Was Caligula truly crazy or was it just a meme...

Was Caligula truly crazy or was it just a meme, like the meme of Nero burning Rome or the meme of Cesare Borgia being evil and not being a hero?

In many cases, every Emperor had an interest in depicting his immediate predecessor in a bad light.

Caligula was no doubt bad, but not as bad as history makes him out to be. If I recall correctly, he was accused of draining the treasury - yet when Claudius took over he somehow had funds for many great building projects... So we know that's not entirely accurate.

Agreed user. I think s fair amount of our history of Rome is tinted by people writing slam pieces or propaganda.
Nero wasn't as bad as people think, but he was still bad. Caligula is probably still among the worst, but probably not as insane as people think

If you look at Caligula in the context of Roman political culture (the element that people ignore or are completely ignorant of), then alot of his acts can be seen as the best possible move he could have made at the time. If you want to armchair general him with the privilege of 2000 years of hindsight and impose a 21 century morality on hum then yes, he comes off as insane

I can't source this, but like other people have said, Caligula's "craziness" may have just been propaganda from a senate that he didn't respect at all. The whole "declaring war on Poseidon" thing was just a fuck you to the senate and the notion of blindly following the auspices.

Can anybody source my shit up? Are there any good books about Caligula at all?

Not craziness, just taken out of context. The 'war on Poseidon" episode was really the only way he could discipline the troops without them mutinying on him. Many of the soldiers thought that Britian was the end of the world and an island full of monsters (people came from an age of superstition and no education), with no real military achievements of his own and his popularity with the army was goodwill from his father Germanicus, it would have been literal suicide for Caligula to impose harsh disciplinary measures on the legions but he can't just let the army run amok either.

I like to believe that he wasn't crazy, just disgusted with the Roman institutions, especially the senate, and purposefully made a mockery of them all while enjoying the power they gave him.

He wasn't an absolute dictator and had to balance the senate (richest people in the empire), the plebs, and the army (the source of his power. The people loved him for his games and public works (government spending on infrastructure creates jobs), he was respected by the army due to his father, yet without any achievements of his own he had to walk a tight line with what he could do with them, the senate however had grown disgruntled after Tiberius and many wanted a return to republican rule where they would have a bigger say in things. Caligula couldn't just kill off the wealthiest and most powerful men in the Empire so humiliating them so they wouldn't be seen as viable alternatives to him in the eyes of the people and the army was his best move.

What the fuck are you all talking about. A competent ruler would have realized he didn't have enough respect from his troops to invade Britain. The war on Neptune should never have needed to happen.

Be disgusted with the Senate all you want. But inviting senators over and fucking their wives in the middle of dinner is probably not a good idea.

You're all over correcting the evaluation of caligula.

No, he wasn't crazy. Caligula became emperor at a very young age after having spent his childhood and youth (more or less) as a hostage and under constant threat of assassination. Some of his relatives had fallen victim to intrigue and he was aware of the dangers posed by people politically opposed to his family. This explains why later as an emperor he never really trusted anyone.

Another problem was communication. The Principate was still very new and although the emperor was the de facto ruler, he couldn't just do as he pleased but had to fulfill certain expectations from the different factions on which the rule was based. For example, he was supposed to be the one making political decisions, yet still confer with the senators and listen to their opinions, in order to uphold the idea that Rome was still basically a republic.

There is a very good biography available in German (Aloys Winterling - Caligula. Eine Biographie, 2003.). He accurately contextualizes Caligula's life and reign and explains how the early principate worked, e.g. the problems concerning succession and balancing out the expectations from the various groups on which imperial rule was based. No idea if it is available in English tho.

>I know nothing about ancient Roman culture, politics, demographics or economy but I am going to judge some guy based on meme knowledge and several millennia of hindsight

the post

You are already too smart for Veeky Forums, everything for them was MUH DEGENERACY and MUH IMMIGRANTS

>trusting senatorial propaganda
>trusting senators who were mad because they got cucked

What did I say that was wrong? Point it out so I can refute it and laugh at you.

