Critical analysis of our sources is important, but some of y‘all have lost your minds
Posted Aug 11, 2022, 9:07 AM UTC
75343
Caligula was basically a bad politician and mismanaged the bureaucracy horrifically. He had a terrible relationship with the senate. But all the primary source accounts of his “insanity” were published either by political enemies or after his rule. Everything that gets memed on this sub (declaring war on the ocean, horse as a senator, etc) is considered by historians either to be extremely dubious at best or outright fabrication at worst.
79
I always saw that as Caligula intentionally fucking with the Senate. Doesn't he say something along the lines of "all the senators are shit, my horse could do a better job." He just really wanted his triumph but didn't trust his men to win a battle hence the war on Neptune
3
He had to be at least bad in order to have such outlandish stuff written about him.
1
I don't think anyone here with a sane mind thinks caligula was a good emperor, it's all just jokes for shits and giggles
59
I get that most people are joking, but some people take shit like this seriously. I‘ve seen people here unironically call tiberus the second best emperor ever.
If this shit goes ob this sub will declare that caracalla was a saintly humanitarian who raised orphaned birds in his spare time.
41
I believe that Tiberius was overall more of a positive than a negative but you will never catch me even pretend that he's top ten roman emperors he's good at best and that's it. He's not even the second best of the Julio-Claudians, and I place all of the flavians above him.
21
I would put him in the top 20 tbh.
8
I'd place him 16 or 17.
8
All of the flavians? I’m out of the loop on Domitian, what was he like (at least compared to Vespasian)?
3
Imo Domitian is overall worse than Vespasian but better than Titus. Despite certainly being a good emperor he's a bit controversial. He had one of the better administration of the principate and did away with nepotism in favor of a more meritocratic system. Yet he was desperate to legitimize himself through military victory and his handling of the negotiations post Dacian war was poor to say the least. He was an autocrat, not as much of a micromanager as Hadrian but certainly an autocrat. Plus he deliberately antagonized the Senate and undermined it. Granted he simply said out loud the situation as it was, the Senate was a club for old men and the true power resides with the emperor, but he basically used every chance he got to kick the Senate in the knee, which unsurprisingly led to his assassination and later demonization by the Senate. Still he focused on the defenses of the empire notably with the Limes Germanicus patronized the arts and building projects and his economical policies reinforced the empire. He was paranoid and very much insecure having been the neglected son of Vespasian while Titus was the golden son. Still he was undeniably a competent and pragmatic emperor in spite of his personal faults. He can be low top 10 if you wanna push it but more so top 15 imo.
3
You think Tiberius was great because he was fiscally responsible
I think Tiberius was great because I'm on the sex offender registry
We are not the same
7
“If this shit goes on this sub will declare that Caracalla was a saintly humanitarian” Don’t think we’re far from that, seen a person on the sub claim everything bad Commodus did was Senatorial slander and he was actually a good emperor once lol
2
I'm not joking. I just really, really, really hate the ocean.
22
Senatorial shill spotted
17
Eh, to be fair, there's a lot of historical evidence that Caligula was demonised by Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio etc. It's a pretty common opinion among historians focussing on the Principate that the memoirists were terrible and that people should critically analyse these source, especially when it comes to Caligula...
Essentially, the blind hatred of Caligula and the instant dismissal and parroting of the 'horse/senator's, 'shells', whatever, is really simplistic and ill informed
35
slandering of The God Emperor must not go unpunished!
22
Caivs Ivlivs Ceasar Germanicvs Divivs
6
I would make an ironic reply to this but just to be clear. I'm pretty sure the majority of people here do those memes for shits and giggles. I've seen a few unironically defend Caligula, the majority was on Quora funnily enough, the majority of it boiling down to he simply had a very dark sense of humor and loved to poke fun at the Senate. I personally believe that he had that dark humor and was actually insane. And even outside of waging war against Neptune and other such actions, guy was an administrative and political disaster, period, he wasted the treasury in spite of the surplus left by Tiberius and let's not even talk about what he did in Africa. This guy is so damn ridiculously awful that it's just fun to find ways to make it look like he was a misunderstood good emperor. Seriously "fans" of Caligula, Nero, Elagabalus and other emperors with awful and deserved reputation will make some of the funniest memes ironically saying they were good and I'm all for it.
15
Unironically I don't think Caligula was great or anything, but he is miles better than the other terrible ones mentioned here.
1
I mean to be fair, our literary sources are basically worthless for anything beyond events and dates. The Romans were some of the least objective authors in history, and Seutonius and Tacitus are both about as reliable as an episode of Dora: Yes it's useful if you don't know anything about how stuff works, but beyond that you need real information, in this case archeology.
Not to mention the Historia Augusta.......about on par with the Historia Regnum Britanniae in its self justification and insane inability to provide meaningful information.
10
You don't know what you're talking about if you're casually putting Tacitus and Suetonius on the same reliability level.
9
Tbf a small bit of shit in my sandwich makes me just avoid the sandwich. A big shit in my sandwich also makes me avoid the sandwich. Same with historical authors.
0†
That's a truly terrible analogy.
The idea that ancient scholars can't be utilized or trusted (through certain lenses, of course), since all of them had biases and subjectivities, is utter nonsense. As is the idea that works like Thucydides or Tacitus are effectively no different than the Aeneid, or that ancient historians are of equal reliability to one another because they can't compare to David McCullough.
I'm frankly kinda shocked that this needs to be said here.
6
They're both entirely unreliable outside of dates. Tacitus just wasn't as blatantly propagandous as Seutonius, but both were equally inaccurate if you wish to actually understand Imperial politics and policy.
Cassius Dio was superior to both, yet still shit relatively.
0
This is a very superficial assessment of the ancient historians. Obviously no ancient historian is objective by modern standards, but Suetonius' De vita is essentially full of anecdotes, prophecies, and even possibly borrowed works from other authors (the end of his Nero is entirely unlike the rest of his work) whereas Tacitus was likely drawing from the acta senatus. For example, Tacitus' coverage of the trial of Piso (who allegedly murdered Germanicus) is largely borne out by inscriptions describing the trial which were discovered and published in the 1990's. He undoubtedly adds his own narrative to these events, but he's faithfully recording a lot more than just dates.
Every ancient historian needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Tacitus has a biased, senatorial, pro-Flavian POV. But to say "Tacitus and Suetonius are both unreliable except for dates" is to be incredibly reductive.
4
We're on a Reddit meme sub, being reductive is 100% the point. I mean obviously if we go on an expanded perspective Tacitus is superior to most. But as you pointed out, it was archeology that actually taught us in Tacitus case, not him, as with unreliable narrator's having no information can be better than misleading. If every claim you make must be archeologically confirmed, you are not a decent historical narrator.
It's almost as if historiography as a whole was almost useless before the Enlightenment.
-1
I’m with you. This sub feels like ESPN sometimes with all the bullshit hot takes
7
Ok but Domitian probably was an efficient leader
6
Almosr everyone who started clamping down on senatorial corruption has a horrific reputation.
3
The clown is sitting on a $1.2k chair...
4
So even more of a clown, who the hell pays that much for a chair.
1
Actually not as crazy as you would think. That is a Herman Miller Aeron. It is one of the most famous and popular chairs in the world for a reason. One they last decades if you treat then well and the company has like a 10-12 year warranty. They force you into a good posture that takes a little getting used to but it's honestly life changing. After sitting in one of those for 8 hours or more you don't feel sore like normal office chairs. I have had one for a couple of years and it has honestly been amazing.
They aren't the only ones that make chairs like that but they are all on the pricy side.
4
This goofy mf really believes senatorial lies lmao
4
Guys ignore that, the title is just senatorial slander
3
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nooooo Caligula was a great emperor!
1
THANK YOU!!!! SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT!!!!
1
Oh yeah, ok, let's just let neptune win. Are you fucking happy now? I bet you'd sell us all out for a handful of shells and an octopus hand job. Traitor to the dry land.
Every time I‘m at the Ocean I stab wildly at it with a kitchen knife. Neptune shall never win!
Phew. For a minute there i thought you were some sort of wet loving sea freak.