3 ms·

Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat. But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both ambitious and wildly popular

Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat. But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crowned king, and the people of Rome hated it. It would be a few more generations before the idea of being ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had done the same would be okay to Romans.

rgrieselhuber 8y ago
The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.
eropple 8y ago
As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and even the transition to Caligula (further oops). Caligula's assassination was part of an attempt to restore the pre-Principate Republic, but it failed and Claudius ruled without too much trouble. But, again as you note, all of that was the first-among-equals set dressing of the Principate where the Republic's centering institutions were given lip service, and it would be hundreds of years before the outright Dominate of Diocletian would be generally accepted by Rome--and getting there required the transcendental shitshow that was the Roman third century, itself worth perturbing a lot of electrons. In conclusions, land of contrasts, etcetera etcetera.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Total tangent: I’m actually not convinced that Caligula was as bad as the ancient sources claimed. We have very few first hand sources from his reign, and the historians (all senatorial class in this case iirc) would have ample ability and cause to slander him. Accusations of sexual impropriety are the standard in ancient sources, especially Roman. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he could have been a good ruler, he sure did manage to piss off the senate in the way a better ruler wouldn’t have, but he might not be anywhere as bad as the sources portray.
  - eropple 8y ago
    Could be. The most damning accusations aren't just that he was all murdery or sexually improper, though, it's that he spent all the money. Tiberius has a lot of rumors spread about him for being a sexual deviant and handing Sejanus the keys to the 29AD Fiat Purgero, but I'm not aware of sources that allege that he didn't govern tolerably and with some level of restraint until he disappeared to his villa for the rest of his life. Caligula gets roasted for being a weird sex pest and for being a profligate spender who trashed the economy (the most sympathetic interpretation thereof being that he didn't want to say no, because saying yes made people like him, and making people like him might keep him alive longer/make him more beloved as emperor. IIRC the purges and the rumors about Caligula mostly started after a serious illness in 37AD, where he might have just literally gone around the bend? But I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Caligula was played up after his death, though. If you look back at pre-Republican mythology (it ain't quite history), the seven kings of Rome are all caricatures. Caligula could definitely just be The Crazy One. In any case, Rome put up with some real wacky characters as emperor so long as they didn't bankrupt the empire.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      I think that’s a pretty fair interpretation, it’s pretty clear he sucked pretty bad at budgeting. Tiberius was famously miserly with the state treasury, and chances are that young Caligula couldn’t budget and saw how popular he got by just using that money, only to be dismayed at how quickly it went away. What I find really interesting is the murder of political opponents and how it affects legacy. From where I sit, pretty much every single emperor killed senators, perhaps excluding only Caesar himself, but only a few got saddled with the blood thirsty tyrant image. Claudius killed quite a few senators, some without good justification, yet his reputation is largely “good emperor, misunderstood”, while Tiberius gets off the hook largely because his successor was so much worse. It’s all pretty fascinating to me.
  - adolph 8y ago
    Caligula also built the Nemi ships, an interesting topic in their own right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.

eropple 8y ago

As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and even the transition to Caligula (further oops). Caligula's assassination was part of an attempt to restore the pre-Principate Republic, but it failed and Claudius ruled without too much trouble. But, again as you note, all of that was the first-among-equals set dressing of the Principate where the Republic's centering institutions were given lip service, and it would be hundreds of years before the outright Dominate of Diocletian would be generally accepted by Rome--and getting there required the transcendental shitshow that was the Roman third century, itself worth perturbing a lot of electrons. In conclusions, land of contrasts, etcetera etcetera.

village-idiot 8y ago
Total tangent: I’m actually not convinced that Caligula was as bad as the ancient sources claimed. We have very few first hand sources from his reign, and the historians (all senatorial class in this case iirc) would have ample ability and cause to slander him. Accusations of sexual impropriety are the standard in ancient sources, especially Roman. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he could have been a good ruler, he sure did manage to piss off the senate in the way a better ruler wouldn’t have, but he might not be anywhere as bad as the sources portray.
- eropple 8y ago
  Could be. The most damning accusations aren't just that he was all murdery or sexually improper, though, it's that he spent all the money. Tiberius has a lot of rumors spread about him for being a sexual deviant and handing Sejanus the keys to the 29AD Fiat Purgero, but I'm not aware of sources that allege that he didn't govern tolerably and with some level of restraint until he disappeared to his villa for the rest of his life. Caligula gets roasted for being a weird sex pest and for being a profligate spender who trashed the economy (the most sympathetic interpretation thereof being that he didn't want to say no, because saying yes made people like him, and making people like him might keep him alive longer/make him more beloved as emperor. IIRC the purges and the rumors about Caligula mostly started after a serious illness in 37AD, where he might have just literally gone around the bend? But I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Caligula was played up after his death, though. If you look back at pre-Republican mythology (it ain't quite history), the seven kings of Rome are all caricatures. Caligula could definitely just be The Crazy One. In any case, Rome put up with some real wacky characters as emperor so long as they didn't bankrupt the empire.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I think that’s a pretty fair interpretation, it’s pretty clear he sucked pretty bad at budgeting. Tiberius was famously miserly with the state treasury, and chances are that young Caligula couldn’t budget and saw how popular he got by just using that money, only to be dismayed at how quickly it went away. What I find really interesting is the murder of political opponents and how it affects legacy. From where I sit, pretty much every single emperor killed senators, perhaps excluding only Caesar himself, but only a few got saddled with the blood thirsty tyrant image. Claudius killed quite a few senators, some without good justification, yet his reputation is largely “good emperor, misunderstood”, while Tiberius gets off the hook largely because his successor was so much worse. It’s all pretty fascinating to me.
- adolph 8y ago
  Caligula also built the Nemi ships, an interesting topic in their own right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships