What do you think?
Rate this book
Caligula: A Biography
"Caligula enjoys a reputation as one of the most brutal and tyrannical Roman emperors. In this accessible narrative of Caligula's life, Winterling uses his deep knowledge of Roman society and the imperial court to investigate why contemporaries chose to assassinate Caligula's reputation as well as his person. Caligula emerges here as rather less insane, if no less loathsome, than his posthumous reputation made him out to be."-Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, author of Rome's Cultural Revolution
Book originally published in German as Caligula : eine Biographie
Book originally published in German as Caligula : eine Biographie
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
53 people are currently reading
1314 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
July 19, 2020
4 "fascinating, provocative, a bit dry" stars !!
This review will be a bit of a mess. I apologize in advance. I did not study history in university and am unfamiliar with historical analysis especially of ancient times where sources are scant, often untrustworthy and highly subjective.
Caligula is often portrayed as mad and this author argues valiantly against this by looking deeply into the written sources available to him. I partially agree with him but not completely. I will explain in a little bit what I mean.
I was expecting this book to be a little more juicy with stories of incest and sexcapades but it focused much more on Caligula as he becomes emperor and all of his political plotting. Caligula was the target of assassinations since childhood, much of his family was killed and it did not seem like he ever received any real nurturing save perhaps from his sisters who as he grew older were often central figures in attempts at killing him.
Can we blame the man for being anxious and moderately paranoid? Not if he wanted to survive. Is this mental illness? No it is not. These are understandable reactions to the social and political environment he is in.
Caligula relishes in sadistic and humiliating acts. The book describes many of these are described at length in the book. These acts including beatings, beheadings, murders, slanders, sexual humiliations, wife stealing, extortion and on and on and on. Reading about his evil and clever crimes,( one could also argue genious maneveurings) does not fit with our modern concept of severe mental illness ( where even if evil is done it is almost always unintentional and always disorganized.) Caligula's brilliant ploys and very cruel behaviors do not fit into this contemporary understanding of severe mental illness. This does however fit into the category of malignant personality disorder and I would argue in the spheres of sadistic, narcissistic and paranoid subtypes.
Wait- aren't personality disorders mental illnesses? Yes and No. Mental illness must have a component of emotional distress and in the cases of avoidant and borderline subtypes this is always the case. Other types of personality disorders, however, tend to be externalizing ones and cause hurt and distress TO OTHER PEOPLE. I would suggest that these conditions although problematic for society are disorders that often do not cause distress for those that have them. I know many will argue with me about this and I'm OK with that.
Wait Jaidee this is a history book!! Ummm yes it is but I could not help but share my opinion on what I learned about Caligula from a psychopathological perspective.
Anyhow, this book, is well worth reading as it is interesting and illuminating but also a little dry.
I am certainly glad I was not born into that family ;))
This review will be a bit of a mess. I apologize in advance. I did not study history in university and am unfamiliar with historical analysis especially of ancient times where sources are scant, often untrustworthy and highly subjective.
Caligula is often portrayed as mad and this author argues valiantly against this by looking deeply into the written sources available to him. I partially agree with him but not completely. I will explain in a little bit what I mean.
I was expecting this book to be a little more juicy with stories of incest and sexcapades but it focused much more on Caligula as he becomes emperor and all of his political plotting. Caligula was the target of assassinations since childhood, much of his family was killed and it did not seem like he ever received any real nurturing save perhaps from his sisters who as he grew older were often central figures in attempts at killing him.
Can we blame the man for being anxious and moderately paranoid? Not if he wanted to survive. Is this mental illness? No it is not. These are understandable reactions to the social and political environment he is in.
Caligula relishes in sadistic and humiliating acts. The book describes many of these are described at length in the book. These acts including beatings, beheadings, murders, slanders, sexual humiliations, wife stealing, extortion and on and on and on. Reading about his evil and clever crimes,( one could also argue genious maneveurings) does not fit with our modern concept of severe mental illness ( where even if evil is done it is almost always unintentional and always disorganized.) Caligula's brilliant ploys and very cruel behaviors do not fit into this contemporary understanding of severe mental illness. This does however fit into the category of malignant personality disorder and I would argue in the spheres of sadistic, narcissistic and paranoid subtypes.
Wait- aren't personality disorders mental illnesses? Yes and No. Mental illness must have a component of emotional distress and in the cases of avoidant and borderline subtypes this is always the case. Other types of personality disorders, however, tend to be externalizing ones and cause hurt and distress TO OTHER PEOPLE. I would suggest that these conditions although problematic for society are disorders that often do not cause distress for those that have them. I know many will argue with me about this and I'm OK with that.
Wait Jaidee this is a history book!! Ummm yes it is but I could not help but share my opinion on what I learned about Caligula from a psychopathological perspective.
Anyhow, this book, is well worth reading as it is interesting and illuminating but also a little dry.
I am certainly glad I was not born into that family ;))
March 18, 2021
Wow, a whole new way of looking at Caligula!
Okay, that’s not entirely true. Barret’s Caligula: The Corruption of Power among others paved the way for this interpretation and really doesn’t take as its premise a radically different viewpoint. Both see Caligula as a Stalinesque figure; an all-too-sane monster who saw the world perhaps too clearly and was not willing to put up with the farce of concealing his power. The difference between these two books is this: Barrett went through Caligula’s reign in numbing detail and showed us (at least by implication) that there was a clear rational approach at work. Winterling goes straight for questions of character.
In this book we follow Caligula from his early years as family pet through the horrors he endured as Tiberius slowly liquidated his family and then the gradual dissolution of his relationship with the Senate. As we progress we see exactly why these factors shaped Caligula and what sort of a man he was. This reconstruction of the young emperor’s life makes sense, and it doesn’t require a descent into madness and delusion to explain his behavior. Malice, paranoia, and a vicious sense of humor are explanation enough. Again, this was all pointed out by Barrett among others years ago, but it takes skill to really sell the emotional journey the young Caesar went through. Honestly, in Barrett’s book his personality is only discussed briefly over a few pages in the conclusion. Here we approach much more intimately.
The word character here applies to more than just Caligula’s personality. The character of the early principate is a major issue. Winterling’s view of the principate is essentially a question of communication (this is related to Öffentlichkeit, a popular approach for German medievalists, but not one I’ve seen applied to Roman emperors before). As he sees it, the imperial role, as Augustus had created it, was to make his wishes clear without issuing any orders and thus maintain senators’ self-delusions of status. The goal of the Senate was to recognize these unstated wishes and act on them, thus preserving their authority while abrogating their power. And the problem with Tiberius was that he believed in the illusion. He thought the Senate had and should have power as well as authority. But he also expected them to obey him. An unworkable situation.
Caligula, on the other hand, excelled at the Augustan model of ruling. He expressed himself clearly and said all the right things… until he stopped doing so. But stopping wasn’t a matter of ability — he was filled with contempt at the need for pretense. Pretense had kept him alive during the six years he’d lived in Tiberius’ palace. Six miserable years of enforced passivity after which only he, the third son of Germanicus, was left alive. And then he came to power and applied his chameleonlike skills to the new situation… and was shortly thereafter targeted for assassination. Repeatedly. At which point he discarded the much-hated and obviously insufficient mask and revealed his contempt for all the self-righteous sycophants of the Senate.
Open war is really the best way to describe his behavior. And in keeping with the theme of communication, Caligula’s main method of humiliating senators was to take their stated wish at face value while ignoring their unstated wish. For example, the senator who offered the gods his life if it meant the emperor would survive an unexpected illness. Well, Caligula recovered, and immediately made the man keep his promise. He was the sort of man who loved taking men's flattery literally since he knew they couldn't do anything about it without admitting their lie. Every aspect of his rule is treated through this lens. And mostly it fits. I like the idea that Caligula opening a “brothel” where he prostituted the wives and children of Senators was really a bad joke based on his “honoring” senators by having them housed on the Palatine Hill where he could keep an eye on them (and not incidentally charge them for the privilege). It fits with his love of puncturing hidden meanings. To reject such an honor would be to acknowledge the truth that the emperor hated and mistrusted you. It was much easier to live with pretty lies than just suffer with harsh truths. Especially since to do otherwise would mean your death, a fact which he also loved rubbing their noses in. You can see why it would be resented, but also why senators couldn’t explain what offended them so until they distorted the whole thing into much clearer abuses of power.
I’m less sure I buy the idea that his claims of godhood were designed to humiliate the Senators by having them publicly take an absurd idea literally. Of course he used his godhood to humiliate Senators. He used everything he did to humiliate Senators. But it seems much more in line with his ambitions for claiming a power base outside Senatorial grants. i.e. he wanted to draw power from religious ties and ritual, claiming an even more direct form of divine authority than Augustus’ deifying his adoptive father Caesar (whether Hellenistic based or of his own style). A claim Winterling at least partly rejects since the emperor didn’t permanently wear divine attire. A claim of dubious merit since I’m unaware of any evidence that Hellenistic kings wore fixed divine attire.
I very much enjoyed this book. I won’t say it changed my mind about Caligula. Rather I think it strengthened and directed my opinion. And I think it’s a good book for many different uses. As a biography it’s a lot more fun than most Kaisergeschichte. It really conveys something of the man’s forceful personality. This is about as close as we can come without drifting into fiction. Great for the general reader since it does away with a lot of the critical apparatus. But it also provides a precise vision of how the principate operated that’s very useful for the scholar.
Okay, that’s not entirely true. Barret’s Caligula: The Corruption of Power among others paved the way for this interpretation and really doesn’t take as its premise a radically different viewpoint. Both see Caligula as a Stalinesque figure; an all-too-sane monster who saw the world perhaps too clearly and was not willing to put up with the farce of concealing his power. The difference between these two books is this: Barrett went through Caligula’s reign in numbing detail and showed us (at least by implication) that there was a clear rational approach at work. Winterling goes straight for questions of character.
In this book we follow Caligula from his early years as family pet through the horrors he endured as Tiberius slowly liquidated his family and then the gradual dissolution of his relationship with the Senate. As we progress we see exactly why these factors shaped Caligula and what sort of a man he was. This reconstruction of the young emperor’s life makes sense, and it doesn’t require a descent into madness and delusion to explain his behavior. Malice, paranoia, and a vicious sense of humor are explanation enough. Again, this was all pointed out by Barrett among others years ago, but it takes skill to really sell the emotional journey the young Caesar went through. Honestly, in Barrett’s book his personality is only discussed briefly over a few pages in the conclusion. Here we approach much more intimately.
The word character here applies to more than just Caligula’s personality. The character of the early principate is a major issue. Winterling’s view of the principate is essentially a question of communication (this is related to Öffentlichkeit, a popular approach for German medievalists, but not one I’ve seen applied to Roman emperors before). As he sees it, the imperial role, as Augustus had created it, was to make his wishes clear without issuing any orders and thus maintain senators’ self-delusions of status. The goal of the Senate was to recognize these unstated wishes and act on them, thus preserving their authority while abrogating their power. And the problem with Tiberius was that he believed in the illusion. He thought the Senate had and should have power as well as authority. But he also expected them to obey him. An unworkable situation.
Caligula, on the other hand, excelled at the Augustan model of ruling. He expressed himself clearly and said all the right things… until he stopped doing so. But stopping wasn’t a matter of ability — he was filled with contempt at the need for pretense. Pretense had kept him alive during the six years he’d lived in Tiberius’ palace. Six miserable years of enforced passivity after which only he, the third son of Germanicus, was left alive. And then he came to power and applied his chameleonlike skills to the new situation… and was shortly thereafter targeted for assassination. Repeatedly. At which point he discarded the much-hated and obviously insufficient mask and revealed his contempt for all the self-righteous sycophants of the Senate.
Open war is really the best way to describe his behavior. And in keeping with the theme of communication, Caligula’s main method of humiliating senators was to take their stated wish at face value while ignoring their unstated wish. For example, the senator who offered the gods his life if it meant the emperor would survive an unexpected illness. Well, Caligula recovered, and immediately made the man keep his promise. He was the sort of man who loved taking men's flattery literally since he knew they couldn't do anything about it without admitting their lie. Every aspect of his rule is treated through this lens. And mostly it fits. I like the idea that Caligula opening a “brothel” where he prostituted the wives and children of Senators was really a bad joke based on his “honoring” senators by having them housed on the Palatine Hill where he could keep an eye on them (and not incidentally charge them for the privilege). It fits with his love of puncturing hidden meanings. To reject such an honor would be to acknowledge the truth that the emperor hated and mistrusted you. It was much easier to live with pretty lies than just suffer with harsh truths. Especially since to do otherwise would mean your death, a fact which he also loved rubbing their noses in. You can see why it would be resented, but also why senators couldn’t explain what offended them so until they distorted the whole thing into much clearer abuses of power.
I’m less sure I buy the idea that his claims of godhood were designed to humiliate the Senators by having them publicly take an absurd idea literally. Of course he used his godhood to humiliate Senators. He used everything he did to humiliate Senators. But it seems much more in line with his ambitions for claiming a power base outside Senatorial grants. i.e. he wanted to draw power from religious ties and ritual, claiming an even more direct form of divine authority than Augustus’ deifying his adoptive father Caesar (whether Hellenistic based or of his own style). A claim Winterling at least partly rejects since the emperor didn’t permanently wear divine attire. A claim of dubious merit since I’m unaware of any evidence that Hellenistic kings wore fixed divine attire.
I very much enjoyed this book. I won’t say it changed my mind about Caligula. Rather I think it strengthened and directed my opinion. And I think it’s a good book for many different uses. As a biography it’s a lot more fun than most Kaisergeschichte. It really conveys something of the man’s forceful personality. This is about as close as we can come without drifting into fiction. Great for the general reader since it does away with a lot of the critical apparatus. But it also provides a precise vision of how the principate operated that’s very useful for the scholar.
January 2, 2022
Caligula was an insane Roman emperor. Well, hold on a minute, maybe not. Aloys Winterling wrote Caligula: A Biography to examine that dispute even though it is an obscure one at best. For the most part, he proves his point that Caligula was perfectly sane, but the question I have as a reader is why did he see a need to make this argument in the first place?
At the start, Winterling outlines his thesis and the criteria he uses as a metric for evaluation. Caligula’s eccentricities were misunderstood or taken out of context. Nobody could have obeyed his orders if he were insane. No Roman physicians ever diagnosed him as being insane. The accusation of mental illness was meant as an insult as opposed to a clinical psychiatric condition. Some of these criteria are problematic, to say the least, almost so inept that you might wonder how a professor of history could not see his own blunders in his evaluation. But I will come back to that later.
At the time, Caligula was the youngest emperor to have ever led the Roman Empire. He was an upstart, full of youthful vigor, and ready to change the Roman government in ways that were not to the liking of the senate or the aristocracy. After being ruled by the three Caesars, the senate was growing increasingly more weak while the emperors were growing increasingly more powerful. Caligula wished to continue this trend and eventually return Rome to a monarchy. A showdown was inevitable, and a conspiracy to murder the young and naive leader was hatched. Caligula was alerted to the danger and had the rebellion put down immediately. After that he went on a campaign to humiliate and further weaken the senate. Wacky hijinks ensued. The emperor pulled a handful of pranks and practical jokes to make it clear to the senate and the plebs what he really thought of the aristocracy. The oddest incident was when he appointed his favorite race horse consul and proceeded to treat him as such. This, and other stunts, infuriated the senate and caused them to complain of his insanity. Otherwise, Caligula was an unremarkable emperor; the rest of his life involved political squabbles, excessive spending, and watching chariot races and gladiatorial combat for fun. He was assassinated shortly after being crowned emperor without having lived long enough to accomplish much.
That’s all folks.
Winterling states his argument and defends it, but that doesn’t say a whole lot. To say it was impossible for Caligula to be insane because others were willing to follow him is a weak idea. Hitler and Stalin were obviously mentally ill, yet they were able to lead their nations down the path to disaster. Donald Trump was president of America for four years while psychiatrists warned us that he has clear signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. There has been no shortage of religious leaders who were certainly crazy yet they still had their followings. Joan of Arc was schizophrenic. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease. Case closed.
No physician in the Roman Empire ever diagnosed Caligula as insane is not such a sound criteria either. Firstly, just because such a diagnosis is not in the surviving written record, that does not mean nobody ever though it was true. Secondly, the Roman Empire was a pre-scientific society so the chances of doctors in that time having accurate knowledge of psychiatric disorders is pretty slim. Besides, Winterling himself does not provide us with any reason to think that he knows anything about psychiatry either.
Winterling’s argument that Caligula’s insanity was an insult rather than a diagnosis is a sound idea, but so what? It makes perfect sense in its context and, assuming that the most important details of Caligula’s life are known about, it isn’t a profound conclusion to arrive at. In fact, if Winterling had written this as a straight biography without outlining his thesis or even analyzing the evidence, I would see nothing in it to make me think Caligula was insane anyways. On the other hand, I take it for granted that people in positions of political power tend to be psychologically disordered to begin with. A sane person wouldn’t want to be an emperor, a dictator, or a president in the first place. I don’t think a sane person would want to be a psychologist either.
