What do you think?
Rate this book
Caligula: The Corruption of Power
Was the Roman emperor Caligula really the depraved despot of popular legend? In this book -- the first major reassessment of Caligula's life and career in over fifty. years -- Anthony A. Barrett draws on archaeological, numismatic, and literary evidence to evaluate this infamous figure in the context of the system that gave him absolute power."Authoritative ... highly readable". -- Bernard Knox, Atlantic Monthly
"An excellent study of the brief reign of Caligula....Barrett is a highly competent historian and clear writer, and the intrinsic interest of his subject is so great that the tougher kind of reader, as well as the scholar, will study this book with pleasure as well as with instruction". -- Hugh Lloyd-Jones, New York Review of Books
"Barrett's Caligula fills a long-standing void in providing a balanced, thoroughly documented, and persuasive assessment of Caligula's life and career. This eminently readable book's value is further enhanced by the illustrations and by an appendix discussing Caligula's statuary and coinage. It will prove a welcome addition to the library of anyone with interests in Roman history and culture". -- Joseph J. Hughes, Classical World
"I do not think that any scholar interested in the Julio-Claudian period or any classics or ancient history library could be without this book. Very well written, it should also be popular with the general public". -- Colin M. Wells
"An excellent study of the brief reign of Caligula....Barrett is a highly competent historian and clear writer, and the intrinsic interest of his subject is so great that the tougher kind of reader, as well as the scholar, will study this book with pleasure as well as with instruction". -- Hugh Lloyd-Jones, New York Review of Books
"Barrett's Caligula fills a long-standing void in providing a balanced, thoroughly documented, and persuasive assessment of Caligula's life and career. This eminently readable book's value is further enhanced by the illustrations and by an appendix discussing Caligula's statuary and coinage. It will prove a welcome addition to the library of anyone with interests in Roman history and culture". -- Joseph J. Hughes, Classical World
"I do not think that any scholar interested in the Julio-Claudian period or any classics or ancient history library could be without this book. Very well written, it should also be popular with the general public". -- Colin M. Wells
334 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1990
19 people are currently reading
616 people want to read
About the author
Anthony A. Barrett
21 books24 followersAnthony A. Barrett is Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and visiting professor at the University of Heidelberg.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
February 6, 2017
How to be a friend of Caligula
"Caligula sought out the company of gladiators and actors[...] it is probably safe to say that as a group they would not have seen their role as one of trying to curb the emperor's excesses."
"Helicon [...] was the leader of a large group of Alexandrian Greeks in Caligula's service. He had not made great progress under Tiberius because of that emperor's distaste for children jokes. But he saw his opportunity for advancement under Caligula because of his great skill at clever witticisms. He was soon inseparable from the emperor. He played ball with him, exercised with him, bathed with him, and was with him when he retired for the night[...] Helicon was eventually executed by Claudius."
"It is unfortunate that the only Roman [Lepidus] who might have been in a position to influence Caligula had ambitions of his own and was probably not willing to incur the emperor's displeasure by trying to restrain any tendencies towards autocratic behaviour."
Alternate way of killing Caligula
"Caligula was no lover of the sea, and he could not swim."
"Caligula sought out the company of gladiators and actors[...] it is probably safe to say that as a group they would not have seen their role as one of trying to curb the emperor's excesses."
"Helicon [...] was the leader of a large group of Alexandrian Greeks in Caligula's service. He had not made great progress under Tiberius because of that emperor's distaste for children jokes. But he saw his opportunity for advancement under Caligula because of his great skill at clever witticisms. He was soon inseparable from the emperor. He played ball with him, exercised with him, bathed with him, and was with him when he retired for the night[...] Helicon was eventually executed by Claudius."
"It is unfortunate that the only Roman [Lepidus] who might have been in a position to influence Caligula had ambitions of his own and was probably not willing to incur the emperor's displeasure by trying to restrain any tendencies towards autocratic behaviour."
Alternate way of killing Caligula
"Caligula was no lover of the sea, and he could not swim."
October 25, 2020
Caligula, despite his short reign, is among the most notorious of Roman emperors. Often portrayed as a monster, from the accounts of contemporaries like Philo and Seneca through later classical sources, such as Tacitus, Suetonious, Josephus and Dio, and down to the present by such popular writers as Robert Graves and Gore Vidal, Caligula's perverse criminality was, in author Barrett's considered judgment, neither so extreme nor especially unusual. Although young and inexperienced, he was, from this view, actually a rather good judge of men, his appointments being on the whole competent and his administration popular--but not with the aristocracy, not with the Senate, not with those elites who tend to write the histories.
I'm not informed enough to make any authoritative judgment on this matter. I approached Barrett's book with a degree of salacious anticipation, an expectation that was disappointed by his dry, academic reserve. Still, as an antidote to the more popular representations, the reading of this biography was worth the effort.
Note that this review is of the first edition of Barrett's book. A second, somewhat revised, edition has been published as "Caligula: The Abuse of Power".
I'm not informed enough to make any authoritative judgment on this matter. I approached Barrett's book with a degree of salacious anticipation, an expectation that was disappointed by his dry, academic reserve. Still, as an antidote to the more popular representations, the reading of this biography was worth the effort.
Note that this review is of the first edition of Barrett's book. A second, somewhat revised, edition has been published as "Caligula: The Abuse of Power".
August 23, 2012
This book is probably on the lower end of good in terms of the amazing Emperor series that I love. Although she gives a good description of Caligula's life, Barrett tends to wish wash on Caligula's reputation in my opinion. I still own this book, but I wonder if there is a better account of Caligula, even with how much I love Barrett's writing.
