Gaius Caesar "Caligula" died peacefully

[caldrail]

Caligula seems to have something of an unhappy childhood. That left him hedonistic in later life. I also suspect his parents didn't bother with him much - that's just a gut instinct - but the attention he got from the legionaries (who treated him as a mascot) made a poor substitute. Given the element of mickey-taking he must have endured - Son of Germanicus or not - meant that when he was an adult, and very much in charge, it was his turn to take the mick. He seems to have treated the empire as something of an excuse to have fun.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Yes, 25 was old enough in legal terms but for running a 60,000,000 people, 10,000,000 km2 empire ? I think not .

 

A somewhat illogical statement, forgive me. He would hardly have run it on his own! Even Augustus didn't do that. But I think we've agreed on this thread that his age was immaterial. He just wasn't a capable administrator - nor would he have been had he been 60 when he became Princeps!

 

 

 

And the president of the U.S. have some 1,000 advisers and nevertheless -

From Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the U.S. :

A Presidential candidate must be at least thirty-five years old

 

Why is that ? They knew history (forgive me)

[M. Porcius Cato]

Caligula was just too young to become Emperor.

He was 25! Augustus started his career at 18 and became 'fully fledged' as the Princeps at 32, if you count it from Actium.

 

I think the example of Octavian supports the idea that imperium shouldn't be given to anyone under the age of 30. Just look at what a blood-thirsty little snot he was! Before the age of 30, Octavian was galavanting around Italy with a private army, horse-trading the lives of his own friends and allies with Antony, heroically hiding out in swamps while the fighting got rough, starving Italy with his mismanagement, and slaughtering the family of his future wife. If that doesn't sound like another young, blonde Imperator who took the name of Caesar (see thread title), what does?

[caldrail]

I think the example of Octavian supports the idea that imperium shouldn't be given to anyone under the age of 30. Just look at what a blood-thirsty little snot he was!

Well I kinda got the idea he took it whether it was on offer or not. That's the advantage of being a bloodthirsty snot in a violent age.

 

Before the age of 30, Octavian was galavanting around Italy with a private army, horse-trading the lives of his own friends and allies with Antony, heroically hiding out in swamps while the fighting got rough, starving Italy with his mismanagement, and slaughtering the family of his future wife. If that doesn't sound like another young, blonde Imperator who took the name of Caesar (see thread title), what does?

You know, I said before that Octavian was as daring as the men behind him. I still have this image of him at the Siege of Perugia as the enemy gladiators came out the gate and shouted "Hey! Look over there! It's him! Octavian!"

 

The Augusta is going to throw me to the lions for this....

[sylla]

The same can be said regarding Alexander III the Great of Macedon; age requirements are there for the sake of minimal maturity, and very few individuals can be expected to succeed without fulfilling them.

 

Anyone can be blood-thirsty, particularly across civil wars; what made Octavius/Augustus and a fistful of historical world leaders unique was their exceptionally gifted administrative performance.

 

If the emperor Caius (aka Caligula) died in 41 and not in 84 AD, it was mostly due to suboptimal security; both his predecessors and most of his successors survived to countless conspiracies.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

If the emperor Caius (aka Caligula) died in 41 and not in 84 AD, it was mostly due to suboptimal security; both his predecessors and most of his successors survived to countless conspiracies.

 

 

I think this just goes to show how much Gaius was truly hated at the end, that even his closest advisors and guard would play a helping hand in ending the young emperors life at 28 years of age.

[sylla]

The conspirators' motives were clearly more political than personal; the empress Caesonia and the princess Drusilla (two years old) were assassinated too, and Claudius survived by sheer luck.

Edited April 10, 2009 by sylla

[Kosmo]

For a man who believed that his father was poisoned, who had seen his mother and his two older brothers killed and who's sister betrayed him, Gaius did fine. Of course after that he was not suited for politics, but we don't do much better.

Imagine having your brother starving to death, eating the straws of his bedding, and then tell me your fine.

Gaius had problems and the empire was restless. Nobody could have make it.