Caligula: A Biography is a so-so book. It is written at about a junior high school level of complexity so if you are used to reading more complicated books it is a bit plain. But Aloys Winterling accomplishes what he sets out to do, even if he is going for a low-hanging fruit. Caligula was moderately interesting, but he didn’t live long enough to be a fascinating historical figure. I was actually hoping for more sex and violence in this biography but admittedly, historical accuracy is more important. If you came to this book expecting something like the hilariously dreadful exploitation film directed by Tinto Brass in the 1970s, you probably will be disappointed. But then again, that might be a good thing anyways.
https://grimhistory.blogspot.com/
At the start, Winterling outlines his thesis and the criteria he uses as a metric for evaluation. Caligula’s eccentricities were misunderstood or taken out of context. Nobody could have obeyed his orders if he were insane. No Roman physicians ever diagnosed him as being insane. The accusation of mental illness was meant as an insult as opposed to a clinical psychiatric condition. Some of these criteria are problematic, to say the least, almost so inept that you might wonder how a professor of history could not see his own blunders in his evaluation. But I will come back to that later.
At the time, Caligula was the youngest emperor to have ever led the Roman Empire. He was an upstart, full of youthful vigor, and ready to change the Roman government in ways that were not to the liking of the senate or the aristocracy. After being ruled by the three Caesars, the senate was growing increasingly more weak while the emperors were growing increasingly more powerful. Caligula wished to continue this trend and eventually return Rome to a monarchy. A showdown was inevitable, and a conspiracy to murder the young and naive leader was hatched. Caligula was alerted to the danger and had the rebellion put down immediately. After that he went on a campaign to humiliate and further weaken the senate. Wacky hijinks ensued. The emperor pulled a handful of pranks and practical jokes to make it clear to the senate and the plebs what he really thought of the aristocracy. The oddest incident was when he appointed his favorite race horse consul and proceeded to treat him as such. This, and other stunts, infuriated the senate and caused them to complain of his insanity. Otherwise, Caligula was an unremarkable emperor; the rest of his life involved political squabbles, excessive spending, and watching chariot races and gladiatorial combat for fun. He was assassinated shortly after being crowned emperor without having lived long enough to accomplish much.
That’s all folks.
Winterling states his argument and defends it, but that doesn’t say a whole lot. To say it was impossible for Caligula to be insane because others were willing to follow him is a weak idea. Hitler and Stalin were obviously mentally ill, yet they were able to lead their nations down the path to disaster. Donald Trump was president of America for four years while psychiatrists warned us that he has clear signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. There has been no shortage of religious leaders who were certainly crazy yet they still had their followings. Joan of Arc was schizophrenic. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease. Case closed.
No physician in the Roman Empire ever diagnosed Caligula as insane is not such a sound criteria either. Firstly, just because such a diagnosis is not in the surviving written record, that does not mean nobody ever though it was true. Secondly, the Roman Empire was a pre-scientific society so the chances of doctors in that time having accurate knowledge of psychiatric disorders is pretty slim. Besides, Winterling himself does not provide us with any reason to think that he knows anything about psychiatry either.
Winterling’s argument that Caligula’s insanity was an insult rather than a diagnosis is a sound idea, but so what? It makes perfect sense in its context and, assuming that the most important details of Caligula’s life are known about, it isn’t a profound conclusion to arrive at. In fact, if Winterling had written this as a straight biography without outlining his thesis or even analyzing the evidence, I would see nothing in it to make me think Caligula was insane anyways. On the other hand, I take it for granted that people in positions of political power tend to be psychologically disordered to begin with. A sane person wouldn’t want to be an emperor, a dictator, or a president in the first place. I don’t think a sane person would want to be a psychologist either.
Caligula: A Biography is a so-so book. It is written at about a junior high school level of complexity so if you are used to reading more complicated books it is a bit plain. But Aloys Winterling accomplishes what he sets out to do, even if he is going for a low-hanging fruit. Caligula was moderately interesting, but he didn’t live long enough to be a fascinating historical figure. I was actually hoping for more sex and violence in this biography but admittedly, historical accuracy is more important. If you came to this book expecting something like the hilariously dreadful exploitation film directed by Tinto Brass in the 1970s, you probably will be disappointed. But then again, that might be a good thing anyways.
https://grimhistory.blogspot.com/
June 8, 2017
Rating: 3.0/5.0
I watched the movie Caligula and wanted to see what the historical figures said about this crazy emperor. This book started very well and towards its middle it was fun to read about the life of the emperor and the people close to him and how there were many conspiracies. I was hoping it will give more than a glimpse about the real personality of the emperor.
Unfortunately this did not happen. The second half of the book was just boring and not interesting as the first half.
This book will definitely not give you the full picture of Caligula and you will need to read some other books as well to get a better picture of him.
I watched the movie Caligula and wanted to see what the historical figures said about this crazy emperor. This book started very well and towards its middle it was fun to read about the life of the emperor and the people close to him and how there were many conspiracies. I was hoping it will give more than a glimpse about the real personality of the emperor.
Unfortunately this did not happen. The second half of the book was just boring and not interesting as the first half.
This book will definitely not give you the full picture of Caligula and you will need to read some other books as well to get a better picture of him.
February 15, 2024
I quite enjoyed it. I have only ever read biographies of Caligula within a history of Rone. Many of those condemn him outright, and while it tried to correct many assumptions, one that it didn't really was his sexual depravity. I felt that more could have been written on it. If there were sources on it obviously.
February 10, 2013
Gaius Caesar Germanicus became Roman Emperor in 37 CE at the age of 24, and was assassinated in 41 CE just as he was about to travel to Alexandria, possibly to set that city up as an alternative location from which to rule the Roman Empire. The son of the very popular and potential Emperor Germanicus (who died, some say in mysterious circumstances) he was as popular as his father, and was known to all as “Little Boots” a term which in Latin translates as Caligula, and he has gone down in history with that nickname. He has also been saddled throughout history as being one of the cruellest, monstrous, and possibly even insane Emperors, who thought he was God, was prone to sexual excesses and extravagance, building, among other things, a bridge some three miles long across the Bay of Baiae out of tethered double row of ships, covered in earth, over which he rode his horse across the Bay, to everyone’s amazement. He also apparently made his favourite horse Incitatus a Senator…
This negative view of Caligula has persisted through the ages: one of the ‘bad’ Emperors. The trouble with this assessment is that it is, in all probability, incorrect. In this book history professor Winterling examines what little historical information we have on Caligula together with the subsequent blackening of his name by later historians, in an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. His method of carefully picking through the various strands and attempting to isolate fact from fiction is done, a little too academically, perhaps, for some people’s taste, but consciously striving (and succeeding, in my opinion) to make this discipline more accessible to the general reader. This book is an excellent illustration of what modern historians have to go through when attempting to arrive at something more grounded in facts than in fictions (whatever the reasons for those fictions might be).
One thing appears certain: Caligula was extremely popular with the ordinary people. He was intelligent, no more ‘cruel’ than just about any other Roman Emperor, and seemed more than capable of ruling appropriately, as required. So why the animosity of the later historians? Winterling suggests that more than anything this was because he not only managed to reveal the general hypocrisy of the Senate and the Aristocracy (basically one and the same as far as power was concerned) but to gleefully rub their faces in it, both privately and publicly. The Aristocracy were the true powerbrokers, with the Senate their public face pretending to be serving the Republic when they were more interested in serving their own interests. Certainly they did not want a return to Monarchy (one of the main reasons for their assassination of Julius Caesar) nor did they really like the idea of an Emperor (too close to Monarchy, and to control over Aristocratic power).
Only Octavian as Augustus managed to run the Empire as Emperor, yet wily enough to ensure that the Senate believed it was in control. Tiberius, Augustus’s successor, so loathed dealing with the Senate that in the end he preferred to rule from Capri, letting the Senators more or less have their way in Rome. Caligula, on the other hand, apparently shared Tiberius’s loathing, but preferred to confront the Senate head-on: he, Caligula, was Emperor, and demanded to being treated as a god like Augustus, while they, the Senate, were there only to follow his commands and do his bidding. He relished ridiculing and humiliating Senators on a regular basis, making fun of them through some of his outrageous demands, yet ever ready to threaten severe punishments, even unto death, if they displeased him. Of course, this tended to result in Caligula’s increasing isolation from any benefactors he might have had in the ruling classes, and he even managed to antagonise family members to the extent that they conspired against him. In the end, he set the seeds for his own destruction.
