Talk:Caligula

Pasting this here for now, as it doesn't directly relate to the section on divinity. It also suffers the same original research issues as almost all of the article. Not good, indeed.

Suetonius claims that Caligula ended a squabble over precedence among several client kings with the Homeric line:^[1] "Let there be one lord, one king," referring to himself. ^[2] In Roman Republican tradition, kingship was anathema.

Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary, This article needs such a thorough rewriting it's hard to know where to go from here. I think perhaps the best place to go would in fact be a through rewrite. There fortunately exist quality modern sources (though not cited here except portions on his early life which I wrote based on CAH² 10). I would maintain parallel citations (eg in Julius Caesar Morstein-Marx 2021, p. 107, citing Suet. Iul., 16.) and it would of course take a rather large amount of time to read those sources, the literature review (I think the Julio-Claudian section of Potter's Roman history: imperial, 31 BCE to 284 CE is relevant), and then write up an article but it is feasible. Ifly6 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Re bibliography: CAH² 10 (1994); Barrett Caligula (2nd ed, 2015) (First ed cited but not really used); Seager Tiberius (2nd ed, 2005); and Winterling Caligula (2003; English trans 2011) seem of most value. I would avoid Fratantuono Caligula (2018) per the negative BMCR review (little more than survey [of the] main literary sources for the reign of Caligula... Anyone hoping for a standard biography of Caligula must look elsewhere). Ifly6 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What a welcome reply, Ifly6. Such a vast topic. I'm happy to put it aside until I've a better grasp of the problems - or any grasp at all. Is a standard biography possible? Desirable? Alas, I was raised on Robert Graves. Just imagine that. I can see why folks are wary of tackling this one. Such flimsy historiography, too many choices, too many perspectives. The closer one looks, the greater the unravelling. The closest I've come to such complexity is the so-called Imperial cult; with Elagabalus as a close second. Or the Magna Mater. So much reading to be done, and I'm not even sure I have the capacity. The Brynmawr review is a very useful appraisal, and at least it leaves one asking the right questions. Unfortunately I lost most of my electronic CAH, which would have at least given a framework. Let's wait and see what happens next. Haploidavey (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess "standard biography" is beyond our remit. Haploidavey (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The standard biography seems to be that of Barrett (cited alone in Potter's bibliography and OCD⁴), now in its second edition, with Winterling's biography also well received. I would also review CAH² 10, of course, for more background. Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

One of our generous G&R editors has sent me what's needed: Very many thanks to Ifly6 for the above, and to T8612 for repairing and expanding my library of sources. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

After several very intensive days rewriting the section on Caligula and religion, I'm very relieved to find that Barrett's bibliography happens to support most of what I've written so far (or will do so with a minimum of fiddling and fudging). Yes, that's not really how it should be done but it seems to bode well for the article as a whole. So thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Does this mean that Caligula’s ships were still in existence in 1944? Where? How? 203.40.132.51 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as the source describes in detail. NebY (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See Nemi ships, which includes photos... you can still see the bronze fittings from the ships on the 1st floor of the Palazzo Massimo and they are well worth the visit. Furius (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I fear Winterling is overreaching if he asserts first that Julius "was willing to abandon the city of Rome and rule the empire from Alexandria, in Egypt, as a divine monarch", and second that "He was designated Jupiter Julius, and was voted a temple by the senate to honour his clementia (clemency). Mark Antony was chosen as his high priest - all this while Caesar still lived."

As I remember and find eg in Scullard, that Caesar considered moving to Alexandria was a rumour "probably ... set on foot by his political enemies in order to discredit him". Also, so far I've failed to find that the rumour was that he planned to rule there as divine, but that may well be my lack of sources and skills.