November 1, 2024
Anthony Barrett doesn’t claim to have written a revisionist history of Caligula but he does believe that the notorious emperor’s reign needs to be reassessed, arguing that:
Recommended, though, to be honest, there were far too many typos for an imprint of Yale University Press.
“The conclusions I have reached will surely be dismissed by some…, but they are where the sources, both primary and secondary, seem to me most reasonably to lead. This is certainly not a revisionist study, and it does not attempt to rehabilitate Caligula. As an individual he was intelligent…but he was also insufferably arrogant and totally wrapped up in his own sense of importance. He also seems to have lacked any basic sense of moral responsibility. He was quote unsuited either by temperament or training to rule an empire, and probably any one of the 600 or so senators would have done no worse. I see no consistency or coherence in his policies, and little administrative talent beyond an ability to chose subordinates who served him ably and, while he was alive, loyally. The traditional problem of Caligula’s reign has been to explain why he descended into autocracy. In my view the great mystery is not why things went wrong, but how any intelligent Roman could possibly have imagined that they could go otherwise. To make an inexperienced and almost unknown young man, brought up under a series o faged and repressive guardians, master of the world, almost literally overnight, on the sole recommendation that his father had been a thoroughly decent fellow, was to court disaster in a quite irresponsible fashion. The Romans may have resented the subsequent burden of autocracy, but it was largely of their own making….
“Caligula was clearly capable of acting right to the end in a rational manner. Why then does he seem so often to have behaved otherwise? What emerges clearly from the sources is that while he was not clinically mad he was so obsessed with a sense of his own importance as to be practically devoid of any sense of moral responsibility….
“If Caligula was mad, he was not the potty eccentric typified by a Ludwig of Bavaria, but a much more frightening Stalinesque figure, capable of rational decisions, capable of statesmanlike acts…, but morally neutral, determined to sweep all before him in the pursuit of his own personal ends, and ultimately indifferent to the consequences of his actions on others.” (pp. xviii-xix, 240-1)
Recommended, though, to be honest, there were far too many typos for an imprint of Yale University Press.
July 18, 2012
Anthony Barrett has hands down created the best biography on the emperor Caligula with the evidence available. His scholarship is impeccable, his writing superb. Of special mention is his 'diagnosing' of the emperor that's perfectly logical and far more believable, yet certainly less appealing than the traditional belief: Caligula was not 'mad' per se, he like many a despot before and after him merely found himself as a young adult sheltered for much of his life, inexperienced with the republican trappings of Augustus' and Tiberius' rule, and popular for his father, in a position where he could have anything he wanted. Meanwhile his "illness" was probably a mental breakdown rather than an infection, or internal hemorrhage as suggested in previous works. All in all a well written biography of the most notorious of the Julio-Claudian line.
May 31, 2019
I've had this book on my TBR since 2011 and this was my 2nd attempt at reading it. For a topic that seems so fascinating, how is the book so boring? I did finish it and learned a bit more about the early Roman Empire than I had known before, but the book just really dragged. Despite the author's assurances in the introduction that lay readers would get as much out of it as scholars, I do believe that you would have to know a lot about Rome to begin with to not have any trouble with the book. But I got through it, I learned new things and now it is one less book to read later.
November 9, 2010
Anticipating a bawdy read in the tradition of the BBC miniseries "I, Claudius", imagine my disappointment when I discovered that this scholarly tome is actually quite serious. A serious examination of the sources, carefully weighing the legend against what is in the records? No fun!
November 19, 2019
Barrett is a well read scholar and has produced an informed account of Caligula. I read mostly around Caligula’s mental health and behaviour, but the whole monograph showed excellent awareness of the surrounding scholarship and in-depth knowledge of the available primary evidence.
January 27, 2022
3.5 stars:
Every modern history book has at least one review crammed onto the back describing it as "Both scholarly AND accessible!!" Here is a book that is scholarly but inaccessible. Let me explain.
[Disclaimer: I read the 1989 edition; these problems may have been at least in part addressed in newer editions]
This book is the "standard work" on Caligula. That is to say, if you want to back up your opinion with hard, scholarly fact, this is the book you quote. On the other hand, it's clear that Barrett intends this book to be readable from front to back. This dual purpose design, and the compromises the author makes to implement it, cause a bunch of problems I'll get to below, but the most foundational problem is that, as a quasi-refference work, this text is missing a thesis. By including almost every piece Caligula-adjacent information, any attempt to advance a central claim about Caligula's corruption by power or his fitness to rule or whether he was so bad after all is either not made or is burred so deep in the text that I cannot remember it. In this regard, this text is more reference than history book: Barrett provides little to no analytical framework in which to contextualize the many facts and conjectures in this book.
And there really are many, many facts and conjectures in this book. Every single piece of evidence that even hints towards events that happened or may have happened in Caligula's reign is presented, its reliability assessed, and properly cited in the expansive notes section. This is great if you have a specific question you want answered, but it becomes a huge slog when more time is spent painstakingly analyzing the numismatic evidence in Britain for scraps of information on the movements of the Cunobelian family than is spent on the Bridge of Baiae. Barrett, however, concots a solution to this problem: he puts the material that "is only of interest to scholars" appendices at the ends of the chapter. Except that these appendices are tiny and the chapters are full of stuff that could easily go in them! I will say that Barrett spares us the worst of the worst minutia by putting them in the appendices, but a lot of deep political lore goes in the main text.
