Talk:Caligula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

WikiProject Echo has identified Caligula as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia.

Selected on Template:March 18 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

WTF, someone edit the vandalism to his full name, it says, Hulio Retardo

Contents 1 Caligula's Death 2 Article Filled With Irrelevance, Poor citation 3 Overview Section 4 what's a... 5 Confusing! 6 Caesar or Augustus? 7 Redundancy? 8 Real name 9 Assasination 10 "Let them fear me..." 11 Caligula and pederasty 12 "old man's petticoat"? 13 factual discrepancies 14 plagiarism 15 Legend 16 POV 17 Nemi Ships 18 shells/huts 19 Clarification needed 20 Removed useless line 21 Does anybody know about Caligula's education? 22 TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

[edit] Caligula's Death

Caligula's death was said to be political by Josephus. Chaerea is called pro-Republic several times. Why would anyone erase this very relevant and cited information and leave only the ridiculous story about Caligula's death being about a personal insult?

• Josephus' passage makes no sense if you actually read it. Josephus himself aknowledges the personal vendetta aspect of the assasination, but then attempts to attach some kind of pro-Republican sentiment to the action. Chaerea had served the Julio-Claudians going back to Augustus; he wouldn't have even known what the "Republic" was, and if he had he certainly wouldn't have been a major supporter of the family that killed the Republic. Both passages however aknowledge the personal insult as a major factor.

Logically, it pretty hard to accept that someone would organize a massive conspiracy to kill the emperor based on a personal insult. Chaerea is described as a "lover of liberty." Roman "liberty" is usually associated with Republican rule in ancient texts. Restoring the Republic is a common theme of the Julio-Claudians. There were several attempts at Claudius' life and the Pisonian conspiracy under Nero was said to be influenced by pro-Republican sentiment. I don't think people so easily forget the Republican tradition of Rome. When Nero took power, he promised Republican power to the Senate at first. After securing his seat and removing many rivals, he promptly took it away again. Hoshidoshi

I think you've missed the point that Chaerea had served the Julians his entire life, from the time of Augustus until Caligula; he was a retainer his entire life to those responsible for the death of the Republic. Chaerea is described by Josephus alone of having a political reason behind his attack, and even Josephus admits that he was indeed inspired by Caligula's insults to him personally. Likewise, I don't think you fully understand the Roman concept of "dignitas" especially as it related to the relationship between a client and his patron. Likewise, your characterization of Nero, the attempts on Claudius, etc., are grossly over-simplified, and seem to be drawn from Tacitus' interpretations of those events. You need to take a look at Tacitus sometimes and how slanted and biased his work truly is, as well as take a look at what the "Republic" means to a later author like Tacitus, and what exactly "libertas" meant to the Romans. However, as noted, Josephus does mention that Chaerea was some kind of "Republican" sympathyzer, and it is inappropriate to put in this article a discussion either of Josephus or of Chaerea's politics, therefore it does bear mentioning in the article, despite it being highly suspect. 164.67.226.47 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is only 1 major primary source on Caligula (Philo) and 2 major secondary sources (Suetonius and Josephus), claiming that Josephus stands alone is a fairly weak argument (after all, Suetonius also stands alone since Philo doesn't discuss the death). We know that Josephus and Suetonius both used Cluvius Rufus as a primary source on Caligula. Cluvius Rufus was a senator at the time and knew what was going on. He is also less sensationalist than, say, Fabius Rusticus or Pliny the Elder. On the other hand, he was pro-Republic. Both Josephus and Suetonius claim a gang of people killed Caligula. Josephus and Cassius Dio claim it was a large conspiracy. Cassius Dio claims it was for the common good and Josephus claims it was a pro-Republican plot. Now even if we accept that the situation was colored a bit to be pro-Republican, it was clearly a political plot. Getting a gang of people to kill the emperor over a personal insult is simply not credible (like most of Suetonius' writing). BTW, why are bringing up Nero, Claudius and Tacitus? We're talking about Caligula.Hoshidoshi 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Filled With Irrelevance, Poor citation

This aricle is nothing more than a back and forth on the largely irrelevant issue of whether Caligula was insane. Any changes to include information on what he did as a emperor were quickly deleted and accused of being too nice. This article is useless. Even biased sources like Suetonius include Caligula's good deeds before trashing him.