The second is perhaps based on Cicero and Cassius Dio. Crawford translates Cicero's Second Philippic, 110 "... do you really love him now that he is dead? What honour did he achieve greater than the right to have a sacred couch, an image, a house like a temple, a priest? So just as there is a priest of Jupiter, of Mars, of Quirinus, is M. Antonius now the priest of the divine Julius?" It's great rhetoric and insinuation, and has caused much debate. Dio has more; I admit I generally suspect Dio of filling in colourful details (his account of Boudica's revolt is so much more dramatic than Tacitus') but on this, he perturbs actual scholars too - as does Cicero (eg which includes Dio's conflation of evidence, including the baffling silences). Beard, North and Price in Religions of Rome (I, 140-141) have "The honours ... suggest that he had been accorded the status of a god - or something very like it: he had, for example, the right to have a priest (flamen) of his cult, to adorn his house with a pediment (as if it were a temple) and to place his own image in formal processions of images of the gods .... Ever since ... these honours - particularly those granted before his death - have been the focus of debate... you will not find a clear answer ... both Roman writers and moder scholars offer different and often contradictory views... taken together, they attest only the impossibility of fixing a precise category". Might we make our statements a little less definitive? NebY (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm away to family early tomorrow, and won't be back until Thurs. Will reply then. I've changed the source and some sequences but frankly any errors in citing Winterling are liable to be mine, not his. This is probably what comes of incautiously writing what seems obvious, unaided by scholars, attribution or scholarship. Have a good holiday! Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No rush. I'm enjoying your work here, and fell happily down a rabbithole wondering if the Senate voted those divine honours to Caesar's genius or quite outrageously to him in his lifetime. Enjoy your well-earned holiday! NebY (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You too, Neby. Though the effects of two whole days without public transport of any sort are hard to imagine... Haploidavey (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a question in the second paragraph of 'Conflict with the Senate', "If they had acted against Caligula's family, then why not against Caligula himself?". Should it be changed? Solus Bane (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point. It's a summary of source material from Winterling (especially pp. 96 - 98) and as I added it in the first place, I'm hardly likely to object. It has a rather rhetorical edge, seeming to speak for Caligula but it's offered in Winterling's voice, not Wikipedia's. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Most Suetonius citations used are from his Life of Caligula, but at least two (probably more) from Life of Tiberius seem to have been misdirected to the former. The first is number 19 (as of this post's date-stamp). I keep falling foul of the nightmarishly over-complicated format (in other words, it's beyond me), which persists in linking every occurence of "Suetonius" to Life of Caligula. Help... Haploidavey (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got them both, by following the cheat sheet I made myself back when Ifly6 was preparing WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources. NebY (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Clever, clever, helpful people... Haploidavey (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, one fool that couldn't resist a challenge and one clever person. :) NebY (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd split the two entries into anchors as {{harvid|Suet. ''Tib.''}} and {{harvid|Suet. ''Calig.''}}. Those then can be used as the anchor points as {{sfn|Suet. ''Tib.''|loc=##.##}} and {{sfn|Suet. ''Tib.''|loc=##.##}}, respectively. You can find the current entries by running regular expression Suet[ \w\.\']+\|\d?(p|pp|loc)\=(Calig\w*|Tib\w*)\.?,? \d+. Ifly6 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! Regex searching inside an article is not in my toolkit. Happily, in this case I could easily do a lot with Wikipedia's ordinary search-and-replace (find sfn|Suetonius|loc=Caligula ; replace with sfn|Suet. ''Calig.''|loc=; Replace All). But first, @Haploidavey as the one who's been doing so much good work here lately, do you have a view on switching the refs to show e.g. Suet. Tib. 75, Suet. Calig. 2 and Suet. Claud. 11, all linked to the full entries under Ancient sources as currently for Life of Tiberius and Life of Caligula? Any links to specific passages would remain. NebY (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow... my brain freezes over when confronted by anything more complex than the simplest sfn. What NebY suggests is fine by me. In general, I'm in favour of linking to the same primary source editions as used by secondary sources; in effect, it surely must help readers and editors to know that we're all on the same pages. I'm not sure where that leaves us; what's been done at the Primary source list works admirably well; but I must admit I'd have great difficulty working within the format (adding to it, or changing any aspect thereof). I'd have to resort to yet another "cry for help". Haploidavey (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I know the {{sfn}} structure can be confusing! I think using it builds some intuition quickly though. As to which editions, I think there are three main views: the first is to give the title and nothing else (basically, be agnostic on translation the same way scholars are); the second is to give an open version – which is what I do with links to Perseus and LacusCurtius; the third is to link to the "best" version (Oxford World Classics and Loeb usually). I think all of them are reasonable approaches, especially the first which parallels how books on classics usually do their own translations. Obviously, I have preferences of my own and they are revealed in the articles I write. Ifly6 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I used to be surprised we'd cite specific translations, but the Suetonius citations here are pretty comprehensive. They distinguish clearly between author and translator, link to our articles about Suetonius, the work, the translator and the Loeb library, and link to the translation. Shame about the dating, a known problem on WP, and I'd like a link that gave the Latin too but there you go. Right, time to put my search-and-replace money where my mouth is. NebY (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had to add the Lives of Augustus and Claudius; the usual copy-paste-tweak-preview-oops-tweak worked fine, but yeah, cries for help work too! NebY (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I marked a few tags in this diff. I'm confused as to how Suet Calig 25 is relevant in establishing there is a contradiction between tales of Caligula's overweening sexual appetites and Caesonia's love potion. I assume Barrett is saying that; it would be uncharacteristic indeed of Suetonius to muddle his straight-forward narrative of corruption with something as banal as logical consistency.