Which leads me on to another problem: Barrett absolutely takes it for granted that you are already familiar with the reigns Julio-Claudians. The book is full of examples, but to just give two:
1. By far the most famous incident of Caligula's reign is the Bridge of Baiae. A discussion of this event (which is alluded to throughout the book and is not listed in the index) is buried in the absolutely soul-crushing penultimate chapter (out of 14) which primarily deals with the exact location of Caligula's home on the Palatine hill.
2. Augustus' family was absolutely full of headstrong, politically important women, all named pretty much identically. Sometimes there are convenient modern titles like 'the elder' or 'the younger,' but often there are not. Barrett often declines to clarify which Julia, Agrippina, or Livilla he is talking about. Not to mention that, in the family tree provided, Livilla (daughter of Antonina Minor) is labelled as Livia Julia (a name nobody (including Barrett) uses to refer to her), and her extremely important son, Gemellus, is not present at all.
I am not exactly a Rome noob: I've listened to tHOR and my interest in the late republic and early empire has been going strong for years now. But this book was tough for me. Name-wise alone I have found Dostoyevsky to be easier. I would honestly recommend reading Suetonius before this book, even if there is likely to be a lot of restatement.
And this brings me to my next point: this book is a true secondary source. Barrett is riding very, very close to the road here in terms of sources: he is pretty sparing when it comes to referencing and citing other scholars; which means he's talking a lot about Suetonius and Dio and the epigraphic/numismatic evidence; which means he's spending a lot of time debunking unreliable claims made by the biased primary sources; which means a good 80% of this book is arguing for the relative reasonableness of Caligula. This is a major rhetorical problem, since this book is called The Corruption of Power and not The Reasonable Exercise of Power.
As a last and minor point, this book's rate of misprints and typos are pretty high, and the provided family tree is worse than useless. Actually, almost all the family trees here are really, really bad.
But with all that said, I happen to be a fan of most of the analysis in this book, even when it's hair-splitting. I think Barrett has given me a genuine appreciation for numismatic analysis: the book comes with nice life-size pictures of coins and busts, and, as the only real break in the text, I caught myself genuinely excited more than once by the words "(figure 13)"--i.e. go look at the coin pictures. Further, Barrett sprinkles in just enough really interesting conclusions to keep me turning the tall and dense pages. Did you know Caligula probably never even went to Britain? That most of his "outrageous" acts were well-precidented? That he uncovered and suppressed a major Rhine legion conspiracy? I probably wouldn't recommend this book to any but the most dedicated Juleo-Claudian enthusiasts, but if that's you, this book is a must-have.
Not 3 stars because I did enjoy it, not 4 stars because its a bit of a mess. Thus, 3.5
Every modern history book has at least one review crammed onto the back describing it as "Both scholarly AND accessible!!" Here is a book that is scholarly but inaccessible. Let me explain.
[Disclaimer: I read the 1989 edition; these problems may have been at least in part addressed in newer editions]
This book is the "standard work" on Caligula. That is to say, if you want to back up your opinion with hard, scholarly fact, this is the book you quote. On the other hand, it's clear that Barrett intends this book to be readable from front to back. This dual purpose design, and the compromises the author makes to implement it, cause a bunch of problems I'll get to below, but the most foundational problem is that, as a quasi-refference work, this text is missing a thesis. By including almost every piece Caligula-adjacent information, any attempt to advance a central claim about Caligula's corruption by power or his fitness to rule or whether he was so bad after all is either not made or is burred so deep in the text that I cannot remember it. In this regard, this text is more reference than history book: Barrett provides little to no analytical framework in which to contextualize the many facts and conjectures in this book.
And there really are many, many facts and conjectures in this book. Every single piece of evidence that even hints towards events that happened or may have happened in Caligula's reign is presented, its reliability assessed, and properly cited in the expansive notes section. This is great if you have a specific question you want answered, but it becomes a huge slog when more time is spent painstakingly analyzing the numismatic evidence in Britain for scraps of information on the movements of the Cunobelian family than is spent on the Bridge of Baiae. Barrett, however, concots a solution to this problem: he puts the material that "is only of interest to scholars" appendices at the ends of the chapter. Except that these appendices are tiny and the chapters are full of stuff that could easily go in them! I will say that Barrett spares us the worst of the worst minutia by putting them in the appendices, but a lot of deep political lore goes in the main text.
Which leads me on to another problem: Barrett absolutely takes it for granted that you are already familiar with the reigns Julio-Claudians. The book is full of examples, but to just give two:
1. By far the most famous incident of Caligula's reign is the Bridge of Baiae. A discussion of this event (which is alluded to throughout the book and is not listed in the index) is buried in the absolutely soul-crushing penultimate chapter (out of 14) which primarily deals with the exact location of Caligula's home on the Palatine hill.
2. Augustus' family was absolutely full of headstrong, politically important women, all named pretty much identically. Sometimes there are convenient modern titles like 'the elder' or 'the younger,' but often there are not. Barrett often declines to clarify which Julia, Agrippina, or Livilla he is talking about. Not to mention that, in the family tree provided, Livilla (daughter of Antonina Minor) is labelled as Livia Julia (a name nobody (including Barrett) uses to refer to her), and her extremely important son, Gemellus, is not present at all.
I am not exactly a Rome noob: I've listened to tHOR and my interest in the late republic and early empire has been going strong for years now. But this book was tough for me. Name-wise alone I have found Dostoyevsky to be easier. I would honestly recommend reading Suetonius before this book, even if there is likely to be a lot of restatement.
