I saw the movie 'Caligula' with Malcolm McDowell and there was an interview with him on the DVD. The actor made a good point about how we interpret ancient texts. He said Caligula had many enemies and the history of his reign was written by people who were against him and his rule. McDowell had a soft spot for Caligula, and interpreted his character as a young man who inherited ultimate power and became idealistic, wanting to end corruption in Rome by humiliating and executing those in high positions. However, it is also possible he was mad, or simply sadistic, and that's waht brought people against him. Is there anyway to know the truth about Caligula?
2007-04-13 04:05:42 · 8 answers · asked by Mike 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Despite what wikipedia tells you, you have to realilze that some of the annals and histories of the Roman emperors were written by members of the Senatorial upper class who were very resentful of the power of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Julius Caesar brought down the Republic, and his grandnephew Octavian (Augustus) invented the system we call the Roman Empire. Then Tiberius was forced to rule with extreme tactics not to lose power. These 3 men decimated the upper class of Rome, so it is no wonder that the upper class was very hostile to them and their descendants.
Caligula probably was forced to be as bloody as Octavian and Tiberius to keep the power, but we have no real idea if his excesses were true or not.
Given what we know of the absolute kings of the 17th and 18th century Europe, we can figure out that Caligula probably had a lot of leeway to do things that to an average citizen were escandalous. Rockstars today can fall into many of those excesses. But the level of depravation shown by Roman historians, given their bias, is fishy. I really don't think he was that bad.
2007-04-13 04:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by Historygeek 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's true that history is always written by the winners and historians are quick to say that Caligula could not have been as bad as he's been painted. The ungarnished truth, though, is he was murdered by his own bodyguard and previous supporters after just three years in power. There must have been something that forced them to take that step.
I don't believe Claudius had any hand in the assassination since he'd spent his entire life trying to stay in the shadows. Yes, he benefited from it, but that was because he was the very last of Augustus's sons and certain people thought he would be a puppet and not an emperor in his own right.
2007-04-13 04:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
At the time Augustus died in 14 AD, Tiberius had been helping to run things for years and was the obvious successor. But at his death, there was no one. Gaius, the so called Caligula, was only 25 and had no experience in governing. So the only model he had to fall back on was that of the quasi god-kings of the despotic Eastern monarchies. This was very repugnant to the senatorial class, and not to them alone - his project to put a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem brought the Jews to the brink of rebellion.
PS. It's not true that history is always written by the winners. Athenians, not Spartans, wrote about the Peloponnesian War. Persians and Arabs wrote far more than Mongols about the conquests of Genghis Khan You have to be interested in writing.
2007-04-13 07:03:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
History is always written by the winners. Lies, repeated and republished eventually come to be accepted as the truth. We really don't have any objective, first hand reporting on Caligula. We know he started out beloved and ended reviled. How he really went from one to the other will perhaps never be known.
2007-04-13 04:18:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
take a history class in "classics"... I saw that movie as well and I am sure playboy juiced up the movie for the viewers but yeah Caligula was that crazy ... He was having sex with his sister! (And in no time period has that kind of behavior ever been acceptable!)
2007-04-13 04:12:35 · answer #5 · answered by SARAH 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was bad, but indeed not *that* bad. Most of the historical records we have were indeed written by people who had to score points with Caligula's successors (who killed him, by the way).
"Explanations" and "Alternative views" in "Caligula", Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula#Explanations
2007-04-13 04:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Erik Van Thienen 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Given the history of some of people in the US Senate, I hardly think Al Franken will be that bad.
2016-05-19 16:26:46 · answer #7 · answered by shannon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually he was even worse. He was deathly even to his own family.
2007-04-13 04:11:38 · answer #8 · answered by Sakura ♥ 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