[caldrail]

I think this just goes to show how much Gaius was truly hated at the end, that even his closest advisors and guard would play a helping hand in ending the young emperors life at 28 years of age.

 

Except his German guards, who remained loyal. If I remember right, wasn't the situation somewhat fraught immediately after his death? That would indicate there were still plenty of 'Caligulists' at large.

 

Anyone can be blood-thirsty, particularly across civil wars; what made Octavius/Augustus and a fistful of historical world leaders unique was their exceptionally gifted administrative performance.

Blood-thirstiness is a complex subject. To some extent, people are sheep. If powerful leaders tell them to be blood-thirsty and give them absoltuion or an excuse, be it religious, racial, or political in nature, then they follow suit and rationalise what they've done even if they have lingering doubts and guilt. As individuals, without a group to hide behind, most people cannot behave in that manner (and fewer still would contemplate it).

 

In other words, as social animals human beings run with the crowd.

 

Regarding leaders, we tend to study them in siolation or in relations to their immediate associates such as family or allies. However, in an organised situation you do often find able organisers that exist in the shadows. For the most part these faceless assistants are of no great account in history (or we'd know who they were) but their influence cannot be underestimated. Augustus for instance was a typically cautious leader (one reason for his popularity - the Romans liked cautious leaders) and despite the peace and prosperity of his reign, doesn't seem to show any great flair in civic management. Granted, he did some clever things. He kept Cleopatra at arms length (what a dodgy woman she was!), reinvented the Roman legions as 'soldiers', not 'brothers', "Found Rome in brick and left it in marble", and certaibnly staged a lot of games. And so forth.

 

But his real success was to do as little as possible. Roman emperors who were remembered fondly often share that characteristic. By maintaining as much of the status quo as possible, fewer influential people got upset. Augustus in fact walked a tightrope in his early days (and due credit to him) and his title of Princeps demonstrates that. Yes, Agustus is in charge, but not an ego maniac like Caesar or those horrible kings we once had. In other words, he was a dictator who pretended he wasn't. You could in fact argue, as I have, that he did little more than bribe the Roman public to keep him in power, though there are are indications he kept an eye out for possible up-and-coming rivals and dealt with them in pretty much the same manner as any modern gangster might.

 

Now the state had to continue running. We know that Emperors struggled mightily to run it in later years, the empire was just too big for one man to control, so the ability and integrity of most bureaucrats who worked on Augustus's behalf must therefore have been somewhat better than in later reigns. They were opening up a genre of government, they had the full support of the Princeps, and had every reason to demonstrate skill and endeavour.

 

Later bureaucrats simply wanted a bit of status, a sinecure, and a source of income, and backscratched their way into an existing role. Some might argue that Augustus kept a close enough scrutiny to ensure his own men were doing a good job. I have to concede that possibility. In a sense, he may have been an able administrator - I would argue he was an able manager.

Edited April 11, 2009 by caldrail

[sylla]

I think this just goes to show how much Gaius was truly hated at the end, that even his closest advisors and guard would play a helping hand in ending the young emperors life at 28 years of age.

 

Except his German guards, who remained loyal. If I remember right, wasn't the situation somewhat fraught immediately after his death? That would indicate there were still plenty of 'Caligulists' at large.

 

Anyone can be blood-thirsty, particularly across civil wars; what made Octavius/Augustus and a fistful of historical world leaders unique was their exceptionally gifted administrative performance.

Blood-thirstiness is a complex subject. To some extent, people are sheep. If powerful leaders tell them to be blood-thirsty and give them absoltuion or an excuse, be it religious, racial, or political in nature, then they follow suit and rationalise what they've done even if they have lingering doubts and guilt. As individuals, without a group to hide behind, most people cannot behave in that manner (and fewer still would contemplate it).

 

In other words, as social animals human beings run with the crowd.