And this brings me to my next point: this book is a true secondary source. Barrett is riding very, very close to the road here in terms of sources: he is pretty sparing when it comes to referencing and citing other scholars; which means he's talking a lot about Suetonius and Dio and the epigraphic/numismatic evidence; which means he's spending a lot of time debunking unreliable claims made by the biased primary sources; which means a good 80% of this book is arguing for the relative reasonableness of Caligula. This is a major rhetorical problem, since this book is called The Corruption of Power and not The Reasonable Exercise of Power.
As a last and minor point, this book's rate of misprints and typos are pretty high, and the provided family tree is worse than useless. Actually, almost all the family trees here are really, really bad.
But with all that said, I happen to be a fan of most of the analysis in this book, even when it's hair-splitting. I think Barrett has given me a genuine appreciation for numismatic analysis: the book comes with nice life-size pictures of coins and busts, and, as the only real break in the text, I caught myself genuinely excited more than once by the words "(figure 13)"--i.e. go look at the coin pictures. Further, Barrett sprinkles in just enough really interesting conclusions to keep me turning the tall and dense pages. Did you know Caligula probably never even went to Britain? That most of his "outrageous" acts were well-precidented? That he uncovered and suppressed a major Rhine legion conspiracy? I probably wouldn't recommend this book to any but the most dedicated Juleo-Claudian enthusiasts, but if that's you, this book is a must-have.
Not 3 stars because I did enjoy it, not 4 stars because its a bit of a mess. Thus, 3.5
February 23, 2012
Got a bit dry at times but overall only fueled my current obsession with Bootsie. Definitely worth reading if you're into Roman history or, you know, crazy emperors.
November 4, 2024
Lo mejor que se ha escrito, y tal vez que se pueda escribir, sobre Calígula, y un perfecto ejemplo de cómo escribir una biografía imperial exhaustiva y rigurosa.
March 5, 2012
Life of Caligula, Rome’s third emperor, sets out to set the record straight and focuses a bit more on the positive for Caligula than is generally recognized, noting his support of theater and intellectual/oratorical gifts, whilst still at the same time acknowledging Caligula’s darker nature and disturbing, troubled reign
This is a VERY scholarly book and quite a slog in parts, that I would not recommend for anyone unless they have some prior familiarity with the times (this covers much of the same ground as I, Claudius). The author isn’t going out of his way to make this overly accessible to the layman.
This is also a very dry account, as the author/historian clearly doesn’t want to take any historical licenses and consequently is constantly citing the possible inaccuracy of sources/history, gaps in the historical record and thus inability to truly know what happened. This makes for more accurate history presumably (and is interesting from the aspect of wondering what other types of historical licenses have been taken with sources from the past) but also makes for very dry, straight forward writing, as well as many asides where Barrett seems more interested in refereeing the accuracy of competing sources as opposed to keeping the narrative flowing.
Difficulty of historical sources, primarily from Suetonius and Vio, and secondary like Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Balsdon
Birth to Germanicus and Agrippina, subsequent death of father (possible poisoning) and banishment of mother by Emperor Tiberius
Machinations of Sejanus and later Macro (head of Praetorian Guard), and later downfall of Sejanus
Designated by Tiberius as successor as the next imperator/princeps, spending time in Capri with Tiberius and subsequent time with grandmother Antonia
Accession to emperor, somewhat liberal start by respecting previously banished dead mother/brother, naming heir the rival Gemullus, paying Praetorian Guard and relaxing the maestas (traitorous laws)
Illness and then change in actions, death/banishment of Gemullus/Macro
Death and then deification of sister Drusilla
Battle with Senate, taking consulship multiple years in a row
Later death/banishments of friend Lepidus, two sisters and roman commander in Germany Gaetulicus
Re-organizations possibly of some roman provinces in North Africa
Caligula’s desire to re-invade Britain and smaller battles/skirmishes in Germany, no invasion of Britain
Final battles with senate, long discussions of treatment of Caligula as a god and debates over whether there were official cults of Caligula for god worship
Praetorian final conspiracy to assassinate Caligula, and assassination
Subsequent desire for senate to re-establish supremacy but no military power and establishment of Claudius as emperor (after Claudius paying off Praetorians)
Roman/Jewish combatancy/issues in Alexandria, Egypt and Judea under the reign of Caligula
Building in Rome at the time of Caligula
This is a VERY scholarly book and quite a slog in parts, that I would not recommend for anyone unless they have some prior familiarity with the times (this covers much of the same ground as I, Claudius). The author isn’t going out of his way to make this overly accessible to the layman.
This is also a very dry account, as the author/historian clearly doesn’t want to take any historical licenses and consequently is constantly citing the possible inaccuracy of sources/history, gaps in the historical record and thus inability to truly know what happened. This makes for more accurate history presumably (and is interesting from the aspect of wondering what other types of historical licenses have been taken with sources from the past) but also makes for very dry, straight forward writing, as well as many asides where Barrett seems more interested in refereeing the accuracy of competing sources as opposed to keeping the narrative flowing.
