . sorry, I don't side with Andronicus I on those grounds and I don't side with any of his predecessors on those grounds.

Was he over his head? Quite possibly. But that's not mutually exclusive with insane in the sense of his connection to reality being shaky - either before or after.

Appointing his horse as consul is no better if he did it to mock the Senate rather than out of the inspired idea that the horse would do a good job. That's not the work of a clear thinking and crafty man, that's the work of someone too full of contempt to care about the consequences of his actions.

And while I'm as much an enemy of the aristocracy as any burgher monarchist, there's a huge difference between allying with one faction against the aristocracy and simply fighting the aristocracy.
 
Appointing his horse as consul is no better if he did it to mock the Senate rather than out of the inspired idea that the horse would do a good job. That's not the work of a clear thinking and crafty man, that's the work of someone too full of contempt to care about the consequences of his actions.
I have said many times in this thread how things can be taken out of context to make a point. Caligula never made Incitatus a Consul.

"It is said that he even planned to award Incitatus a Consulship."

That is the exact quote from Seutonius. That is it. That is the line that has now ballooned into the one fact that proves he was insane. There are many other things to choose from but like the story about Catherine the Great and her horse it has taken a life of its own. Despite being one reported like a sleazy tabloid article, like Archon mentioned. Who wants to know the truth when gossip and rumour make such better reading.
 
I think the truth is he was somewhat crazy and his political foes used that to their advantage. Clearly the opponents of Claudius wanted him gone and probably exaggerated events to make him seem even more monstrous. On the other hand, he watched a man with unlimited power murder his family members in a private villa on a remote island with no escape over years. To survive he probably did things that would not be repeatable in polite society, and it certainly left marks. But a lot of what he did seems like a young man suddenly given a lot of power and money who had to fight to build his reputation against an army, a Senate, and a priesthood that opposed him at many turns.
 
I have said many times in this thread how things can be taken out of context to make a point. Caligula never made Incitatus a Consul.

And even in context, he's still treating the senate with contempt at best and delusional at worst.

It's pretty clear that Caligula and the Senate did not get along. A smart ruler would have tried to deal with that - there is precedent. A flawed ruler - whether actually crazy or just full of himself - would have made things worse.

Judging by his fate, he did not manage to make things work out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not using that to establish his sanity or lack thereof - I specifically said I don't think we can tell with the information we have - I'm just using it as an example of how the circumstances he was a victim of were brought on by how he treated the Senate.
 
And even in context, he's still treating the senate with contempt at best and delusional at worst.

It's pretty clear that Caligula and the Senate did not get along. A smart ruler would have tried to deal with that - there is precedent. A flawed ruler - whether actually crazy or just full of himself - would have made things worse.

Judging by his fate, he did not manage to make things work out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not using that to establish his sanity or lack thereof - I specifically said I don't think we can tell with the information we have - I'm just using it as an example of how the circumstances he was a victim of were brought on by how he treated the Senate.

So really, Caligula is only really disliked because of a slur campaign by the senate after his death in order to to steer the way for his successor. It is true that Caligula didn't compromise with the senate, but that isn't really surprising given that he had spent much of his early life either in the field with the army and no education. He didn't really understand the fragile balance of power in Rome, the politics and was thus prone to lashing out like I've seen it said " as a cornered mad dog." He just wasn't bought up to rule and his reputation with the senate ( who pretty much wrote it) suffered.
 
So really, Caligula is only really disliked because of a slur campaign by the senate after his death in order to to steer the way for his successor. It is true that Caligula didn't compromise with the senate, but that isn't really surprising given that he had spent much of his early life either in the field with the army and no education. He didn't really understand the fragile balance of power in Rome, the politics and was thus prone to lashing out like I've seen it said " as a cornered mad dog." He just wasn't bought up to rule and his reputation with the senate ( who pretty much wrote it) suffered.

So really, Caligula's actions did a good job of making him enemies.

That he didn't understand the balance of power in Rome is a reason to step more lightly until sure of his position, not to antagonize the senate and then bemoan how no one appreciates him.

Basil I was a freakin' peasant who may not have been able to spell his own name until he entered imperial service. And yet he took the reins of power skillfully and established a lasting dynasty.

Now, obviously the situation in his day is different, but "not brought up to rule" doesn't prevent people from being able to rise to the occasion. Caligula didn't.
 
Top