 

Regarding leaders, we tend to study them in siolation or in relations to their immediate associates such as family or allies. However, in an organised situation you do often find able organisers that exist in the shadows. For the most part these faceless assistants are of no great account in history (or we'd know who they were) but their influence cannot be underestimated. Augustus for instance was a typically cautious leader (one reason for his popularity - the Romans liked cautious leaders) and despite the peace and prosperity of his reign, doesn't seem to show any great flair in civic management. Granted, he did some clever things. He kept Cleopatra at arms length (what a dodgy woman she was!), reinvented the Roman legions as 'soldiers', not 'brothers', "Found Rome in brick and left it in marble", and certaibnly staged a lot of games. And so forth.

 

But his real success was to do as little as possible. Roman emperors who were remembered fondly often share that characteristic. By maintaining as much of the status quo as possible, fewer influential people got upset. Augustus in fact walked a tightrope in his early days (and due credit to him) and his title of Princeps demonstrates that. Yes, Agustus is in charge, but not an ego maniac like Caesar or those horrible kings we once had. In other words, he was a dictator who pretended he wasn't. You could in fact argue, as I have, that he did little more than bribe the Roman public to keep him in power, though there are are indications he kept an eye out for possible up-and-coming rivals and dealt with them in pretty much the same manner as any modern gangster might.

 

Now the state had to continue running. We know that Emperors struggled mightily to run it in later years, the empire was just too big for one man to control, so the ability and integrity of most bureaucrats who worked on Augustus's behalf must therefore have been somewhat better than in later reigns. They were opening up a genre of government, they had the full support of the Princeps, and had every reason to demonstrate skill and endeavour.

 

Later bureaucrats simply wanted a bit of status, a sinecure, and a source of income, and backscratched their way into an existing role. Some might argue that Augustus kept a close enough scrutiny to ensure his own men were doing a good job. I have to concede that possibility. In a sense, he may have been an able administrator - I would argue he was an able manager.

Status and income are universal legitimate demands from any human for any government; the real success of the Augustus' administration (on a global all-time scale) was ensuring plenty of them to millions of Roman citizens for centuries; such kind of "bribing" is what the human "sheep" might reasonably expect from the real top world leaders.

Their civic management was enough to explain why the Republic never came back, even after Chaerea butchered Caius; in fact, even among the most noble senatorial families, most of them were more comfortable as bureaucrats (some of them even efficient) under a strong regime than as petty lords under the chaos of civil war.

[caldrail]

Status and income are universal legitimate demands from any human for any government;

Legitimate? I would argue that's not a universal charter for the human condition. Far from it, you can only get what a society allows you or what you can get away with. Look at it like this - Despite the success of Augustus as Princeps, despite the provison of public entertainment, despite the beautification of Rome - how many more people were actually better off by the time Tiberius took over? Sure, there will have been some people who did well out the period (there always is) but the comman man? There was a large part of society that was still as poor. As for status, humans do demand it from governmensts and have done since the dawn of time - but they've had to rebel against those governments often enough to get it. Domination of the many by the few is a natural consequence of our primeval instinct. The Alpha Male/Female as it were. To regard the distribution of wealth and status as some form of universal right is nothing more than a fashionable attitude of the modern west, rather similar to the attitude of the early and mid-Roman Republic. It could change for us in the future - it did change for the Romans.

 

the real success of the Augustus' administration (on a global all-time scale) was ensuring plenty of them to millions of Roman citizens for centuries;

But he didn't. Augustus wasn't building a thousand year reich or any such concept. He was running the show and wanted to stay popular. So he paid for games and boasted of it in his will. I really don't think Augustus could do any more about future planning than choose his successor. In actual fact, you could argue that by dominating politics he was supressing democratic institutions in Rome, and that whilst they were still active and had some influence, he was stepping around them.

 

such kind of "bribing" is what the human "sheep" might reasonably expect from the real top world leaders.

Agreed.

 

Their civic management was enough to explain why the Republic never came back, even after Chaerea butchered Caius; in fact, even among the most noble senatorial families, most of them were more comfortable as bureaucrats (some of them even efficient) under a strong regime than as petty lords under the chaos of civil war.

There's more to it than that. The Roman mindset was very competitive. With the standards of wealth and status for the Roman nobility vastly increased since the republican heyday, the temptation to grab the whole kit and caboodle for yourself was also that much more prevalent. Whereas in the past, the democratic principles of Rome had been very important, by the Principate the old standards had eroded. The Republic never came back because no-one seriously stood to gain from it. There were too many waiting for there chance of the top prize. Also, the political strength of the Legions changed everything. Since the soldiers of Rome could force a new emperor upon Rome, any return to the Republic was almost certain to end in a coup. Rome had moved on. The Republic was an old idea and its egalitarian principles looking old-fashioned and restrictive. The rise of the personality cult put an end to it.

[sylla]

... Despite the success of Augustus as Princeps, despite the provison of public entertainment, despite the beautification of Rome - how many more people were actually better off by the time Tiberius took over? Sure, there will have been some people who did well out the period (there always is) but the comman man? There was a large part of society that was still as poor. As for status, humans do demand it from governmensts and have done since the dawn of time - but they've had to rebel against those governments often enough to get it. Domination of the many by the few is a natural consequence of our primeval instinct. The Alpha Male/Female as it were. To regard the distribution of wealth and status as some form of universal right is nothing more than a fashionable attitude of the modern west, rather similar to the attitude of the early and mid-Roman Republic. It could change for us in the future - it did change for the Romans... Augustus wasn't building a thousand year reich or any such concept. He was running the show and wanted to stay popular. So he paid for games and boasted of it in his will. I really don't think Augustus could do any more about future planning than choose his successor.

An interesting point that only archaeology can answer; as far as I know, the overwhelming prevalent consensus in the field is that the average daily life conditions (at least for the Roman citizens) were at its overall higher point for the preindustrial western world under the Roman Empire from Augustus to the Antonines.

[caldrail]

An interesting point that only archaeology can answer; as far as I know, the overwhelming prevalent consensus in the field is that the average daily life conditions (at least for the Roman citizens) were at its overall higher point for the preindustrial western world under the Roman Empire from Augustus to the Antonines.

Is that really so suprising? The relative prosperity of principatal citizens is based on developments before Augustus as much as anything he did during his reign. Rome had expanded rapidly and had a huge surplus of labour, not to mention profitable provinces such as Egypt. There is also the question of the Augustan Franchise. He instituted the spread of new towns and cities for two reasons. Firstly, he had thirty-odd legions worth of war veterans who needed to be peaceably retired and dispersed. Secondly, he needed tax revenue. Raising taxes on exisating settlements wouldn't make him popular - not a good thing. By spreading the tax burden further he achieved the same result and encouraged them to compete against other for status, thus also encouraging growth. The tax revenue he used to stage games, pay for corn, and to 'turn Rome into marble'. He was effectively bribing the populace to remain popular, and diverting their concerns with 'Bread and Circuses'.

 

Augustus is often described as a brilliant politician. I don't believe that. He was a successful one however, but what exactly did he do that improved the lot of the common citizenry? He was after all buying them off shamelessly. His reign was all about staying in power, not improving foreign relations, educating the masses, or encouraging innovation to improve lives.

 

Augustus had the good fortune to reign after the end of the civil wars, so naturally, there was less spending on military concerns (he disbanded more than thirty legions) and military spending is always a drain on resources. The Varian Disaster of ad9 heralded a possible return to warfare and that frightened Augustus considerably. It also detered him from further colonisation of Germania and the Augustan Franchise wilted beyond the the Rhine. The fact was the Germans couldn't afford the taxes. It was one of the reasons they co-operated under Arminius to ambush Varus' column.

 

So whilst the areas surrounding the empire were poorer and less attractive to conquering leaders, the increased spending and limis of growth meant as time went on the wealth of the Principate was beginning to dissipate. As more money was spent on entertainment and luxury, the available coffers were becoming more depleted with fewer opportunities to replenish them. It really isn't suprising then that the Principate seems so financially successful - it was a period of propserity but one based on a system that wasn't able to meet the demand made upon it.

 

Was Augustus the architect of Roman prosperity? No. He took control of an empire in a good position to benefit from profitable acquisitions, and although he made efforts to improve tax revenue, his spending wasn't on sustainable growth at all, but rather short term largesse.