Difficulty of historical sources, primarily from Suetonius and Vio, and secondary like Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Balsdon
Birth to Germanicus and Agrippina, subsequent death of father (possible poisoning) and banishment of mother by Emperor Tiberius
Machinations of Sejanus and later Macro (head of Praetorian Guard), and later downfall of Sejanus
Designated by Tiberius as successor as the next imperator/princeps, spending time in Capri with Tiberius and subsequent time with grandmother Antonia
Accession to emperor, somewhat liberal start by respecting previously banished dead mother/brother, naming heir the rival Gemullus, paying Praetorian Guard and relaxing the maestas (traitorous laws)
Illness and then change in actions, death/banishment of Gemullus/Macro
Death and then deification of sister Drusilla
Battle with Senate, taking consulship multiple years in a row
Later death/banishments of friend Lepidus, two sisters and roman commander in Germany Gaetulicus
Re-organizations possibly of some roman provinces in North Africa
Caligula’s desire to re-invade Britain and smaller battles/skirmishes in Germany, no invasion of Britain
Final battles with senate, long discussions of treatment of Caligula as a god and debates over whether there were official cults of Caligula for god worship
Praetorian final conspiracy to assassinate Caligula, and assassination
Subsequent desire for senate to re-establish supremacy but no military power and establishment of Claudius as emperor (after Claudius paying off Praetorians)
Roman/Jewish combatancy/issues in Alexandria, Egypt and Judea under the reign of Caligula
Building in Rome at the time of Caligula
July 29, 2014
Reading Barrett's biography, you get the impression that acquiring an accurate picture of the third emperor's life is a matter of pulling bits and pieces of truth out of a bunch of lying historians. Of course, they weren't lying so much as just very much hostile to Caligula for various reasons and all too willing to include hearsay, gossip, and scandalous rumors. So, as one other Goodreads reviewer put it, if you love the Caligula of I, Claudius, you will be sorely disappointed by this biography.
Barrett's picture of Caligula is one of a fairly normal emperor, who really didn't wander that far from the normal trends set by the previous two rulers. The stories of incest don't hold up to this biographer's examination, nor does he think that he was mad, nor does he think that he believed he was Jupiter. And, perhaps most disappointing of all, he didn't try to make his horse a consul. Sardonic and sarcastic? Yes. Lavish? That, too. Rude? Certainly. Cruel? Well, to those who plotted against him, he was efficient, but I'm not sure that he was even cruel, based on this book.
Barrett is so informed, thorough, and scholarly that I really do believe him. And Caligula becomes a lot more interesting as a result.
This biography is praised on the outside cover as being thorough and accessible to the general public. It certainly is thorough, but this is probably not the book to read for most people wanting to meet the emperor. It's a bit thick (figuratively) and gets slow at parts. Barrett sounds more scholarly than interesting. And the number of names is hard to keep up with.
The last chapters were the most interesting to me, especially the section about Caligula's architectural additions to Rome and the empire. I love that stuff. And an appendix looking at the coins issued under Caligula was interesting, too. The biographies I have read on Caesar, Augustus, and Nero tend to ignore the epigrammatic, numismatic, archaeological, architectural, literary, etc., etc. aspect surrounding these men and focus purely on what happened, using the literary sources only. Barrett does not.
One last thing, and this, I know, if me being anal, but there were a lot of typos that Barrett's editor missed. It needs some cleaning up.
Barrett's picture of Caligula is one of a fairly normal emperor, who really didn't wander that far from the normal trends set by the previous two rulers. The stories of incest don't hold up to this biographer's examination, nor does he think that he was mad, nor does he think that he believed he was Jupiter. And, perhaps most disappointing of all, he didn't try to make his horse a consul. Sardonic and sarcastic? Yes. Lavish? That, too. Rude? Certainly. Cruel? Well, to those who plotted against him, he was efficient, but I'm not sure that he was even cruel, based on this book.
Barrett is so informed, thorough, and scholarly that I really do believe him. And Caligula becomes a lot more interesting as a result.
This biography is praised on the outside cover as being thorough and accessible to the general public. It certainly is thorough, but this is probably not the book to read for most people wanting to meet the emperor. It's a bit thick (figuratively) and gets slow at parts. Barrett sounds more scholarly than interesting. And the number of names is hard to keep up with.
The last chapters were the most interesting to me, especially the section about Caligula's architectural additions to Rome and the empire. I love that stuff. And an appendix looking at the coins issued under Caligula was interesting, too. The biographies I have read on Caesar, Augustus, and Nero tend to ignore the epigrammatic, numismatic, archaeological, architectural, literary, etc., etc. aspect surrounding these men and focus purely on what happened, using the literary sources only. Barrett does not.
One last thing, and this, I know, if me being anal, but there were a lot of typos that Barrett's editor missed. It needs some cleaning up.
May 26, 2018
The life of a Roman Emporer is the most interesting thing I can ever think of learning about. When I picked up this book, I was inspired to learn about the fall of an emporer who became drunk with power and lost it all. What I actually got was a historical psycho analysis of a very deranged character, who was able to manipulate each and every person in his life into a position which gave him the social, political, and economic advantage through violence, torture, murder, rape and deception.
I first heard of lil boots in a History Channel documentary which opened my eyes to how Roman society actually worked. Each venue had its set of traditions and within those traditions is where the citizens life took place. Just as Florence had its courts, Rome had its arenas, universities, libraries, and Houses of Congress.
It is in these Houses Of Congress where the historical figures negotiated policies based on class status, which dictated the everyday interactions and economic maneuverings of the citizen. Through slavery, art and discourse the Roman Empire, which eventually merged with the Catholic Church at the council on Nice in 235 a.d, rose to great heights of sophistication and intellectual prowess, which is unrivaled.
Learning of the torturous methods used by lil boots and following his progression into the throne I was interested to get a glimpse, in a literal sense, of the events that unfolded, and how his mental state, which was touched with greed, and consumed completely with lust while driven to murder and rape incestuously was the key to his power. But, I find that there is something beyond just Mental capacity and will which propel a character like Caligula, given the historical context. With that stated I can add that the historical context does suggest he was also capturing the spirit of the time in such a way that him becoming emporer was the only choice for his subjects because of his courtly deceptions and rigorous devotion to an ideal.
That same idealism is what allowed for the growth and eventual end of a bloodline of dictators for which Caligula represents the most vile representation of ludicrous amounts of control, manipulation and murder.
I first heard of lil boots in a History Channel documentary which opened my eyes to how Roman society actually worked. Each venue had its set of traditions and within those traditions is where the citizens life took place. Just as Florence had its courts, Rome had its arenas, universities, libraries, and Houses of Congress.
It is in these Houses Of Congress where the historical figures negotiated policies based on class status, which dictated the everyday interactions and economic maneuverings of the citizen. Through slavery, art and discourse the Roman Empire, which eventually merged with the Catholic Church at the council on Nice in 235 a.d, rose to great heights of sophistication and intellectual prowess, which is unrivaled.
Learning of the torturous methods used by lil boots and following his progression into the throne I was interested to get a glimpse, in a literal sense, of the events that unfolded, and how his mental state, which was touched with greed, and consumed completely with lust while driven to murder and rape incestuously was the key to his power. But, I find that there is something beyond just Mental capacity and will which propel a character like Caligula, given the historical context. With that stated I can add that the historical context does suggest he was also capturing the spirit of the time in such a way that him becoming emporer was the only choice for his subjects because of his courtly deceptions and rigorous devotion to an ideal.
That same idealism is what allowed for the growth and eventual end of a bloodline of dictators for which Caligula represents the most vile representation of ludicrous amounts of control, manipulation and murder.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 27, 2010
finally got to this one, and although I am finding Caligula's life interesting, the book itself is quite dry and reads like a textbook. Being a novice in the history of the Roman Empire, I was lost much of the time reading this book. All of the players had 3 or more names, but the one they went by had nothing to do with their actual name, or was the one that 10 other people were also using at the time. For example, Caligula was actually just a nickname that he received when he was small and traveling to army camps with his father. The names themselves were interesting as several of them could be pronounced in such a way to make humorous English translations. In addition, there was a lot of wife and child swapping going on in Rome! I was finding it really hard to keep track of who belonged with/to whom. Add that to the fact that names were repeated without the Roman numerals to tell them apart...WOW. On top of all of the rest, the "family trees" included in the book were confusing, including incomplete names, strange lines of descent (some actual, some not) and omitted characters that the author in fact referred to in his narrative. Although I found the actual narrative interesting, I got lost in all of the above, and it made it hard for me to follow what was going on and who was involved. I am torn between giving this book a two or a three, and would only recommend it to someone who is well versed in Roman history already.
A couple of impressions, though:
The Tudors have nothing on the Romans as far as intrigue goes. Talk about plots and subplots, murder, backstabbing. They had it all, yet the author made it sound boring.
i didn't realize that Germany got it's name from Caligula's father, Germanicus.
The author makes a big deal out of how people refer to most Romans by their Latin name, and yet refer to Marcus Antonius and Marc Antony, yet he does the same. It's as if he thinks that we are two stupid to make the connection.
I will have to read something else about Caligula if I really want to gain info on him.
A couple of impressions, though:
The Tudors have nothing on the Romans as far as intrigue goes. Talk about plots and subplots, murder, backstabbing. They had it all, yet the author made it sound boring.
i didn't realize that Germany got it's name from Caligula's father, Germanicus.
The author makes a big deal out of how people refer to most Romans by their Latin name, and yet refer to Marcus Antonius and Marc Antony, yet he does the same. It's as if he thinks that we are two stupid to make the connection.
I will have to read something else about Caligula if I really want to gain info on him.
November 11, 2023
Interesting revision of one of the most infamous personas of Western history. Classics professor Anthony Barrett gives a portrait of a young man become emperor - a Donald Trump in the White House at age 30. In stripping the gauze of mythology Barrett concedes there is not much flesh and bone left beneath to chew on. Thus he reconstructs the actual policies of Rome as a guide to its ruler's state of mind.
He finds the inexperienced Princeps to be intelligent and vain, abusive yet insightful, politically savvy and vengeful. His revenge on the Jews for not permitting idolatry in Judea, for instance, was to demand the Temple be converted to a Roman shrine with a statue of Jupiter (looking much like the Emperor) erected in its center.
Barrett's realpolitique is doubtless correct: Caligula was a Saddam or a Stalin, ruthless but canny, not Charles Manson in a toga. But it's the nutty stuff echoing down the centuries that kept his name alive: forced incest, ordering war with the sea and collecting shells as tribute, running ice down from the Alps in relays. Perhaps, when the history of our day is written, and all the eccentricities of Donald Trump are recorded by his enemies after his demise, we'll wonder why we put up with all the craziness - until another revisionist comes along to tell us, it was indeed just business as usual.
He finds the inexperienced Princeps to be intelligent and vain, abusive yet insightful, politically savvy and vengeful. His revenge on the Jews for not permitting idolatry in Judea, for instance, was to demand the Temple be converted to a Roman shrine with a statue of Jupiter (looking much like the Emperor) erected in its center.
Barrett's realpolitique is doubtless correct: Caligula was a Saddam or a Stalin, ruthless but canny, not Charles Manson in a toga. But it's the nutty stuff echoing down the centuries that kept his name alive: forced incest, ordering war with the sea and collecting shells as tribute, running ice down from the Alps in relays. Perhaps, when the history of our day is written, and all the eccentricities of Donald Trump are recorded by his enemies after his demise, we'll wonder why we put up with all the craziness - until another revisionist comes along to tell us, it was indeed just business as usual.