Trying to refute my argument with memes just illustrates how retarded you are.

Its already been pointed out and put in the correct context. You simply have no grasp of the principate system of government when in came to the first emperor who came to power solely due to his family name

People like that get called out here. That shit might fly in /pol/ or /b/ but the reason they gripe and bitch about Veeky Forums being lefty/pol/ is a reflection of their inability to bully out anyone who disagrees with them the way they did to /pol/

I like to think he was a comedian.
> Hey did you hear what little boots did last week
> What
> He made a horse judge
> Funniest ruler we ever had.

Why would sending his army to fight the sea and collect shells be useful to him as a ruler ?
And if he didn't have enough respect from his army to conquer Britain, how come that Claudius could manage it ?

>You simply have no grasp of the principate system of government when in came to the first emperor who came to power solely due to his family name
I absolutely do. Are you saying that fucking senators wives during dinner is necessary and/or the BEST option to deal with a senate you essentially have to share power with? Because I simply assert that a good emperor would come with a better way of dealing with them I'm completely wrong?

Quit being such an absolute fedora

>Why would sending his army to fight the sea and collect shells be useful to him as a ruler ?
It wasnt. It was literally the punishment he had to settle for when he marched his legions to the shore of the British channel and they refused to board the boats. If he'd used a harsher punishment they would have probably just killed him (which is eventually what happened).

>And if he didn't have enough respect from his army to conquer Britain, how come that Claudius could manage it ?
Because Claudius was competent and Caligula wasnt.

but why did he make his horse a consul and order the army to collect sea shells

>Are you saying that fucking senators wives during dinner is necessary and/or the BEST option to deal with a senate you essentially have to share power with?

Your mistake is that you assume this actually happened and was not made up by later authors. Suetonius and Cassius Dio, two of the most important sources on Caligula (and in general), were born after Caligula's death. By that time, new dynasties were already ruling and they sought to paint their predecessors in a certain light. Especially those who already stood out negatively. This lead to the exaggeration of certain eccentricites and/or deviant behaviour. Furthermore, they often wrote down mere rumors as facts, or sometimes marked them as such. The episode with Caligula making his favourite horse a consul for example. Suetonius writes:

>[Incitatum] consulatum quoque traditur destinasse. (Suet. Cal. 55, 3)

Roughly translates to "It is also being told that he intended to make Incitatus a consul". See the problem? But whenever you mention Caligula today, the first things coming to peoples' minds are usually

>Fucked his sister
>Made his horse a consul
>Had senators executed by the scores and made their wives prostitutes

I know the problems of primary sources. I just happen to disagree and think he did fuck all of his sisters, for example. Can you back up your claims that he didn't?

>Can you back up your claims that he didn't?
And by that I mean you have to give positive proof. Not 'I think he didn't fuck all of his sisters because by my modern standards that idea is too deplorable to have actually happened even though our only primary sources (problematic as they are) say he did'

>Furthermore, they often wrote down mere rumors as facts
And ancient rumors are still better than you at guessing what happened. Rumors generally contain a kernel of truth.

>inviting senators over and fucking their wives in the middle of dinner
kek, more like Chadligula

I can disprove your claim only as satisfyingly as you can prove it. There is simply no evidence to back up either of us sufficiently. What I mainly wanted to point out is the - as you also say - problem concerning the reliability of ancient authors. Furthermore, incest was not condoned by contemporaneous standards and prohibited by Roman law.

Therefore you have to consider the following: Sexual deviance is brought up against other "crazy" emperors as well. Other allegations of deviant behavior include excessive cruelty, an autocratic style of rule, general hubris. Every description of the life/rule of these emperors follows a certain pattern. Considering the already mentioned problematic reliability of the accounts of these events, how can we trust them?

I wouldn't put too much trust in the truthfulness of a rumor, but rather its reception by the people of the time and its use as a literary weapon.

Just for the record:

Caligula did not make his horse a senator because he was insane. He did it to prove a point to the senators about how unimportant they had become in that era. He was flat trolling them.

Did you even read what the user wrote? Caligula most likely never even did this.

>unimportant
Yeah, because the richest families were without any influence whatsoever.

>Therefore you have to consider the following: Sexual deviance is brought up against other "crazy" emperors as well. Other allegations of deviant behavior include excessive cruelty, an autocratic style of rule, general hubris. Every description of the life/rule of these emperors follows a certain pattern. Considering the already mentioned problematic reliability of the accounts of these events, how can we trust them?
Good points, all. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree though. Caligula's actions after Drucillas death are circumstantial but very, very odd.

>Every description of the life/rule of these emperors follows a certain pattern.
Forgot to mention: you are completely right. That said, it's possible they follow this pattern because caligula was basically a "model" of being a shit emperor and other emperors were maligned as following a caligulan pattern.

>Because Claudius was competent and Caligula wasnt.

Or it could be that the army that was there at the time wasn't ready, if you know ANYTHING about ancient Roman war logistics you would know that planning for something like the invasion of Britain would have been years in the making, with troops from Gaul and Germania probably sitting around the English channel for years waiting for things like Syrian archers and camel unit from Africa (things that were present when the invasion did happen) troops sitting around waiting usually translates to discipline issues even today, in the proper context it would seem that Caluigula was simply squashing mutinous sentiment and getting discipline back in order before it out of hand like it did with the Germanic legions under his father Germanicus (he was there as a child for that campaign)

there is no actual evidence he did it at all, perhaps it was a joke he said that got blown out of proportion,. perhaps it was made up altogether

Yet his death does not follow a similar of Emperors who basically become abandoned by the state such as Nero. The fact that the army and the people decided they wanted another Emperor and a continuation of Caligula's projects shows that the pro-republican faction that assassinated him had no real popular support and were probably too cowardly to go after someone like Tiberius so they waiting for a young boy instead.

exactly. /pol/ is just full of people so weak minded that they've literally indoctrinated themselves through memes. Anyone who disagrees with them is immediately shunned as a "cuck" or a "nigger"

He probably was mentally unstable but I think it was over exaggerated by his political enemies or by stories.

For example the thing about him making his horse a senator was probably just done to piss off the pre-existing senators as an implication that his horse is more loyal and more competent than the rest of them.

>Was Caligula truly crazy or was it just a meme

> Was Caligula truly crazy or was it just a meme

He was truly bat-shit crazy, but the nature of academia nowadays is such that historical revisionism is the name of the game, thus every historian feels that to make a name for themselves, they must go against the grain of existing historical research even if what they’re shilling is complete bullshit.

Like much of our society, history has become all about marketing, thus every historical figure was secretly a homosexual or a coward or a greedy bastard, etc. and so on. The more shocking and controversial (yet unsubstantiated) the claim, the more attention it receives.

In the case of Caligula, the process is reversed and we're now to believe he was just a good boy who dindu nuffin and was unfairly slandered by his opponents, who were secretly a homosexuals, cowards, greedy bastard, etc.

>He reputedly set his legionaries to collecting seashells – clear evidence of absurdity, if not lunacy, yes? That was the story that went round Roman dinner tables. But the word for seashells – musculi – was also soldier’s slang for the engineers’ huts. So when Caligula, a child of the camp who liked to employ soldiers’ slang himself, said “pick up the musculi”, he probably meant huts, not seashells.

>ITT if anything sounds outrageous it is most likely not true.

Alexander connected an island to a continent.

A bear carried tank shells for his Polish buddies in WWII.

Oda Nobunaga had a African retainer.

Even if it sounds bullshit there could still be truth behind it.

>knows nothing about gossip culture and political criticism in an ancient society that had no modern concept of "free speech"

You probably believe everything the tabloids say about the queen of England

this, he was a psychopath

I, Claudius. That book is the shit.

>ITT: American education

this

the hubris of modern academia.

"Nevermind what people there thousands of years ago said, they were stupid liars and I am brilliant. Let me tell you what really happened."

It is like modern art, the new and novel win over the traditional, regardless of quality.