Comparison: Caesar, Augustus, and Caligula

[carmona]

Considering that these historical figures have had an immense impact on the history of Rome, what are their differences in character and how did this lead to the development of their legacy? Sure it can be said that Caesar was the product of the Marian and Sullan era, that Augustus was that of Caesar's, and Caligula of Augustus', but that's to put it very simply. These men changed Rome. Caesar initiated it by being appointed dictator for life and Augustus following suit by introducing true autocracy. Caligula's madness may have been a consequence of his position and times, for he had the power and title to do as he pleased, this power of course, being introduced by his predecessors. So, to what extent are these figures a product of their time? Also, are there any figures in our time or in recent history that resemble these ancient Roman leaders? George W. Bush, Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler are just a few who come to mind. Are there any others? There are obviously going to varying opinions on who resembles who. I just want to get an idea of how we can compare the figures of the past to those of the present. What do you guys think?

[caldrail]

The resemblance of these historical figures to modern people is very difficult because individually they have different characters and live in different circumstances. I don't think you can compare them directly, but perhaps you could as general archetypes. Caesar may have changed Rome by setting a precedent but then so had Sulla before him for different reasons. Rome was changing anyway, and people like Sulla and Caesar were products of their time. In fact, their rise to power indicates two things - the ability they had, but also that the status quo was no longer sufficient.

 

A popular quote is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well there is some truth in that, but it does depend on the personality of the autocrat as to the extent of corruption. Rome was a corrupt society anyway. Bribery was commonplace and political violence a feature of the late republic onward. When you think about emperors, it might be an idea to step back and look for similarities in culture rather than individuals. In fact, its easy to see the empire as something akin to the mafia, and its leaders as gangland bosses. You see what I mean? Ok, they weren't actually criminals (no, I take that back, some were ), but the group ethos that they were part of ran pretty much the same way.

 

Also, we have to realise that powerful autocrats tend to have similar personalities that fall within a number of stereotypes. Its impossible to get away from that because at the end of the day we're social animals. So for that reason its possible to see similarities between the caesars and the modern dictator.

Edited April 21, 2007 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't find any of the Romans that are cited to be mass murderers in the sense of Osama, Saddam, Mao, or Hitler. Caligula was a pervert and might thus be compared to Saddam and his sons and also to the two Kim Il Sungs(?). Fidel is no democrat, but he does use 'legal' means to deal with opponents. He might be the closest to the Roman autocrats. Augustus brought about the Pax Romana; Gorbachev gave up an empire without a shot being fired.

 

The Roman autocrats, proclivities aside, were not a Mafia. Generally speaking, the Romans were good governors and should not be compared with the Mafia(s), which is/are nothing more than a criminal organization(s).

[carmona]

I don't find any of the Romans that are cited to be mass murderers in the sense of Osama, Saddam, Mao, or Hitler. Caligula was a pervert and might thus be compared to Saddam and his sons and also to the two Kim Il Sungs(?). Fidel is no democrat, but he does use 'legal' means to deal with opponents. He might be the closest to the Roman autocrats. Augustus brought about the Pax Romana; Gorbachev gave up an empire without a shot being fired.

 

The Roman autocrats, proclivities aside, were not a Mafia. Generally speaking, the Romans were good governors and should not be compared with the Mafia(s), which is/are nothing more than a criminal organization(s).

 

You don't see the proscriptions that Augustus authorized as similar to Saddam or Mao murdering countless opponents to stay in power? The title of dictator in the Roman sense is certainly not the same as how we define the word today. However, there certainly is a resemblence. The civil war that occurred in China can definitely be compared to the civil wars that were fought in Caesar's and Augustus' time. Saddam was not only a pervert, he was a dictator who did whatever was necessary to stay in power, and he was successful for a long period of time. We do not live in ancient Rome so we do not view its politics in the same light as that of Saddam, Mao, and Hitler. The people of China and Germany loved these men certainly in a similar fashion as the Roman people loved Caesar and Augustus. Some of the peoples whom the Romans subjected of course had a certain hatred towards Rome's leaders in much the same way as we villainize Saddam, Mao, and Hitler. This is not to say that these men led saintly lives. The terrible things that they did were just that - terrible. But so were some of the things that Caesar, Augustus and Caligula commited.

 

We must remember that their political tactics are undoubtedly comparable. We are looking thousands of years back in time when analyzing the Roman system hence we do view it mostly in an impartial light. When we discuss men like Hitler and Saddam, we are severely biased when comparing because we live in these times and the horrors that they committed are still fresh. In order to have a fair comparison of these men as historians, we must put aside our personal fascinations with ancient Rome and our negative biases against our contemporary figures and analyze them all from an impartial perspective.

 

As for the comparison of the Roman autocracy to the structure of the Mafia, I see what you mean. The Roman autocrats were not just "good governers." They operated in a corrupted system that can easily be compared to the modern mafia. I don't see inciting civil war, mass murdering opponents, and dismantling a democratic society and transforming it into an autocracy as actions that ideal governers would do.

[Mosquito]

Caligula definatelly had bad press. Many modern historians claim that he wasnt mad at all but in opposite - he was very consequent in everything what he was doing.

[Ursus]

Comparisons between different figures of Roman history are fine for this forum. Once we start comparing them to 20th century dictators, the thread needs to be moved somewhere else. I suppose the Universal History folder would be the appropriate venue.

[Skarr]

Caligula definatelly had bad press. Many modern historians claim that he wasnt mad at all but in opposite - he was very consequent in everything what he was doing.

 

Caligula's extravagance, particularly in the matter of spending vast sums of the state's money on useless projects (huge pleasure ships, wild parties, etc. etc.) and his complete disregard for the senate, including very public disparaging remarks about the consul (he once said that his horse Incitatus would be fit enough to be consul, showing his irreverence for Rome's highest political position), brought about his downfall. I would tend to agree that maybe he wasn't really 'mad' in the sense of being mentally incapable. Rather, he may have been seen as 'mad' because of his childish whims, his immature way of dealing with the senate and other extravagant behavior (converting the imperial palace to a temporary brothel).

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

It never ceases to amaze me how people constantly compare classical historical figures with modern ones. I think one lesson that history patently teaches us to judge people according to the times they lived in, not according to modern 21st century standards. Otherwise we would be faced with a whole set of problems.

I guarantee you if Julius Caesar lived in the 20th century he would have been considered a war criminal when you consider what his soldiers did in Gergovia and when you consider that he once had thousands of men and animals slaughter each other in the arena to celebrate a triumph.

I don't find any of the Romans that are cited to be mass murderers in the sense of Osama, Saddam, Mao, or Hitler

And why not? What do you consider Saddam and Osama to have done to be worse than what Caesar did at Gergovia and other Gaulish cities?. Caesar once cut off the right arms of the entire population of a Gaulish tribe that rebelled. His legions defeated Ariovistus and massacred thousands of German non-combatants including old men, women and children. The great Vercingetorix was ritually strangled at the end of a triumph, and that after years of cruel incarceration. What did Saddam and Osama do that was any worse?

Caligula was a pervert and might thus be compared to Saddam and his sons and also to the two Kim Il Sungs

Why, what was so perverted about Saddam and the two Il Sungs? Did they fornicate with their sisters like Caligula did?

The Roman autocrats, proclivities aside, were not a Mafia. Generally speaking, the Romans were good governors and should not be compared with the Mafia(s), which is/are nothing more than a criminal organization(s).

Really? So subjugating a sovereign people, sending their young warriors to certain death in the arena, cruelly taxing them until they were forced to rebel, and nailing their rebels to thousands of crosses is better than what the Mafia did in it's time?

The only reason I gave the above examples is to illustrate that as historians we have to learn to judge historical figures according to the times they lived in. Comparing them to modern 20th or 21st century figures is an exercise in pointless futility.

If we had to do that, trust me, Caesar, Alexander, Marius, Sulla, Vespasian, Titus and countless others would be standing in the war criminals' dock.

[The Augusta]

The only reason I gave the above examples is to illustrate that as historians we have to learn to judge historical figures according to the times they lived in. Comparing them to modern 20th or 21st century figures is an exercise in pointless futility.

If we had to do that, trust me, Caesar, Alexander, Marius, Sulla, Vespasian, Titus and countless others would be standing in the war criminals' dock.

 

Thank you for this, Gladius. It's a point I have tried to make over and over and over again! Spot on.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Caligula definatelly had bad press. Many modern historians claim that he wasnt mad at all but in opposite - he was very consequent in everything what he was doing.

I personally think that Caligula just had a very wicked sense of humour, I don't think he was mad either, I just think that his sense of humour was on a different level to everyone else's and because he was emperor people were scared of how to react to his "crazy" actions in case they offended him and this amused him and made him do it even more!

[caldrail]

Caligula's behaviour was uncannily like a nasty small boy. Instead of pulling the legs off spiders, he pulled the legs off human beings as it were. Emotionally he was incapable of restraining his own behaviour - but I do notice that he seemed to calm down a bit once Caesonia was in the picture.