History, we are told, is written by the winners, and this tends to contaminate their records as far as the truth is concerned. Here Winterling shows how, even after some 2000 years, it is possible to extract a few nuggets of golden facts from the mountain of dross that sometimes accompanies the records of those who either over-praise, or, as in the case of Caligula, over-condemn.
This negative view of Caligula has persisted through the ages: one of the ‘bad’ Emperors. The trouble with this assessment is that it is, in all probability, incorrect. In this book history professor Winterling examines what little historical information we have on Caligula together with the subsequent blackening of his name by later historians, in an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. His method of carefully picking through the various strands and attempting to isolate fact from fiction is done, a little too academically, perhaps, for some people’s taste, but consciously striving (and succeeding, in my opinion) to make this discipline more accessible to the general reader. This book is an excellent illustration of what modern historians have to go through when attempting to arrive at something more grounded in facts than in fictions (whatever the reasons for those fictions might be).
One thing appears certain: Caligula was extremely popular with the ordinary people. He was intelligent, no more ‘cruel’ than just about any other Roman Emperor, and seemed more than capable of ruling appropriately, as required. So why the animosity of the later historians? Winterling suggests that more than anything this was because he not only managed to reveal the general hypocrisy of the Senate and the Aristocracy (basically one and the same as far as power was concerned) but to gleefully rub their faces in it, both privately and publicly. The Aristocracy were the true powerbrokers, with the Senate their public face pretending to be serving the Republic when they were more interested in serving their own interests. Certainly they did not want a return to Monarchy (one of the main reasons for their assassination of Julius Caesar) nor did they really like the idea of an Emperor (too close to Monarchy, and to control over Aristocratic power).
Only Octavian as Augustus managed to run the Empire as Emperor, yet wily enough to ensure that the Senate believed it was in control. Tiberius, Augustus’s successor, so loathed dealing with the Senate that in the end he preferred to rule from Capri, letting the Senators more or less have their way in Rome. Caligula, on the other hand, apparently shared Tiberius’s loathing, but preferred to confront the Senate head-on: he, Caligula, was Emperor, and demanded to being treated as a god like Augustus, while they, the Senate, were there only to follow his commands and do his bidding. He relished ridiculing and humiliating Senators on a regular basis, making fun of them through some of his outrageous demands, yet ever ready to threaten severe punishments, even unto death, if they displeased him. Of course, this tended to result in Caligula’s increasing isolation from any benefactors he might have had in the ruling classes, and he even managed to antagonise family members to the extent that they conspired against him. In the end, he set the seeds for his own destruction.
History, we are told, is written by the winners, and this tends to contaminate their records as far as the truth is concerned. Here Winterling shows how, even after some 2000 years, it is possible to extract a few nuggets of golden facts from the mountain of dross that sometimes accompanies the records of those who either over-praise, or, as in the case of Caligula, over-condemn.
July 13, 2016
This book was fascinating and disappointing at the same time. I'll explain myself.
First of all, this book was fascinating for the depth of its analysis and insight. It is very educational and easy to understand (maybe it helped a bit that the last book I had read before had been Historia de Roma but I don't think a first-time reader would have been too lost either way.) And it was very revelatory too.
I think the biggest asset, in this sense, was its thesis: Caligula was never that insane as history has led us to believe. He was, in fact, a victim of his contemporary historians because of how he had conducted his reign against Roman aristocracy. And considering the way Caligula is remembered today--batshit crazy I should say--then you can guess his relationship with the aristocrats senators did not go as well as everyone might have wished for.
Take for instance the famous I just made my horse consul, deal with it 'cause I'm the emperor incident. Everyone agrees this action was a clear symptom of Caligula suffering a severe case of goat-like level of insanity. According to Winterling, this decision was, in fact, a derogatory joke just to humilliate the senate and the aristocracy. I mean, it makes sense if you are also a sarcastic little shit. What better way to state how little you think of them than saying in a very public manner that your own horse is smart enough to take on the most important political role available.
Apparently, this was the norm for all of Caligula's notorious demented behaviour that we have grown to know with time. It was obviously a political move to stake his claim as emperor over the most dangerous political class around him--and I would even say it was savy had it not backfired so espectaculary with his assassination. At least, he tried, I guess.
Which is also the reason why I found this book disappointing. I mean, a part of me thought when starting this book that I would be getting an academic insight on Caligula's most wacky adventures. How fun, right! Great material for trivia night... Obviously, I was wrong.
And now that I have a clearer understanding of his personality and the political scene that defined his brief reign, I don't have anything to laugh about. I can't even think fondly of Caligula, that emperor who once commanded his army to attack Poseidon by sending his men to march into the sea because that was actuall a celebration a past victory that included boats awaiting for his men to keep them safe.
I guess we all have Nero still. But, if I were to know of a book stating that he wasn't crazy either--that he did not marry a boy who had put on a wig and called him his wife--maybe, just maybe I might hesitate on picking it up next time.
First of all, this book was fascinating for the depth of its analysis and insight. It is very educational and easy to understand (maybe it helped a bit that the last book I had read before had been Historia de Roma but I don't think a first-time reader would have been too lost either way.) And it was very revelatory too.
I think the biggest asset, in this sense, was its thesis: Caligula was never that insane as history has led us to believe. He was, in fact, a victim of his contemporary historians because of how he had conducted his reign against Roman aristocracy. And considering the way Caligula is remembered today--batshit crazy I should say--then you can guess his relationship with the aristocrats senators did not go as well as everyone might have wished for.
Take for instance the famous I just made my horse consul, deal with it 'cause I'm the emperor incident. Everyone agrees this action was a clear symptom of Caligula suffering a severe case of goat-like level of insanity. According to Winterling, this decision was, in fact, a derogatory joke just to humilliate the senate and the aristocracy. I mean, it makes sense if you are also a sarcastic little shit. What better way to state how little you think of them than saying in a very public manner that your own horse is smart enough to take on the most important political role available.
Apparently, this was the norm for all of Caligula's notorious demented behaviour that we have grown to know with time. It was obviously a political move to stake his claim as emperor over the most dangerous political class around him--and I would even say it was savy had it not backfired so espectaculary with his assassination. At least, he tried, I guess.
Which is also the reason why I found this book disappointing. I mean, a part of me thought when starting this book that I would be getting an academic insight on Caligula's most wacky adventures. How fun, right! Great material for trivia night... Obviously, I was wrong.
And now that I have a clearer understanding of his personality and the political scene that defined his brief reign, I don't have anything to laugh about. I can't even think fondly of Caligula, that emperor who once commanded his army to attack Poseidon by sending his men to march into the sea because that was actuall a celebration a past victory that included boats awaiting for his men to keep them safe.
I guess we all have Nero still. But, if I were to know of a book stating that he wasn't crazy either--that he did not marry a boy who had put on a wig and called him his wife--maybe, just maybe I might hesitate on picking it up next time.
February 23, 2021
I should have written a review on this a long time ago, as it is one of the pivotal books for me in regard to how I now view all “historical” viewpoints/perspectives. Winterling, in a respectably concise fashion, paints us an entirely new picture of Caligula. Leave those long held popular ideas (he was insane etc) at the door. Caligula was a realist, a man whose perspicacity and social savvy developed rapidly out of necessity, and whose life was defined by his realization that all things political/social are a tragic comedy.
October 14, 2021
A deep analysis by the author to show that Caligula may no be so mad after all as some acient authors portrayed him.
In summary:
"If Caligula, who had dared aspire to founding a monarchy in plain view in Rome, was condemned posthumously as a “madman,” then Claudius, who had tried to spare the aristocracy, was known after his death as a “fool.”"
Next: Nero.
In summary:
"If Caligula, who had dared aspire to founding a monarchy in plain view in Rome, was condemned posthumously as a “madman,” then Claudius, who had tried to spare the aristocracy, was known after his death as a “fool.”"
Next: Nero.
November 20, 2016
Excellent book. It has been rumored that Caligula was either insane or a very ruler. Time will be the judge of there. I suspect it was a bit of both.
