WI Caligula Survives

This was discussed several months ago. As Sly is trying to say and dozens of others have in the older thread we came to the conclusion that Caligula MAY have had some mental issues but was not as insane as Suetonius claims he was.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=271085&highlight=Caligula

Mary Beard already explained that there has been some serious mud slinging on his name in her special show about Caligula. Its on the BBC if you have a free hour.

Much of the more demented things like eating an unborn foetus of his sister is spurious nonsense made up by Robert Graves in his great work I Claudius.
Suetonius (our only complete source) wrote centruies after Caligula was dead and was more interested in the lurid stories about emperors rather than whether they were true or not.

The only historian who met Caligula and wrote about was Josephus and all that happened was the emperor discussing interior decoration with some decorators ignoring the Jewish envoys as they wouldnt put up a statue of him in the Temple.

Many of the bizarre claims made against Caligula bear some explanation to which you all seem too willing to jump on the "insane" bandwagon.

Why was he murdered by the Praetorians?

If you keep insulting the head of your Royal Guard's high effeminate voice, every day, by uncontrollably laughing at him of course hes going to snap and be all too willing to join a nasty plot.
As Claudius made clear in I Claudius was the murder of his wife and 2 year old child entirely necessary?

Whats the difference between Augustus and Caligula? Genius and good Propaganda. Tiberius was a dick who wanted to be left alone to his own perversions, Caligula was, in the beginning a decent ruler. Many of the works of Rome attributed to Claudius were initiated by Caligula. He erected new aqueducts, passed laws and was generally a well thought of Emperor to such an extent when he was murdered the Legions and people of Rome demanded he be made a god.

As for his 'abused' sisters, why are they the only ones to reclaim his body and ensure proper funeral arrangements and have his remains interred in the family tomb if they would have been maltreated by him?


Sleeping with other mens wives at dinner parties.....

Augustus was doing that for YEARS and no one calls him out on it.
He would return with newly weds looking red and flustered and both out of breath. So.... who cares about adultery when you are emperor.

Augustus is probably the only Emperor to murder a man with his BARE HANDS in the SENATE by sticking his thumbs into his eye sockets, when the poor bastard only wanted the Emperors signature. It takes real balls to stand up after and say to 300 gathered people "You saw him he came right for me."

Caligula was an asshole whose often sarcastic comments and practical jokes earned him far more enemies among the upper classes because he wasnt willing to play along with the charade that the Senate had any real power any more. The Historians of Rome are the Senatorial class. Rich layabouts with nothing to do but repeat the stories told to them by their families and the people around them.

It requires only a minor act of critical thinking to think that everything they say should be taken with more salt than can pay a legionaries wages for a year, than to take ONE SOURCE at face value on the rule of an Emperor.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Seneca and Philo met with Caligula as well. But Seneca obviously had reason to hate Caligula and want to blacken his name...he was exiled by him.
 
To be fair, Seneca and Philo met with Caligula as well. But Seneca obviously had reason to hate Caligula and want to blacken his name...he was exiled by him.

I'm all for looking at that with a critical eye. But we need some actual basis to doubt it other than kneejerk skepticism, or we're just making things up in defiance of what those who knew him wrote.

To paraphrase a saying on the paranoid, just because your enemies wrote about you doesn't mean they're wrong.
 
Barrett does provide basis and does look very intensively st Seneca's account, taking into account his bias while still not throwing out what he says. Instead he takes a closer look and it and, for lack of a better word, reads between the lines to take the truth from senacas account, comparing it with all the other evidence as well.
 
Barrett does provide basis and does look very intensively st Seneca's account, taking into account his bias while still not throwing out what he says. Instead he takes a closer look and it and, for lack of a better word, reads between the lines to take the truth from senacas account, comparing it with all the other evidence as well.

I would love to tell how he determines what is the underlining meaning or intent - or more to the point, why we should trust what he believes is that.

That's the problem with revising standard interpretations - one is claiming that everyone* else missed or misrepresented something.

When finding new data on something that's one thing, but when going over the same sources, its another.

Not necessarily wrong, but the burden of being convincing is on is on the new theory - the old one already went through that phase.
 
I would love to tell how he determines what is the underlining meaning or intent - or more to the point, why we should trust what he believes is that.

That's the problem with revising standard interpretations - one is claiming that everyone* else missed or misrepresented something.

When finding new data on something that's one thing, but when going over the same sources, its another.

Not necessarily wrong, but the burden of being convincing is on is on the new theory - the old one already went through that phase.

Well it's not necessarily that his conclusions are completely new-he's hardly the first historian to suggest Caligula was not insane.

EDIT: Anyway, it's one of those things you have to read to really get the whole idea of what he's saying and why.
 
I would love to tell how he determines what is the underlining meaning or intent - or more to the point, why we should trust what he believes is that.

That's the problem with revising standard interpretations - one is claiming that everyone* else missed or misrepresented something.

When finding new data on something that's one thing, but when going over the same sources, its another.

Not necessarily wrong, but the burden of being convincing is on is on the new theory - the old one already went through that phase.
The reasoning behind it might have to do with the fact that the things we do know that Caligula did (gaining the favor of Tiberius, building projects, military campaigns, marginalizing the senate, ect) don't support the insanity theory. Only with the historical accounts does he begin to sound insane, which coincidentally are written with obvious bias that makes their opinion of Caligula as a person to be about the least trustworthy portion of their histories. Also note that not every historian from the time calls Caligula insane, and those who do don't make the distinction between Caligula doing things that offend them and actual mental illness.

Another thing to consider, in modern times Caligula's reputation has been colored by television shows and movies that depict him as utterly demented, often beyond what even the most slanderous of contemporary accounts called him. These unreliable modern versions of the story have become an integral part of people's understanding of Caligula. It actually isn't that uncommon for the vast majority of people to be wrong about a historical subject. After all, almost anyone you ask in America will say that Joseph Stalin was a Russian, but those who have read about him know for a fact that he was a Georgian. I don't find it all that unlikely that the majority of people are wrong here too given the sensationalized portrayals of Caligula, and the number of educated persons who don't believe he was insane.
 
The reasoning behind it might have to do with the fact that the things we do know that Caligula did (gaining the favor of Tiberius, building projects, military campaigns, marginalizing the senate, ect) don't support the insanity theory. Only with the historical accounts does he begin to sound insane, which coincidentally are written with obvious bias that makes their opinion of Caligula as a person to be about the least trustworthy portion of their histories. Also note that not every historian from the time calls Caligula insane, and those who do don't make the distinction between Caligula doing things that offend them and actual mental illness.

And that does not make what they have to say false. Its not as if "insane" means a frothing lunatic who goes around biting people all day and who is utterly incapable of anything resembling coherent thought.

Now, if we can actually cast doubt on the things they say he did, that's great. But saying that their dislike is obviously unfair - what, so having people dislike you means you're sympathetic? I've never cared for that style.

To give an example that comes to mind, Jubal Early would rather have eaten razor blades than said something nice about his cavalrymen, but that doesn't mean they were any good at their job.

This is not to say we should take someone like that's word for it unsupported, but we shouldn't write it off in the absence of evidence contradicting it either.

Personally I think things like laughing at the commander of the Praetorian Guard is a more worrisome - and plausible - basis for concluding he's irrational than the charges of incest. That sort of thing is the sort of thing that reasonably stable minded and well adjusted people know better than to do.

People who think they can get away with anything on the other hand. . . not so much. And that kind of thing is perfectly consistent with building projects and military campaigns.

Another thing to consider, in modern times Caligula's reputation has been colored by television shows and movies that depict him as utterly demented, often beyond what even the most slanderous of contemporary accounts called him. These unreliable modern versions of the story have become an integral part of people's understanding of Caligula. It actually isn't that uncommon for the vast majority of people to be wrong about a historical subject.

It really isn't relevant that if you asked ten people on the street that nine of them would know only what Hollywood has portrayed Rome as and the other one wouldn't know who you're talking about is. Unless you think that's reflected in the people here (this discussion).
 
