What happens when the people of a great nation gradually realize that their leader may not be, er, quite right in the head?
When Caligula became Roman emperor in AD 37, the people rejoiced. "On all sides, you could see nothing but altars and sacrifices, men and women decked in their holiday best and smiling," according to the first-century writer Philo.
The Senate embraced him, and he was hailed as a breath of fresh air after the dourness, absenteeism and miserliness of his great-uncle, Emperor Tiberius. Caligula was colorful and flamboyant, offering plenty of opportunities for ribald gossip. Caligula had four wives in rapid succession, and he was said to be sleeping with his sister.
He was charming, impetuous and energetic, sleeping only three hours a night, and he displayed a common touch as he constantly engaged with the public. His early months as emperor brimmed with hope.
Initially, Caligula focused on denouncing his predecessor and reversing everything that he had done. Caligula also made popular promises of tax reform so as to reduce the burden on the public. He was full of grandiose pledges of infrastructure projects, such as a scheme to cut through the Isthmus of Corinth.
But, alas, Caligula had no significant government experience, and he proved utterly incompetent at actually getting things done. Meanwhile, his personal extravagance actually increased the need for tax revenue.
Suetonius, the Roman historian, recounted how Caligula's boats had "sterns set with gems, parti-colored sails, huge spacious baths, colonnades and banquet halls, and even a great variety of vines and fruit trees."
Romans initially accepted Caligula's luxurious tastes, perhaps intrigued by them. But Caligula's lavish spending soon exhausted the surplus he had inherited, and Rome ran out of money.
This led to increasingly desperate, cruel and tyrannical behavior. Caligula reportedly opened a brothel in the imperial palace to make money, and he introduced new taxes. When this wasn't enough, he began to confiscate estates, antagonizing Roman elites and sometimes killing them.
Caligula, a narcissist and megalomaniac, became increasingly unhinged. He replaced the heads of some statues of gods with his own head, and he occasionally appeared in public dressed as a god. He was referred to as a god in certain circumstances, and he set up a temple where he could be worshipped.
Caligula had a thing for generals, and he periodically wore the garb of a triumphant military commander.
The Senate, dignified and traditional, watched Caligula with increasing alarm. The emperor aggravated tensions by scathingly denouncing the Senate, relying on sarcasm and insult, and showing utter contempt for it.
Yet as Caligula wreaked havoc, Rome also had values, institutions and mores that inspired resistance. He offended practically everyone, he couldn't deliver on his promises, his mental stability was increasingly doubted and he showed he simply had no idea how to govern. Within a few years, he had lost all support, and the Praetorian Guard murdered him in January 41 (not a path I would ever condone).
Caligula was an abominable ruler, yet Rome proved resilient.
Likewise, Rome survived Emperor Nero a generation later, even as Nero apparently torched Rome, slaughtered Christians, slept with and then murdered his mother.
"If there's a hero in the story of first-century Rome, it's Roman institutions and traditional expectations," reflects Emma Dench, a Harvard scholar of the period. "However battered or modified, they kept the empire alive for future greatness."
To me, the lesson is that Rome was able to inoculate itself against unstable rulers so that it could recover and rise to new glories. Even the greatest of nations may suffer a catastrophic leader, but the nation can survive the test and protect its resilience - if the public stays true to its values, institutions and traditions. That was true two millennia ago, and remains true today.
The New York Times