March 20, 2018
I quite enjoyed Aloys take on Caligula and was very happy at the outset where she even claimed that there are alot of false ideas of Caligula that we have all been brought up knowing, like how he wanted to name his horse a consul and people thought he was out of his mind to do that (but it was just a joke that wasn't terribly funny). Also the story where he took his legions to the mouth of the English Channel as he wanted to gain fame much like his father Germanicus did. Once at the channel he supposedly declared war on neptune and then had his men collect sea shells. This could been seen as odd taken out of the context. The explanation for this was that the Romans were terribly afraid of anything outside of the mediteranean, as they thought it was the limit of the civilized world and they thought the seas were full of spirits and monsters, so they refused to go and they mutinied against Caligula. As a result Caligula, in order to embarrass his men for their lack of courage, had them pick up shells.
All in all Caligula was a bit of an odd fellow, he could never find the right balance he needed socially when dealing with the senate and aristocracy. Not only that but for a man of his place in society with noble blood he was supposed to act a certain way that was suited to his station but he failed to do so. He would cheer and get excitable at the gladiatorial games and the chariot races along with the lower classes which the aristocrats did not appreciate. This was likely due to that fact the he never knew how to act as he was not exposed to high society as a youth due to the fact that he was being hunted down by the senate and Sejanus, or was stuck on Capreae with Tiberius. But even that argument did not really make sense considering that when he was brought up mostly by Tiberius and Macro and Silanus, he was instructed by this men on how to act at Aristocratic gatherings, so it would seem he just ignored his teachings.
Either way Caligula was not as crazy as many people believed him to be I don't think. He did some peculiar things, but given the context of the situation, would you have done any differently? I think due to the lack of popularity he had with the senate and aristocracy they smeared his name and took certain odd behavior he displayed out of context. I personally believe he was a man ahead of his time and he spoke plainly which did not always work well for him as he did not have the subtlety or playacting with the senate that Augustus had.
The book was good, but it didn't blow my mind by any means, I had recently watched a very good documentary on Caligula which approached his life on the same premise, that much of what he did could be explained logically. Aloys did a good job and I would probably recommend this book as a good starting point for someone new to him.
All in all Caligula was a bit of an odd fellow, he could never find the right balance he needed socially when dealing with the senate and aristocracy. Not only that but for a man of his place in society with noble blood he was supposed to act a certain way that was suited to his station but he failed to do so. He would cheer and get excitable at the gladiatorial games and the chariot races along with the lower classes which the aristocrats did not appreciate. This was likely due to that fact the he never knew how to act as he was not exposed to high society as a youth due to the fact that he was being hunted down by the senate and Sejanus, or was stuck on Capreae with Tiberius. But even that argument did not really make sense considering that when he was brought up mostly by Tiberius and Macro and Silanus, he was instructed by this men on how to act at Aristocratic gatherings, so it would seem he just ignored his teachings.
Either way Caligula was not as crazy as many people believed him to be I don't think. He did some peculiar things, but given the context of the situation, would you have done any differently? I think due to the lack of popularity he had with the senate and aristocracy they smeared his name and took certain odd behavior he displayed out of context. I personally believe he was a man ahead of his time and he spoke plainly which did not always work well for him as he did not have the subtlety or playacting with the senate that Augustus had.
The book was good, but it didn't blow my mind by any means, I had recently watched a very good documentary on Caligula which approached his life on the same premise, that much of what he did could be explained logically. Aloys did a good job and I would probably recommend this book as a good starting point for someone new to him.
December 24, 2022
A fascinating history attempting to unravel the many (often contradictory) accounts of a man brutal, clever, and hamstrung by his own time and contemporaries, later depicted as mad by those intent on conjuring the lurid phantasms of insanity, licentiousness, cruelty, and megalomania upon every utterance of his name. Spoiler alert - it worked.
June 5, 2021
A very interesting account of the life of Caligula. The author strips away the previous hysterical accounts of the emperor and portrays a man who was simply a monarch of his time.
July 4, 2016
A very interesting and illuminating read. Contradicting conventional wisdom about Caligula, this book tries to shed the ad hominems of "madman" and "crazed emperor" and dig for the truth of the matter. Caligula, when looked at with a degree historical scholarship, is honestly not that exciting or unique of an emperor. When it comes to most infamous of stories about him, said stories are either unsubstantiated or common among other emperors as well. What that doesn't account for, one can usually find truth by digging for historical context. For example, Caligula did not make his horse a consul because he was insane, but rather because he wanted to mock the consuls and aristocracy to show them how meaningless their positions were and on some level to get revenge for the conspiracies that had been enacted against him (in 39 and 41). Sure, Caligula had a bit of a mean streak and he was vindictive but that wasn't uncommon among those in power at the time and when one looks at Caligula's childhood (i.e. watching his family slaughtered by Tiberius's cronies) it isn't necessarily hard to understand. As a book, it is captivating and the drama unfolds at a pace that will keep your attention. My only gripe is that during some chapters, there will be many names thrown at the reader that will fall flat unless the reader is already seriously invested in Roman history or cares to do a Google search every time an unknown name comes up. Besides that, Winterling has done an excellent job with this book and I greatly respect authors who go against the grain and back up their findings and conclusions. Definitely recommended.
September 3, 2011
Winterling's is a revisionary biography aiming to show that Caligula, though cruel, was no madman. First, he argues against the belief that Caligula committed incest. Then, he shows that his cruelty was no different from that of other previous emperors but because he had humiliated the nobles, the history they left behind turned him into a madman. What made him different was that he called the nobles on their syncophancy. The most extreme case was that of men who, while the emperor was ill, had promised to give their own life in exchange for his. Caligula, when cured, made them hold to their oaths. Similarly, if they were to look for his favor by calling him a god, he would force them to treat him as such. He mocked the nobles and their pseudo-worship of him, leaving them with the catch-22 of admitting they were lying hypocrites and did not really see him as a god, etc. or being forced to treat him like the god he was not. Winterling's belief is that Caligula did not really believe himself a god but used the nobles' attempt to win his favor in order to humiliate them over and over again. In Winterling's version, Caligula refused to play the previously accepted 'game' of nobles and god-like emperor and so was damned by history.
November 26, 2012
This book differs from the typical biography of ancient Romes's mythic leaders in that the author's overarching agenda to prove that Caligula wasn't insane imprints itself on almost every single page. This rather single-minded focus tends to distract from what, otherwise, would be a very serviceable account of the infamous emperor. Winterling does manage to make a few salable points in favor of his argument; it may very well be true that Little Boots didn't make sweet, sweet love to any of his sisters. On other occasions, the author seems to almost tie himself in knots in an attempt to put a sane face on Caligula's actions. There's no amount of exposition that's going to make me believe that building a three-mile-long bridge across the backs of boats assembled on the Gulf of Baiae to celebrate a military victory that probably never happened isn't just slightly batshit. More than anything, the historic Caligula already erected over the last 2,000 years works hard against this book. An insane Caligula is so much more interesting, so much more (dare I say) sexy than a Caligula who's just another murderous thug like Tiberius, Commodus and the rest of their ilk.
April 24, 2014
I don't read much nonfiction but I was intrigued by a review of this book and gave it a try. The author is clearly countering the prevailing wisdom that Caligula was crackers. In so doing he explains a whole whole lot about the dynamics of the political system in Rome in 20AD or so: game playing, posturing, false obequiousness, brutality, volatility. Not so different from today. Caligula is depicted as shrewd and strategic, not cuckoo, but nonetheless (spoiler alert) gets hacked to death by a bunch of his closest friends.
November 3, 2011
Look for my full review in Library Journal. But I will just say, I would have enjoyed this immeasurably more if it were framed as an investigation by a police detective recovering from a back injury and a young American student.
August 26, 2025
An interesting take on the life of Caligula. It appears he was not the mad emperor as previously depicted. Read it to find out why.
October 19, 2025
German Historian Aloys Winterling Studies Imperial Rome's Third Emperor, Gaius Germanicus Caesar.
Gaius Germanicus Caesar, the 3rd emperor of Rome, lived from 12 - 41 AD & stands as perhaps the most glaring historical example of an autocratic ruler who was undeniably guilty of vastly misusing & abusing his absolute power & authority over the Roman empire during his 4-year reign.
There certainly exists in modern times a diverse array of both popular & scholarly literature devoted to the emperor Gaius, whose nickname 'Caligula', or 'Little Boots', is derived from the Latin term, caligae, which in the words of Wikipedia are : "..heavy-duty, thick-soled openwork boots, with hobnailed soles...[which] were worn by the lower ranks of Roman cavalrymen and foot-soldiers". Anthony A. Barrett's 1989 Caligula: The Corruption Of Power is a scholarly-yet-exhaustive account of Gaius' life & reign, & Stephen Dando-Collins' 2020 Caligula : The Mad Emperor Of Rome is a sensational-but-well-written, stylized biography on the opposite side of the spectrum. Aloys Winterling's 2011 Caligula: A Biography falls someplace in the middle.
