The Excesses Of Caligula
Why were the actions of Caligula regarded as excessive? Why was such behaviour important in the evaluation of an emperor's image?
When Caligula took the title of emperor of Rome, the population of that vast empire felt that a new dawn was emerging. Here was someone with youth on his side to reign over them, by contrast after the aged Tiberius. Because of his earlier travels with them on their campaigns, he had the loyalty of the troops, which was always important in a militarist empire. But the biggest thing he had going for him was his direct family contact with the revered Augustus, Caligula through his mother was the great grandson of the man and his reign was hoped to take them back to what was already become to be seen as an golden age.
Yet something that started out so good ended in tragedy for the young man, Caligula soon displayed ideas way above him self, he became an ego manic, disrespectful for others, and blasphemous, by this behaviour he quickly alienated himself from everybody, who were once loyal and it became obvious that he would be killed. In everything he was excessive, but nevermore in his blasphemous behaviour made worst because as emperor he was the holder of the office of head of the Roman religion and should never be seen as impious.
In the ?Excesses Of Caligula?, (P526 Roman Civilization). We have a primary source written by Suetonius, this short paragraph is taken from his great work the ?Twelve Caesars?, Suetonius was an experienced biographer, the first Latin biographer, and whose work is still available to us, but he was not a contemporary of the events that he was writing about, but it?s still is a primary source. It would have been read by his contemporaries, judged by them and indeed we can say by its longevity that it has become a useful source.
We know from our study of the period that Suetonius and others thought that Augustus was the benchmark used to judge other emperors and so set the standard that was to be followed by other emperors. Indeed it is significant to say that such was his behaviour during his reign of office that he was upon his death deified by senate decree, and thereafter worshiped as a god.
But it must be noted that not merely having the office of emperor ensured you reached deification, whilst Augustus obtained it, Tiberius who followed him failed to receive ...
... middle of paper ...
...presence to his own citizens. Indeed most noted is the fact that in the end it was a soldier, one of those most loyal at the beginning who put an end to his rule.
There were a few shortcomings to this source, with it being a posthumous evaluation of his Caligula?s reign. Suetonius shows some biasness, he blames Caligula for the excessive behaviour by describing what went on, as a historian working during this period he wanted the reader to learn from the past, he shows how Caligula treated his senators, his subjects and his soldiers, to this end.
History has judged Caligula?s rule excessive in the extreme, as leader of the Roman religion he was supposed to proclaim and protect it, not bring ridicule upon it.
He not only failed Rome, but failed the office of emperor, failing to protect himself and to provide for his successor, this would not only have benefited the individual but also Caligula himself, because his successor would have had an interest in protecting his benefactors reputation after his death, as it was his rule was judged as excessive in the extreme.
Bibliography
Roman Civilization Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold third edition Columbia University press.
Even if you do not like Suetonius' style, you must agree that he has achieved his goal of adequately exploring the lives of these 12 men. He wrote more than an adequate biography; he wrote an exquisite history of a very important period in the Roman world. Suetonius wrote so accurately that many historians today use his writings to describe the lives of the Caesars.
be better for Rome while the others just did not want him to become more powerful than
Goldsmith’s account of Nero and Caligula is important in understanding why John Reed is likened to them. According to Goldsmith, Caligula was arrogant, greedy, and cruel (365). He had many vices and hurt everyone around him.
Morey, William C. "Outlines of Roman History, Chapter 19." Forum Romanum. 1901. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. .
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
Emperor Nero, infamously known as one of the most malevolent, oppressive, and tyrannical leader throughout history, was the last ruler of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. He was born outside Rome in Antium and his mother married his great uncle, Emperor Claudius, in order for her son to be the next Emperor of Rome. It wasn’t apparent that her son was to become one of the most feared and cruel leaders in Roman history from 54 CE to 68 CE. By examining his achievements and failures as an emperor, his influences and changes over the entire economic, political and social spectrum are revealed.
While Suetonius’s scriptures of Nero may pose a risk of bias, similar perversions were discussed within Edward Champlin’s ‘Nero Reconsidered’. Champlin discuses Nero’s descent into debauchery and malfeasance; how his personal exploits gradually began to corrupt his political and military affairs (Champlin, 1990). Nero began alienating and persecuting much of the elite for higher interests in personal concerns, as well as neglecting military advances and affairs completely. Nero’s exorbitant personal affairs and expenditures left the treasury thoroughly exhausted. His period was riddled with deflation as shortage of money began to emerge (Champlin, 1990). Nero’s adolescence and unruly upbringing was largely contributory to his inadequacy during his years as Roman Emperor. While Nero contributed significantly to the city, his reign demonstrated the unravelling of the Roman
Within the Ancient world, political leaders manipulated the balance between religion and politics to further their own power. In particular, Gaius Octavius (63 BC – 14 AD) later known as Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, exploited the ‘imperial cult’ as a political tool within the Roman Empire. Termed by modern historians, the imperial cult was a combination of local religious cults where people worshipped the emperor as a deity who received divine honours exceeding all other living entities. By directly allowing the imperial cult in the Roman provinces, this achieved much required unity and stability throughout the Empire. Consequently, this enabled Augustus to indirectly incorporate the cult into Rome’s ritualistic polytheism practices.
...the Pax Romana, a time of peace and prosperity in Roman history that lasted over 200 years. He did however, fool the people of Rome. He ruled as type of despot, hiding behind the illusion of a false republic. Augustus was careful to not raise the eyebrows of the citizens. With the senate was still intact, Augustus seemed to have somebody to prevent him from becoming too powerful. However, the power of the senate was weak compared to his, and he had the power to do what he wanted. This type of power, placed in the hands of an individual, would be passed on to other emperors after Augustus, some of whom would abuse that power. Rome would see the repeat of many of its former problems, and much blood would be spilled trying to prevent one person from having too much power; the Roman were back to back to where they started before 509 B.C., only they weren’t aware of it.
The Crisis of the Third Century from A.D. 235-284 was a period of Military anarchy and witnessed the collapse of the Roman empire. The empire witnesses numerous crisis like military, political and economic in the form of barbarian invasions, civil wars and hyperinflation. It was primarily because of the settlement of Augustus that failed at establishing succession rule of the emperors. Hence, no emperor was able to hold the Imperial position. This period ended with Diocletian, the Roman emperor A.D. 284-305 who was able administrator during the crisis. Diocletian became the Roman Emperor after defeating Carinus. During Diocletian’s reign, the Roman empire was unified under Tetrarchy. There were several administrative changes from Diocletian to Constantine. These changes had however, started long before the reign of Diocletian. The Roman empire was comparatively at rest and peace despite the war for imperial succession and numerous civil wars. Augustus’s reign is also referred to as Pax Romana. The time period during reign of Diocletian witnessed imperial immortality and ancestry was turned into identity. Hence, ancestry was now seen as a dominating principal and Diocletian and Maximian were seen as equals before the common public (Nixon and Rodgers, 80) .The Edict of Caracalla in A.D. 212, marked the beginning of various administrative changes that took place in the Roman empire (Cameron, 50) .
After the reign of Tiberus, there were many poor leaders, two of which were Caligula and Nero. Caligula killed his sister, among many other people and made his favorite horse a senator. Nero murdered his wife and mother and was accused of setting fire to Rome. Such deeds were common because the laws of the empire favored the rich landowners and who ordered and were the target of many assassinations (Gibbon, 70).
He was privy to violence, death, conspiracy trials, and warped sexual escapades in Tiberius’s palace in Capri at a very impressionable age. He ascended the throne at twenty-four years old and was given complete and absolute control over an empire with very little political experience. If he was not made unstable by all the occurrences in his youth and upbringing, he was bound to be impacted by the constant threat of murder hanging around an emperor. What person could endure such trauma and depravity and remain unaffected? Caligula was murderous and deeply disturbed, but I cannot see how any other person with his past that would not be. It is proportional to putting an abuse victim in the president’s chair and expecting rational thinking. Many historians believe he suffered from some kind of clinical illness that aided in his hostel and fanatical behavior. The main sources we have on Caligula are from Suetonius and Dio, who were not contemporary to all these occurrences and should be read with criticism as their main goal was to attract readers, not to convey truth. Contemporary writers such as Philo and Seneca should also not be taken at face value. Though they are not flattering descriptions of the emperor, their writings were under scrutiny and could get them a quick death penalty if too far out of line. None-the-less I feel that Caligula was not entirely at fault
After Augustus's death, his successors had varying degrees of effectiveness and popularity. Caligula – bloodthirsty and mentally unstable Claudius – conqueror of Britannia, and Nero – uninhibited spender and disinterested ruler, all were in Augustus's dynasty. After Nero's suicide in the face of assassination in 68 c.e., the principate was held by four different Emperors in the span of 18 months.
Augustus is credited with creating the office of emperor of Rome. As the adopted son of Julius Caesar, it’s amazing that he managed to secure the office that his father wanted while he avoided making the same mistakes as Caesar. Caesar’s mistakes ended up costing him his life. Augustus was able to create an office that gave him all of the power without being killed. He even was able to do it with the Senate’s help and approval.
How does Suetonius portray Augustus and his accomplishments? What were his skills? What was the response of Rome? How might Suetonius's account have been biased or limited?