Was Caligula Mad?

I saw a programme on tv the other day where the cast of "I Clavdivs" analyzed the series. Being in my early 20s (ok mid 20s ) I missed the original series. However, I was suprised to hear their views on Roman history (back in those days the majority of BBC actors were the public school Cambridge types, yet they seemed remarkably ignorant on certain aspects of Roman history - eg they seemed to think Augustus was a weak minded buffoon, and that his wife (can't remember her name) was the real power behind the Empire).

What concerned me most though were the views on Caligula - they all seemed to think he was literally stark raving. Examples-

1) His belief that he was a devine being.

Mad? Not really - it was a fairly common belief (or at least commonly used propaganda). Hadrian's orders were to be considered devine. In later history, the Japanese Emperor was also thought of as a devine life form. What made Caligula so mad?

2) He made his horse a Senator.

Madness? Not really - I always considered this a slap in the face of the Senate, a display of power and arrogance, not a serious action.

3) His Brittanic booty (sea shells).

imo a ham-fisted attampt at saving face. Did he literally see the shells as valuable treasure, or just symbolic of his adventures?

4) The most contentious point - cutting his unborn child from the womb and canibalising it.

This last one would surely be the act of a madman, but did it actually happen? Many serious texts that I've read seem to suggest that this is pure fiction, but I can't be sure of this.

A couple of things to add to the thread; I suggest that the view of Augustus is because of Tacitus's commentaries: they would still have a (fading) role as Latin readers to actors of that generation and status. Not forgetting that Tacitus says he deals with Augustus in decline rather than ascendant.

Doubting the Emperors divinity in Japan would have classified the doubter as insane.

All things considered, Caligula was either actually unhinged, or incredibly uncaring, either way he can not be considered to have been 100%.

1) His belief that he was a devine being.

 

Mad? Not really - it was a fairly common belief (or at least commonly used propaganda). Hadrian's orders were to be considered devine. In later history, the Japanese Emperor was also thought of as a devine life form. What made Caligula so mad?

And don't forget almost every Egyptian pharoh as well as the European kings and queens who ruled by "divine right"

2) He made his horse a Senator.

 

Madness? Not really - I always considered this a slap in the face of the Senate, a display of power and arrogance, not a serious action.

LOL yea, I think he probably did that as a joke.

3) His Brittanic booty (sea shells).

 

imo a ham-fisted attampt at saving face. Did he literally see the shells as valuable treasure, or just symbolic of his adventures?

In many places (though I don't think in Rome) sea shells were in fact used as currency. In some places they still are. (cowrie shells is the best example)

4) The most contentious point - cutting his unborn child from the womb and canibalising it.

 

This last one would surely be the act of a madman, but did it actually happen? Many serious texts that I've read seem to suggest that this is pure fiction, but I can't be sure of this.

That probably didn't happen.

The evidence would suggest that poor Gaius underwent a profound and marked change in his behavior. Was this simply propoganda (Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio) meant to slander a man who was decidedly popular (thanks largely to his relationship to Germanicus) at the beginning of his reign and the only way to slur his propularity in the eyes of the masses was to blame his behavior on an uncontrollable condition, or was it a true indication of his mental condition?

I suppose we will never know, but I personally blame the behavior of Caligula on his environment rather than the result of a single episode of illness. Perhaps an illness may have given him a sense of his own mortality and driven him to the point of living with complete abandon, but I don't think he was driven 'mad' by such a thing as the story goes. Perhaps the extreme violence and family dysfunction throughout his youth, coupled with being handed supreme and unadulterated power without any formal training that we can gather, would push someone over the proverbial edge of sanity and control. But again, proving any of this beyond mere conjecture proves impossible.

For more of my impression on the subject... Caligula the Mad

but I personally blame the behavior of Caligula on his environment rather than the result of a single episode of illness. Perhaps an illness may have given him a sense of his own mortality and driven him to the point of living with complete abandon, but I don't think he was driven 'mad' by such a thing as the story goes. Perhaps the extreme violence and family dysfunction throughout his youth, coupled with being handed supreme and unadulterated power without any formal training

I'd have to agree. I made the point in an earlier thread.

We know from Tacitus and Suetonius that Gaius witnessed a number of events and knew of many more involving the demise of family members and was probably exposed to graphic actual violence at a very young age when in camp with his father on the Rhine. I feel that what we know or at least theorize now regarding mental disfunctions such as sociopathic and psychopathic personality types, goes quite some way to explaining Gaius' behavior later in life.

3) His Brittanic booty (sea shells).

 

imo a ham-fisted attampt at saving face. Did he literally see the shells as valuable treasure, or just symbolic of his adventures?

The famous 'seashell incident may not have even take place; i say this because the latin word for seashell is also the same word for a small military tent. So Caligula may have in fact ordered his legions to 'collect their tents'. This seems plausable as his legions were refusing to go on campaign to Britain and keeping them on the gallic coast wasn't doing him any favours.

Two things to bear in mind now you bring up the original 'I Claudius';

Back in the 1950/60s the study of history changed. History was mainly studied from two perspectives in those days, Marxist and Whig.

Marxist history was the study of economic history, and the main point of Marxist approaches was to see history as a grand development, a development from primitive communism, to feudalism, to Capitalism, and back to Advanced Communism. Marxist historians when viewing historical events looked for these trends.

Conversley Whig historians were of a mind that the best system was one of "Constitutional monarchy, with an electorial parliamentary system, Protestant and with Victorian morales", so they viewed history as a grand narrative of events and looked for things which lead to their ideal. So the Rerformation was good and the people that were reformers were painted as saints, conversly Mary Tudor was bad and evil. As you can see there's a tendency to split things into, good and bad. But both approaches are viewed from a modern moralistic perspective. So Caligula thinking he's a god was considered definate proof he was mad.

These approaches to history lingered on until the 1980s.

However, from the 1950s onwards there was a movement towards what is know as revisionist history, basically actually studying historical periods and trying to understand them in the terms of their own context, rather than in the terms of our context. Thus what happens is many people in history have been reassessed. So now you get more moderate views on people like Caligula. Sure he sounds like a total nutcase, but the sources are biased against him (and often exaggerated), subsequent historians in the old schools of thoughts were pushing their own idealistic agendas more than they were persuing the 'truth' as far as any truth exists at all. Most modern history is based upon speculation, 'if', 'could', 'probably', 'perhaps'.

Secondly as mentioned before the sources were biased against Caligula anyhow, he may have deserved it (it's plausible to think he did, afterall often exaggerated claims have some basis in truth, albeit overdone for sensation). Historians like truth, authors when selling books like controversy and goodies and baddies because that's what sells books.

You missed out another school of thought. 'Post-revsionists' believe that belive that characters like Caligula have their reputations for a reason; because what it is said they did actually happened!

Some have suggested, as other posters here have also hinted at, that Caligula's 'madness' was a carefully calculated act and designed to push through some radical reforms of his own.

Perhaps his youthful arrogance showed itself here, somewhat similar to a rebellious, petulant teenager who deliberately does things to provoke his or her parents. Clearly, there was a huge difference in ages between Caligula and those whom he dealt with, who may have treated him like a child or talked down to him, which may have enraged him so much, this must have been some form of retaliation. He was an impulsive man and probably very hot tempered too. When he could not respond with reasoned arguments, as he lacked the experience, he probably tried to 'shock' them by showing off his power and forcing them to take notice, although his actions and methods may have seemed completely insane, something that none of the senators would have expected. In the end, however, he had too many powerful enemies and it was only a matter of time before they decided that enough was enough.

You missed out another school of thought. 'Post-revsionists' believe that belive that characters like Caligula have their reputations for a reason; because what it is said they did actually happened!

Oww yes i'd forgotten about those!

My history teacher once joked that there are now counter-post revisionist historians! Who disagree with post revisionists but don't exactly agree with revisionist either, they are fencesitting between the two.

Hasn't there been loads of research done by interested medical bods on what it was that happened to caligula. I thought he was supposed to have had some sort of brain fever....

One source said he suffered from epilepsy, same as Julius Caesar.

There is some blame that is also placed on Tiberius for making Caligula mad at least partially. The fact that he killed a lot of Caligula's family and had him secluded in Tiberius' private villa or palace, (I forgot which), and how he was forced to hail Tiberius emperor etc. knowing he killed his father and mother and brothers, that must have really screwed him up. He was afraid of Tiberius, and this may bring insight into his infamous comment, "Let them hate me so long as they fear me..." and so he was following the line of Tiberius as he thought how he should rule.

There is some blame that is also placed on Tiberius for making Caligula mad at least partially. The fact that he killed a lot of Caligula's family and had him secluded in Tiberius' private villa or palace, (I forgot which), and how he was forced to hail Tiberius emperor etc. knowing he killed his father and mother and brothers, that must have really screwed him up. He was afraid of Tiberius, and this may bring insight into his infamous comment, "Let them hate me so long as they fear me..." and so he was following the line of Tiberius as he thought how he should rule.

OK - let's try something "off the wall". Caligula was not mad, just misunderstood!!

It was Constantine whom history records as first seeing that the empire could not be ruled from Rome, but that the centre of government needed to be more to the east. That was where the grain supply for the west came from, and where the most real and organised threat, Parthia, lay.

But actually, if one prises back the Augustan myth, one can glimpse something of the same in the thinking of Antony and Cleopatra before Actium - an eastern empire ruled from Alexandria; and a dynasty of quasi-godlike beings. this, to me, was the actuality behind the so-called and controversial "Donations of Alexandria".

Now Gaius Caligula was a direct descendent of Antony - Antonia (Gaius' grandmother) was Antony's daughter. Is it possible that the Antonian "dream" or vision of empire descended to Gaius?

I see a good deal of method also in Caligula's assuming absolute powers as Caesar - perhaps seeking to move the principiate towards an Empire in terms understood in the east. He had seen Tiberius attempts to shrink from the full titulatur and powers of the monarchy; to rule with the Senate. He had seen Augustus' hidden empire and new it as a sham.

As a young man with the prospect of many years of rule ahead of him, Caligula may have determined to set what to him might have seemed a more honest, workable, pragmatic, and potentially successful course. He was the first Princeps to grow up under the principiate and to know nothing else - don't forget Tiberius' father had been a republican. His vision may have been different - as Antony's was different from Octavian's.

It also seems that Gaius had a keen sense of humour - perhaps ironic, perhaps sarcastic or punning. I think the Cincinnatus as Consul story/and perhaps the huts/seashells one too, were misread or distorted examples of jokes.

As for the invasion of Britain, Claudius too was faced with mutiny. Gaius may have had to put a brave face on a similar circumstance.

As for the manoeuvres in Germany which Tacitus (? or was it Suetonius?) ridicules. They sound to me like getting an army into shape and perhaps punishing some units who had not been up to scratch. Practical not laughable, in other words.

Did Caligula have an illness which changed him? Maybe? Did he have incest with his sisters? Again maybe - Agrippina the Younger was no saint it seems - but maybe it was political propaganda. the remaining children of Germanicus had suffered a few years that must have been frightening under Sejanus - the elder brothers imprisoned and killed; their mother exiled. Were they just close?

And brother-sister marriages were a norm in Egypt even under the Macedonian/Greek-born Ptolomies. So back to the Antonian dream. It can be argued that he and Cleopatra intended to marry Caesar's son, Caesarion, to their own child Cleopatra Selene. Was Caligula thinking of a similar approach for the future of the Julio-Claudian's? Was it so far fetched? Look at the way Augustus inter-married his relations - Julia to Agrippa; Agrippina the elder to Germanicus (who's step-grandmother was Augustus' sister Octavia. Was not this keeping it "in the family"?

So, as with Richard III, Caligula will probably never lose the evil legend that attaches to his name. But i do think other interpretations are possible.

Phil