This surprisingly accessible biography was originally composed in 2003 by German historian Aloys Winterling but it received an exceptional English translation in 2011 thanks to the efforts of Deborah Lucas Schneider, Glenn W. Most, Paul Psoinos, & the generous support of the Classical Literature Endowment Fund of the University of California Press Foundation. The written works of Cassius Dio, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, & Philo of Alexandria are referenced & excerpted throughout the book & are utilized effectively by the author as he illustrates the occasionally-bizarre but undeniably-colorful events which occurred during Gaius' four-year reign from 37 - 41 AD. Winterling discusses at length the domestic & foreign policies of Gaius Caligula & places emphasis upon how his regime, even before it descended into madness, represented a paradigm shift from the principates of his predecessors Divus Augustus & Tiberius.
One of the book's early high points is Winterling's well-articulated descriptions of the ruling style & administrative policies of Augustus & Tiberius Caesar, & much of Chapter 1 : Childhood & Youth devotes itself to fleshing out these subjects, which are necessary later in the biography in understanding the author's analysis of Gaius' foreign & domestic policies & how the Roman aristocracy was required to perceive him in everyday court life. Due in part to the nature of the princeps position he developed & partly due to his own unique personality, Augustus Caesar favored a distinct style of governance requiring a great deal of dissimulation & ambiguous forms of communication in order to sustain the appearance of a republican form of government. This created an interesting predicament, & according to Winterling, it was "..one which demanded great communicative skill from all participants. The senators had to act as if they still possessed a degree of power that they no longer had, while the emperor had to exercise his power in such a way as to dissemble his possession of it." While Octavian would maintain amicable relations with the equestrian & patrician social orders throughout the course of his 41-year reign, the Roman senate soon discovered that his successor Tiberius was cut from a different cloth entirely.
The prevailing themes of the 23-year principate of Tiberius Caesar which lasted from 14-37 can best be described as extreme suspicion & intense paranoia. Tiberius preferred to remove himself from those he ruled, employing an aloof, isolationist style which eventually resulted in his leaving Rome entirely after relocating his government to the island of Capri where he lived in luxury & comfort, in a remote location free from the dangerous political intrigues of the Capitoline Mount. Winterling aptly describes Tiberius' role in politics with the following : "One could say that while Augustus did play the part like a consummate actor, Tiberius took it all at face value. If the former princeps had exercised his power vis-à-vis the aristocracy by pretending that he did not possess it, then the latter had the power but did not exercise it. And if during the rule of Augustus the senators could pretend that they were exercising power that they did not possess, under Tiberius they possessed power that they could not exercise." The author & his translation team are simply exceptional as they eloquently articulate the complicated political atmosphere that ultimately led to Gaius Caligula's disastrous 4-year principate.
Among the more outrageous events in Gaius' reign occurs in the study's 3rd chapter, entitled, 'The Conflicts Escalate". Following the conclusion of his northern campaign in Germania, the emperor needed to stage an appropriately spectacular event to celebrate his triumphant return to Rome in the spring & early summer of 40 AD. After traveling to his opulent Campanian villa near Puteoli, Caligula ordered the construction of a gigantic, three-mile long pontoon bridge that traversed the Gulf of Baiae between Puteoli & Bauli, near Misenum, & according to Winterling's description, "It consisted of a double row of cargo ships assembled from many places, with earth piled on top of them to make a road as solid as the Via Appia. At various intervals the road was widened to make space for resting places & shelters with running fresh water." Gaius' homecoming was spectacular indeed, & the author's choice excerpt from Book 59 of Cassius Dio's Roman History describes his interactions with the Roman soldiers upon completion of this monumental accomplishment : "First he extolled himself as an undertaker of great enterprises, & then he praised the soldiers as men who had undergone great hardships & perils, mentioning in particular this achievement of theirs in crossing the sea on foot." Many of the available biographies on Caligula seem to focus almost exclusively on the numerous, gratuitous acts of violence & depravity he committed during the 2nd half of his reign, & refreshingly, Winterling's book bucks this trend in many ways, mainly concentrating on the political & social aspects of his principate which are in many ways much more interesting & rewarding as well.
Later on, when Gaius' subjugation & humiliation of Rome's senatorial class become one of the narrative's focal points, sources such as Gaius Suetonius' Lives Of The Twelve Caesars are referenced & well-utilized by the author as he chronicles the various atrocities committed by the emperor & effectively demonstrates just how low Caligula's estimation of the Roman aristocracy truly was. One of the tamer examples was that of a notable Roman aristocrat, Aponius Saturnius, who kept nodding off in the presence of the emperor during an auction being held for the sale of gladiators. After taking notice Gaius gave specific direction to the auctioneer to interpret each of Saturnius' nods as a bid in the affirmative. When the hapless Aponius woke up he was promptly informed that he had purchased 13 gladiators for the outrageous sum of 9,000,000 sesterces. Small details I've not found in many other biographical works on Gaius are also to be found here, such as the emperor's love for horseracing, his affection for the Greens & the construction of his own stadium, the Gaianum. There is also a well-written appraisal of the emperor's mental state in the conclusion that, along with the rest of Winterling's book, is both interesting as well as thought-provoking. The convincing viewpoints & arguments made by the author are worth reading the rest of book just to consider, because this is not the kind of biographical study that comes around terribly often. It is definitely worth your time, regardless of whether or not you are a Caligula enthusiast.
This is a book that manages early on to not only capture the reader's interest but sustains it all the way up to the closing pages. The main reason it succeeds as well as it does is primarily due to the unpretentious, down-to-earth manner into which it was composed by Aloys Winterling & subsequently translated into English by his team at the University of California Press. It is most highly recommended.
Gaius Germanicus Caesar, the 3rd emperor of Rome, lived from 12 - 41 AD & stands as perhaps the most glaring historical example of an autocratic ruler who was undeniably guilty of vastly misusing & abusing his absolute power & authority over the Roman empire during his 4-year reign.
There certainly exists in modern times a diverse array of both popular & scholarly literature devoted to the emperor Gaius, whose nickname 'Caligula', or 'Little Boots', is derived from the Latin term, caligae, which in the words of Wikipedia are : "..heavy-duty, thick-soled openwork boots, with hobnailed soles...[which] were worn by the lower ranks of Roman cavalrymen and foot-soldiers". Anthony A. Barrett's 1989 Caligula: The Corruption Of Power is a scholarly-yet-exhaustive account of Gaius' life & reign, & Stephen Dando-Collins' 2020 Caligula : The Mad Emperor Of Rome is a sensational-but-well-written, stylized biography on the opposite side of the spectrum. Aloys Winterling's 2011 Caligula: A Biography falls someplace in the middle.
This surprisingly accessible biography was originally composed in 2003 by German historian Aloys Winterling but it received an exceptional English translation in 2011 thanks to the efforts of Deborah Lucas Schneider, Glenn W. Most, Paul Psoinos, & the generous support of the Classical Literature Endowment Fund of the University of California Press Foundation. The written works of Cassius Dio, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, & Philo of Alexandria are referenced & excerpted throughout the book & are utilized effectively by the author as he illustrates the occasionally-bizarre but undeniably-colorful events which occurred during Gaius' four-year reign from 37 - 41 AD. Winterling discusses at length the domestic & foreign policies of Gaius Caligula & places emphasis upon how his regime, even before it descended into madness, represented a paradigm shift from the principates of his predecessors Divus Augustus & Tiberius.
One of the book's early high points is Winterling's well-articulated descriptions of the ruling style & administrative policies of Augustus & Tiberius Caesar, & much of Chapter 1 : Childhood & Youth devotes itself to fleshing out these subjects, which are necessary later in the biography in understanding the author's analysis of Gaius' foreign & domestic policies & how the Roman aristocracy was required to perceive him in everyday court life. Due in part to the nature of the princeps position he developed & partly due to his own unique personality, Augustus Caesar favored a distinct style of governance requiring a great deal of dissimulation & ambiguous forms of communication in order to sustain the appearance of a republican form of government. This created an interesting predicament, & according to Winterling, it was "..one which demanded great communicative skill from all participants. The senators had to act as if they still possessed a degree of power that they no longer had, while the emperor had to exercise his power in such a way as to dissemble his possession of it." While Octavian would maintain amicable relations with the equestrian & patrician social orders throughout the course of his 41-year reign, the Roman senate soon discovered that his successor Tiberius was cut from a different cloth entirely.
