Caligula, Historians and Truth

When I got this Hourly History e-book on two Roman emperors, Marcus Aurelius and Caligula, I expected the part on the former to be interesting. Boy, was I wrong.

Caligula was the third Roman emperor. In the first 6 months, here’s what he did:

“Caligula restored voting rights, distributed bread and gifts, and hosted games and theatricals for the people’s entertainment…. (He) built two aquaducts… He restored vassal kings to their thrones… He annulled unpopular taxes and gave magistrates the right to make decisions without consulting him.”

In short, “Caligula was the very image of a good and benevolent ruler”.

Then in 37 A.D., he fell very ill, including a swelling of the brain and/or epilepsy. When he finally emerged, he was a “very changed man”. He was convinced he had been poisoned, and ordered his co-regent to be murdered without trial. He began to have incestuous relationships with two of his sisters. He declared himself to be not just the “Greatest and Best Caesar”, but a god.

He depleted the coffers with extravagant spending. He started imposing levies on pretty much anything and everything. He came up with increasingly “crueler and more creative humiliations” for the Senators. When meat became scarce during gladiatorial games, he had criminals thrown to the animals, no matter how minor their offense. He was particularly cruel towards Senators. Death and execution was soon commonplace and the reasons became more and more whimsical.

No wonder then that he was the target of multiple conspiracies and assassination attempts. This made him more and more paranoid. Rightly or wrongly, he used them as excuses to purge out many Senators. By now, he had destroyed more than half of the 600 Senators, one way or the other. Eventually:

“He planned to dissolve the Senate and declare himself king in the autocratic style of the east.”

This was too much for the Senate. And they had Caligula assassinated. Surprisingly:

“The people of Rome, who had not suffered as much as the nobles under Caligula’s rule and still supported him… demanded the death of the conspirators.”

Story over? Not quite. The book then questions if historians were being honest about Caligula! Or was all this “a smear campaign that has lasted for centuries”? Did Caligula despise the Senators because they just flattered him to suit their needs? Did he believe he was being lied to all the time? He had experienced the “scheming and back-stabbing of the aristocracy” first-hand before he became emperor: it had resulted in the deaths of his parents and brothers. They had tried to use him as a pawn against the then emperor as well.

As an emperor, he sought exorbitant amounts to “bleed the noble houses dry, to force them to ruin themselves in pursuit of favour he was disinclined to ever give”. Was there a method behind every “mad act”?

But if all this is true, why did historians write the way they did? Was it because “a writer in Rome needed to stay on the good side of the Senate”? Did they have to play ball to a Senate which “wanted to present an image of serenity and wisdom”? Was it “politically expedient” to brand the emperor who truly exercised imperial power as being insane?

All of which is why the book ends with some eternal truths:

“Most writers have a bias in their work… Bias can lead to fabrication and the death of truth… In highly politicized and fractious times, ignorance of bias can be deadly. Beliefs in falsehoods can easily turn into unjustified actions, which can in turn lead to devastating repercussions."