Caligula's Nature Vs. Nurture Argument

Caligula’s reign lasted just four years, but it left a remarkable imprint on history. History remembers Caligula as a mad despot. He was a sexually erotic, ruthless, and murderous fellow. To understand the man, one must analyze his entire life up until his untimely death. It is my opinion that Caligula was driven to his insanity and ill temper. The circumstances surrounding his upbringing and his reign ultimately contributed to his demeanor. The infamous nature versus nurture argument can be correlated to Caligula’s existence. Are we born inherently good and corrupted as we are influenced by society and circumstances? Or are bad apples just born bad apples? Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was born to Agrippina the Elder and the beloved

It is collectively thought by historians that this was the tipping point for Caligula. It is believed that he was poisoned. During his illness, Caligula’s ally Macro did what he did when Tiberius fell ill and prepared for the worst. Macro befriended Gemellus who would ascend the throne at Caligula’s death. Caligula made an unexpected recovery, but he was forever changed. He became paranoid and began killing or exiling everyone close to him and anyone he perceived as a hazard. One of his biggest threats was young Gemellus who had been named Caligula’s joint heir by Tiberius. Caligula gained the boy’s trust by adopting him and then had the boy put to death. He forced the boy take his own life. Since Gemellus had never used a sword, the guards showed him where to put the sword to create the least pain and the quickest demise. Macro was also offered the same fate and commanded to take his own life. Now, this may seem like cruel behavior and I concur with that, but what would you be like in his shoes? The moment everything becomes clear. You realize that no one is truly your friend and you have a large target on your back because everyone wants your job. I would likely be paranoid and weed out any threatening characters around me. Caligula made an ample amount of mistakes and obscenities during his career. In 40 AD, Caligula began incorporating religion into his political role and he claimed divinity. This had been done before,

He was privy to violence, death, conspiracy trials, and warped sexual escapades in Tiberius’s palace in Capri at a very impressionable age. He ascended the throne at twenty-four years old and was given complete and absolute control over an empire with very little political experience. If he was not made unstable by all the occurrences in his youth and upbringing, he was bound to be impacted by the constant threat of murder hanging around an emperor. What person could endure such trauma and depravity and remain unaffected? Caligula was murderous and deeply disturbed, but I cannot see how any other person with his past that would not be. It is proportional to putting an abuse victim in the president’s chair and expecting rational thinking. Many historians believe he suffered from some kind of clinical illness that aided in his hostel and fanatical behavior. The main sources we have on Caligula are from Suetonius and Dio, who were not contemporary to all these occurrences and should be read with criticism as their main goal was to attract readers, not to convey truth. Contemporary writers such as Philo and Seneca should also not be taken at face value. Though they are not flattering descriptions of the emperor, their writings were under scrutiny and could get them a quick death penalty if too far out of line. None-the-less I feel that Caligula was not entirely at fault