The inevitable failure of caligula and the real failure of his reign
Caligula is not deserving of the idea that Rome was destroyed under his rule. Rather, the real failure of Caligula is the consequence of allowing complete power to an inept ruler. Caligula’s imperial autocracy presented a threat to the cohesiveness of Roman society, especially the senate's inability to control Caligula's impulsive whims.
Throughout his reign, Caligula undermined the influence of the Roman senate and from this, a political agenda referred to as 'Caligulan Politics' was established. (Key. n.d. online). This involved Julius Caesar-like transformations of the imperial position, establishing a system with no check on his power. Key attests to Caligula's initial shrewdness, and argues against his supposed ineptness, stating "The legacy of Caligula is unfairly written, not to the concept of his madness, but to the lack of applause for his political prowess. Aside from his framework to achieve Caesarian autocracy, Caligula used his family's lineage, the faults of Tiberius, the rise of the Praetorian Guard, and general deception of the people to ascend the throne with all hopes of being the next Julius Caesar." (Key. n.d. online). Caligula's undermining of the senate was the real cause of his 'failure' and subsequent death, as he was seen as too great a risk to the senate. This is corroborated by Kean, who states,“his autocratic will was the Roman law and the more ludicrous of his actions- even if exaggerated by later historians- were little more than the petulant whims of a callow youth demonstrating that he could do whatever he liked…What the reign makes most clear is the degree to which the senate had come to depend on the emperor and the levels of tyranny that was inherent in the Augustan model of the principate” (Kean. 2009. 28). Caligula’s death was therefore inevitable, because he continued to act with complete discretion to control the Romans and to disregard the senate in a fashion they deemed as ‘insane’. Secondary source to the events, Dio Cassius offers an overly harsh recount of this decline in the emperors inclinations, stating “In fact there was nothing but slaughter; for the emperor no longer showed any favours even to the populace, but opposed absolutely everything they wished” (Dio Cassius cited in Ferrill. 1991. 114). This situation could not occur indefinitely, and senatorial plots emerged to dispose of the emperor within the last year of his reign. Though Cassius Chaerea was the one that was deemed responsible for the murder of the emperor (for his own personal hatreds) , there was also senatorial involvement. Barrett affirms this, stating " doubtless behind the military figures there lurked idealistic or ambitious senators" (Barrett. 1989. 161). This theory is supported by the fact that upon Caligula's death there were senatorial attempts to reinstate the republic (though unsuccessful as Claudius was swiftly appointed). It is apparent that the underlying failure of Caligula can be found within the underlying failures of the Roman imperial system and the corrupt nature of the senate.