While Caligula's name has become a byword for insane tyrants, he didn't start out that way. According to ancient sources, the first six months of his rule were good. Then he suffered a severe illness. While he recovered physically, he was never the same mentally.

Let us suppose he never contracted this illness and stayed mentally sound. What would change?
 
Minor effect, but Ptolemy of Mauretania wouldn't be murdered and his kingdom annexed. As a result, Mauretania could potentially pull a Bosporan Kingdom and survive until the 300's, if not longer, considering the Bosporan Kingdom fell due to the Gothic invasion, which obviously wouldn't be a problem here (at least not in the 4th century, assuming the Migration Period happens around the same time as OTL).
 
Last edited:
There has been a lot of arguments in modern revisionism questioning if Caligula was indeed insane or if it was a fabrication of contemporaries that disliked his populist and demagogic attitude.

His reign was particularly uneventful in the grand scheme of things, unlike those of... well every other Emperor immediately before and after him (notably Claudius and Nero), but one thing I consider notable is that he was the first Emperor assassinated by the Praetorian Guard, and this set a very dangerous precedent in the history of the Empire. In fact, it is possible that his "insanity" might have been exaggerated exactly to legitimize the coup by the Praetorians and the ascension of Claudius to power.

If we avoid the Praetorian coup, we can suppose that the Julian Dynasty might survive a bit tad longer. I'm not sure what consequences this would have, but if we have a dynasty with at least a veneer of legitimacy - associated with the Augustan heritage and well connected to the actual Italian Roman aristocracy, instead of provincial origins - , we can avoid the constant cases of usurpation and civil war, though this depends on a lot of butterflies.
 
Last edited:
Top