The inexperience of caligula
It is undeniable when considering the reign of Caligula, to come to the conclusion that, to some extent, he was an incompetent ruler. When accounting for this however, it is necessary to consider the impact of the lack of personal experience upon his appointment as emperor, and his political inexperience during his reign. Both of these aspects are contributing factors into the ultimate failure seen within his leadership.
Personal Inexperience
One of the factors that contributed to Caligula’s failure as an emperor was that upon his appointment as emperor he lacked the personal experience to be suitable for the role. When Tiberius died in 37AD, his will was quickly disregarded and Caligula (through the assistance of Macro) was pronounced sole emperor. His Julian lineage and the reputation of his father, Germanicus, made him popular amongst the Roman public. This was an unprecedented event, as David Potter explains “Whereas Tiberius had simply inherited the role of princeps from Augustus, to formalise this new accession the senate and the people now took it upon themselves to define the legal position of the emperor by passing a bill to confer that position on Caligula” (Potter. 2013. 68). He then goes on to state “However, it soon became apparent that Rome’s euphoric celebration of her new emperor was badly misplaced. Caligula had never had to demonstrate Virtus in a collective environment.” (Potter. 2013. 68). This is corroborated by Barrett, who argues that Caligula's lack of success in his reign was due to his quick and irrational ascendancy, stating “To make an inexperienced and almost unknown man, brought up under a series of aged and repressive guardians, master of the world, almost literally over night, on the sole recommendation that his father was a thoroughly decent fellow, was to court disaster in quite an irresponsible manner” (Barrett. 1989. 19). Simultaneously, Caligula’s lack of political experience exacerbated his inability to rule successfully.
One of the factors that contributed to Caligula’s failure as an emperor was that upon his appointment as emperor he lacked the personal experience to be suitable for the role. When Tiberius died in 37AD, his will was quickly disregarded and Caligula (through the assistance of Macro) was pronounced sole emperor. His Julian lineage and the reputation of his father, Germanicus, made him popular amongst the Roman public. This was an unprecedented event, as David Potter explains “Whereas Tiberius had simply inherited the role of princeps from Augustus, to formalise this new accession the senate and the people now took it upon themselves to define the legal position of the emperor by passing a bill to confer that position on Caligula” (Potter. 2013. 68). He then goes on to state “However, it soon became apparent that Rome’s euphoric celebration of her new emperor was badly misplaced. Caligula had never had to demonstrate Virtus in a collective environment.” (Potter. 2013. 68). This is corroborated by Barrett, who argues that Caligula's lack of success in his reign was due to his quick and irrational ascendancy, stating “To make an inexperienced and almost unknown man, brought up under a series of aged and repressive guardians, master of the world, almost literally over night, on the sole recommendation that his father was a thoroughly decent fellow, was to court disaster in quite an irresponsible manner” (Barrett. 1989. 19). Simultaneously, Caligula’s lack of political experience exacerbated his inability to rule successfully.
Political Inexperience
At the time of Tiberius’s death, Caligula had little political experience, and this is partially responsible for the inept nature of his rule. Prior to his emperorship, the only political role Caligula had been appointed to was quaestorship in 33AD. Professor or Roman history David Potter attests to his lack of skill, stating “Caligula lacked experience of collective decision making and was wholly unsuited to wielding absolute power” (Potter. 2013. 69). Prior to Capri, the only political influences he had been exposed to were from his grandmother Antonia, who encouraged Caligula to be cunning and intelligent and from Tiberius. Tacitus proclaims that Caligula learnt the art of deception from Tiberius, stating he “refused nothing in the hope of attaining power and aped his mood and words, concealing his monstrous character beneath a spurious modesty” (Tacitus cited by Barrett. 1989. 30). Caligula differed from Tiberius considerably, and the new emperor was initially openly critical of his predecessor. Caligula’s hatred for Delatores (denouncers in court), and extravagant spending marked the initial part of his rule. He returned those banished by Tiberius, and supposedly burnt the records of informers relating to the trials of Agrippina and Nero. With the promise of cooperation and respect towards the senate came their approval.
Within a few months of his reign, Caligula's lack of experience was revealed. This was further exacerbated by the onset of his illness and the dismissal of Macro. Inconsistencies occurred in every aspect of his reign. He reinstated delatores, treason trials, and taxes (which were now collected by the Praetorian guard). In 39AD he revealed that he had not actually burnt the records of informers, and proceeded to accuse the senate as the guilty party in the events with Tiberius and his family. Caligula stated “If Tiberius really did do wrong, you ought not, by Jupiter, to have honoured him while he lived, and then, after repeatedly saying and voting what you did, turn around now.” (Caligula cited by Ferrill. 1991. 113). In his dealings with the senate, Caligula has been perceived as 'insane' over his attempts to make his horse Incitatus consul. Kean presents a revisionist theory, that Caligula attempted to provoke the imperiousness senate, stating it “smacks more of an adolescent prank aimed to prick senatorial pomposity than a really determined intention” (Kean. 2009. 28). This inexperience was also attributed to the fact that, on Capri, Caligula had been greatly exposed to Eastern client-kings, whose perspectives towards governing were vastly different to the ideals of the Romans. Caligula’s reign is characterised by supposed vast amounts of spending, a notorious lack of restraint and an obsession with his perception of himself as a god. (Mackay. 2004). These ideals, especially the last, are associated with rulers of the hellenistic East but denounced by the Romans. Seneca comments on an instance in which Caligula offers to duel Jupiter, stating “What madness! I think this was instrumental in inciting conspirators against him” (Seneca cited in Ferrill. 1991. 135) , and this statement is corroborated by Ferrill when he states “Senatorial sycophants had little alternative but to humour their insane emperor, but the wealth of information about his pretended relations with the gods show how shocked his contemporaries were.” (Ferrill. 1991. 135). The failure of Caligula’s rule can be partly attributed to his lack of political acumen.
At the time of Tiberius’s death, Caligula had little political experience, and this is partially responsible for the inept nature of his rule. Prior to his emperorship, the only political role Caligula had been appointed to was quaestorship in 33AD. Professor or Roman history David Potter attests to his lack of skill, stating “Caligula lacked experience of collective decision making and was wholly unsuited to wielding absolute power” (Potter. 2013. 69). Prior to Capri, the only political influences he had been exposed to were from his grandmother Antonia, who encouraged Caligula to be cunning and intelligent and from Tiberius. Tacitus proclaims that Caligula learnt the art of deception from Tiberius, stating he “refused nothing in the hope of attaining power and aped his mood and words, concealing his monstrous character beneath a spurious modesty” (Tacitus cited by Barrett. 1989. 30). Caligula differed from Tiberius considerably, and the new emperor was initially openly critical of his predecessor. Caligula’s hatred for Delatores (denouncers in court), and extravagant spending marked the initial part of his rule. He returned those banished by Tiberius, and supposedly burnt the records of informers relating to the trials of Agrippina and Nero. With the promise of cooperation and respect towards the senate came their approval.
Within a few months of his reign, Caligula's lack of experience was revealed. This was further exacerbated by the onset of his illness and the dismissal of Macro. Inconsistencies occurred in every aspect of his reign. He reinstated delatores, treason trials, and taxes (which were now collected by the Praetorian guard). In 39AD he revealed that he had not actually burnt the records of informers, and proceeded to accuse the senate as the guilty party in the events with Tiberius and his family. Caligula stated “If Tiberius really did do wrong, you ought not, by Jupiter, to have honoured him while he lived, and then, after repeatedly saying and voting what you did, turn around now.” (Caligula cited by Ferrill. 1991. 113). In his dealings with the senate, Caligula has been perceived as 'insane' over his attempts to make his horse Incitatus consul. Kean presents a revisionist theory, that Caligula attempted to provoke the imperiousness senate, stating it “smacks more of an adolescent prank aimed to prick senatorial pomposity than a really determined intention” (Kean. 2009. 28). This inexperience was also attributed to the fact that, on Capri, Caligula had been greatly exposed to Eastern client-kings, whose perspectives towards governing were vastly different to the ideals of the Romans. Caligula’s reign is characterised by supposed vast amounts of spending, a notorious lack of restraint and an obsession with his perception of himself as a god. (Mackay. 2004). These ideals, especially the last, are associated with rulers of the hellenistic East but denounced by the Romans. Seneca comments on an instance in which Caligula offers to duel Jupiter, stating “What madness! I think this was instrumental in inciting conspirators against him” (Seneca cited in Ferrill. 1991. 135) , and this statement is corroborated by Ferrill when he states “Senatorial sycophants had little alternative but to humour their insane emperor, but the wealth of information about his pretended relations with the gods show how shocked his contemporaries were.” (Ferrill. 1991. 135). The failure of Caligula’s rule can be partly attributed to his lack of political acumen.