Read ASSASSINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES (True Crime) for Free Online

initiative in a big way – in removing an emperor. In the years to come they were to do so again and again. In the official version of Caligula’s assassination, Claudius, the stammering old fool and uncle of the emperor, was found cowering behind some curtains. The Praetorian Guard saw him as a harmless and ineffectual character who could easily be controlled, so they installed him as the new emperor. But there is another way of viewing events. Claudius had been clever enough to survive the terrible reign of his nephew. The exemplary style of government he introduced suggests a more adept political operator. It seems quite possible that he was party to the plot, either to gain the imperial crown for himself or to secure his own safety. As the only obvious legitimate successor to Caligula, Claudius was in continuous danger from him; contemporary descriptions suggest that he was terrified of Caligula. Either way, while the senate may have been hoping for a return to the Republic, Claudius was taken by the Praetorians to the safety of their camp.
    Rome had waited in horror at the onset of Caligula’s mental illness, praying that he would recover, but the recovery was only partial. Modern historians have suggested that Caligula had encephalitis. Ancient biographers described Caligula having a ‘brain fever’. Philo of Alexandria judged that it was a straightforward nervous breakdown, as Caligula was not used to the pressures of constant public attention after being out of the public eye for most of his life. One visitor to his court saw the emperor as no more than a vicious practical joker. Modern psychologists would probably see Caligula as delusional, and suffering from antisocial personality disorder. Given Caligula’s unpopularity as emperor, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Which of the colourful stories told about him are true it is impossible to tell. The abandonment of the campaign to conquer Britain in favour of gathering seashells on the Channel coast as ‘spoils’ in a battle with Neptune is one of the most remarkable of them. What is clear, though, is that Caligula was totally unsuited to be emperor and psychologically unequal to the challenge of the role.
    On the other hand, most of the historical evidence comes from contemporaries who were of Roman senatorial rank. These were people whose power had been severely checked and therefore had axes to grind. The evidence of Suetonius in particular is unreliable; when he criticizes an emperor’s administration he also accuses him of indulging in sexual perversion as a way of clinching his argument. It is very unlikely that this association was historically accurate. The surviving records of Caligula were all written by his political opponents, those most damaged and thwarted by his attempt to enforce his absolute authority. Many of the sensational accusations levelled at Caligula could be viewed as politically motivated attacks.
    Caligula had a difficult relationship with an unsympathetic and uncooperative senate, one that had begun to resume ruling the Empire as it had before Caesar and Augustus. In the year ad 39 there was a political rift between Caligula and his senate. It is from this point forward that Caligula’s reign takes on a despotic tone. It may have seemed logical to him to take the role of emperor to its next level – divine monarchy. He might have got Rome to accept this if he had gone about it with more subtlety and diplomacy, with more respect and more humanity, but his approach was too brutal, too grotesque. The complexities and decencies of Roman society demanded that at least a facade of the emperor as ‘first-citizen’ must be maintained.
    Regardless of whether Caligula is viewed as an insane monarch or simply a misguided politician, the conclusion remains the same. History has sensationalized him. But Caligula was an important figure. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in Augustus’s model for the role of the