July 28, 2023
Barrett works through the surprisingly (to me) incomplete and unclear record of Caligula’s life and times to come up with plausible motivations, timelines, and relationships for events related to this infamous emperor. I appreciate Barrett’s candor about the lack of definitiveness and wide gaps in the sources available, as well as his willingness to explore various possible interpretations and explain his reasoning clearly. It makes for a rather dry narrative, and Barrett also is writing for people who already have a deep understanding of Roman government and first century history at the tips of their brains (ie, not me). I could have used more explanation/reminders of how Roman government worked, particularly as it transitioned and evolved in the time around the turn of the first millennium. But this candor also makes for a scrupulously honest and respectful history with a heavily-researched but not heavy-handed analysis.
May 25, 2021
Another great book by Anthony A. Barrett. Caligula has gone down in history as a sadistic evil madman. But how much of this is true? In this book Barrett carefully goes through the sources and gives a clear understanding of who Caligula"little boots " was. There will still be things that can be said as true or not true of his reign, but nonetheless it is still a fascinating part of history. A truly great read.!
November 15, 2021
A good book, but as with anything 'historical' with the Caesars, you have to use a little intuition and common sense to discern truth from the largely anti-Caesar sources (who had political biases and obviously engaged in a historical smear campaign. For example, Caligula was not hated by all as we've been led to believe, but rather by some Roman elites; he was actually loved by the common folk and considered a 'working class hero'.
April 4, 2020
If you are really into the details of the Roman Empire, then this is the book for you. However, as more of a casual reader of the time period, I ended up getting bogged down and lost in the details. I must say, though, that the scholarship that went into this work is quite remarkable, and for serious students of this period of history, this one is one you'll want to pick up and study.
August 14, 2024
Other than being very dry, this was actually quite interesting. I felt that the author tried to be objective by offering the views of the major historians of the times, contrasting them and making a point to show where they are incongruent. All and all, I enjoyed this one, and if I ever needed to reference something f about Caligula, I do believe this would be a decent source.
June 12, 2022
I remember a series about Caligula on PBS, but never really watched it, so when I saw this book I was intrigued about the person. Well this is another story about another leader who was corrupted by power and fame and became more deranged the longer Caligula was a leader. The book is very detailed about Caligula but I still wonder how solid the information is from so long ago, but the story is still a very good drama.
August 16, 2025
DNF - too much time spent on really small, insignificant details on Caligula’a life, like how he staffed his satellite provinces. Would probably be great for someone very, very deep into Roman history.
November 4, 2022
This book gives a very good look into how the historical accounts must be viewed critically. It also gives good insight into the short and narrow life of a maybe very misunderstood emperor.
September 13, 2017
This book is excellent and as scholarly as it can get when it comes to the study of Roman Emperors, especially the controversial rulers that Ancient Rome experienced. The writer approaches Caligula without bias or an agenda and carefully examines the historical evidence and primary sources. The book explores whether or not Caligula was the insane ruler that history has made him out to be or if he was simply a man who started out well and just simply lost his way while also struggling with mental illness.
March 8, 2010
This book fell into the ok/liked it a little category for me (2/2.5 stars). For the positive aspects, you can tell that Barrett did an incredible amount of research for this book which I respect. I actually took several Greco-Roman history classes in college so I recognized several of the people he cited as sources and the overall picture he portrayed of life during that time jived with my novice knowledge of that time period. I also appreciated his inclusion of pictures of relevant coinage and busts. It was nice to see who I was reading about.
As for the negative aspects, I don't think that the title is appropriate for the content of the book. Barrett adopts such an almost defensive attitude about Caligula that I felt like a title such as "Caligula: His Misunderstood Reign" would have been more appropriate (lame title I know, but give me some slack...you get the idea). Throughout most of the book, Barrett defends everything most people know or have heard about Caligula, constantly saying that this source shouldn't be trusted, that person was biased, what this person said was possible but unlikely, etc. I'm sure that Barrett is correct in a lot of instances that the sources are corrupt or biased, but if he is going to refute those sources then I wish he would have offered more alternative explanations (with other sources of course if they exist). I was left with a very fuzzy portrait of Caligula. I found sections of this book to be INCREDIBLY dry...my eyes started glazing over in parts, but then I would run across a more interesting paragraph and my interest would be rekindled. The most interesting chapter by far was the last one, "Fit to Rule?"
Overall, if you are interested in Caligula this is worth a read. Just go into it expecting to read about a PG-13 rated version of the Caligula we have all heard about.
As for the negative aspects, I don't think that the title is appropriate for the content of the book. Barrett adopts such an almost defensive attitude about Caligula that I felt like a title such as "Caligula: His Misunderstood Reign" would have been more appropriate (lame title I know, but give me some slack...you get the idea). Throughout most of the book, Barrett defends everything most people know or have heard about Caligula, constantly saying that this source shouldn't be trusted, that person was biased, what this person said was possible but unlikely, etc. I'm sure that Barrett is correct in a lot of instances that the sources are corrupt or biased, but if he is going to refute those sources then I wish he would have offered more alternative explanations (with other sources of course if they exist). I was left with a very fuzzy portrait of Caligula. I found sections of this book to be INCREDIBLY dry...my eyes started glazing over in parts, but then I would run across a more interesting paragraph and my interest would be rekindled. The most interesting chapter by far was the last one, "Fit to Rule?"
Overall, if you are interested in Caligula this is worth a read. Just go into it expecting to read about a PG-13 rated version of the Caligula we have all heard about.