[sylla]

Is that really so suprising? The relative prosperity of principatal citizens is based on developments before Augustus as much as anything he did during his reign. Rome had expanded rapidly and had a huge surplus of labour, not to mention profitable provinces such as Egypt. There is also the question of the Augustan Franchise. He instituted the spread of new towns and cities for two reasons. Firstly, he had thirty-odd legions worth of war veterans who needed to be peaceably retired and dispersed. Secondly, he needed tax revenue. Raising taxes on exisating settlements wouldn't make him popular - not a good thing. By spreading the tax burden further he achieved the same result and encouraged them to compete against other for status, thus also encouraging growth. The tax revenue he used to stage games, pay for corn, and to 'turn Rome into marble'. He was effectively bribing the populace to remain popular, and diverting their concerns with 'Bread and Circuses'.

 

Augustus is often described as a brilliant politician. I don't believe that. He was a successful one however, but what exactly did he do that improved the lot of the common citizenry? He was after all buying them off shamelessly. His reign was all about staying in power, not improving foreign relations, educating the masses, or encouraging innovation to improve lives.

 

Augustus had the good fortune to reign after the end of the civil wars, so naturally, there was less spending on military concerns (he disbanded more than thirty legions) and military spending is always a drain on resources. The Varian Disaster of ad9 heralded a possible return to warfare and that frightened Augustus considerably. It also detered him from further colonisation of Germania and the Augustan Franchise wilted beyond the the Rhine. The fact was the Germans couldn't afford the taxes. It was one of the reasons they co-operated under Arminius to ambush Varus' column.

 

So whilst the areas surrounding the empire were poorer and less attractive to conquering leaders, the increased spending and limis of growth meant as time went on the wealth of the Principate was beginning to dissipate. As more money was spent on entertainment and luxury, the available coffers were becoming more depleted with fewer opportunities to replenish them. It really isn't suprising then that the Principate seems so financially successful - it was a period of propserity but one based on a system that wasn't able to meet the demand made upon it.

 

Was Augustus the architect of Roman prosperity? No. He took control of an empire in a good position to benefit from profitable acquisitions, and although he made efforts to improve tax revenue, his spending wasn't on sustainable growth at all, but rather short term largesse.

Augustus didn't simply come to rule when the war fortunately stopped; the century-long Civil Wars period ended precisely because Octavius won, against all odds. Augustus and his party (particularly Agrippa, Maecenas, Salvidienus, Sallustius, Tiberius and even Livia) were the architects of the most extensive administrative change by far in the whole history of Rome, regular and aptly called the Roman Revolution; the resulting system persisted for centuries and its prosperity was unparalleled across the preindustrial western world. The pertinent literature is simply too extensive; I would recommend E. Gruen and R. Syme.

Edited April 14, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

The resulting system was the same that had existed in the Republic, albeit dominated by autocratic individuals from the Principate onward. What political changes actually took place? All the institutions in Rome remained active as they had before. What had happened however was that they were either manipulated or pushed aside by these powerful and influential men, who relied on the popularity of the masses to underpin their authority instead of the privileged oligarchies of old. This wasn't a master plan for a successful state, it was simply autocrats jostling for power and wealth, who in many cases failed completely. Rome went through more than one finacial crisis as well.

 

Further, and make no mistake, don't dismiss the senate of the principate. Augustus may have ruled successfully following the end of the civil wars, he was also taking great care not to upset the powerful men in the same way Caesar had done. It's recorded that Augustus left the senate more than once with his tail between his legs.

 

The prosperity of the Principate is also somewhat illusory. The Julio-Claudians were wealthy as a result of their status and acquisitions at the beginning - Augustus boasts in his will of his achievements (in Roman terms) - but Nero was strapped for cash during his reign. The money spent by wealthy Romans certainly made the economy bouyant for some time, but this money would also evaporate. The decline of the western Roman Empire went hand in hand with financial strength.

 

Also, the governmental system developed over time. Claudius was the first to make use of freedmen in positions of responsibility and the Equites became a class of bureaucrats in later times. The change in style went from Augustus's 'First Citizen' to what amounted to oriental style kings.