What Made Caligula Crazy?

[caldrail]

People don't become mad because they have an axe to grind. Neither were Tiberius or Caligula mad in strict psychological terms. Warped perhaps, not loonies, but there were other reasons too.

[Augustus Caesar]

There are many theories for the decline of Rome as we all know only too well. Lead poisoning was one reason for the gradual decline of individuals that I pointed out although in no way do I put this down as a reason, no matter how small or large, for the decline of the Empire! To do so shows a lack of understanding and knowledge of Rome and its citizensas well as their lifestyles. It also shows an inclination to believe the first thing that is said that may cause such a decline. I am not that unwise. Another theory is that a plague was brought to Rome which killed off a lot of its citizens and this does have a lot of merit. However, there was probably more than one or even two or three reasons for the absolute decline to have been effected. The lack of leadership near the end ultimately allowed the Empire to drift to nothing almost. Except that localised power kept it going to a certain extent but obviously not on its former grand scale.

 

So, as I said, the mentioning and raising of lead poisoning was only to pinpoint the decline of the individual and not the population or Empire. That would be very rash of me to do so and quite a bold and unfounded claim. So I now draw this point to a close really as nothing more, from myself, can be added but, of course, feel free to do so if you can add something or wish to draw me back in!!!

[ASCLEPIADES]

So, as I said, the mentioning and raising of lead poisoning was only to pinpoint the decline of the individual and not the population or Empire.

Salve, AC!

 

For matters like this, you should check Medical sources first. Saturnism hardly ever causes psychosis.

 

As Caldrail and others rightly stated it, it's almost impossible to get a defined psychiatric diagnosis from the available sources, mainly because all of them are heavily mixed with negative propaganda.

 

And if you still considered him psychotic ("crazy"), you have a myriad possible origins.

 

There is a post in a ongoing thread where I write up the main signs and symptoms of lead toxicity.

 

I hope this may be useful.

 

Cheers and good luck!

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

That's certainly true about Caligula's behavior. It was very ruthless. As for Tiberius and Caligula, it could be that they both saw what happened to their parents and family and became mad?

Do you mean mad in the British or the American sense of the word?

[ASCLEPIADES]

That's certainly true about Caligula's behavior. It was very ruthless. As for Tiberius and Caligula, it could be that they both saw what happened to their parents and family and became mad?

Do you mean mad in the British or the American sense of the word?

Salve, CO & GH!

 

I think he/she means "psychiatric disease", as in "Psychosis" or "Crazy as a horse".

Edited July 31, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

That's certainly true about Caligula's behavior. It was very ruthless. As for Tiberius and Caligula, it could be that they both saw what happened to their parents and family and became mad?

 

 

This must have been an extremely traumatising experience, first waching his father slowly dying, with helpless physicians beside his bed, then seeing his mother taken away to the isle Pandataria, his brothers Nero and Drusus, the first one exiled, the latter basically rotted in prison. And then, I would guess that there was the constant fear of him being the next on the list... Plus his rage and thurst for revenge must have grown stronger day by day, as he was living with 'uncle' Tiberius at Capri. This was probably a reason that led to his subsequent actions, and if it were, I wouldn't judge him.

 

Now we all know that history is written by the winners, and in the end poor Gaius was anything but a winner. So in order to clearify certain aspects about his life, I personally woulndn't turn to Suetonius.

[Primus Pilus]

So in order to clearify certain aspects about his life, I personally woulndn't turn to Suetonius.

 

Just be aware that the sources who are typically accusatory of the Julio-Claudians (Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio Cassius) are also generally careful in how they phrase things. Over the course of 2,000 years historians have taken their reporting of possibilities as fact. The narratives of these writers are often quite open in admitting that they do not report absolute truth but often times only what they heard from unverified sources. This doesn't mean that the narratives are completely invalid, but only that we should understand that they are not investigative in nature. They reported everything, whether it be rumor, innuendo or substantiated fact. There is still a great deal to be learned from Suetonius especially if we realize he is reporting a general sentiment of the day, rather than what may or may not have been the complete truth.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

They reported everything, whether it be rumor, innuendo or substantiated fact. There is still a great deal to be learned from Suetonius especially if we realize he is reporting a general sentiment of the day, rather than what may or may not have been the complete truth.

 

I agree, but I stated the fact ( maybe not as well as I should have ) that in order to get an objective point of view, about this so-called madness of Gaius, I wouldn't go searching for answers in the writings of Suetonius.

Cheers!

 

*Something off topic : A bas-relief showing a thracian knight has been stolen from the History and Archeology museum in Constanţa on the 6th of August. The police have no clue to lead them to potential suspects, as the bas-relief wasn't in the eye of any of the three surveillance cameras in the room. Sad indeed.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Titus Maccius Plautus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree, but I stated the fact ( maybe not as well as I should have ) that in order to get an objective point of view, about this so-called madness of Gaius, I wouldn't go searching for answers in the writings of Suetonius.

 

Why not?

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

I agree, but I stated the fact ( maybe not as well as I should have ) that in order to get an objective point of view, about this so-called madness of Gaius, I wouldn't go searching for answers in the writings of Suetonius.

 

Why not?

 

It's not like I'm dismissing his work, I would never do that, but I said that due to the fact that most of the Gaius mentions are negative propaganda. But this just my opinion. After all, I am only a kid English isn't my first language; and I'm not an expert, that is why I am willing to learn. ( hopefully I'll get your help too, if you'd like to Thanks! )

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's not like I'm dismissing [suetonius'] work, I would never do that, but I said that due to the fact that most of the Gaius mentions are negative propaganda.

 

Propaganda implies that there was some campaign against Caligula, yet Caligula was long dead at the time of Suetonius' writings. Seems likely to me that Caligula was just as bad as Suetonius depicted him.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

Propaganda implies that there was some campaign against Caligula, yet Caligula was long dead at the time of Suetonius' writings.

 

Agreed. However he knew he was writing for posterity, and the way people's memory would be remembered hudreds or thousands of years later was extermely important for them. Now I wonder, as I haven't read the original writings- only the translated ones, if there were those common transcription mistakes in the texts we have now, as it happened for instance with many of Nostradamus's manuscripts; a simple misplaced apostrophe led to a phrase that alarmed many people, the one about the upcoming 'king of terror'.

 

Seems likely to me that Caligula was just as bad as Suetonius depicted him.

 

I'm not really sure about this, hence I have to do more research.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Titus Maccius Plautus

[Primus Pilus]

I'm not really sure about this, hence I have to do more research.

 

Here's the key... was Caligula "crazy" or "mad" as depicted by Tacitus and Suetonius? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The more important question is did he do the things that they reported. Aside from such things as collecting sea shells on the shores of the English Channel (which may be a dramatization for effect) and making his horse a senator (which may be a metaphor for suggesting that his horse would've made a better senator than the lot he had around him), it's clear that the emperor murdered, proscribed and confiscated the properties of prominent individuals in order to finance his extravagance. Since sexual deviance is rampant throughout the sources (including Caligula's contemporary Philo of Alexandria) along with suggestions of his own divinity, we can be reasonably comfortable that these reports are minimally based on fact, regardless of whether or not he may be classified as sane or insane.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

I'm still a scheptic in this particular case of Caligula's madness, nontheless. It would have been intersting, if Cremutius Cordus for example, had lived during his reign, and survived it to give us more info about the real Gaius. But this mere speculation unfortunatelly.

[caldrail]

To enlarge on some of the points raised above -

 

Suetonius is a primary source for the principate period. Unreliable? Well, roman historians are notoriously biased and lets remember they were expected to be storytellers first, that their audiences wanted to be entertained with stories of their ancestors. Inevitably, the wilder tales get the headlines even if they're misunderstood or even made up. is Suetonius any worse than other roman writers? No not really, not when you consider how much fiction has been identified in the pages of the Histories Augusta, another primary source for a later period. Certainly a lot of stuff got left out. Thats why we spend hours debating subjects like this.

 

Caligula, for all his despotism, remained very popular with the masses. He was after all the son of Germanicus, a war hero, and followed the dreary Tiberius. In fact, many people welcomed his colourful rule though I suspect they weren't the ones Caligula upset. The man himself was unable to restrain himself. He had complete power over peoples lives and used them for his own entertainment, testing the limits of acceptability. He seems to have a very cruel sense of humour, and Suetonius records the instance when three senators were sent for, kept waiting all night in the palace in fear of their lives, then given a song and dance performance by Caligula himself. Nor does he respect life - on another instance he was fencing with a gladiator with wooden swords. The man fell over deliberately to allow caligula to 'win', but the emperor then drew a dagger, stabbed the prone fighter to death, then ran around waving a palm frond as a victorious combatant. Then of course he had also tested his own poisonous concoction on Columbus, an injured gladiator.

 

If there was ever a case of 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' - it can be applied to caligula. His undisciplined personality was wholly unsuitable for power and he used it as his own personal plaything. Thats not madness - thats just an immature guy way out of control.