[edit] Overview Section

The article is so filled with conjecture about whether or not Caligula was insane that it is very difficult to get facts on Caligula's impact on the world. The overview section is an attempt to give a brief, balanced, factual overview of Calgiula's impact and contributions to the empire and the world. It lists both postiive and negative; I've tried to be balanced. Feel free to add significant factual events, but keep it brief. (Incest, insanity and individual executions are not significent. They affect very few people. Wars and public policy affect huge numbers of people.) kinda reminds one of the current president

How about "George W. Bush propped himself up through false accusations, property seizures, and unheard-of taxes; and even more than his predecessor Tiberius, extinguished freedom of expression through a network of secret informants, who were rewarded for helping prosecute any who spoke ill of his government, directly or even suggestively. He killed many of his own subjects for no reason at all and particularly liberals and minorities out of paranoia, even put a statue of himself in all synagogues while his own residence was a brothel." ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there were no major wars during his three years and ten months as Emperor, is probably the only good thing that may be said about him. "According to the Jewish historian Josephus, "many tens of thousands of Jews" including women and children, went to Petronius and told him they were ready to die rather than submit to Caligula's statues profaning Jerusalem's temple. They were unarmed and announced that they would not fight, and they lay on the ground baring their throats for cutting. Jews left their fields, ready for harvest, unattended. The crops of the Jews were important to Rome, as Rome drew a portion of the crops in taxes. Petronius returned to Antioch and wrote to Caligula, explaining his delay in carrying out Caligula's orders. Caligula ordered Petronius to commit suicide for disobeying an imperial command, but events were in motion that would save Petronius." -- found just now on http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch20.htm ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Than add that briefly. Don't delete work that aids in education. Not to be a too much of a devil's advocate, but complaints about taxes and seizures usually come from the elite. Caligula, a man of people? Perhaps. Executions and informants? Sure, but is that Caligula specific? All emperors were pretty bad. Persecuting the Jews? I believe I included in my overview that as a major failure. Even all the negativity, it is undeniable than Caligula was beloved by the people and ruled over an incredibly prosperous and peaceful time. Philo even specifically mentions this peace and prosperity.

How is it "undeniable that Caligula was beloved by the people" when every primary source I have ever seen denies it??? He was probably only beloved by the people in his brothel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to read your sources again and read between the lines. Only Cassius Dio (the latest and least reliable source) claims the public hated him. Its clear that parts of the military hated him, the senate hated him, the Jewish nation hated him, but not the public. First, its safe to say he was popular simply because he was emperor and considered divine by much of the public. Second, he was able to remain emperor for 4 years- he couldn't have been hated that much if people did follow him. Source wise- Philo, On embassy to Gaius, mentions that the people loved him several times (i.e. in III, IV, XII). Suetonius mentions he was popular (at least at first) with the public in 13, 14 and 15. 60 mentions that there were rumours existed that Caligula was still alive. Suetonius claims its was from paranoid fear, buy "still alive" rumours followed many popular emperors. Josephus goes on in detail about various groups mourning him including slaves and some parts of the military. He too mentions a refusal to believe the death, but mentions both love and fear for the refusal. (unsigned)

Don't tell me I "need to read between the lines" - sounds suspiciously like another name for "Original Research"! Directly contradicting you, it is certainly easy to deny that the public loved him. If they worshipped him, it was only under penalty of death, as the above-quoted episode with the Jews clearly illustrates. And for the sake of accuracy, he was emperor for only three years and ten months, as I have already stated above, during which time if there were no wars or campaigns it is because he spent most of his time either in his brothel-cum-residence with prostitutes, or else killing those who got too near to him, like an angry whirlpool. Let's paint an accurate picture, anyone who adored him and what he stood for was likely as sick as he is.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The public didn't kill him. Where's your proof of him being hated? Where's your citations? Like I said earlier, this article is more biased that Suetonius who at least listed his good deeds along side his bad. This article is a travesty and a disservice to readers. Josephus said that he was mourned. Why? The article doesn't tell say. Think about it. If the article were on Bush, whether you like him or hate him, would you write about cocaine and booze and his wife killing someone and stories about him and Condi from the tabloids? If the article were on Kennedy, would it be on his affairs? No, you'd talk about policy and global impact. Caligula's alledged indulgences, even if true, are irrelevant. What was his policy and how did affect the world? (unsigned)

Well according to the primary sources, his policy was to spend most of his time in his brothel, demand that everyone worship him, and kill everyone who didn't. If you can find any mention of an actual policy, feel free to add it with cite. Otherwise it sounds like original research or dare I say revisionism, to write a glowing praise of him and say he was greatly beloved without providing a good cite to indicate this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what's a...

What's an adopted grandson? Maybe adoptive? Or maybe his adopted son's son?--ChadThomson 07:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• No the term is correct. He was an adopted grandson. pookster11 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I thought the movie was in the late 60s and ruined Roddy McDowells career? What am I missing here?

nope. Entry is right. Malcolm, as in Clockwork Orange, not Roddy-the-childstar.

even worse -- about three- five years before I started Grad school, my future adviser was asked to testify as an expert witness as to the historical value! JHK

caligula was a giant hobo . The movie was shown in the theatre in the college town. Many of my friends walked out of the theatre in the middle of it because it was gross. I sat through it just to see why it was so controversal. I heard it cost $15M to make, which was big budget for the time.

Thanks.

---

This is confusing. The 1979 (per IMDB - not 1980) movie "Caligula" starring Malcolm MacDowell was not based on the Camus play but on the Gore Vidal novel. Camus's play was the basis for the 1996 Hungarian movie, and the 2001 made for TV version. Eclecticology

---

What was the outcome of the court case mentioned above? Who sued whom? AxelBoldt

---

Comment about "the hard-core XXX rating" removed, as there is no such movie rating in the MPAA system.

---

I'm detecting a very non-encylopedic, almost conversational tone to much of this article. Could use a good copyedit, but I'm a bit too busy today to tackle it personally... Radagast 16:20, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed entry stating confusion around next emperor was due to Caligula being first assasinated emperor. Julius Caesar would have to be the first if I am not crazy.

But wasn't Julius Caesar dictator for life, and not emperor?--Lucky13pjn 02:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. Augustus was the first Emperor. -- Bean 14:46, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing!

The paragraph giving Caligula's lineage starting "His father was son to..." is terribly, terribly confusing. Someone who's familiar with the dynasty should re-write this without all of the indirection. i.e. "His paternal grandmother was daughter to Marcus Antonius and Octavia" might become "His paternal grandmother's parents were Marcus Antonius and Octavia". Or perhaps trim the lineage down a bit to begin with.

[edit] Caesar or Augustus?

It depends on your perspective. From *our* perspective Augustus was the first emperor buuuuuuuuut from the perspective of people of that time (Suetonius, St. John [Revelation 17:10]) the first emperor was Julius Caesar.

• Not at all. Technically, the term for the chief executive at the time is "Princeps", not "Emperor". In fact, Nero was never given the title of "Emperor" (or the Latin "Imperator") but later in his reign simply decided to use it. Thus, the Principate, the individuals we refer to as Emperors, begins with Octavian Augustus. Julius Caesar was Consul then Dictator for Life, he was never Princeps. pookster11 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy?

Is there a reason this page should have two sections called "Caligula's Madness" and "Caligula's Insanity?" I thought I should ask before I made a structural edit. | Keithlaw 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're right. There's definitely redundancy. I think his horse/consul thing is possibly mentioned THREE times. The incest and the seashells are both mentioned at least twice. So, please, please go for it. --bodnotbod 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • So three months later it finally gets dealt with. Rearranged the article and added some last night after realizing how light the article actually was. Let me know if there are any comments or concerns. pookster11 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real name

As he hated "Caligula", what would his real emperor name be? Gaius? Did they use praenomens as emperor names? Would it not be Germanicus?--Codenamecuckoo 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius and other historians refer to him as Gaius. pookster11 10:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assasination

Suetonius's account of his assasination has it taking place in the morning before lunch. Cassius Dio's account has Caligula leaving a theater to meet some "boys of exaulted birth". What is the source of the account in this article which has him murdered when out on a midnight walk?

Suetonius has the murder take place at the 7th hour just before dinner, with Caligula speaking to some young performers and then accosted and attacked by Cherea. Josephus places the murder at the 9th hour, within similiar circumstances (Gaius rising to approach some young performers, accosted by the guard and then struck by Cherea and hacked apart by the others). My copy of Dio is lost somewhere in my current pile of research, but I believe its similiar. Obviously the midnight walk part is incorrect though. pookster11 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Let them fear me..."

