What Made Caligula Crazy?

[M. Porcius Cato]

When discussing if Caligula was mad, it's quite important to remember that Suetonius isn't really a pro-imperial source. He's negative to just about everything the emperors do. The whole book more or less is built up on how horrible and bad they were.

 

Those poor persecuted emperors! What with absolute power and everything, how could anyone expect them not to have "behavioral problems," like suborning spies, confiscating private property, forcing senators' wives into prostitution, having historians murdered, raping dinner guests, and torturing political opponents. I tell you, it wasn't their fault--their victims are to blame!

[The Augusta]

Judging by the amount of similar threads on here about this particular emperor, he's beginning to warrant his own sub-folder! Cato - it only goes to show that naughty boys generate more curiosity than stoics! But believe me - I do share your frustration sometimes.

 

Trust me, guys - there are lots of equally colourful people out there.

 

The only thing I regret about Caligula's reign is that Tacitus' account of it is lost. Who knows what picture we would have had. Tacitus hated Tiberius, yet that emperor still manages to emerge from the pages of Tacitus as a much more rounded figure than that found in Suetonius.

Edited July 24, 2007 by The Augusta

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

Please be careful about all those fancy stories about poisoning in the Roman world.

 

Romans simply hadn't the clinical knowledge to recognize the poisoning signs and symptoms, something very difficult even today. If someone got poisoned, they wouldn't have been able to notice it. Even a confession would have been unreliable, because of the widespread use of torture.

 

What Suetonius said about the evidence of poisoning in Germanicus' corpse is a good example:

 

"after he had been reduced to ashes his heart was found entire among his bones; and it is supposed to be a characteristic of that organ that when steeped in poison it cannot be destroyed by fire" (Caligula, 1).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato - it only goes to show that naughty boys generate more curiosity than stoics! But believe me - I do share your frustration sometimes.

 

Curiosity is one thing, but the incessant attempt to rehabilitate Caligula shows all the moral clarity of a Carmela Soprano.

[Ingsoc]

Cato - it only goes to show that naughty boys generate more curiosity than stoics! But believe me - I do share your frustration sometimes.

 

Curiosity is one thing, but the incessant attempt to rehabilitate Caligula shows all the moral clarity of a Carmela Soprano.

 

Of course doubting Suetonius version to Caligula "madness" doesn't mean an attempt to rehabilitate, because even if he wasn't insane (which I tend to agree) he was still a brutal tyrant who lack any ability to rule the empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Of course doubting Suetonius version to Caligula "madness" doesn't mean an attempt to rehabilitate, because even if he wasn't insane (which I tend to agree) he was still a brutal tyrant who lack any ability to rule the empire.

 

That's a fair point.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

Well, granted some of Gaius's behaviour can be put down to other factors besides mental instability (such as insulting other rich men by proclaiming his horse a consul) but how does one explain his assembiling his army on the Channel coast for a proposed invasion of Britain and at the last minute changing his mind and making his soldiers pick sea-shells instead? Or is that just another rumour?

[M. Porcius Cato]

how does one explain his assembiling his army on the Channel coast for a proposed invasion of Britain and at the last minute changing his mind and making his soldiers pick sea-shells instead? Or is that just another rumour?

 

This must have some basis in fact. A wine barrel from Caligula's personal vineyards was found there. See here for source.

[Klingan]

Ave

Well, granted some of Gaius's behaviour can be put down to other factors besides mental instability (such as insulting other rich men by proclaiming his horse a consul) but how does one explain his assembiling his army on the Channel coast for a proposed invasion of Britain and at the last minute changing his mind and making his soldiers pick sea-shells instead? Or is that just another rumour?

 

 

Actually the horse thing could be seen as that he wanted to show everyone how little the consuls position really were worth by this time.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I think Caligula was certainly a sandwich short of a picnic, but totally mad? I don't think so, I think Caldrail hit the nail on the head when he said that Caligula had a very wicked sense of humour.

 

He'd been pampered all his life, from being a small boy if he'd have said "jump" people would have asked "how high?" He was worshipped by whole legions for god's sake, so who growing up with that sort of adoration who wouldn't have formed some sort of God complex throughout their rise to adulthood and to become ruler of the whole Empire at 25yrs old he must have thought to himself "I can do whatever I want now and no one can stop me so lets have some fun!"

 

Maybe his illness did have some effect and maybe it did cause his sense of humour to take a darker, more sinister turn for the worse because according to the sources he did perform some pretty horrendous atrocities but again how much of this can we take as fact and how much of it was purely gossip mongering?

 

Mad?....... I don't think so....... Disturbed?.......Definitely!

Edited July 25, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[The Augusta]

Cato - it only goes to show that naughty boys generate more curiosity than stoics! But believe me - I do share your frustration sometimes.

 

Curiosity is one thing, but the incessant attempt to rehabilitate Caligula shows all the moral clarity of a Carmela Soprano.

 

A determination to extract truth from fiction does not equate with an attempt to rehabilitate, MPC. Seeking the truth behind such tales as Incitatus' ennoblement and Neptune's defeat is only done in the name of historical accuracy (such as we can ever know it!). And the fact that he may not have slept with all his sisters in no way makes the real Gaius a better person. Bottom line: He was a tyrant and a megalomaniac. It's the incessant prurient curiosity that he seems to provoke that gets to me - which was the point of my post on this age-old topic that keeps rearing its head again, and again, and again..... Do we see umpteen threads on your namesake's stoicism, for instance? No. And I was making the point that he is just as interesting a figure to study - if not more so, as he contributed far more to the lasting history of Rome than one tyrant who ruled for a measly four years!

[M. Porcius Cato]

A determination to extract truth from fiction does not equate with an attempt to rehabilitate

Fair point. I agree with your whole post.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys and Ladies!

 

I have been always curious about why the reign of Gaius didn't end with any significant setback for the Empire. What do you think about it?

[Augustus Caesar]

The point about poisons above where Romans wouldn't know it if they had it smack them in the face is wrong. The Romans knew very well what poisons were and had antidotes. This is well documented.

 

One thing always strikes me with these kind of threads and the general natter about the madness of Roman Emperors... it was pointed out a while back on a programme on the History Channel where the Emperors bath in water fed through lead pipes and we all know of the effect this would have today if one would do that regularly. Over several years the lead would poison the bodies system and brain and could very well lead to the kind of 'madness' reported in Caligula's time. Indeed for any one of the supposed mad Emperors this was suggested. Now before anyone jumps on this and says "What about the citizens? Why weren't they affected over time and it being noticed?". To that the answer would be the same - but who would notice it? Who would document it as such? Lead poisoning was not a twinkle of any Roman mind so no one would know anything. This theory is being looked at very strongly and could well give a very good reason for their demise and a lack of knowledge of it would certainly lend weight to this.

 

This will certainly open this thread out a lot more but please do not take it that I believe this. I have an open mind and when it was suggested and the story told it did make a hell of a lot of sense!

 

Any thoughts anyone?

[Ingsoc]

Salve, guys and Ladies!

 

I have been always curious about why the reign of Gaius didn't end with any significant setback for the Empire. What do you think about it?

 

I think it's simply because at the time Rome had no competition in the world, if Caligula would have rule for example in the time when the Carthagian-Roman struggle was in it's prime the results for the status of Rome would be very diffrent.