The prevailing themes of the 23-year principate of Tiberius Caesar which lasted from 14-37 can best be described as extreme suspicion & intense paranoia. Tiberius preferred to remove himself from those he ruled, employing an aloof, isolationist style which eventually resulted in his leaving Rome entirely after relocating his government to the island of Capri where he lived in luxury & comfort, in a remote location free from the dangerous political intrigues of the Capitoline Mount. Winterling aptly describes Tiberius' role in politics with the following : "One could say that while Augustus did play the part like a consummate actor, Tiberius took it all at face value. If the former princeps had exercised his power vis-à-vis the aristocracy by pretending that he did not possess it, then the latter had the power but did not exercise it. And if during the rule of Augustus the senators could pretend that they were exercising power that they did not possess, under Tiberius they possessed power that they could not exercise." The author & his translation team are simply exceptional as they eloquently articulate the complicated political atmosphere that ultimately led to Gaius Caligula's disastrous 4-year principate.
Among the more outrageous events in Gaius' reign occurs in the study's 3rd chapter, entitled, 'The Conflicts Escalate". Following the conclusion of his northern campaign in Germania, the emperor needed to stage an appropriately spectacular event to celebrate his triumphant return to Rome in the spring & early summer of 40 AD. After traveling to his opulent Campanian villa near Puteoli, Caligula ordered the construction of a gigantic, three-mile long pontoon bridge that traversed the Gulf of Baiae between Puteoli & Bauli, near Misenum, & according to Winterling's description, "It consisted of a double row of cargo ships assembled from many places, with earth piled on top of them to make a road as solid as the Via Appia. At various intervals the road was widened to make space for resting places & shelters with running fresh water." Gaius' homecoming was spectacular indeed, & the author's choice excerpt from Book 59 of Cassius Dio's Roman History describes his interactions with the Roman soldiers upon completion of this monumental accomplishment : "First he extolled himself as an undertaker of great enterprises, & then he praised the soldiers as men who had undergone great hardships & perils, mentioning in particular this achievement of theirs in crossing the sea on foot." Many of the available biographies on Caligula seem to focus almost exclusively on the numerous, gratuitous acts of violence & depravity he committed during the 2nd half of his reign, & refreshingly, Winterling's book bucks this trend in many ways, mainly concentrating on the political & social aspects of his principate which are in many ways much more interesting & rewarding as well.
Later on, when Gaius' subjugation & humiliation of Rome's senatorial class become one of the narrative's focal points, sources such as Gaius Suetonius' Lives Of The Twelve Caesars are referenced & well-utilized by the author as he chronicles the various atrocities committed by the emperor & effectively demonstrates just how low Caligula's estimation of the Roman aristocracy truly was. One of the tamer examples was that of a notable Roman aristocrat, Aponius Saturnius, who kept nodding off in the presence of the emperor during an auction being held for the sale of gladiators. After taking notice Gaius gave specific direction to the auctioneer to interpret each of Saturnius' nods as a bid in the affirmative. When the hapless Aponius woke up he was promptly informed that he had purchased 13 gladiators for the outrageous sum of 9,000,000 sesterces. Small details I've not found in many other biographical works on Gaius are also to be found here, such as the emperor's love for horseracing, his affection for the Greens & the construction of his own stadium, the Gaianum. There is also a well-written appraisal of the emperor's mental state in the conclusion that, along with the rest of Winterling's book, is both interesting as well as thought-provoking. The convincing viewpoints & arguments made by the author are worth reading the rest of book just to consider, because this is not the kind of biographical study that comes around terribly often. It is definitely worth your time, regardless of whether or not you are a Caligula enthusiast.
This is a book that manages early on to not only capture the reader's interest but sustains it all the way up to the closing pages. The main reason it succeeds as well as it does is primarily due to the unpretentious, down-to-earth manner into which it was composed by Aloys Winterling & subsequently translated into English by his team at the University of California Press. It is most highly recommended.
February 1, 2023
Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling is a meticulously researched examination into the life and reign of the infamous Roman emperor. This biography delves deep into the historical sources, offering a comprehensive analysis of Caligula's life, starting from his childhood and extending to his time as emperor. The author provides a clear and concise account of the often-contradictory accounts of Caligula's rule, making the book accessible to a general audience while still providing valuable insights for historians and scholars.
As the Roman philosopher Seneca once said, "It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it." This statement is particularly relevant to Caligula's reign, as he is widely considered to be one of the most notorious emperors in Roman history. Winterling's biography offers an in-depth exploration of Caligula's life and legacy, shedding light on the many complexities and contradictions of this intricate historical figure.
The author provides a comprehensive examination of the sources available, including primary and secondary accounts, inscriptions, and coinage. Winterling takes a critical approach to these sources, carefully weighing the evidence and separating fact from fiction in order to provide a well-rounded picture of Caligula's life and reign. In doing so, he seeks to challenge the traditional narratives and interpretations of Caligula's life and rule.
The book is organized chronologically, with each chapter focused on a specific aspect of Caligula's life. This allows the reader to easily follow the emperor's journey and gain a deeper understanding of his character and motivations. Winterling also incorporates contemporary accounts of Caligula's rule, including the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius and the philosopher Philo of Alexandria. These sources offer valuable insights into the social, political, and religious climate of the time, and provide a context for Caligula's reign.
In addition to the historical analysis, Winterling also provides a nuanced examination of Caligula's legacy. The author argues that Caligula's legacy is much more complex than his reputation as a cruel and eccentric ruler might suggest. He explains how Caligula's legacy has been shaped by the historical sources, and how it has been passed down through the centuries. He also explores the impact that Caligula's rule had on the Roman Empire, and its lasting effects on Roman society and politics.
Overall, Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling is a must-read for anyone interested in the life and legacy of this infamous Roman emperor. The book is well-researched, well-written, and provides a comprehensive examination of Caligula's life and reign. Whether you are a historian, scholar, or simply a general reader with an interest in ancient Rome, this book offers a wealth of information and insights into the life and legacy of this intriguing historical figure.
As the Roman philosopher Seneca once said, "It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it." This statement is particularly relevant to Caligula's reign, as he is widely considered to be one of the most notorious emperors in Roman history. Winterling's biography offers an in-depth exploration of Caligula's life and legacy, shedding light on the many complexities and contradictions of this intricate historical figure.
The author provides a comprehensive examination of the sources available, including primary and secondary accounts, inscriptions, and coinage. Winterling takes a critical approach to these sources, carefully weighing the evidence and separating fact from fiction in order to provide a well-rounded picture of Caligula's life and reign. In doing so, he seeks to challenge the traditional narratives and interpretations of Caligula's life and rule.
The book is organized chronologically, with each chapter focused on a specific aspect of Caligula's life. This allows the reader to easily follow the emperor's journey and gain a deeper understanding of his character and motivations. Winterling also incorporates contemporary accounts of Caligula's rule, including the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius and the philosopher Philo of Alexandria. These sources offer valuable insights into the social, political, and religious climate of the time, and provide a context for Caligula's reign.
In addition to the historical analysis, Winterling also provides a nuanced examination of Caligula's legacy. The author argues that Caligula's legacy is much more complex than his reputation as a cruel and eccentric ruler might suggest. He explains how Caligula's legacy has been shaped by the historical sources, and how it has been passed down through the centuries. He also explores the impact that Caligula's rule had on the Roman Empire, and its lasting effects on Roman society and politics.
Overall, Caligula: A Biography by Aloys Winterling is a must-read for anyone interested in the life and legacy of this infamous Roman emperor. The book is well-researched, well-written, and provides a comprehensive examination of Caligula's life and reign. Whether you are a historian, scholar, or simply a general reader with an interest in ancient Rome, this book offers a wealth of information and insights into the life and legacy of this intriguing historical figure.
August 28, 2019
Voto reale: 3,4/5
A differenza di Nony, nonché a vent'anni di distanza da quest'ultimo (e verrebbe da pensare quali altri sviluppi si siano visti dal 2005), il saggio di Winterling ci prova davvero a sbrogliare la matassa, e con quale audacia. Da Cassio Dione e Seneca a Tacito e soprattutto Svetonio le versioni sul conto di Caligola si modificano fino a farne l'imperatore pazzo che si compiace del sangue sparso e nomina console il cavallo Incitato. Ma è possibile immaginare che il senato appoggiasse e lasciasse pieni poteri a un folle senza presumere in una tale condotta pari follia? Quali forze erano in gioco allora? Il nodo, questa è in pratica la tesi di Winterling, potrebbe risiedere proprio in quella doppiezza della comunicazione tra il princeps e il senato su cui Augusto aveva impostato il potere, resa possibile peraltro dalla debolezza dell'aristocrazia, che fingeva di credere in un'ideale che non poteva esistere più e che d'altronde essa non aveva più interesse a che sopravvivesse. Caligola dunque potrebbe aver smascherato e nominato pubblicamente quello che era a tutti gli effetti il paradosso del potere imperiale e l'ipocrisia del senato. E così ecco, le congiure, il terrore, le stravaganze (finanche forse la decisione di spostare il cuore dell'Impero ad Alessandria) ogni gesto che non può che generare conseguenze precise.
A differenza di Nony, nonché a vent'anni di distanza da quest'ultimo (e verrebbe da pensare quali altri sviluppi si siano visti dal 2005), il saggio di Winterling ci prova davvero a sbrogliare la matassa, e con quale audacia. Da Cassio Dione e Seneca a Tacito e soprattutto Svetonio le versioni sul conto di Caligola si modificano fino a farne l'imperatore pazzo che si compiace del sangue sparso e nomina console il cavallo Incitato. Ma è possibile immaginare che il senato appoggiasse e lasciasse pieni poteri a un folle senza presumere in una tale condotta pari follia? Quali forze erano in gioco allora? Il nodo, questa è in pratica la tesi di Winterling, potrebbe risiedere proprio in quella doppiezza della comunicazione tra il princeps e il senato su cui Augusto aveva impostato il potere, resa possibile peraltro dalla debolezza dell'aristocrazia, che fingeva di credere in un'ideale che non poteva esistere più e che d'altronde essa non aveva più interesse a che sopravvivesse. Caligola dunque potrebbe aver smascherato e nominato pubblicamente quello che era a tutti gli effetti il paradosso del potere imperiale e l'ipocrisia del senato. E così ecco, le congiure, il terrore, le stravaganze (finanche forse la decisione di spostare il cuore dell'Impero ad Alessandria) ogni gesto che non può che generare conseguenze precise.
February 26, 2019
I was looking forward to reading this book. I was both pleased and disappointed in it. I will explain why. I love history facts and I love that this book was making the argument that Caligula was not mad as has been handed down to us in history, but rather he was really clever and was making a point about the way the upper classes told all kinds of lies, or flattery to try and win favours from the Emperor. Caligula was making a joke of them, making them look foolish as that was how he saw society.
The arguments and basis on historical records is fantastic and I loved seeing all the evidence of stories we have heard garbled versions of.
What disappointed me though was there was very little reference to his early life, especially the time spent with Tiberius which I can only imagine being very scary as he must have been near death a lot I think it might have shown how he became the uncaring person he was later in life. He had to rely on himself. I was also disappointed in his assassination as it sort of referred to it as we all knew it happened and it did not give it the proper coverage it deserved. Hence 4 stars from me.
The arguments and basis on historical records is fantastic and I loved seeing all the evidence of stories we have heard garbled versions of.
What disappointed me though was there was very little reference to his early life, especially the time spent with Tiberius which I can only imagine being very scary as he must have been near death a lot I think it might have shown how he became the uncaring person he was later in life. He had to rely on himself. I was also disappointed in his assassination as it sort of referred to it as we all knew it happened and it did not give it the proper coverage it deserved. Hence 4 stars from me.
April 3, 2019
An sich ein gutes und kritisches Werk, das sich, statt einfach nachzusprechen, was vor allem Sueton und Seneca zu sagen haben, kritisch mit der Quellenlage auseinandersetzt, vieles in Beziehung zu einander bringt und mir so ermöglicht, bei meinem Roman möglichst nahe an der Quelle zu bleiben.
Die Biografie ist unterhaltsam geschrieben und auch verständlich, wenn man kein*e Historiker*in ist - allerdings bin ich in Sachen römische Geschichte ja nicht vollkommen unwissend, sodass ich nicht beurteilen kann, wie viel Vorwissen letzten Endes erforderlich ist, um alles zu verstehen und einzuordnen.
Gerade durch seinen unterhaltsamen Charakter erzählt Winterling allerdings teilweise nicht ganz chronologisch. Ein Glück, dass meine Notizen digital sind, analog hätte ich vor Einschüben, Umschüben und Ergänzungen sonst nicht mehr durchgeblickt.
Auf alle Fälle wird diese Lektüre meine zwei Caligula-Romane ungemein bereichern.
Die Biografie ist unterhaltsam geschrieben und auch verständlich, wenn man kein*e Historiker*in ist - allerdings bin ich in Sachen römische Geschichte ja nicht vollkommen unwissend, sodass ich nicht beurteilen kann, wie viel Vorwissen letzten Endes erforderlich ist, um alles zu verstehen und einzuordnen.
Gerade durch seinen unterhaltsamen Charakter erzählt Winterling allerdings teilweise nicht ganz chronologisch. Ein Glück, dass meine Notizen digital sind, analog hätte ich vor Einschüben, Umschüben und Ergänzungen sonst nicht mehr durchgeblickt.
Auf alle Fälle wird diese Lektüre meine zwei Caligula-Romane ungemein bereichern.
June 10, 2020
Pretty good biography of Caligula; very readable and informative. Winterling takes the position that Caligula was not "mad" as most of the histories portray him. To be sure he was paranoid, vengeful, cruel, maniacal and despotic...but he was not insane. Winterling bases his conclusions on examining the parallel themes from classical authors, where they contradict each other, and where they contradict themselves, ultimately declaring that those authors were biased and therefore not accurate. He goes on to draw conclusions from what is NOT written in the classical histories to reach his conclusions. It's a novel approach but not one that has entirely convinced me. I would recommend this book to anyone. If you have no knowledge of Caligula or if you simply want a different perspective this is a good book.
March 8, 2024
Wirklich großartige Aufarbeitung!
Alles ist mit Belegen gestützt und sachlich formuliert; gleichzeitig schafft er es, einen fast dramenartigen Spannungsbogen zu erzeugen.
Man merkt dem Buch an, dass es von jemandem mit sehr viel Ahnung über das römische Herrschaftssystem und all den komplexen Machtdynamiken im damaligen Rom geschrieben wurde. Umso mehr Beachtung verdient es, dass Winterling es dennoch geschafft hat, dieses Buch auch für Leute mit nur sehr sehr grobem Vorwissen (wie mich) verständlich zu gestalten.
Alles ist mit Belegen gestützt und sachlich formuliert; gleichzeitig schafft er es, einen fast dramenartigen Spannungsbogen zu erzeugen.
Man merkt dem Buch an, dass es von jemandem mit sehr viel Ahnung über das römische Herrschaftssystem und all den komplexen Machtdynamiken im damaligen Rom geschrieben wurde. Umso mehr Beachtung verdient es, dass Winterling es dennoch geschafft hat, dieses Buch auch für Leute mit nur sehr sehr grobem Vorwissen (wie mich) verständlich zu gestalten.
May 3, 2019
Aloys Winterling makes a compelling case in this historical analysis for an alternative view to the accepted understanding of Caligula as a 'mad emperor'. AW takes each claim exacted upon Caligula and puts them into a historical context with astute commentary from himself and other contemporaries while backing any hypotheses with ancient sources. Overall a pleasant, quick read that offers a different perspective on a notorious figure.
April 17, 2021
Thorough and clear. But Winterling has almost as much of an agenda as Caligula's 2nd century biographer. And he dutifully revisits every major thing we know about Gaius and frames it to fit. In this version, he's not mad. He is bad. And he is definitely dangerous to know. But ultimately he was a cruel man, a product of his time and definitely didn't bang his sister. The other version is so much more fun and I will continue to frame Caligula as John Hurt dancing in a gold bikini.
May 12, 2024
This book aims to debunk the view that Caligula was a “mad emperor” and chronologically takes each “insane” act and explains why it actually wasn’t insane. There are some interesting points as to why Caligula might have done those things and their political strategy, but the question of “why do we think he is insane then?” can be answered in one answer: the people back then didn’t like him and called him insane as an insult. There. That is the 200 pages summed up.
January 22, 2025
This book partially redeems Caligula as - instead of a madman - an initially wise ruler who, after Senate attempts on his life, turns sardonic performance artist on a grand scale and then finally malevolent troll willing to starve the populace for his final theatrical run. The text is poignant with a concise, dry tone, which is amplifed by the physical book's comfortable severity, as if text and book had grown up together, and settled easily into their reciprocal natures.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews