Gaius Caesar "Caligula" died peacefully

[Caesar CXXXVII]

*Bad English alert*

 

He was normal and survived, just like Augustus and Tiberius (another normal person...)

Just a thought that haunts me (lucky me)...

 

1. Who would had become the new Emperor ?

2. What would had become of Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus. Nerva and Traianus ?

3. What would had become with the Empire ?

4. Without the Colosseum, would the Romans had invented PC games 1890 years earlier ?

[Ingsoc]

1. I suppose that if Caligula would have lived another 43 years he would elect either his son or grandson to be his heir and if he wouldn't have any probably would be another male of his close family.

 

2. They would continue to have a successfully senatorial career but wouldn't achieve supreme power.

 

3. I wouldn't say that their would be any radical changes.

 

4. ???

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

*Bad English alert*

 

He was normal and survived, just like Augustus and Tiberius (another normal person...)

Just a thought that haunts me (lucky me)...

 

1. Who would had become the new Emperor ?

2. What would had become of Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus. Nerva and Traianus ?

3. What would had become with the Empire ?

4. Without the Colosseum, would the Romans had invented PC games 1890 years earlier ?

*What if's alert!!!*

 

The butterfly effect... and whatever you may imagine; 'nuff said.

 

BTW, that's why History is not an exact science; there's no place for experimentation, no replay button.

 

IF Caligual had have two wheels... he would probably have been a motorcycle.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

2. They would continue to have a successfully senatorial career but wouldn't achieve supreme power.

 

 

Including Nero ? I see him as an aged actor in the amphitheater of Mutina...

[ASCLEPIADES]

2. They would continue to have a successfully senatorial career but wouldn't achieve supreme power.

 

 

Including Nero ? I see him as an aged actor in the amphitheater of Mutina...

Oh! Was it not a joke...? Okeeeey...

 

As any other male related to theJulo-Claudian dynasty not in the throne, Claudius and LD Ahenobarbus' (not Nero) lives would have been always at risk; it would have been quite unlikely for them to survive 43 additional years!

 

Regarding everything else on this thread's first post, I must entirely agree with Ingsoc; particularly regarding question # 3, the fate of the Empire during the late Julio-Claudian period was fundamentally in the hands of quite able administrators (mostly equites and freedmen); in fact, that's the main reason why the Empire successfully thrived across all these years.

[caldrail]

Caligula dying peacefully? Well, assuming he wasn't a nutcase and realistically, that as true - he had a perverse sense of humour - you have to realise that now there was autocratic power available people were going to want it. There is almost an inevitability that power struggles would take place. Whatever he may have been, Caligula was prone to personal excess and therefore would have pursued his own enjoyment. This means he would be dependent on guardians and assocites to remain politically safe. Make no mitake, although the early principate was relatively peaceful it remained a bear-pit in higher circles.

 

1 - The new emperor would have been the man in the strongest position. There's no certainty that Caligulas offspring would succeed him, there was no precedent for this until Commodus. As Caligula approached old age and infirmity, the wolves would be jostling amongst themselves and intrigue rife, people forming factionsto secure their place with the 'winning team'. There is noway of assuming who would emerge from this political turmoil, and there may have been intervention from the provinces as ambitious generals with armies behind them see a Rome becoming weaker with that old Caligula about to kick the bucket.

 

2 - Since a successful long term rule in Rome would almost certainly indicate ruthless rulership, many of the rivals would have been dealt with. Of the personalities you mention, some would have been executed, exiled, or simply stuck in sidelines.

 

3 - Generally speaking, the fate of the empire wouldn't have been much different.

 

4 - That would depend on who invented the technology.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Caligula dying peacefully? Well, assuming he wasn't a nutcase and realistically, that as true - he had a perverse sense of humour - you have to realise that now there was autocratic power available people were going to want it. There is almost an inevitability that power struggles would take place. Whatever he may have been, Caligula was prone to personal excess and therefore would have pursued his own enjoyment. This means he would be dependent on guardians and assocites to remain politically safe. Make no mitake, although the early principate was relatively peaceful it remained a bear-pit in higher circles.

 

1 - The new emperor would have been the man in the strongest position. There's no certainty that Caligulas offspring would succeed him, there was no precedent for this until Commodus. As Caligula approached old age and infirmity, the wolves would be jostling amongst themselves and intrigue rife, people forming factionsto secure their place with the 'winning team'. There is noway of assuming who would emerge from this political turmoil, and there may have been intervention from the provinces as ambitious generals with armies behind them see a Rome becoming weaker with that old Caligula about to kick the bucket.

 

2 - Since a successful long term rule in Rome would almost certainly indicate ruthless rulership, many of the rivals would have been dealt with. Of the personalities you mention, some would have been executed, exiled, or simply stuck in sidelines.

 

3 - Generally speaking, the fate of the empire wouldn't have been much different.

 

4 - That would depend on who invented the technology.

 

 

A fair analysis .

About 1 - Let say that Caligula had a son (biological or adopted), it is not logical to assume that he would have been the next Emperor, unless some general usurped it ?

Edited November 17, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

About 1 - Let say that Caligula had a son (biological or adopted), it is not logical to assume that he would have been the next Emperor, unless some general usurped it ?

Caius Julius Caesar Minor aka Caligula actually had a child.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[tk421]

Caligula was just too young to become Emperor. How many emperors before 217AD becoming Emperor at a young age were actually good Emperors? Most of the good ones were well into or past their prime by the time they rose to the top job in Rome so they often had requisite experience and qualifications to do well in their new role.

 

The fact that Caligula was insane made it such that he probably would have died a violent death before long anyway.

[caldrail]

Caligula wasn't insane as such, though I concede he had some severe personality disorders and a sick sense of humour. As for being too young, that doesn't really explain him. It wasn't his age that was the problem but his personality. Also, he was intensely popular with the masses as the son of a war hero, especially after that dour recluse Tiberius and and his conniving underling Sejanus. In fact, the assassins of Caligula took a big risk in bumping him off. Popularity in Rome counted for a great deal and killing off an emperor the crowd like like isn't goinng to do your own popularity any good at all.

 

You do pose an interesting question though. The Romans actually liked 'safe' leaders, both in politics and war. Antoninus Pius for instance is regarded as one of their best by the Romans and he was something of a cautious character. Pertinax lasted a few months because he was the opposite, mking too many unpopular changes and not listening to advice. He thought he knew better.

 

Don't forget that young men likely to rise to the purple would be brought up in that background, taught and educated to assume a suitable lifestyle and mindset. Of course that doesn't allow for the variations in character, but all too often it was that variation that influenced whether a man was a successful emperor or not. People like Hadrian or Septimus Severus were successful because they understood politics and made sure they knew what was going on, eliminating threats and so forth. They didn't rely on popularity, just on making sure who they could trust.

 

Was that talent or experience? Were those people naturally junkyard dogs or had they learned to be? Either might be true, and just because a particular man is younger deosn't necessarily mean he can't cut it in the big wide world, or more importantly, the cut-throat world of Roman politics.

 

Most emperors before ad271 weren't young anyway. It was their experience and reputations that made many of them suitable candidates. Emperors weren't chosen by a fixed means of succession during the Principate - it was all a matter of reputation, popularity... or if you like, celebrity status. Or perhaps how many soldiers were standing behind you. Strength of character counted for a great deal, and so did the support of the Legions. That after all, is why Emperors were keen to court them wit donatives and wage rises. They were bribing the soldiers for support.

 

Think on this. Didius Julianus came to power not by popularity or with a bunch of rmed men, but because he answered the Praetorians offer to sell the throne. Although the man had a successful political career behind him and thus something of a reputation, his character was not impressive. neither was his support, because he hadn't built any, he'd simply written a cheque to become emperor.

 

I do agree Caligula would have died a violent death sooner or later, but thats because he upset people rather than because of his mental state. He was an emperor, a man above all others, in a society where wealth and status really did seperate you from the common ruck. In the same way that we read and raise eyebrows at the antics of modern day celebs, so the Romans did with theirs. The only difference of course was that their celebs had men with swords to call on.

[The Augusta]

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.

 

Now if you'd chosen Nero as an example of youth thrust into supreme power I might have agreed with you. A Roman in this age would have been fully mature at 25. He wasn't too young, he was just unsuitable

[Ingsoc]

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.

 

Now if you'd chosen Nero as an example of youth thrust into supreme power I might have agreed with you. A Roman in this age would have been fully mature at 25. He wasn't too young, he was just unsuitable

 

Augustus achieved his position due to a long and hard struggle with his many enemies (S. Pompius, Antonius, Brutus and Cassius) if he didn't have sharp political instincts he would never survive to his 20th birthday. while Caligula and Nero owned everything they were to the fact they were blood related to the imperial family, they were just spoiled "kids". in respect to his personalty Caligula weren't fit to rule the pseudo-republican system that the empire was.

 

It's actually interesting but it's seem that most of the emperor who were destined to greatness from birth or younger age turn to be bad emperors while the good emperors actually had to struggle for their position before they came to the throne.

[caldrail]

More to do with experience of politics then?

 

Just to reiterate what the Augusta said, Romans were considered old enough to begin life as adults at the age of fifteen. In the Roman world, you grew up a lot faster than the modern day.

[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 .

I realy can't find any "good" emperor who came to that position young . Augustus is a unique case and was 36 in 27 . Alexander Severus was 14 in 222 but was he "good" emperor ? same for Gordianus III who was 13 in 238 .

Constantinus, a "good" emperor, was 32 in 306 (not so young) but took the whole empire in 324 when he was 50 . And on .

[The Augusta]

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!