I'm also interested in seeing the actual citations that underlie Tales reported by Josephus, Suetonius and the satirist Juvenal. Assuming the references come from Barrett, they should probably be cited in a X citing Y, Z, and A form. Providing such citations would be of some value to those with interest in the primary sources while also giving the necessary authority with which to establish the relevance of those primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Real life interrupted me, and I lost my place; I hadn't yet caught up with myself. I've no idea how Suetonius 25 got in there (IIRC, it should be Suetonius 36). It's good to know someone's actually reading this... critically... Haploidavey (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not altogether that interested in the imperial era; I'm surprised I looked into it myself. I normally don't check edits on this page. Ifly6 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been surprised, from time to time, at Suetonius' apparent inconsistencies and self-contradictions. And then, of course, there are the difficulties in navigating Caligula's strange notions. See Barrett, p.285, note 5, citing Caligula's quip (in Suetonius Caligula 33) that "he felt like torturing Caesonia to discover why he loved her so passionately." Haploidavey (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't want to be too bothersome since this sort of fixing can feel like make-work but there are some things that jumped out to me about citations in the current version. Some of the issues feel to me like WP:TSI issues; some others are just formatting irregularities. (Separated ab initio.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

here is stated "Both gave Caligula ample opportunity for casual, friendly banter, which seems to have included humiliating levity, always at the Jewish delegation's expense; but he made no claims of divinity, either in his dress nor his speech,"

Where it is taken from. Philo has firsthand account and meeting with Caligula was far from being friendly. And he clearly made claims of divinity! 85.253.137.205 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps; but the assertions in question are based on Winterling's interpretation of events (see Winterling pp 156-159), rather than English translations of Philo's "Embassy". If you've fairly recent scholarly sources that disagree, you're very welcome to add them. Haploidavey (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC) PS: apologies for earlier page-range error at relevant para, now mended. Haploidavey (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

why is his interpretation reliable and directs source not? 85.253.137.205 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY; User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics. Ifly6 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

All the sections from "Public Profile" to "Religion" are activities Caligula did as emperor. I will be placing them under the "Emperor" section while its subsections "Princeps" and "Illness and Recovery" will be under the "Early Reign". Soidling (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why you reverted my edits. My way of seeing my reason to edit was to get rid of the unnecessary details of his life, such as what his parent's soldiers called him (little boot), and added why Caligula was significant as emperor, that being his reputation of his "erratic governance, lavish spending, and autocracy". I-don't agree-but understand why you added back what I removed, but don't understand why you removed the significance of the subject. Davidninjaking (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your edit summary for this edit was "Removed dramatic and unnecessary details in leading section", but you did not remove any such details. Instead you added your opinion,

"Although his reign began with public celebration and senatorial support, the rest of his reign was marked by his erratic governance, lavish spending, and autocracy throughout his short reign"

which is self-contradictory and an outdated pop-history version that's contrary to both the following paragraphs of the lead and the article body. That and your comment above about significance suggest that you didn't know and still don't know what is in the rest of the lead, let alone the full article. What's more, after your three edits, we had the confusing unidiomatic English

"Born a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty to Roman general Germanicus, and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder,"

in the first paragraph, followed shortly by a second paragraph which began

"The son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, being named after Gaius Julius Caesar, while his father's soldiers affectionately nicknamed him "Caligula" ('little boot')."

That's not a sentence, and it contains a startling dangling participle, and it repeats his parentage from two sentences before, at length, and it does not, as you say now, "get rid of the unnecessary details of his life, such as what his parent's soldiers called him (little boot)." For that matter, it's a mystery that you consider his common name, the title of the article, to be an "unnecessary detail", but we've spent far too much time on this already. NebY (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

"Although his reign began with public celebration and senatorial support, the rest of his reign was marked by his erratic governance, lavish spending, and autocracy throughout his short reign"

I don't see how this is self-contradictory or outdated to the next section of the article; could you point me to the right direction? What it seems to me is that the sentence follows accurately what the next paragraphs talk about. Thank you. Davidninjaking (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

You really don't see the contradiction in "the rest of his reign was marked by X, Y, and Z throughout his short reign"? Or how your assessment is contrary to the following paragraphs and article body? Well. Rather than waste more time, I’ll simply remind you that you need to gain consensus for your assessment of Caligula and you need to gain consensus for it to be placed at the start of the article. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I've retitled this section from "@NebY" to "Lead"; article talk pages are for discussion of the article by any interested editors. NebY (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't speak for NebY but the portion which you added to me largely doesn't seem to reflect the much more nuanced (and source critical) view which the rest of the article presents. Just because the ancient sources on face value say he was erratic, profligate, and a tyrant does not necessarily mean he was such a thing. Ifly6 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that makes much more sense. Shouldn't we, however, convey why the subject is significant or notable, even though it isn't shown a lot throughout the rest of the article? Per the [Wikipedia:Manuel Of Style] (I think that's how it's called), the very first paragraph of the leading section should define the subject, give notable history, and then explain why the subject is significant. I added my edit since the article lacked why the subject was significant. Davidninjaking (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I think in general the fact that Caligula was emperor is sufficient for his significance, which (on Wikipedia) refers mostly to whether he gets to have an article or not. Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

So we should include where he got his name but not why he was notable as emperor? Davidninjaking (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing for. That he was emperor is by itself sufficient to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Notability merely means he gets to have an article. Ifly6 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If we don't include what he did as emperor (even though it is unnecessary as you claim), why should we include what he did when he was 4 and 5 years old? My question's premise is why we include a detail in the very first paragraph, but not notable events such as what he did. Davidninjaking (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the lede fails to cover what he did while he was emperor.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter, an insane, murderous tyrantwho demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated the Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul. Most modern commentaries instead seek to explain Caligula's position, personality and historical context. Some historians dismiss many of the allegations against him as misunderstandings, exaggeration, mockery or malicious fantasy.

Ifly6 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

So we are including in the leading section based on what was MOST recorded? Alright thanks. Davidninjaking (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what that question means. Can you rephrase it? Ifly6 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The facts we include about Caligula in the leading sections are the facts most highlighted by the historical records? Davidninjaking (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The lede should merely be a high level summary of the article. Everything that is in the lede should be supported by stuff in the article. Ifly6 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

And because the entire article doesn't really emphasize on what I added about what he did as emperor, we shouldn't include it in the first section, regardless of how notable it is. Got it thanks. Davidninjaking (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)