Was Caligula Mad?

[Gini]

Was on Capri many years ago but can't remember much! The ruins of the villa won't necessarily tell you that much unless he was completely that way inclined. Personally I believe that Tiberius had many good points though not an appealing character to me. He was not unintelligent and was not wholly debauched by any means though the flagging libido in later years combined with the supreme power of emperor may have been the reason for his moral demise if it was the case.

Granted Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy etc may have had biases - but at lease they lived at the time. However what biases do we have from 2 thousand years away - and we aren't living at the time but base our opinions on what we can read and deduce.

I will add that the bad stuff we read aout the emperors etc needs to balanced by the fact that the Empire endured so long and was so advanced and successful so something must have been going right.

[caldrail]

It is interesting that these commentators despise Tiberius. Was that because he made himself too remote? Or was he disliked for choosing not to provide public entertainment? He was also quoted as saying he was rearing a viper - he meant caligula, and if true then he knew full well caligula wasn't suitable for office and probably ensured he wasn't. That way old Tiberius would be remembered as not being so bad. Is that another reason forthe criticism of him - in that he had allowed a bad-apple to rule after him?

[Andrew Dalby]

I will add that the bad stuff we read aout the emperors etc needs to balanced by the fact that the Empire endured so long and was so advanced and successful so something must have been going right.

 

This is a good point I think. We might even compare (very briefly, O administrators!) with modern Britain and the US. The country mostly continues to operate, whatever the shenanigans that are rightly or wrongly said to be going on among the rulers (and their secretaries).

[phil25]

But we could also add, AD, that to base our judgement on the moral, political or social state of britain in 2006 on the tabloid press would not give a correct impression.

 

I don't think the Roman equivalents, in the Subura or the curia, knew what Tiberius was doing in the Bay of Naples. So they made up the worst stories they could.

 

He had never been a good communicator, always aloof and on his dignity. His absence and the terror that Sejanus inspired and inflicted coloured minds further.

 

Thus after his death, Tiberius remained one of the few, if not the only princeps not to be deified. They hated him, the reviled him, they made up terrible stories.

 

It does not mean they were true.

 

Any more than Germanicus was the golden hero sans peur et sans reproche painted by Suetonius and Tacitus. Had he become princeps at any point, his flaws - so clear from any disapaasionate review of his career - would have been paraded for us, and more. Make no mistake of that.

 

If it helps you to believe Tiberius was debauched, so be it.

 

Just my opinion as always of course. And by the way, Carthage should be destroyed.

 

Phil

Edited July 23, 2006 by phil25

[Gini]

A couple of points

- Tacitus and Suetonuis who write so scathingly of Tiberuis and Caligula can't be compared to the gutter media of today- so though they may be biased they are not that biased and are not writing to make a buck

- the antics and bloodshed dsscribed were more normal in those days than now

while i quite accept a bias, some of the events are just too detailed to accept them as totally fictional.

Many of the events they describe could well fit into a psychcological study of someone with far too much power and opportunity to abuse it, paranoia etc.

[Andrew Dalby]

A couple of points

- Tacitus and Suetonuis who write so scathingly of Tiberuis and Caligula can't be compared to the gutter media of today- so though they may be biased they are not that biased and are not writing to make a buck

That is certainly true. You made no money from writing, unless one counts the money and support given by patrons, and the patronage to be got from writing that is critical of the Imperial setup would be extremely limited. Of course, Suetonius and Tacitus are both very careful not to criticise the current rulers ... but the tone is still anti-Imperial.

... while i quite accept a bias, some of the events are just too detailed to accept them as totally fictional.

Many of the events they describe could well fit into a psychcological study of someone with far too much power and opportunity to abuse it, paranoia etc.

We don't get a full psychological study of course -- only a partial and biased one -- but, yes. As support for what you say, Robert Graves was able to make what I consider to be a really convincing fictional study of Claudius (and some of his relatives) based on such sources.

[Kosmo]

I see the histories about Caligula in the context of all histories about the first to roman dinasties.

None of this rulers it's viewed in a positive light despite the fact that Domitian was not much worse then Hadrian.

In history there are always this kind of periods that have a good or bad light.

For example all ottoman sultans until Soleyman The Magnificent are great, all after him are worthless.

The best documented historical event - WW 2 - has some similar distinction with the japonese being considered high quality and imaginative in the first months of the war and rather stupid in the rest of the war. Of course, they were largely the same, only conditions and opponents changed.

If marxist materialist-dialectic historical theory disregarded the individual, other theories put to much accent on a person.

Seeing the kind of judgement the historians placed on Gaius Caligula it's obvious that he is seen even more bad then the other Iulio-Claudians and perhaps not for nothing.

If it's because he was mad or a reformer or both this I can't tell.

[Primus Pilus]

As far as the details go, I personally sit somewhere in the middle between perceived biases of the ancients, purposeful propaganda and honest reporting of the information that was available, while understanding the potential for Phil's more grandiose theories.

 

However, ignoring the ancient narrative for the chain of events that unfolded would leave us with a near impossible trail to follow. Despite available archaeology, numismatics and art (architecture, statues etc. along with inscriptions), without such written words of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio our view of the imperial period may be considerably different, but we'd also be lacking such incredible and fascinating primary source insight that the entire era may be shrouded in complete mystery. At least we can read the words of the ancients for ourselves and make interpretations of their biases, etc.

 

As for the madness of Gaius... I personally find the development of his supposed madness an unlikely scenario and that his behavior may have been more indicative of the Shakespearian "Absolute Power Corrupts" concept. (Somewhat related to, but still a considerable step down from Phil's concept of a intended Hellenistic Monarch approach.) Regardless, the ancients seem to concur that Caligula had some problems and there is enough evidence to suggest that there was at least a rather abrupt change in his style. Was this sheer propaganda intended to defame the otherwise immensely popular son of Germanicus therefore providing an excuse for his assassination, was it an accurate description of events (a terrible sickness altered otherwise and previously exemplary behavior), or was it perhaps the simplest way for the ancients to understand and describe how a young man could change so rapidly (when in fact he was simply living his life to the fullest that a young man with supreme power could... who also happened to have been raised in an environment of death, shifting loyalties and alliances, treachery and murder?)

[Gini]

Defintely the "absolute power corrupts" is part of it. Wasn't Seneca caligula's tutor? I must get a copy of his book about it all- that would be interesting. Has anyone read this? i think he had to commit suicide in the end

[Andrew Dalby]

Defintely the "absolute power corrupts" is part of it. Wasn't Seneca caligula's tutor? I must get a copy of his book about it all- that would be interesting. Has anyone read this? i think he had to commit suicide in the end

Seneca was Nero's tutor, I think, not Gaius's.

[P.Clodius]

Defintely the "absolute power corrupts" is part of it. Wasn't Seneca caligula's tutor? I must get a copy of his book about it all- that would be interesting. Has anyone read this? i think he had to commit suicide in the end

Seneca was Nero's tutor, I think, not Gaius's.

He was I believe exiled, then pardoned by Claudius. I seem to remember being critical of the Claudian regime upon the ascension of Nero.

[caldrail]

As far as the details go, I personally sit somewhere in the middle between perceived biases of the ancients, purposeful propaganda and honest reporting of the information that was available, while understanding the potential for Phil's more grandiose theories.

 

However, ignoring the ancient narrative for the chain of events that unfolded would leave us with a near impossible trail to follow. Despite available archaeology, numismatics and art (architecture, statues etc. along with inscriptions), without such written words of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio our view of the imperial period may be considerably different, but we'd also be lacking such incredible and fascinating primary source insight that the entire era may be shrouded in complete mystery. At least we can read the words of the ancients for ourselves and make interpretations of their biases, etc.

 

As for the madness of Gaius... I personally find the development of his supposed madness an unlikely scenario and that his behavior may have been more indicative of the Shakespearian "Absolute Power Corrupts" concept. (Somewhat related to, but still a considerable step down from Phil's concept of a intended Hellenistic Monarch approach.) Regardless, the ancients seem to concur that Caligula had some problems and there is enough evidence to suggest that there was at least a rather abrupt change in his style. Was this sheer propaganda intended to defame the otherwise immensely popular son of Germanicus therefore providing an excuse for his assassination, was it an accurate description of events (a terrible sickness altered otherwise and previously exemplary behavior), or was it perhaps the simplest way for the ancients to understand and describe how a young man could change so rapidly (when in fact he was simply living his life to the fullest that a young man with supreme power could... who also happened to have been raised in an environment of death, shifting loyalties and alliances, treachery and murder?)

 

Don't forget the christian bias. Emperors like caligula and nero have been demonised for centuries as examples of excess and pagan decadence. We still see this viewpoint written and filmed today when we really should know better.

 

Caligula was nonetheless a popular figure with the plebs. They weren't close to him, and therefore wouldn't encounter his sense of humour or sociopathic behaviour as courtiers did. He came to power in a tide of popularity and was murdered four years later despised by the senators. I don't think it was entirely proganda though. Hidden away in these stories is a young man with behavioural problems and the only solution having given complete control over the empire was to stick a knife in him. Repeatedly. He certainly had made enemies amongst the influential and lets face it, taunting a decorated and successful soldier like Cassius Chaerea wasn't an astute move.

 

There is bias against Caligula in these stories of him. That seems to happen with all emperors who get the chop - its as if everyone wants to distance themselves from blame and justify that persons death. Very often it could be justified, at least from a certain viewpoint, but not always.

 

I don't believe Caligula grew up in a worse enviroment than anyone else. Rome was an extraordinarily competitive society which almost guarantees skulduggery in high places. I do think his parents have some blame to carry. Children usually develop these personality faults when the parents are either incompetent or simply too busy to care. Germanicus was a busy man - was he a good father? Agrippina the Elder comes across as a woman of stout character but was she too cold? Even worse, we see Caligula paraded as a mascot for the legions dressed in mini-legionary gear (the source of his nickname). He grew up expecting attention and possibly became confused as to why his parents never had the same time for him.

 

On the other hand, it may have been that Caligula was doted on and spoiled absolutely rotten by his parents. If so, then he would have grown up short-tempered, demanding, and thinking he could get away with anything. Come to think of it, that does sound familiar doesn't it?

[WotWotius]

Defintely the "absolute power corrupts" is part of it. Wasn't Seneca caligula's tutor? I must get a copy of his book about it all- that would be interesting. Has anyone read this? i think he had to commit suicide in the end

Seneca was Nero's tutor, I think, not Gaius's.

He was I believe exiled, then pardoned by Claudius. I seem to remember being critical of the Claudian regime upon the ascension of Nero.

 

 

This is indeed true. Seneca, for Nero's amusement and to satisfy his own personal grudge, wrote a pamphlet on Claudius' fate after death, entitled 'The Gourdifaction of the Defied Claudius'. The title itself was a pun, meaning that although Claudius was declared a god, all he was really fit for was to become a gourd, a flavourless, hollow vegetable similar to a pumpkin.

[caldrail]

Not really suprising. Claudius wasn't exactly the ideal roman leader. He was physically impaired in a world where such children were exposed or abandoned. He had habit of telling very poor jokes and the more sophisticated wealthy romans may well have sneered at claudius behind his back.

[The Augusta]

[quote name='phil25' date='May 21 2006, 08:25 AM' post=

 

I'd love to see a thorough re-examination of Gaius life and reign by an expert, which sought to look at him as a sane (if troubled) young ruler trying out innovative ideas. A novelist who keeps close to facts might also explore the material well.

 

 

 

Phil

 

 

there is a novelist called allan massie who has wrote a book on caligula, it paints him in a different light than the usual "madman" one, he has also written books on caesar, augustus and tiberius, they are all very interesting books and stick very closely to the truth

 

maximus

 

For a serious treatment from exactly the standpoint Paulinus wished - try Balsdon's Emperor Gaius Pretty old now, I admit, as it was written in the 30s (off the top of my head - not sitting by my bookcase at the mo) but may well still be in print. Sorry if this has been covered before - I've only just joined.