Talk:Caligula/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Caligula's Death

Caligula's death was said to be political by Josephus. Chaerea is called pro-Republic several times. Why would anyone erase this very relevant and cited information and leave only the ridiculous story about Caligula's death being about a personal insult?

Josephus' passage makes no sense if you actually read it. Josephus himself aknowledges the personal vendetta aspect of the assasination, but then attempts to attach some kind of pro-Republican sentiment to the action. Chaerea had served the Julio-Claudians going back to Augustus; he wouldn't have even known what the "Republic" was, and if he had he certainly wouldn't have been a major supporter of the family that killed the Republic. Both passages however aknowledge the personal insult as a major factor.

Logically, it pretty hard to accept that someone would organize a massive conspiracy to kill the emperor based on a personal insult. Chaerea is described as a "lover of liberty." Roman "liberty" is usually associated with Republican rule in ancient texts. Restoring the Republic is a common theme of the Julio-Claudians. There were several attempts at Claudius' life and the Pisonian conspiracy under Nero was said to be influenced by pro-Republican sentiment. I don't think people so easily forget the Republican tradition of Rome. When Nero took power, he promised Republican power to the Senate at first. After securing his seat and removing many rivals, he promptly took it away again. Hoshidoshi

I think you've missed the point that Chaerea had served the Julians his entire life, from the time of Augustus until Caligula; he was a retainer his entire life to those responsible for the death of the Republic. Chaerea is described by Josephus alone of having a political reason behind his attack, and even Josephus admits that he was indeed inspired by Caligula's insults to him personally. Likewise, I don't think you fully understand the Roman concept of "dignitas" especially as it related to the relationship between a client and his patron. Likewise, your characterization of Nero, the attempts on Claudius, etc., are grossly over-simplified, and seem to be drawn from Tacitus' interpretations of those events. You need to take a look at Tacitus sometimes and how slanted and biased his work truly is, as well as take a look at what the "Republic" means to a later author like Tacitus, and what exactly "libertas" meant to the Romans. However, as noted, Josephus does mention that Chaerea was some kind of "Republican" sympathyzer, and it is inappropriate to put in this article a discussion either of Josephus or of Chaerea's politics, therefore it does bear mentioning in the article, despite it being highly suspect. 164.67.226.47 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is only 1 major primary source on Caligula (Philo) and 2 major secondary sources (Suetonius and Josephus), claiming that Josephus stands alone is a fairly weak argument (after all, Suetonius also stands alone since Philo doesn't discuss the death). We know that Josephus and Suetonius both used Cluvius Rufus as a primary source on Caligula. Cluvius Rufus was a senator at the time and knew what was going on. He is also less sensationalist than, say, Fabius Rusticus or Pliny the Elder. On the other hand, he was pro-Republic. Both Josephus and Suetonius claim a gang of people killed Caligula. Josephus and Cassius Dio claim it was a large conspiracy. Cassius Dio claims it was for the common good and Josephus claims it was a pro-Republican plot. Now even if we accept that the situation was colored a bit to be pro-Republican, it was clearly a political plot. Getting a gang of people to kill the emperor over a personal insult is simply not credible (like most of Suetonius' writing). BTW, why are bringing up Nero, Claudius and Tacitus? We're talking about Caligula.Hoshidoshi 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Filled With Irrelevance, Poor citation

This aricle is nothing more than a back and forth on the largely irrelevant issue of whether Caligula was insane. Any changes to include information on what he did as a emperor were quickly deleted and accused of being too nice. This article is useless. Even biased sources like Suetonius include Caligula's good deeds before trashing him.

Overview Section

The article is so filled with conjecture about whether or not Caligula was insane that it is very difficult to get facts on Caligula's impact on the world. The overview section is an attempt to give a brief, balanced, factual overview of Calgiula's impact and contributions to the empire and the world. It lists both postiive and negative; I've tried to be balanced. Feel free to add significant factual events, but keep it brief. (Incest, insanity and individual executions are not significent. They affect very few people. Wars and public policy affect huge numbers of people.) kinda reminds one of the current president

How about "George W. Bush propped himself up through false accusations, property seizures, and unheard-of taxes; and even more than his predecessor Tiberius, extinguished freedom of expression through a network of secret informants, who were rewarded for helping prosecute any who spoke ill of his government, directly or even suggestively. He killed many of his own subjects for no reason at all and particularly liberals and minorities out of paranoia, even put a statue of himself in all synagogues while his own residence was a brothel." ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there were no major wars during his three years and ten months as Emperor, is probably the only good thing that may be said about him. "According to the Jewish historian Josephus, "many tens of thousands of Jews" including women and children, went to Petronius and told him they were ready to die rather than submit to Caligula's statues profaning Jerusalem's temple. They were unarmed and announced that they would not fight, and they lay on the ground baring their throats for cutting. Jews left their fields, ready for harvest, unattended. The crops of the Jews were important to Rome, as Rome drew a portion of the crops in taxes. Petronius returned to Antioch and wrote to Caligula, explaining his delay in carrying out Caligula's orders. Caligula ordered Petronius to commit suicide for disobeying an imperial command, but events were in motion that would save Petronius." -- found just now on http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch20.htm ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Than add that briefly. Don't delete work that aids in education. Not to be a too much of a devil's advocate, but complaints about taxes and seizures usually come from the elite. Caligula, a man of people? Perhaps. Executions and informants? Sure, but is that Caligula specific? All emperors were pretty bad. Persecuting the Jews? I believe I included in my overview that as a major failure. Even all the negativity, it is undeniable than Caligula was beloved by the people and ruled over an incredibly prosperous and peaceful time. Philo even specifically mentions this peace and prosperity.

How is it "undeniable that Caligula was beloved by the people" when every primary source I have ever seen denies it??? He was probably only beloved by the people in his brothel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to read your sources again and read between the lines. Only Cassius Dio (the latest and least reliable source) claims the public hated him. Its clear that parts of the military hated him, the senate hated him, the Jewish nation hated him, but not the public. First, its safe to say he was popular simply because he was emperor and considered divine by much of the public. Second, he was able to remain emperor for 4 years- he couldn't have been hated that much if people did follow him. Source wise- Philo, On embassy to Gaius, mentions that the people loved him several times (i.e. in III, IV, XII). Suetonius mentions he was popular (at least at first) with the public in 13, 14 and 15. 60 mentions that there were rumours existed that Caligula was still alive. Suetonius claims its was from paranoid fear, buy "still alive" rumours followed many popular emperors. Josephus goes on in detail about various groups mourning him including slaves and some parts of the military. He too mentions a refusal to believe the death, but mentions both love and fear for the refusal. (unsigned)

Don't tell me I "need to read between the lines" - sounds suspiciously like another name for "Original Research"! Directly contradicting you, it is certainly easy to deny that the public loved him. If they worshipped him, it was only under penalty of death, as the above-quoted episode with the Jews clearly illustrates. And for the sake of accuracy, he was emperor for only three years and ten months, as I have already stated above, during which time if there were no wars or campaigns it is because he spent most of his time either in his brothel-cum-residence with prostitutes, or else killing those who got too near to him, like an angry whirlpool. Let's paint an accurate picture, anyone who adored him and what he stood for was likely as sick as he is.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The public didn't kill him. Where's your proof of him being hated? Where's your citations? Like I said earlier, this article is more biased that Suetonius who at least listed his good deeds along side his bad. This article is a travesty and a disservice to readers. Josephus said that he was mourned. Why? The article doesn't tell say. Think about it. If the article were on Bush, whether you like him or hate him, would you write about cocaine and booze and his wife killing someone and stories about him and Condi from the tabloids? If the article were on Kennedy, would it be on his affairs? No, you'd talk about policy and global impact. Caligula's alledged indulgences, even if true, are irrelevant. What was his policy and how did affect the world? (unsigned)

Well according to the primary sources, his policy was to spend most of his time in his brothel, demand that everyone worship him, and kill everyone who didn't. If you can find any mention of an actual policy, feel free to add it with cite. Otherwise it sounds like original research or dare I say revisionism, to write a glowing praise of him and say he was greatly beloved without providing a good cite to indicate this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

what's a...

What's an adopted grandson? Maybe adoptive? Or maybe his adopted son's son?--ChadThomson 07:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No the term is correct. He was an adopted grandson. pookster11 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought the movie was in the late 60s and ruined Roddy McDowells career? What am I missing here?

nope. Entry is right. Malcolm, as in Clockwork Orange, not Roddy-the-childstar.

even worse -- about three- five years before I started Grad school, my future adviser was asked to testify as an expert witness as to the historical value! JHK

caligula was a giant hobo . The movie was shown in the theatre in the college town. Many of my friends walked out of the theatre in the middle of it because it was gross. I sat through it just to see why it was so controversal. I heard it cost $15M to make, which was big budget for the time.

Thanks.

This is confusing. The 1979 (per IMDB - not 1980) movie "Caligula" starring Malcolm MacDowell was not based on the Camus play but on the Gore Vidal novel. Camus's play was the basis for the 1996 Hungarian movie, and the 2001 made for TV version. Eclecticology

What was the outcome of the court case mentioned above? Who sued whom? AxelBoldt

Comment about "the hard-core XXX rating" removed, as there is no such movie rating in the MPAA system.

I'm detecting a very non-encylopedic, almost conversational tone to much of this article. Could use a good copyedit, but I'm a bit too busy today to tackle it personally... Radagast 16:20, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Removed entry stating confusion around next emperor was due to Caligula being first assasinated emperor. Julius Caesar would have to be the first if I am not crazy.

But wasn't Julius Caesar dictator for life, and not emperor?--Lucky13pjn 02:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. Augustus was the first Emperor. -- Bean 14:46, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Caesar or Augustus?

It depends on your perspective. From *our* perspective Augustus was the first emperor buuuuuuuuut from the perspective of people of that time (Suetonius, St. John [Revelation 17:10]) the first emperor was Julius Caesar.

Not at all. Technically, the term for the chief executive at the time is "Princeps", not "Emperor". In fact, Nero was never given the title of "Emperor" (or the Latin "Imperator") but later in his reign simply decided to use it. Thus, the Principate, the individuals we refer to as Emperors, begins with Octavian Augustus. Julius Caesar was Consul then Dictator for Life, he was never Princeps. pookster11 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Then came Nero. Nero killed himself at age 30 after a civil war broke out.

Redundancy?

Is there a reason this page should have two sections called "Caligula's Madness" and "Caligula's Insanity?" I thought I should ask before I made a structural edit. | Keithlaw 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. There's definitely redundancy. I think his horse/consul thing is possibly mentioned THREE times. The incest and the seashells are both mentioned at least twice. So, please, please go for it. --bodnotbod 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

- So three months later it finally gets dealt with. Rearranged the article and added some last night after realizing how light the article actually was. Let me know if there are any comments or concerns. pookster11 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Real name

As he hated "Caligula", what would his real emperor name be? Gaius? Did they use praenomens as emperor names? Would it not be Germanicus?--Codenamecuckoo 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius and other historians refer to him as Gaius. pookster11 10:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Assasination

Suetonius's account of his assasination has it taking place in the morning before lunch. Cassius Dio's account has Caligula leaving a theater to meet some "boys of exaulted birth". What is the source of the account in this article which has him murdered when out on a midnight walk?

Suetonius has the murder take place at the 7th hour just before dinner, with Caligula speaking to some young performers and then accosted and attacked by Cherea. Josephus places the murder at the 9th hour, within similiar circumstances (Gaius rising to approach some young performers, accosted by the guard and then struck by Cherea and hacked apart by the others). My copy of Dio is lost somewhere in my current pile of research, but I believe its similiar. Obviously the midnight walk part is incorrect though. pookster11 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Let them fear me..."

This line quoted by Suetonius - the Tiberius quote is "Let them hate me, provided they respect my conduct." and I couldn't find a reference in the Suetonius text for Nero, as quoted here. Is this all related back to the Accius quote? Citizen D 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Caligula and pederasty

I have nothing against pederasty, especially in long dead people, but have (twice now) removed the categorization "Pederastic lovers" from this article. The first time, I asked for a source, since this is not something I'm familiar with, and I'm usually OK on Roman history. In being reverted this first time, I was assured that Caligula was Tiberius' boy at Capri and that this was a matter easily researched. The mere assertion, however, is no citation. In the principal source of this type of titillation regarding Tiberius and Caligula, Sutonius, I still find nothing. Caligula came to Capri to see Tiberius on the day he shaved off his beard (Vit. Cal. §10) — which doesn't sound much like pederasty, and Suetonius doesn't breathe a peep about any such thing. You're going to have to do better than that.... Bill 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"old man's petticoat"?

Where in the world is this refrence from? Suetonius, if I remember correctly, doesn't record the watchword but at leasts suggests it was something along the same lines as Venus or priapus, and Josephus records the watchword as "Jupiter". What is the citation for this? pookster11 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now saw this; I made the addition. It's from the Caligula section in the book THE WORLD'S MOST INFAMOUS CRIMES AND CRIMINALS. Thanos6 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm going to take direct quotations from Josephus or Suetonius ahead of THE WORLD'S MOST INFAMOUS CRIMES AND CRIMINALS. john k 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

shrugs* Sure, go ahead. I haven't read any of the direct sources, so I was just writing down what the source I had told me. If your sources are superior, by all means use them. :) Thanos6 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that we even know about Caligula from really 4 ancient sources, and only two of them talk about his assasination to any degree, it'd be interesting to find out where CRIMES AND CRIMINALS even got its information. pookster11 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. It's a British book from the late 80's, and the only sources it credits are for its photos. Thanos6 04:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am interested, I mean more than rhetorically. The odds are (in view of the track record that popular works have in garbling, misquoting, or misinterpreting sources) that they got something wrong, but maybe, just maybe, if we could find the source of the petticoat business, it might be of interest. And even if it's a garble of some kind, it's always of some interest to see how the garble occurred. Bill 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If it helps any, the ISBN is 9997312511. Thanos6 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

factual discrepancies

I find there are many factual discrepancies throughout this article. I'll do my best to clean it up using the secondary sources I have (Gibbon, Grant, Salmon and so on) afterwards. For instance, Agrippina did not starve herself to death, rather according to Grant, was starved by a decree of Tiberius.

Nudas veritas 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Have fun; but be careful with Grant. A few years ago a lot of people on the Classics-L — this was back when the Net was still by and large a scholarly place — were finding him very unreliable. Bill 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perseus Project says she probably starved herself to death. I don't think there's any full consensus on the issue. john k 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, under Successors, it says Geroge W. Bush. This obviously isn't true, but I currently don't have the privilages to change it. Superdude0721 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

This artile has elements of plagiarism, including full sentences from the website http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm. Here are some examples, with the plagerized sections in bold

The conclusion of roman-emperors.org states: "Whatever damage Tiberius's later years had done to the carefully crafted political edifice created by Augustus, Gaius multiplied it a hundredfold. When he came to power in A.D. 37 Gaius had no administrative experience beyond his honorary quaestorship, and had spent an unhappy early life far from the public eye. He appears, once in power, to have realized the boundless scope of his authority and acted accordingly. For the elite, this situation proved intolerable and ensured the blackening of Caligula's name in the historical record they would dictate. The sensational and hostile nature of that record, however, should in no way trivialize Gaius's importance. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in the Augustan Principate, now openly revealed for what it was -- a raw monarchy in which only the self-discipline of the incumbent acted as a restraint on his behavior. That the only means of retiring the wayward princeps was murder marked another important revelation: Roman emperors could not relinquish their powers without simultaneously relinquishing their lives"

The legacy section of wikipedia states: "Regardless of whether Caligula is viewed as an insane monarch or simply a misguided politician, the conclusion remains the same. Whatever damage Tiberius’s later years had done to the carefully crafted political edifice created by Augustus, Caligula multiplied it a hundred-fold. When he came to power in 37, Caligula had no administrative experience beyond his honorary quaestorship, and had spent an unhappy early life far from the public eye. He appears, once in power, to have realized the boundless scope of his authority and acted accordingly. For the elite, this situation proved intolerable and ensured the blackening of Caligula's name in the historical record they would dictate. The sensational and hostile nature of that record, however, should in no way trivialize Caligula's importance. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in Augustus’s Principate, now openly revealed for what it was — a raw monarchy in which only the self-discipline of the incumbent acted as a restraint on his behavior rather than the "first among equals" Augustus had intended. That the only means of retiring the wayward Princeps was murder marked another important revelation: Roman emperors could not relinquish their powers without simultaneously relinquishing their lives. Caligula would be the first of many emperors to be killed in the years to come."

As such this page should be removed until the plageriasm is ended

Hmm. It's worth noting the possibility that this other site may have copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. However, I suggest that you dig into the revision history of this article and try to ascertain when the disputed text was inserted. It would be more responsible to have specific evidence (diffs) in hand, rather than to make blanket accusations and petulant demands. --FOo 07:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Good show us. The apparent plagiarism seems to have appeared between 9 October 2005 and 22 February 2006. I don't have time to figure out exactly where at the moment, but perhaps someone else can do this. A look on the wayback machine shows that that page already existed in its current form in 2000[1]. john k 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, the offending edit seems to be this one, from 29 July of last year. I'm going to revert to the previous version, from 25 July 2005, as this is pretty blatantly a copyvio. john k 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of removing the material by hand when you reverted. I think that's probably the best way to go, though, because of the severity. I found bits and pieces throughout the article. It looks like the IP that added the material is stable. Future contributions should be watched carefully and his past edits should be checked for additional copyright violations. I have seen a lot of similar cases of long undetected copyright violations on high-profile articles (it's easier for them to go unnoticed on unedited and unread articles) and I think the problem is pervasive throughout the project. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Look at this diff [2] and compare the insertions with this 2002 page: [3] I think we'll have to scrutinize all major edits from this IP. Haukur 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems he rewrote that article two times using two different sources, look at this pair as well: [4] [5] I think we should assume that all big edits from this IP are plagiarism and must be reverted, even in cases where the site used can no longer be easily found. Haukur 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up a couple more (see my edit history). What particularly frustrates me is that editors at Brad Henry noticed months ago that [6] was a plagiaristic edit but did not revert it. Haukur 13:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is such painful work... I'm not doing anything more now. I hope someone else picks up the thread. Haukur 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting the entire page to its condition almost a year ago now. A great deal has been put into this page since then, and information and prose added that has nothing to do with the offending sections. If further sections are found to have been plagiarized, please bring them forward rathr than eliminating the work of so many over a period of a year. The plagiarism is unfortunate, but should not lead to the elimination of the work of so many others. Thank you. pookster11 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the method of diluting a copyright violation by tweaking individual sentences. The plagiarized text is still recognizable in our current version. Taking the pre-plagiarized version as the base for further improvement would be a far safer course. Note that the reason this was noticed to start with is that a complaint was made, presumably from the author of the original material. We must take complaints like that seriously or we put Wikipedia at legal risk. Please produce a version that is in no way plagiaristic. Haukur 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated, please indicate where plagiarism still exists in the article. pookster11 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

pookster11, you claimed that there was no evidence of plaigurism when you first reverted the article, without discussion on the talk page before or after, but the article still contained blatant examples of plaigurism, which I pointed out to you on your talk page. If I found more examples, would you agree to reverting the article, or would you modify the text and say that there is no evidence the plaigurism still exists after I inform you of each copyright violation? Well, here is another one, anyway.

Roman Emperors

His childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion, and murder. Instability within the Julio-Claudian house, generated by uncertainty over the succession, led to a series of personal tragedies. When his father died under suspicious circumstances on 10 October A.D. 19, relations between his mother and his grand-uncle, the emperor Tiberius, deteriorated irretrievably, and the adolescent Gaius was sent to live first with his great-grandmother Livia in A.D. 27 and then, following Livia's death two years later, with his grandmother Antonia.

Wikipedia

Caligula's childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion, and murder. Instability within the Julio-Claudian dynasty, generated by uncertainty over the succession, led to a series of personal tragedies. When his father died under suspicious circumstances on October 10, 19, relations between his mother and his grand-uncle, the reigning emperor Tiberius, deteriorated beyond repair, and the adolescent Caligula was sent to live first with his great-grandmother Livia in 27 and then, following Livia's death two years later, with his grandmother Antonia.

-- Kjkolb 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated, there is no reason to revert the entire article to its version as of a year ago. The plagiarized section have been deleted and re-written. The entire article andall the changes that have been done to it since July of 2005, unless someone can show otherwise, are not plagarized or lifted from any other souce; therefore there is no reason to universally undo all of those changes. I have no problem eliinating anything that may be plagiarized; I do have a problem with eliminating the honest work that others have done on this article for no reason other than convienence. pookster11 04:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"WikiProject Echo has identified Caligula as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia." Why don't we put this to use since it's a much improved article? --Ddahlberg 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Legend

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and don't want to step on any toes, but I read somewhere that there was a legend about Caligula's ghost haunting Rome until his sisters collected his bones after his body was hidden - is this worth mentioning at the end of the assassination section? --Milton 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Suetonius writes that, after the assassination, Caligula's remains were secretly transferred to the Lamian Gardens and hastily buried after a partial cremation. Afterwards both the house and the gardens of the Lamians were said to be haunted by Caligula's ghost, until his sisters returned from exile and properly cremated the remains. Dunno if it's worth mentioning though :) What I'd really like to know is the exact location where Caligula was murdered. --Steerpike 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, 64 AD, big fire, most of Rome destroyed, entire city rebuilt, fall of Nero, entire city rebuilt again between 68-72.... not likely it'll ever be "found". pookster11 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, assuming you were talking about the location of Caligula's assassination, there's a fairly educated guess that he was murdered in one the covered hallways that linked his palace to the forum. Both Suetonius and Cassius Dio speak of a "secluded" or "covered hallway", which would logically point to one of the so called cryptoportici which were part of his palace, and of which the remnants can still be seen today. --Steerpike 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also see "Romulus' House" on the Palatine, and the actual tree under which Romulus and Remus were abandoned! Beyond the obvious tourist stuff though, keep in mind Caligula was killed during the games to the Divine Augustus; where did these take place? Was it on the Forum? On the Campus? Would they be allowed within the Pommeranium? So on. Considering that prior to the Flavian amphitheater, Rome was dotted with various forums, theaters, amphitheaters, odeums, and so on, with no centrality save those found on the Campus, it'd be difficult to determine where the games were let alone which passage Caligula was killed in, assuming remains would even have survived multiple fires and rebuilding projects specifically aimed at blotting out many of the Julio-Claudians and especially Nero and Caligula. pookster11 10:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

As with Nero, I'm seeing a harsh discrediting of any negativity toward Caligula. It gives the impression that Suetonius had a grudge against him and simply wanted to besmirch his otherwise flawless name. This viewpoint needs to be turned down greatly. It also needs to read more like an encyclopedia article as opposed to an academic essay proposing the aforementioned idea. AdamBiswanger1 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting this impression; the article does go to pains to point out that there is a dearth of reliable primary sources on Caligula's reign, and this is true, but does not seem to be pulling any punches as it were. Moreovere, there does not seem to be any large disagreement here on the talk page about the NPOV status of the article; more certainly not the sort of impasse that would warrant the NPOV template, so I'm going to remove it for now. siafu 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nemi Ships

"These two ships were by far the largest vessels in the ancient world; in fact their size was not even rivaled until after the Renaissance.", wht about the Chinese Treasure ships?

shells/huts

A passage regarding Caligula ordering his men to collect shells has recently been removed for being unlikely and uncited: "Another theory is that the reference to picking up sea-shells is a misunderstanding; the term "musculus" or sea-shell was supposedly also used to describe mobile huts used by soldiers, and this theory implies Caligula's order was to pack up these huts as the troops returned to their winter quarters." I've had a look, and it seems that musculus can mean a military shed.[7] However, it doesn't mean "sea-shell", it specifically means "mussel". The word Suetonius uses for sea-shell is concha. The only other historian to refer to this incident is Cassius Dio, and he wrote in Greek. --Nicknack009 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a third account by Aurelius Victor where he uses "musculus." The tent theory is pretty weak since it relies on Victor (c. 350) getting things right with tents, but earlier Suetonius and Dio getting it wrong with shells. The "concha" meaning boats is a more likely theory, but this relizes on Victor getting things wrong with "musculus".Hoshidoshi 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article says: After a successful campaign in Germany and a Triumph in Rome, Germanicus was sent east to distance him from Roman politics; and he died on October 10, 19, claiming to have been poisoned by agents of Tiberius. Relations between his mother and Tiberius deteriorated rapidly amid accusations of murder and conspiracy.

Who is being referred to as "his mother"? If it is the mother of Germanicus, Antonia the Younger, this makes no sense as most historians report that Antonia the Younger and her brother-in-law Tiberius were on good terms. If this is referring to Caligula's mother, Agrippina the Elder, that would make sense, as Agrippina the Elder did accuse Tiberius of being behind the death of Germanicus. It would help to have this clarified.

Mretalli 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed useless line

"Place of eating=kitchen or maybe not" under main line. Sounds like vandalism attempt.

glyniss 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know about Caligula's education?

Did he learn with other children his age. Did he have governess'? Was he homeschooled? Did Caligula have any education at all. I need this info for a report i'm doing that's due tomorrow. Please respond quickly ASAP. -Essaywriter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.65.66 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha, thats what you get for using Wikipedia as your only source for last minute homework. pookster11 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Scullard quote is misleading

The quote used in the "Illness" section of the article from Howard Hayes Scullard, "emerged [from his sickness... cruelty" is misleading as it implies that the historian in question supported this view. However, the actual phrase from the book 'From the Gracchi to Nero' is "emerged, according to tradition, a monster of lust and diabolical cruelty". Scullard does not support this view himself! He is merely remarking that Roman historians tended to take this view, a view that most modern historians have moderated to a great extent. I suggest that the quote is removed, or changed to a more accurate modern reflection of the view with another quote from Scullard, "The balance of his mind was to some degree upset", which is quite different from the description of a "monster".

There is no clear majority view on whether or not the illness changed Caligula, or really if there was a change at all. In fact a conference this past fall on Caligula had as one of its topics the possible illnesses that Caligula could have contracted to cause his "madness. pookster11 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great catch. I agree, the Scullard quote is misleading and inaccurate. Only Philo claims that the brink of death (not the sickness itself) changed Caligula. Suetonius and Cassius Dio speak of Caligula being screwed up as a child. It would be nice to have a modern source hat does put forward the theory that sickness changed him (I'm sure there's pleanty). For now, though, the Scullad quote should be removed.Hoshidoshi 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:

a Pass/Fail:

~~The prose of the Family section is terrible. It doesn't flow well. It also repeats information, such as the fact that Agrippina is the granddaughter of Augustus.~~ Y Done
~~"Upon return, Caligula's father died on October 10, 19 A.D." - Why is this the first occurrence of "A.D."?~~ Y Done
"In 31, Caligula was remanded to the personal care of Tiberius on Capri until the death of Tiberius and the ascension of Caligula in 37." - This cuts into the timeline. The section goes in order of events, except this skips to the end, right at the beginning. Seems unnecessary to me. The portion about Tiberius' death should be moved to the end of the section. Y Done
The third paragraph of the Western expansion section could use rewording. "Seemed", "may", "perhaps"; those are fine, but less of them. Start the paragraph off saying something along the lines of the closing sentence. Rather than include a disclaimer in each sentence, let it be known that what happened is unclear, nothing is certain, then state the possibilities.

I've moved the disclaimer to the beginning, but I'm not sure I agree with this recommendation. Each sentence lists a separate hypothetical. The removal of a word like "may" would make the sentences sound like fact and would make things sound awkward considering it was just stated that they were not. For instance, say I say "I don't know what happened yesterday. I may have gone to the store." I cannot remove the hypothetical marker from the second sentence. If I did, I would be contradicting myself- "I don't know what happened yesterday. I went to the store." Am I missing something? If so, please clarify.Hoshidoshi 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're not missing anything. I thought about possible ways to reword. Combining sentences or otherwise rephrasing, but I can't come up with anything that reads smoothly. Just disregard this recommendation. Lara ♥Love 18:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

~~The second paragraph under "Acting like a god" needs to be sourced. It currently reads like OR.~~Y Done
~~"Eastern policy" is very stubby. I recommend combining into paragraphs.~~ Y Done
There needs to be a consistency in the use (or not) of the serial comma.

Okay, all serial commas are now "X, Y and Z" rather than "X, Y, and Z"Hoshidoshi 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

~~The third paragraph under "Scandals" has repetitive phrasing ("accuse him of") that would be better reworded.~~
In the third paragraph under "Assassinations and aftermath", it reads, "Suetonius records a death similar to Julius Caesar with Caligula stabbed 30 times brought about by a man with the name Cassius." - Maybe it's just me, but that makes no sense to me. I think it's possibly an issue with prose and punctuation.

I tried to fix it up with punctuation. I'm not sure if its clear. Suetonius claims that both the elder Gaius Julius Caesar (Julius Caesar) and the younger Gaius Julius Caesar (Caligula) were killed by a man named Cassius and both were stabbed 30 times.Hoshidoshi 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's not how it reads. At least not to me. If you could word it more like what you have here, it would clarify greatly. It seems to say that, like Julius Caesar, he was stabbed 30 times but that Julius Caesar was stabbed by a man named Cassius while Caligula was stabbed by Chaerea and several conspirators, as noted with "Details on the events vary somewhat from source to source, but they agree..." The "brought about" also seems awkward to me.
  - Gave it another try.Hoshidoshi 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Following the previous, "Another assassin sought out and stabbed Caligula's wife Caesonia and killed their infant daughter, Julia Drusilla, by smashing her head against a wall." - Why are there commas around "Julia Drusilla" but not "Caesonia"? Y Done
~~It appears the information regarding the assassination of his wife and daughter interrupts the story of his assassination.~~ Y Done
Under "Historiography", "The history of Caligula’s reign is extremely problematic. Only two sources have surived that were contemporary with Caligula- the works of Philo and Seneca." - The use of the dash is inappropriate. This should be either the mdash or semi-colon. Y Done

The article's nomination is currently on hold. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Lara ♥Love 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional recommendations added to review. Lara ♥Love 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The article has been listed at WP:GA. Thank you for all your hard work. In improving this article, you have improved Wikipedia. Regards, Lara ♥Love 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Poseidon

Has anybody ever heard of the claim of Caligula proclaiming war on Poseidon and proceeded to have soliders throw their spears into water as a attack? Is this true or an urban legend set out to make Caligula look insane?

Caligula going to war against Neptune (Roman Poseideon) is from the play I, Claudius. It is loosely based on Suetonius' claim that Caligula went to the English channel with troops merely to get seashells (see Western Expansion section). So, it's actually fiction based on slander.63.162.143.5 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cite" vs "write"

To cite is to either quote another authority or to mention something as proof. Ancient sources wrote about things with no support or authority. Using "cite" is incredibly misleading, thus the original "write" was restored.Hoshidoshi 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However to write is a verb, it refers to the act of writing in the present or future tense. So really "sources write" is also incorrect in this case as it happened many years ago. If we want to be accurate, then perhaps the term should be "sources reveal", or maybe "sources show", or something similar. Cheers!--Read-write-services 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that it's quite common for people studying non-contemporary texts to apply to their authors present tense verbs like "write" or "state". The Oxford Classical Dictionary's entry on Gaius says that Petronius' "long and perhaps genuine letter to Gaius is quoted by Philon" and that "Philon claims [Gaius' plan] was then reinstated by secret orders". A. A. Barrett's Caligula contains an endnote (p. 294 n. 36) reading: "Even the fourth-century poet Ausonius writes of Chaerea mollis ('effeminate Chaerea') (De Caes. 4. 4)". I can't say this "textual present" bothers me, but perhaps I'm insufficiently critical. Do published style guides recommend avoiding it? EALacey 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good point EALacey, I will investigate this. Wikipedia does not seem to say much about it at all. WP:MOS I was using my experience as a Writer/Editor to perhaps colour my understanding-maybe I was being too critical!! I have a Published Australian Government Style guide at home, I will check this out. Now you got me thinking...--Read-write-services 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I think the present lead tries to present this infamous Roman Emperor as an excellent, competent ruler who was only discredited by the senatorial aristocracy. That is against tradition, academic consensus and - common sense. Although it is a known fact that Suetonius and Tacitus were biased towards the Senate no reasonable historian think that their works contain only lies and their judgement is totally false. By and large contemporary historians accept that Caligula was a cruel, incompetent ruler. I presented the opinion of Chris Scarre, a leading writer in the fields of ancient history. His book about Roman Emperors is a widely accepted academic work. On the other hand there is no reference to your version of the lead. "All articles must follow our no original research policy and editors must strive for accuracy (unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references); Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments." - the first pillar of this encyclopaedia. Zello 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the lead isn't necessarily required to cite sources. There is an in-depth discussion of historiography in a later section which does reference modern authors. I didn't think the previous lead contained anything that can be construed as original research. It simply states that, as far as factual information goes, we have little to go by, and that ancient authors present him as insane. Maybe the phrasing of "ambitious construction projects" could be construed as whitewashing but it is far more neutral than writing "megalomaniac construction projects". One last remark however is this: regardless of content, the lead is too short for an article of this size. It should be at least three or four paragraphs. --Steerpike 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Zello, let's take a look at your paragraph in depth:

Caligula is one of the archetypical "bad emperors" of Rome.

Right off the bat, we're starting with an opinion sentence calling Caligula "bad." Was he bad? That's opinion and POV. Our job is to factually list what he did and let the reader decide. Also, "archetypical"? Was there a partern of bad emperors that Caligula fits into? That, by itself is a thesis in question that has nothing to do with Caligula.

The startling stories of Suetonius and Cassius Dio about his cruelty, sexual perversions and madness certainly reflect the hostility of the senatorial aristocracy but according to historian Chris Scarre "the third emperor of Rome was a dangerous and unpleasant individual, verging on the megalomaniac."

Who the hell is Chris Scarre? I've read a lot of stuff on Caligula and his name has never come up. Well, it turns out Chris Scarre is a specialist in the prehistory of western Europe, with a particular interest in the archaeology of the Atlantic façade. He is not a specialist or an expert on Caligula or the Roman Empire. He simply wrote some pop books on Rome. If this article were on prehistoric Britian, perhaps we could use him, but its not. His opinion is as valid as anyone's, thus it needs to be removed. Real experts like Anthony Barrett could be used. But, even beyond the lack of expertice of Scarre, is his sentence appropriate? "the third emperor of Rome was a dangerous and unpleasant individual, verging on the megalomaniac" Dangerous and unpleasant to whom? (his friends liked him) Dangerous and unpleasant compared to whom? (other Roman emperors were pretty bad too) Verging on the megalomaniac? Are we attempting to diagnose an individual we've never met who lived 2000 years ago with a psychological disorder? What psychologist would even attempt this?

Now, let's look at the old paragraph:

In general, only some details of his life are known. Fact.

What is known, however, is that during his brief reign, Caligula focused much of his attention on ambitious construction projects and territorial expansion. Fact. "Ambitious" may be a little questionable, but sources at the time did describe them this way.

He worked to increase the authority of the principate and struggled to maintain his position against several conspiracies to overthrow him. Fact

He was eventually assassinated in 41 by several of his own guards in a conspiracy involving the Roman Senate. Fact

No orginal research. No POV. Just important facts about what he did as Emperor.Hoshidoshi 18:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You could call a temporary bridge across the Bay of Naples "ambitious building project" but most people will consider it a megalomaniac folly by common sense. You could speak about "struggling to maintain his position" but he killed dozens of people from his entourage and most people will consider it cruelty. Territorial expansion - what? Traianus, Augustus or Claudius established important new provinces but Caligula's military carrier was a failure. "In general, only some details of his life are known" - fact but why not put this sentence into the biography of every people who lived before 1800? And yes, there is an old Roman tradition of archetypical "bad emperors" established by the greatest ancient historians similarly like the tradition of the archetypical "good emperors" of Augustus, Vespasianus, Traianus etc. I think that it is close to absurdity that wikipedia now neglects this centuries old historical tradition. He was killed after only 3 years and condemned after his death - as unsuccessful as any Roman emperor could be. Zello 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you simply read the article, you will see that Caligula's construction projects were more significant than simply a bridge (Construction section). And, yes, with at least four conspiracies against him in four years, he struggled to maintain his position. Cruelty? Sure, by modern standards, but Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and many more emperors killed just as many people if not more. Little is known about Caligula? Yes, compared to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, little is known. Most records are lost- read the article (Historiography section) Good emperors? Actually, the guy who came up with the "five good emperors" theory (Edward Gibbon) didn't include Auagustus or Vespasian. Also, he had no theory on "bad emperors". Read Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire if you want. Condemned? Actually, he wasn't officially by the people or the Senate (only by ancient writers). Unsuccessful? Well, lots of Emperors also lasted months (Titus, Galba, Otho, Vitelius).68.49.0.38 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read Tacitus or Suetonius you know that they categorized emperors as good and bad and Caligula was firmly put into the latter without doubts. The scarcity of historical sources is not a speciality which should be mentioned. Obviously more sources survived about Augustus or Nero but there were many emperors who are more unknown than Caligula even such important statesman like Vespasianus. And exactly the construction section of the article proves that he was not a great builder - I see only provincial projects and unfinished things. Nothing really important compared to the achievements of Augustus, Traianus or Domitianus. The lead should contain the most important informations and the most important info about Caligula is that he failed as a ruler - he was killed after 3 years and never mentioned in a positive context after his death only as a bad example for later emperors how they shouldn't behave. Zello 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'ambitious building projects' does not by itself suggest he was a prolific builder or even 'left' any structures of significance. They were merely 'projects'. ---- Steerpike (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Zello, Tacitus and Suetonius categorized all emperors as bad. They were pro-republic. Check out the beginning of the Annals Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompeius and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and Antonius before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of "Princep." But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. The scarcity and contradiction of Caligula sources is especially great. Yes, Vespasian was also a mystery, but with Caligula, we don't even have a very good chronology (since Suetonius didn't write in chronological order and the other writers only focused on small aspects of Caligula's life). Big events happened, but we don't know exactly what happened. Its all in the article, especially the historiagraphy section. Please read it. As for construction, the aquaducts, by themselves, make the referrence worthy. The hardest part of any project is the vision, planning and initiation. Claudius gets credit for conquering Britian, but that was completed under Nero and Domitian. Caligula should get credit for his aquaduct project. The intro is very simple. Paragraph 1: who was he? Paragraph 2: what did he do that affected the world? Paragraph 3: How is he remembered? You apparently want everything to be Paragraph 3-- Hoshidoshi (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In spite of their pro-republican stance they praized Augustus, Vespasianus and Titus. And we dont't have any chronology for Vespasianus and there is no biography about Trajan, the most important 2nd century emperor - there is nothing special in the case of Caligula. As the first step to a compromise I propose to drop the sentence about the scarcity of sources. I agree that he initiated useful projects not only follies so I propose to change this sentence in a way to reflect this ambiguity. For example "Caligula focused much of his attention on ambitious but sometimes controversial construction projects". -- Zello (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not drop any sentence about scarcity of sources! That is cental to any understanding of Caligula. If you want to add info about scarcity to other Emperors' pages, that's fine. When biased Suetonius, who lived way after the events, and a summary of Suetonius written in the 11th century (Dio) are one's only major source, I would say there's a scarcity problem

BTW, when you speak about "they" and "historians", you're basically talking about one biographer, Suetonius.

Tacitus never praises Augustus, Vespasian or Titus. In fact, he never writes on them. His Annals are on Tiberius, Claudius and Nero. His Histories are on Galba, Otho and Vitelius. Caligula was lost, but its clear Tacitus is no fan of him from lines here and there in the other books. So, every Emperor that Tacitus writes on is trashed.

There are defintely scarcity problems with Augustus, Vespasian and Titus as well, but they don't get a negative wrap for different reasons. According to Tacitus, Augustus ruled for so long that no one had the opportunity to write anything negative. They themselves lacked sources. When Tacitus and Suetonius put things together, he had no dirt. Vespasian and Titus are a different matter. The historians who lived through that period benefited heavily from the Flavian family (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus) and chose to write little on them. There are some that didn't, though. The historian, Philostratus II, is definitely no fan of Vespasian.Hoshidoshi (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the scarcity sentence is that it gives a false impression. The reader will think that the situation with Caligula was absolutely unique and we have tons of good sources about other emperors except this one. You agreed that we have a similar scarcity problem with important emperors like Vespasianus, Traianus and others. Would you agree to change this sentence in a way to reflect this fact? I propose something like that: "Surviving ancient Roman sources about Caligula, like many other emperors, are scarce." Zello (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)