Last edited:
And that does not make what they have to say false. Its not as if "insane" means a frothing lunatic who goes around biting people all day and who is utterly incapable of anything resembling coherent thought.

Now, if we can actually cast doubt on the things they say he did, that's great. But saying that their dislike is obviously unfair - what, so having people dislike you means you're sympathetic? I've never cared for that style.

To give an example that comes to mind, Jubal Early would rather have eaten razor blades than said something nice about his cavalrymen, but that doesn't mean they were any good at their job.

This is not to say we should take someone like that's word for it unsupported, but we shouldn't write it off in the absence of evidence contradicting it either.

Personally I think things like laughing at the commander of the Praetorian Guard is a more worrisome - and plausible - basis for concluding he's irrational than the charges of incest. That sort of thing is the sort of thing that reasonably stable minded and well adjusted people know better than to do.

People who think they can get away with anything on the other hand. . . not so much. And that kind of thing is perfectly consistent with building projects and military campaigns.

Well, on a case by case basis (for providing evidence that is), the idea that Caligula's reign was utterly hated in his own time is countered by the records stating that the Romans rioted against those seeking to reinstate the republic and instead placed Caligula's next of kin on the throne.

The seashells, thing, what people have failed to take away from Sly's post on the matter is that there is evidence to suggest that it was a real military campaign, not just a madman going a thousand miles for seashells. I would say that backing down from attacking Britain when victory seems unlikely is a point for sanity, regardless of the shells thing and the meaning behind it.

Laughing at the commander of the Praetorians was dumb, but we should remember that Caligula was the first emperor to be overthrown by them, so he didn't have a history of imperial deaths to look back on to tell him to shut his mouth.

It really isn't relevant that if you asked ten people on the street that nine of them would know only what Hollywood has portrayed Rome as and the other one wouldn't know who you're talking about is. Unless you think that's reflected in the people here (this discussion).
Well, a little bit in some of Emperor Constantine's posts, but more so I meant that claiming that everyone (or the vast majority anyways) is wrong and being correct is hardly rare when talking about history. In scholarly circles, it seems most people don't think Caligula was insane, and really the only sources being cited in this thread are Sly's. Have you got any authorities on the subject who assert that Caligula was insane?
 
Well, on a case by case basis (for providing evidence that is), the idea that Caligula's reign was utterly hated in his own time is countered by the records stating that the Romans rioted against those seeking to reinstate the republic and instead placed Caligula's next of kin on the throne.

I'm not sure how that follows. I despise Andronicus I, I admire his uncle (John II).

What's to stop that sort of thing?

The seashells, thing, what people have failed to take away from Sly's post on the matter is that there is evidence to suggest that it was a real military campaign, not just a madman going a thousand miles for seashells. I would say that backing down from attacking Britain when victory seems unlikely is a point for sanity, regardless of the shells thing and the meaning behind it.

My personal impression from Sly's post? As in, going with what he posted and my understanding.

Caligula did indeed intend a genuine military campaign, which for some reason or another fizzled (thus the lack of anything substantial as a tribute).

So he came up with the idea of a "triumph" against Oceanus to pretend it had been a success and this had been his intent all along.

It looks ridiculous, but for some reason he felt that it was less ridiculous than admitting failure. What that says gets beyond the limits of our hard data (since we can't read minds across history).

Laughing at the commander of the Praetorians was dumb, but we should remember that Caligula was the first emperor to be overthrown by them, so he didn't have a history of imperial deaths to look back on to tell him to shut his mouth.

It doesn't take a lot of foresight or hindsight to know that laughing at someone in that position is not going to be taken gracefully, and that he's someone who can act like that if motivated.

Well, a little bit in some of Emperor Constantine's posts, but more so I meant that claiming that everyone (or the vast majority anyways) is wrong and being correct is hardly rare when talking about history. In scholarly circles, it seems most people don't think Caligula was insane, and really the only sources being cited in this thread are Sly's. Have you got any authorities on the subject who assert that Caligula was insane?

Well, speaking for myself, I was looking at in the context of the people who know something - I'd hardly want to ask the man on the street anything about ancient Rome, but its not just that referring to him being mad.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89691/Caligula

This also implies at least some level of instability: http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/caligula.html

On the whole, I think this (underlined) is about as good as we can get:
[[7]] Alcoholism: Jerome, "Historical Tradition"; hyperthyroidism/thyrotoxicos: Katz, "Illness of Caligula"; mania: Massaro and Montgomery, "Gaius: Mad, Bad, Ill or All Three" and "Gaius (Caligula) Doth Murder Sleep"; epilepsy: Benediktson, "Caligula's Madness." Morgan ("Caligula's Illness Again") makes some astute observations on the weakness of the medical approach as a whole. He points out that the ancient concept of physiognomy -- that people's characters are manifest in their appearance -- makes any diagnosis highly suspect. In fact, all such medical explanations are doomed to failure. The sources simply cannot be trusted, and diagnosing a patient 2,000 years dead is, at best, a stretch. Balsdon (The Emperor Gaius) argued that Gaius was misunderstood and attempted to offer rational explanations for all of his apparently deranged antics. A useful summary and critique of "madness" theories is to be found in Barrett, Caligula, 213-41. For a recent acceptance of the madness thesis, cf. Ferrill, Caligula, Emperor of Rome.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm.

I'm not using this as an authoritative source in and of itself, just using it to emphasize why I'm trying not to outright argue he was mad.

I personally think he was probably a little cracked - not frothing mad like Hollywood but someone with issues - but that's rather hard to prove with any seriousness even if we trust the accounts written of him.



I think, however, we can say that Caligula must have mucked up horribly to get killed that soon. So for the thread's sake, you need a considerably more diplomatic Caligula.
 
Also Claudius would very much be interested in having caligulas name slandered. He needed to make sure he wasn't setting a precedent, that fluky couldn't just murder an rover throw any emperor when you felt like it. He had to make it loo k like Caligula was a threat to the state.


Meanwhile his friends and this yo benefited from him needed to distance themselves from him. So that's why you have so many stories of last minute pardons and changes of mind that saved people-when actually looking at the review shows those same people were always favored by Caligula from the start of his reign, directly contradicting the accounts.
 
Also Claudius would very much be interested in having caligulas name slandered. He needed to make sure he wasn't setting a precedent, that fluky couldn't just murder an rover throw any emperor when you felt like it. He had to make it loo k like Caligula was a threat to the state.

And he wasn't?

Autocrats don't get overthrown and murdered for being too good for this sinful earth.

I'm not saying that's proof, but that the people doing it did it for their own sake is hardly proof that he was wronged instead of wrong.
 
I'm not sure how that follows. I despise Andronicus I, I admire his uncle (John II).

What's to stop that sort of thing?
Well, the difference in order of reigns is important. You can't very well say that Andronicus making you retroactively hate John II is the same thing, because John ruled earlier and made his impression first. More like disliking Alexios IV because of what Alexios III did IMO (man we put things in Byzantine terms allot here:rolleyes:).

As to the case at hand, I'm pretty sure the riots were in response to the emperor's death, which should say something.


My personal impression from Sly's post? As in, going with what he posted and my understanding.

Caligula did indeed intend a genuine military campaign, which for some reason or another fizzled (thus the lack of anything substantial as a tribute).

So he came up with the idea of a "triumph" against Oceanus to pretend it had been a success and this had been his intent all along.

It looks ridiculous, but for some reason he felt that it was less ridiculous than admitting failure. What that says gets beyond the limits of our hard data (since we can't read minds across history).
Alright, that makes sense as an impression. Still doesn't directly support madness, and I feel that the fact that he intended a genuine military campaign supports some level of rational presence.

Also, not quite the same thing, but do we know for certain whether the seashell thing was literal? I think I remember hearing the suggestion that it may have been a reference to something else. Do you recall the same, or am I thinking of something since debunked?


It doesn't take a lot of foresight or hindsight to know that laughing at someone in that position is not going to be taken gracefully, and that he's someone who can act like that if motivated.
Well, could have been a bad misjudgement of character. Definiely a failure on Caligula's part, but I doubt we have any way of knowing the subtle details that could tell us whether it was obvious to most people that he had gone too far, or whether the severity of the reaction was totally unexpected. Honestly I can't think of a more kneejerk reason for killing an emperor offhand. Kinda funny really.

Well, speaking for myself, I was looking at in the context of the people who know something - I'd hardly want to ask the man on the street anything about ancient Rome, but its not just that referring to him being mad.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89691/Caligula

This also implies at least some level of instability: http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/caligula.html

On the whole, I think this (underlined) is about as good as we can get:
[[7]] Alcoholism: Jerome, "Historical Tradition"; hyperthyroidism/thyrotoxicos: Katz, "Illness of Caligula"; mania: Massaro and Montgomery, "Gaius: Mad, Bad, Ill or All Three" and "Gaius (Caligula) Doth Murder Sleep"; epilepsy: Benediktson, "Caligula's Madness." Morgan ("Caligula's Illness Again") makes some astute observations on the weakness of the medical approach as a whole. He points out that the ancient concept of physiognomy -- that people's characters are manifest in their appearance -- makes any diagnosis highly suspect. In fact, all such medical explanations are doomed to failure. The sources simply cannot be trusted, and diagnosing a patient 2,000 years dead is, at best, a stretch. Balsdon (The Emperor Gaius) argued that Gaius was misunderstood and attempted to offer rational explanations for all of his apparently deranged antics. A useful summary and critique of "madness" theories is to be found in Barrett, Caligula, 213-41. For a recent acceptance of the madness thesis, cf. Ferrill, Caligula, Emperor of Rome.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm.

I'm not using this as an authoritative source in and of itself, just using it to emphasize why I'm trying not to outright argue he was mad.

I personally think he was probably a little cracked - not frothing mad like Hollywood but someone with issues - but that's rather hard to prove with any seriousness even if we trust the accounts written of him.
That all makes sense. Really just makes me wish there was a way to see these things play out in person. I can definitely agree that he was most likely a quirky individual, and I suppose arguing for more (or less for that matter)mental illness is beyond the scope of our current knowledge of Caligula as a person. Just in general though, I feel as though frothing mad Caligula can be more easily ruled out than perfectly sane Caligula.


I think, however, we can say that Caligula must have mucked up horribly to get killed that soon. So for the thread's sake, you need a considerably more diplomatic Caligula.
I don't know. Seems like pissing of the Praetorian commander was more of an isolated incident, not part of a larger conspiracy or a long series of assassination attempts. Maybe we say that someone with a more traditional masculine voice stays in charge of the guard, do we really have anything to suggest that Caligula would have come to such a sticky end if he and the leader of the guard stay on good terms? It could be that all that stands between Caligula and a couple decades on the throne is that particular Praetorian.
 
And he wasn't?

Autocrats don't get overthrown and murdered for being too good for this sinful earth.

I'm not saying that's proof, but that the people doing it did it for their own sake is hardly proof that he was wronged instead of wrong.

Domitian was overthrown for the same reasons Caligula was-he was marginalizing the Senate. If anything, Domitian's governance system was oddly similar to the Dominate of Diocletian. The Senate just wasn't as tame as it would be when Diocletian would be around.

Yet Domitian, though universally condemned as one of the worst emperors of history in the past, is now seen by most as a good emperor, who the Senate saw as a threat to themselves. Caligula was the same. The people in the arena were on the verge of rioting and killing the conspirators themselves when they found out Caligula was murdered, as was his German bodyguard. That should say a lot-the people loved him, but the Senate didn't. And the Senators wrote the history books.

That's also why Domitian-who was also loved by the people-was universally seen as a terrible, insane, paranoid, emperor in the past.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind Caligula had no experience with the job. He wasn't groomed for it, nothing. Compare that to Tiberius, who was given all the powers slowly over time by Augustus, and had already essentially had the powers of princeps for a while before he was princeps. Caligula was also only 23 I believe on his ascension-so he was young, inexperienced, and thrust into the job unexpectedly when Tiberius realized he had no one else to make his heir. That also played a role into his screw ups, like pushing some senators too far, and getting the captain of the praetorian guard on his bad side.
 
Well, the difference in order of reigns is important. You can't very well say that Andronicus making you retroactively hate John II is the same thing, because John ruled earlier and made his impression first. More like disliking Alexios IV because of what Alexios III did IMO (man we put things in Byzantine terms allot here:rolleyes:).

Point. But you get what I was trying to say - you can loathe someone but support their kin.

And I think its because Byzantium provides so many good examples of lots of stuff.

As to the case at hand, I'm pretty sure the riots were in response to the emperor's death, which should say something.
Something, to be sure. If true.

Alright, that makes sense as an impression. Still doesn't directly support madness, and I feel that the fact that he intended a genuine military campaign supports some level of rational presence.

You have no idea how close I am to skating into Godwin territory. :p

But yes, not directly madness.

Of course, it would depend on how he handled it - it's certainly something a madman could do.

But given that there wasn't an immediate attempt to overthrow him, it must not have been taken as that deranged at the time of the order.

Also, not quite the same thing, but do we know for certain whether the seashell thing was literal? I think I remember hearing the suggestion that it may have been a reference to something else. Do you recall the same, or am I thinking of something since debunked?

Not sure - Sly's book recommendation seems to treat it as literal.

But if it was symbolic - like how we refer to "a bridge to nowhere" - that would explain why the senate thought of him so poorly

Well, could have been a bad misjudgement of character. Definiely a failure on Caligula's part, but I doubt we have any way of knowing the subtle details that could tell us whether it was obvious to most people that he had gone too far, or whether the severity of the reaction was totally unexpected. Honestly I can't think of a more kneejerk reason for killing an emperor offhand. Kinda funny really.

Yeah. I think the main thing is that someone like Augustus would never have pushed it in the first place, so someone who may or may not have been all that savvy (no political experience at all? Sheesh.) might have not realized it in a wholly innocent sort of way.

Speaking as someone who isn't good at reading faces, for Caligula to have had some "disorder" that wasn't madness but which made him socially ill-adjusted would be entirely plausible, taking that on its own.

That all makes sense. Really just makes me wish there was a way to see these things play out in person. I can definitely agree that he was most likely a quirky individual, and I suppose arguing for more (or less for that matter)mental illness is beyond the scope of our current knowledge of Caligula as a person. Just in general though, I feel as though frothing mad Caligula can be more easily ruled out than perfectly sane Caligula.

I agree. We have enough data to suggest moments of relative lucidity, at worst. That's - IMO - suggestive that the most bizarre claims are probably false.

Not proof, but good enough to settle that part of the discussion.

I'm not sure where incest falls in that category - if he thought of himself as setting up some kind of divine monarchy thing, that might be deluded in terms of his (lack of) understanding of the situation in Rome but it would be something that sounded entirely rational in his head.

I'm picking at this because its something that we can't really prove with any possible data available - but its interesting to think about what might be going on to have it happen. I doubt he just randomly got a boner for his sisters and decided to do them.

I don't know. Seems like pissing of the Praetorian commander was more of an isolated incident, not part of a larger conspiracy or a long series of assassination attempts. Maybe we say that someone with a more traditional masculine voice stays in charge of the guard, do we really have anything to suggest that Caligula would have come to such a sticky end if he and the leader of the guard stay on good terms? It could be that all that stands between Caligula and a couple decades on the throne is that particular Praetorian.

Quite possibly. This is an area that we'd need to know more of what's going on.

I mean, giggling at your guard commander's squeaky voice is one thing, referring to him as a "girly man" (or the Roman equivalent of the phrase) and publicly humiliating him on a regular basis is another.

The latter does not suggest someone who is going to survive a couple decades whether or not he's "mad". But the former might be a case of an insensitive emperor and a highly sensitive Praetorian.
 
Caligula probably wasn't insane, just an asshole and a man determined to rip apart the lies made by Augustus and marginalise the Senate, creating an absolute monarchy in the proccess.
 
Top