September 16, 2015
Most ancient works on Caligula describe him as a madman. Barrett points out the flaws in these works; only two authors actually lived in Caligula's time (Seneca and Philo). But Philo mostly lived in Egypt, except for one trip to Rome to meet Caligula. And Seneca had a personal grudge against Caligula, having been exiled for adultery with Caligula's sister. Other authors lived decades after Caligula. Thus, there's not a lot of reliable information about his rule.
Barrett goes on to debunk the major legends. For example, rumors about Caligula's incest are unreliable because even Seneca (who hated Caligula) doesn't mention them, and the people who do make the claim lived many years later. And although Caligula did have a couple of dozen aristocrats executed, Barrett provides many examples of people who offended him and lived to tell the tale, suggesting that he only killed people who wanted him dead. So why did people want him dead? Barrett admits that Caligula, although not a monster or a madman, was an extremely unpleasant man.
But even Barrett doesn't seem to completely believe his argument. He describes Caligula as a "frightening Stalinesque figure, capable of rational decisions [but]...indifferent to the consequences of his actions on others." A "Stalinesque" man is by definition a little worse than Barrett makes Caligula out to be. So even though Caligula was not as bad or as mad as the conventional wisdom suggests, he was still bad.
Barrett goes on to debunk the major legends. For example, rumors about Caligula's incest are unreliable because even Seneca (who hated Caligula) doesn't mention them, and the people who do make the claim lived many years later. And although Caligula did have a couple of dozen aristocrats executed, Barrett provides many examples of people who offended him and lived to tell the tale, suggesting that he only killed people who wanted him dead. So why did people want him dead? Barrett admits that Caligula, although not a monster or a madman, was an extremely unpleasant man.
But even Barrett doesn't seem to completely believe his argument. He describes Caligula as a "frightening Stalinesque figure, capable of rational decisions [but]...indifferent to the consequences of his actions on others." A "Stalinesque" man is by definition a little worse than Barrett makes Caligula out to be. So even though Caligula was not as bad or as mad as the conventional wisdom suggests, he was still bad.
May 26, 2013
I remember hunting around bookstores in high school trying to find this book after one of my teachers talked about it. Never could find it and by the time I actually started buying books from the internet it had almost completely slipped my mind. I finally ran across it in the Strand Annex just before it closed while visiting NYC a few years ago and picked it up to read this spring. I was not disappointed.
For those have have read some of my other reviews of biographies of classical people, this is how I feel a biography should be written: Don't be afraid of gaps in our knowledge; say there is a gap; explain how you think the gap should be filled in and what leads you to believe this; and, if applicable, say what other interpretations are out there and why you don't subscribe to them.
Anyway, most of this bunk is debunking the fun stories of Caligula (taking an army to the shore and ordering them to pick up seashells; having sex with his sister; worshiping his horse as a god etc.) and showing how most of Caligula's "craziness" was really just polemical interpretations of a guy that a lot of people hated. Not that Caligula was a great guy or a great ruler, but he has definitely gotten a raw deal in history - mostly because the stories are fun even if not exactly true.
For those have have read some of my other reviews of biographies of classical people, this is how I feel a biography should be written: Don't be afraid of gaps in our knowledge; say there is a gap; explain how you think the gap should be filled in and what leads you to believe this; and, if applicable, say what other interpretations are out there and why you don't subscribe to them.
Anyway, most of this bunk is debunking the fun stories of Caligula (taking an army to the shore and ordering them to pick up seashells; having sex with his sister; worshiping his horse as a god etc.) and showing how most of Caligula's "craziness" was really just polemical interpretations of a guy that a lot of people hated. Not that Caligula was a great guy or a great ruler, but he has definitely gotten a raw deal in history - mostly because the stories are fun even if not exactly true.
August 3, 2011
This is not a book for the layman. It uses a lot of Latin (which usually is translated, but sometimes is not), and the author assumes that the reader has a somewhat advanced knowledge of Roman history, politics, and the structure of the early empire (or principate).
As stated by others, the author attempts to be a "revisionist" in the sense that he challenges the conventional picture of the Emperor being a raving lunatic that we see in I Claudius. Reinterpretation is brought, as most of the sources of the time were lost, and later writers such as Suetonius were hostile. In the end, the conclusion we find is that Caligula was not a madman, but rather a corrupt egotistical young man who made his authority clear and known, offending the sensibilities of the Patricians. While this sounds plausible, it is certainly much less sensational than the legendary aspect of a mad emperor which has made the history of a short lived and lacking man of history much more exciting.
As stated by others, the author attempts to be a "revisionist" in the sense that he challenges the conventional picture of the Emperor being a raving lunatic that we see in I Claudius. Reinterpretation is brought, as most of the sources of the time were lost, and later writers such as Suetonius were hostile. In the end, the conclusion we find is that Caligula was not a madman, but rather a corrupt egotistical young man who made his authority clear and known, offending the sensibilities of the Patricians. While this sounds plausible, it is certainly much less sensational than the legendary aspect of a mad emperor which has made the history of a short lived and lacking man of history much more exciting.
November 23, 2015
Una biografía extremadamente interesante de uno de los personajes más escandalosos que el Imperio ha dado. A pesar de ser corta sí que puede hacerse muy pesada, pues se tiene que leer con suma atención. Dudo, y me río por no llorar, que haya un párrafo que no contenga información que daría para desenvolupar una entera página de Wikipedia con tantos datos que nos conjunta. Es por eso que su lectura me llevó casi un mes, pues no podía dedicarle mis pasajes en bus o pausas en el instituto, donde acostumbro a leer. Eso sí, el libro está llenísimo de pos-it y anotaciones en los márgenes. A los interesados en el tema, imprescindible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews