• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

lopaka

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
2,011
By Shasta Darlington

ROME (Reuters) - For centuries scholars have debated whether Caligula, the Roman empire's eccentric third ruler, was a megalomaniac who dared to defy the gods or a maligned emperor whose caprices were exaggerated after his death.

Now a group of archaeologists digging up Caligula's ancient palace say they have finally found concrete evidence that he was indeed a "maniac" who turned one of Rome's most revered temples into the front porch of his residence.

"Everyone knows this guy was a little crazy. But now we have proof that he was completely off his rocker, that he thought he was one of the gods," Darius Arya, one of the directors of the excavation, said Monday.

"It's like someone -- a president or a king or you know, Bill Gates -- turning St. Peter's into their entrance hall," he said during a break from the dig in the Roman Forum in the heart of Italy's capital.

Arya, director of the non-profit American Institute for Roman Culture, worked with a group of 35 young archaeologists, mostly from Stanford and Oxford universities for the initial five-week exploratory dig.

While the remains of Caligula's palace were first excavated by archaeologists on the edge of the Forum almost a century ago, the new dig has uncovered foundations and a sewage system that prove the palace was much more massive.

Arya said that the ruins showed Caligula's sprawling residence extended into the Forum and jutted up against the Temple of Castor and Pollux just as Roman scholars who were later written off had said.

"It shows the palace incorporated and took over the temple," he said pointing to the three soaring fluted columns that once adorned the temple.

"Caligula was really saying to the Roman people: 'I'm living with the gods. I'm basically one of the gods and to get to my house you've got to pass right through (the temple)."

Ancient historians all refer to Caligula's insanity, which brought a quick end to his rule. He had been emperor for just under four years when he was murdered by officers from the very guard entrusted to protect him in 41 AD.

Those ancient sources described him as a crazed and power-hungry ruler who demanded his horse be made a consul and ordered statues of himself erected in holy temples.

But later historians and archaeologists suggested some of the stories could have been politically motivated by those who wanted to slander the slain emperor.

"Now we have more information, more proof that the sources were not just speaking badly about him," Arya said.

The head of Rome's archaeological office said he is waiting for the final documentation of the dig before passing judgment on its findings. But Arya is confident he will convince Rome when he hands over his initial report in the fall.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.
 
humm for a raveing nutter he certainly got people to build things of him tho..He realy cant have been realy loopy (at least at the begginging) to be installed at all surely?... It was only when he became a liability he was disposed of. And his works destroyed comprehensively. .. and...the palace of Westminster has a chappel in it as does Buck house...whats the diference?.. (sorry im not up on Roman history but i wonder how coloured "historys" can be for political reasons and Rome certainly had lots of Politics)
 
I'm not sure that building a palace to encompass a temple is really concrete proof that Caligula was nuts. It just shows that two historians who spoke badly of him were right about one of their facts. One thing it proves though, is that he (or someone around him who would order building) definitely built big.

That's like saying that George W. was a certified raving lunatic (hold opinions) because he spent millions to be flown out to speak on an aircraft carrier.

There's no way that we can prove he was nuts unless we actually see him. That's impossible. So we'll never know.
 
Bump! The worldline of this thread has switched to one which includes Ancient Civilizations. :D
 
quilty said:
There's no way that we can prove he was nuts unless we actually see him. That's impossible. So we'll never know.
Well, there is the small matter of making his horse a senator, eating his sister's baby (which was probably his in the first place), executions for coughing inappropriately...much more here.

Nah, by most accounts he was pretty much bananas. And, as most accounts of other Emporers' excesses have since been vindicated, TBH much of it seems likely to have actually happened.
 
quilty said:
That's like saying that George W. was a certified raving lunatic (hold opinions) because he spent millions to be flown out to speak on an aircraft carrier.
Strangely, George W. was an example that sprang to my mind to, to illustrate the fact that absolute power is a dangerous drug, but let's say no more about that, eh?

Caligula, may have been crazy, but he also seems to have become intoxicated by the fact that his every word and command, no matter how ridiculous, or depraved, was carried out to the letter. There was no one to say no to him, in the climate of fear and terror that surrounded him. Look at the debilitating effect the Hussein clan had on Iraq, as well, for a modern example of, "completely off their rockerness."
 
One of my favourites was when he planned an invasion of Britain.

The troops were marched to Calais and were lined up along the shore. Caligula addressed the nervous troops and ordered them to pick up sea-shells.

These shells were then taken back to Rome and paraded as the "spoils of victory against Neptune."

(PLEASE NOTE - If my memory serves me correctly - this story is from Suetonius. There is some doubt as to the veracity due to a translation problem of "musculli" - which apparently can mean sea-shells or siege equipment).

However, amusing nonetheless.

In reference to Sidecar_Jon's comments - it must be remembered that Caligula was a very popular Emperor for the first couple of years of his reign. He was popular with the armies - due to spending most of his childhood in army camps where he wore a little soldier outfit - hence the nickname "Caligula" - little boots. He was also popular with the people - as he spent masses on Games and bread hand-outs - particularly after the rather remote and serious Tiberius.

However, his increasing madness and autocracy put the noses of the Senate and aristocracy out of joint. Paranoia over assasination attempts and a childish inability to deal with the reverence an Emperor received seemed to drive him over the edge. Hence his God-like behaviour and frequent murders of prominent persons.

To understand Caligula and the mess he got himself into (whether mad or not) you need to understand Rome in early AD years. Caligula was only the third Emperor. At this stage (and for quite a few years thereafter) the Emperor was not officially the autocratic ruler - he was just a Senator with a very special position. Now, the reality was that he was an autocrat - but the Senate still held on to the belief that power would be transferred back to them.

Caligula's openly autocratic nature really pissed the Senate off. Combine everything and you have a person who must be assassinated. This then lends itself to the spiral of paranoia and madness results.

Oh and as regards to how he got the job - the same way that most Kings and Queens of England get the job. By virtue of famileee (said in an Eastenders manner). Whether he was suitable or not really would have had no bearing. Claudius (his successor) was deemed most unsuitable - yet - he got the job due to being a member of the Julio-Claudian family and because the praetorian guard felt that such a simpleton would be easy to manipulate. As it turns out -- Claudius only faked his idiocy for security. He was one of Rome's finest Emperors.
 
If you thought Caligula "built big", take a look at Nero's "Golden House" - absolutely boggling in size and execution :eek!!!!:
 
stu neville said:
Well, there is the small matter of making his horse a senator, eating his sister's baby (which was probably his in the first place), executions for coughing inappropriately...much more here.

Nah, by most accounts he was pretty much bananas. And, as most accounts of other Emporers' excesses have since been vindicated, TBH much of it seems likely to have actually happened.

Maybe. But that's just what we've heard from some people after he was dead, right? He could have been a really nice guy who made some big enemies.

OK. OK. Now even I am choking on my bullshit.
 
Caligula's tomb found after police arrest man trying to smuggle statue
Police arrest tomb raider loading part of 2.5 metre statue into lorry near Lake Nemi, south of Rome, where Caligula had a villa
Tom Kington in Rome guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 January 2011 20.10 GMT

The lost tomb of Caligula has been found, according to Italian police, after the arrest of a man trying to smuggle abroad a statue of the notorious Roman emperor recovered from the site.

After reportedly sleeping with his sisters, killing for pleasure and seeking to appoint his horse a consul during his rule from AD37 to 41, Caligula was described by contemporaries as insane.

With many of Caligula's monuments destroyed after he was killed by his Praetorian guard at 28, archaeologists are eager to excavate for his remains.

Officers from the archaeological squad of Italy's tax police had a break last week after arresting a man near Lake Nemi, south of Rome, as he loaded part of a 2.5 metre statue into a lorry. The emperor had a villa there, as well as a floating temple and a floating palace; their hulks were recovered in Mussolini's time but destroyed in the war.

The police said the statue was shod with a pair of the "caligae" military boots favoured by the emperor – real name Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus; as a boy, Gaius accompanied his father on campaigns in Germany; the soldiers were amused he wore a miniature uniform, and gave him his nickname Caligula, or "little boot".

The statue is estimated to be worth €1m. Its rare Greek marble, throne and god's robes convinced the police it came from the emperor's tomb. Under questioning, the tomb raider led them to the site, where excavations will start today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... ice-statue
 
I realize that this is going to mark me as incredibly old-fashioned, but I regard "Little Boots" as EVIL.

Of course he was Evil AND Crazy, a most dangerous combination.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
I realize that this is going to mark me as incredibly old-fashioned, but I regard "Little Boots" as EVIL.

I'm not a massive fan of her music but I wouldn't go so far as to call her evil.
 
The mention of Lake Nemi above reminded me of the two gigantic ships that Caligula had built.
The larger of the two ships, painstakingly recovered from the lake on Mussolini's orders, was 73 metres (240ft) in length.
They featured temples, marble flooring, sumptuous mosaics and elaborate lead plumbing.
They were propelled by ranks of 11.3 m (37 ft) long oars.
Sadly both ships were totally destroyed by fire in WW2.

Italians-viewing-antique-Emperor-Caligulas-Nemi-ships-1932-1-Cropped.jpg




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships
 
The wonderful thing about these ships is not merely their size, but the number of technological innovations that they contained, which includes:

- Hot and cold running water
- piston pumps
- ball bearings
- anchors matching the 'Admiralty Pattern' anchor of 1841

There's a British Pathe newsreel from 1931 on Youtube which is worth seeing. The newsreel is a historical artefact in its own right.


These ships, and the whole Lake Nemi ambience, have been an enduring fascination of mine. Nemi was, of course, the location of the temple of Diana with the associated Rex Nemorensis, one of the most bizarre customs of Roman times.
 
I realize that this is going to mark me as incredibly old-fashioned, but I regard "Little Boots" as EVIL.

Of course he was Evil AND Crazy, a most dangerous combination.
Caligula was the sole male survivor of his family after his mother and other relatives were killed in a feud when Caligula was 3 or 4 years old. One brother was imprisoned on charges of treason. Another was exiled and either starved to death or committed suicide.

He was brought up in the army, starting as a toddler, and moved from place to place, often in the horrible conditions of a military campaign. He was a figure of fond amusement amongst the soldiers. (He is reported to have hated his nickname, "little boots".)

Later, he was shuttled from home to home, cared for by a great grandmother, who then died, and then by a grandmother.

This was a crazy early life history for any human being. Surrounded by violence, and with no continuity of home, care or moral guidance.

He then became Emperor at the age of 24: an age at which many modern youths are still living with their parents, studying, and with no clear plans for the future. Many modern 24 year olds can barely manage their own lives or operate a washing machine, but Caligula was put in charge of an empire.

In the modern world, the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer of a small country like the UK is understood to require someone with maturity, experience, and technical knowledge, supported by a team of advisors and entire departments of statisticians collating and analysing the likely effect of any new policy. Despite that, they can still get it wrong.

Caligula started off with good intentions, making a number of kind and generous payments, changes, and allowances from the treasury. Not only did he personally lack an understanding of macroeconomics, but this knowledge was far less developed than it is today. It is unsurprising that things went wrong.

This was a boy from essentially a "mob" family, passed from pillar to post, ever aware of the threat of death, assassination, or banishment. He was suddenly thrown into the maelstrom of having to run a massive empire at age 24, with older, wiser and more experienced men all pushing and pulling, manipulating and threatening, to get their desired outcomes. Inevitably, he made mistakes, and those mistakes made opponents into enemies, and led to his downfall.

Yes, Caligula did many things that in modern terms we would consider to be "objectively evil". However, there was much about those times that we might also consider to be "objectively evil".

For all its military glories, and all its engineering achievements, the Roman empire was built on aggressive conquest and rapine, and on the enslavement of defeated enemies. The ordinary common people went to watch "entertainment" where humans and animals were killed and maimed on a massive scale. The Roman empire had many of the features shown in modern fantasies like Game of Thrones, and The Hunger Games, and this behaviour was considered normal and accepted. It was not civilisation as we know it, and Caligula was a product of that society.


I am a particular admirer of Seneca, a stoic philosopher. At one time, he was one of the two most powerful men in the world, and also the richest. During Caligula's reign, Seneca was ordered by the senate to commit suicide. Caligula accepted that this was unnecessary as he was persuaded that Seneca did not have long to live anyway. Later, Seneca and Burrus ran the empire while Nero was too young to do so, and that period was recognised as one of the most prosperous and successful periods of Roman history. However, Nero became a despot, and this led to Seneca living in exile. Even so, one day Seneca received the instruction to commit suicide — a form of imperial execution — and had to do so. This was the madness of the Roman empire.
 
Last edited:
Caligula was the sole male survivor of his family after his mother and other relatives were killed in a feud when Caligula was 3 or 4 years old. One brother was imprisoned on charges of treason. Another was exiled and either starved to death or committed suicide.

He was brought up in the army, starting as a toddler, and moved from place to place, often in the horrible conditions of a military campaign. He was a figure of fond amusement amongst the soldiers. (He is reported to have hated his nickname, "little boots".)

Later, he was shuttled from home to home, cared for by a great grandmother, who then died, and then by a grandmother.

This was a crazy early life history for any human being. Surrounded by violence, and with no continuity of home, care or moral guidance.

He then became Emperor at the age of 24: an age at which many modern youths are still living with their parents, studying, and with no clear plans for the future. Many modern 24 year olds can barely manage their own lives or operate a washing machine, but Caligula was put in charge of an empire.

In the modern world, the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer of a small country like the UK is understood to require someone with maturity, experience, and technical knowledge, supported by a team of advisors and entire departments of statisticians collating and analysing the likely effect of any new policy. Despite that, they can still get it wrong.

Caligula started off with good intentions, making a number of kind and generous payments, changes, and allowances from the treasury. Not only did he personally lack an understanding of macroeconomics, but this knowledge was far less developed than it is today. It is unsurprising that things went wrong.

This was a boy from essentially a "mob" family, passed from pillar to post, ever aware of the threat of death, assassination, or banishment. He was suddenly thrown into the maelstrom of having to run a massive empire at age 24, with older, wiser and more experienced men all pushing and pulling, manipulating and threatening, to get their desired outcomes. Inevitably, he made mistakes, and those mistakes made opponents into enemies, and led to his downfall.

Yes, Caligula did many things that in modern terms we would consider to be "objectively evil". However, there was much about those times that we might also consider to be "objectively evil".

For all its military glories, and all its engineering achievements, the Roman empire was built on aggressive conquest and rapine, and on the enslavement of defeated enemies. The ordinary common people went to watch "entertainment" where humans and animals were killed and maimed on a massive scale. The Roman empire had many of the features shown in modern fantasies like Game of Thrones, and The Hunger Games, and this behaviour was considered normal and accepted. It was not civilisation as we know it, and Caligula was a product of that society.


I am a particular admirer of Seneca, a stoic philosopher. At one time, he was one of the two most powerful men in the world, and also the richest. During Caligula's reign, Seneca was ordered by the senate to commit suicide. Caligula accepted that this was unnecessary as he was persuaded that Seneca did not have long to live anyway. Later, Seneca and Burrus ran the empire while Nero was too young to do so, and that period was recognised as one of the most prosperous and successful periods of Roman history. However, Nero became a despot, and this led to Seneca living in exile. Even so, one day Seneca received the instruction to commit suicide — a form of imperial execution — and had to do so. This was the madness of the Roman empire.
Don't forget these guys were eating with lead utensils, which does nothing for a well-adjusted mind.
 
I've been reading, yet again, Tom Holland's nonfiction books Rubicon and Dynasty. These are terrific reads, especially for a non-expert like me; however I find it hard to accept that certain emperors were as mad, bad, and dangerous to know as scholars and Holland have made out. Does all this gossip simply make for a riveting story? For instance, Holland is at pains to stress how Tiberius was a self-disciplined stickler for the ancient traditions of his people and his aristocratic class, 'careful of the Senate', and a serious student of the arts...and yet, in later life, he's depicted as utterly depraved and also careless about the very things which formerly meant so much to him. Even allowing for the apparent fact that Tiberius was far from the first elite Roman to, essentially, give up in despair on all he'd held dear and to lose himself in self-indulgence - something that perhaps reveals the hollowness of Rome's claim to civilisation and greatness - his descent into depravity seems unbelievable. And yet this wide-ranging horror is told us after repeated statements about how slanderous gossip was the lifeblood of the Roman peoples of all classes...how can historians take such gossip seriously?
 
how can historians take such gossip seriously?

If they are any good they don't do so - they take it as part of the evidence, weigh it all up and do their best to lay it out for the interested reader. They may or may not believe any of it! They may suggest a particular view or interpretation - a reader can then do their own weighing up as you have successfully done :D
 
Thank you. :)

Must admit though, my views on the most famous/notorious emperors are probably rather coloured by watching I, Claudius. :D
 
I've been reading, yet again, Tom Holland's nonfiction books Rubicon and Dynasty. These are terrific reads, especially for a non-expert like me; however I find it hard to accept that certain emperors were as mad, bad, and dangerous to know as scholars and Holland have made out. Does all this gossip simply make for a riveting story? For instance, Holland is at pains to stress how Tiberius was a self-disciplined stickler for the ancient traditions of his people and his aristocratic class, 'careful of the Senate', and a serious student of the arts...and yet, in later life, he's depicted as utterly depraved and also careless about the very things which formerly meant so much to him. Even allowing for the apparent fact that Tiberius was far from the first elite Roman to, essentially, give up in despair on all he'd held dear and to lose himself in self-indulgence - something that perhaps reveals the hollowness of Rome's claim to civilisation and greatness - his descent into depravity seems unbelievable. And yet this wide-ranging horror is told us after repeated statements about how slanderous gossip was the lifeblood of the Roman peoples of all classes...how can historians take such gossip seriously?
Fair points. Just as Shakespeare fictionalised Richard III to suit the politics of his time, Roman authors surely did the same about historical figures. Always present the current emperor and his ancestors in a good light, and his opponents and the opponents of his ancestors in a bad light.

Historians a century or two ago tended to read the big sources and take them largely at face value.

Historians today compare and contrast different sources. They can look at literary sources in the context in which they were written, and compare them with other sources. They can look at administrative records. There are often artworks, coins, and so on and these can be placed geographically and dated. Consistencies reinforce an account; inconsistencies cast doubt on it. Sometimes there are direct contradictions.

However, history is not a science and comprises educated assessments and interpretations. Dates and places are checkable facts, but the motives and personalities of long dead people can only be the subject of informed speculation.
 
"Everyone knows this guy was a little crazy. But now we have proof that he was completely off his rocker, that he thought he was one of the gods," Darius Arya, one of the directors of the excavation, said Monday.

"It's like someone -- a president or a king or you know, Bill Gates -- turning St. Peter's into their entrance hall," he said during a break from the dig in the Roman Forum in the heart of Italy's capital.
All it proves is what is already known about Caligula: that he sought to mock Rome's most hoary and hallowed traditions, and what he viewed as its hypocrisies, especially those of the patrician class.
 
2000AD’s Judge Dredd did a story on the rise of Judge Cal to Chief Judge of MegaCity One. Quite bonkers, he promoted his goldfish as Deputy Chief Judge and set up a system of alphabetical execution. Which was bad news for the guy who changed his name to Aaron A. Aardvark deliberately to appear first in any list of citizens.
 
Back
Top