This line quoted by Suetonius - the Tiberius quote is "Let them hate me, provided they respect my conduct." and I couldn't find a reference in the Suetonius text for Nero, as quoted here. Is this all related back to the Accius quote? Citizen D 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caligula and pederasty

I have nothing against pederasty, especially in long dead people, but have (twice now) removed the categorization "Pederastic lovers" from this article. The first time, I asked for a source, since this is not something I'm familiar with, and I'm usually OK on Roman history. In being reverted this first time, I was assured that Caligula was Tiberius' boy at Capri and that this was a matter easily researched. The mere assertion, however, is no citation. In the principal source of this type of titillation regarding Tiberius and Caligula, Sutonius, I still find nothing. Caligula came to Capri to see Tiberius on the day he shaved off his beard (Vit. Cal. §10) — which doesn't sound much like pederasty, and Suetonius doesn't breathe a peep about any such thing. You're going to have to do better than that.... Bill 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "old man's petticoat"?

Where in the world is this refrence from? Suetonius, if I remember correctly, doesn't record the watchword but at leasts suggests it was something along the same lines as Venus or priapus, and Josephus records the watchword as "Jupiter". What is the citation for this? pookster11 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just now saw this; I made the addition. It's from the Caligula section in the book THE WORLD'S MOST INFAMOUS CRIMES AND CRIMINALS. Thanos6 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm going to take direct quotations from Josephus or Suetonius ahead of THE WORLD'S MOST INFAMOUS CRIMES AND CRIMINALS. john k 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• shrugs* Sure, go ahead. I haven't read any of the direct sources, so I was just writing down what the source I had told me. If your sources are superior, by all means use them. :) Thanos6 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that we even know about Caligula from really 4 ancient sources, and only two of them talk about his assasination to any degree, it'd be interesting to find out where CRIMES AND CRIMINALS even got its information. pookster11 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. It's a British book from the late 80's, and the only sources it credits are for its photos. Thanos6 04:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am interested, I mean more than rhetorically. The odds are (in view of the track record that popular works have in garbling, misquoting, or misinterpreting sources) that they got something wrong, but maybe, just maybe, if we could find the source of the petticoat business, it might be of interest. And even if it's a garble of some kind, it's always of some interest to see how the garble occurred. Bill 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If it helps any, the ISBN is 9997312511. Thanos6 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] factual discrepancies

I find there are many factual discrepancies throughout this article. I'll do my best to clean it up using the secondary sources I have (Gibbon, Grant, Salmon and so on) afterwards. For instance, Agrippina did not starve herself to death, rather according to Grant, was starved by a decree of Tiberius.

Nudas veritas 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Have fun; but be careful with Grant. A few years ago a lot of people on the Classics-L — this was back when the Net was still by and large a scholarly place — were finding him very unreliable. Bill 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perseus Project says she probably starved herself to death. I don't think there's any full consensus on the issue. john k 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism

This artile has elements of plagiarism, including full sentences from the website http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm. Here are some examples, with the plagerized sections in bold

The conclusion of roman-emperors.org states: "Whatever damage Tiberius's later years had done to the carefully crafted political edifice created by Augustus, Gaius multiplied it a hundredfold. When he came to power in A.D. 37 Gaius had no administrative experience beyond his honorary quaestorship, and had spent an unhappy early life far from the public eye. He appears, once in power, to have realized the boundless scope of his authority and acted accordingly. For the elite, this situation proved intolerable and ensured the blackening of Caligula's name in the historical record they would dictate. The sensational and hostile nature of that record, however, should in no way trivialize Gaius's importance. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in the Augustan Principate, now openly revealed for what it was -- a raw monarchy in which only the self-discipline of the incumbent acted as a restraint on his behavior. That the only means of retiring the wayward princeps was murder marked another important revelation: Roman emperors could not relinquish their powers without simultaneously relinquishing their lives"

The legacy section of wikipedia states: "Regardless of whether Caligula is viewed as an insane monarch or simply a misguided politician, the conclusion remains the same. Whatever damage Tiberius’s later years had done to the carefully crafted political edifice created by Augustus, Caligula multiplied it a hundred-fold. When he came to power in 37, Caligula had no administrative experience beyond his honorary quaestorship, and had spent an unhappy early life far from the public eye. He appears, once in power, to have realized the boundless scope of his authority and acted accordingly. For the elite, this situation proved intolerable and ensured the blackening of Caligula's name in the historical record they would dictate. The sensational and hostile nature of that record, however, should in no way trivialize Caligula's importance. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in Augustus’s Principate, now openly revealed for what it was — a raw monarchy in which only the self-discipline of the incumbent acted as a restraint on his behavior rather than the "first among equals" Augustus had intended. That the only means of retiring the wayward Princeps was murder marked another important revelation: Roman emperors could not relinquish their powers without simultaneously relinquishing their lives. Caligula would be the first of many emperors to be killed in the years to come."

As such this page should be removed until the plageriasm is ended

Hmm. It's worth noting the possibility that this other site may have copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. However, I suggest that you dig into the revision history of this article and try to ascertain when the disputed text was inserted. It would be more responsible to have specific evidence (diffs) in hand, rather than to make blanket accusations and petulant demands. --FOo 07:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Good show us. The apparent plagiarism seems to have appeared between 9 October 2005 and 22 February 2006. I don't have time to figure out exactly where at the moment, but perhaps someone else can do this. A look on the wayback machine shows that that page already existed in its current form in 2000[1]. john k 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, the offending edit seems to be this one, from 29 July of last year. I'm going to revert to the previous version, from 25 July 2005, as this is pretty blatantly a copyvio. john k 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of removing the material by hand when you reverted. I think that's probably the best way to go, though, because of the severity. I found bits and pieces throughout the article. It looks like the IP that added the material is stable. Future contributions should be watched carefully and his past edits should be checked for additional copyright violations. I have seen a lot of similar cases of long undetected copyright violations on high-profile articles (it's easier for them to go unnoticed on unedited and unread articles) and I think the problem is pervasive throughout the project. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• *sigh* Look at this diff [2] and compare the insertions with this 2002 page: [3] I think we'll have to scrutinize all major edits from this IP. Haukur 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems he rewrote that article two times using two different sources, look at this pair as well: [4] [5] I think we should assume that all big edits from this IP are plagiarism and must be reverted, even in cases where the site used can no longer be easily found. Haukur 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up a couple more (see my edit history). What particularly frustrates me is that editors at Brad Henry noticed months ago that [6] was a plagiaristic edit but did not revert it. Haukur 13:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is such painful work... I'm not doing anything more now. I hope someone else picks up the thread. Haukur 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting the entire page to its condition almost a year ago now. A great deal has been put into this page since then, and information and prose added that has nothing to do with the offending sections. If further sections are found to have been plagiarized, please bring them forward rathr than eliminating the work of so many over a period of a year. The plagiarism is unfortunate, but should not lead to the elimination of the work of so many others. Thank you. pookster11 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the method of diluting a copyright violation by tweaking individual sentences. The plagiarized text is still recognizable in our current version. Taking the pre-plagiarized version as the base for further improvement would be a far safer course. Note that the reason this was noticed to start with is that a complaint was made, presumably from the author of the original material. We must take complaints like that seriously or we put Wikipedia at legal risk. Please produce a version that is in no way plagiaristic. Haukur 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated, please indicate where plagiarism still exists in the article. pookster11 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

pookster11, you claimed that there was no evidence of plaigurism when you first reverted the article, without discussion on the talk page before or after, but the article still contained blatant examples of plaigurism, which I pointed out to you on your talk page. If I found more examples, would you agree to reverting the article, or would you modify the text and say that there is no evidence the plaigurism still exists after I inform you of each copyright violation? Well, here is another one, anyway.

Roman Emperors

His childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion, and murder. Instability within the Julio-Claudian house, generated by uncertainty over the succession, led to a series of personal tragedies. When his father died under suspicious circumstances on 10 October A.D. 19, relations between his mother and his grand-uncle, the emperor Tiberius, deteriorated irretrievably, and the adolescent Gaius was sent to live first with his great-grandmother Livia in A.D. 27 and then, following Livia's death two years later, with his grandmother Antonia.

Wikipedia

Caligula's childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion, and murder. Instability within the Julio-Claudian dynasty, generated by uncertainty over the succession, led to a series of personal tragedies. When his father died under suspicious circumstances on October 10, 19, relations between his mother and his grand-uncle, the reigning emperor Tiberius, deteriorated beyond repair, and the adolescent Caligula was sent to live first with his great-grandmother Livia in 27 and then, following Livia's death two years later, with his grandmother Antonia.

-- Kjkolb 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated, there is no reason to revert the entire article to its version as of a year ago. The plagiarized section have been deleted and re-written. The entire article andall the changes that have been done to it since July of 2005, unless someone can show otherwise, are not plagarized or lifted from any other souce; therefore there is no reason to universally undo all of those changes. I have no problem eliinating anything that may be plagiarized; I do have a problem with eliminating the honest work that others have done on this article for no reason other than convienence. pookster11 04:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"WikiProject Echo has identified Caligula as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia." Why don't we put this to use since it's a much improved article? --Ddahlberg 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and don't want to step on any toes, but I read somewhere that there was a legend about Caligula's ghost haunting Rome until his sisters collected his bones after his body was hidden - is this worth mentioning at the end of the assassination section? --Milton 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Suetonius writes that, after the assassination, Caligula's remains were secretly transferred to the Lamian Gardens and hastily buried after a partial cremation. Afterwards both the house and the gardens of the Lamians were said to be haunted by Caligula's ghost, until his sisters returned from exile and properly cremated the remains. Dunno if it's worth mentioning though :) What I'd really like to know is the exact location where Caligula was murdered. --Steerpike 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, 64 AD, big fire, most of Rome destroyed, entire city rebuilt, fall of Nero, entire city rebuilt again between 68-72.... not likely it'll ever be "found". pookster11 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, assuming you were talking about the location of Caligula's assassination, there's a fairly educated guess that he was murdered in one the covered hallways that linked his palace to the forum. Both Suetonius and Cassius Dio speak of a "secluded" or "covered hallway", which would logically point to one of the so called cryptoportici which were part of his palace, and of which the remnants can still be seen today. --Steerpike 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

As with Nero, I'm seeing a harsh discrediting of any negativity toward Caligula. It gives the impression that Suetonius had a grudge against him and simply wanted to besmirch his otherwise flawless name. This viewpoint needs to be turned down greatly. It also needs to read more like an encyclopedia article as opposed to an academic essay proposing the aforementioned idea. AdamBiswanger1 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting this impression; the article does go to pains to point out that there is a dearth of reliable primary sources on Caligula's reign, and this is true, but does not seem to be pulling any punches as it were. Moreovere, there does not seem to be any large disagreement here on the talk page about the NPOV status of the article; more certainly not the sort of impasse that would warrant the NPOV template, so I'm going to remove it for now. siafu 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nemi Ships

"These two ships were by far the largest vessels in the ancient world; in fact their size was not even rivaled until after the Renaissance.", wht about the Chinese Treasure ships?

[edit] shells/huts

A passage regarding Caligula ordering his men to collect shells has recently been removed for being unlikely and uncited: "Another theory is that the reference to picking up sea-shells is a misunderstanding; the term "musculus" or sea-shell was supposedly also used to describe mobile huts used by soldiers, and this theory implies Caligula's order was to pack up these huts as the troops returned to their winter quarters." I've had a look, and it seems that musculus can mean a military shed.[7] However, it doesn't mean "sea-shell", it specifically means "mussel". The word Suetonius uses for sea-shell is concha. The only other historian to refer to this incident is Cassius Dio, and he wrote in Greek. --Nicknack009 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

The article says: After a successful campaign in Germany and a Triumph in Rome, Germanicus was sent east to distance him from Roman politics; and he died on October 10, 19, claiming to have been poisoned by agents of Tiberius. Relations between his mother and Tiberius deteriorated rapidly amid accusations of murder and conspiracy.

Who is being referred to as "his mother"? If it is the mother of Germanicus, Antonia the Younger, this makes no sense as most historians report that Antonia the Younger and her brother-in-law Tiberius were on good terms. If this is referring to Caligula's mother, Agrippina the Elder, that would make sense, as Agrippina the Elder did accuse Tiberius of being behind the death of Germanicus. It would help to have this clarified.

Mretalli 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed useless line

"Place of eating=kitchen or maybe not" under main line. Sounds like vandalism attempt.

glyniss 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does anybody know about Caligula's education?

Did he learn with other children his age. Did he have governess'? Was he homeschooled? Did Caligula have any education at all. I need this info for a report i'm doing that's due tomorrow. Please respond quickly ASAP. -Essaywriter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.65.66 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha, thats what you get for using Wikipedia as your only source for last minute homework. pookster11 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.