This question right here would have me swaying left to right to the end of time but why is that. Can two people or emperors really be that bad. Yes. Caligula after that brief honeymoon period in which he switch in behaviour to Rome beloved to Romes tyrant. Caligula did not like the senate nor did the senate like him and this was evident when the emperor played his favourite horse as a senator. This was to belittle the group that also held power in Rome and the plan was effective as it did so. Commodus's intentions were different, for the better? Probably not. Commodus enjoyed actually tacking part in "rigged" gladiatorial games and dressing up as godly figures to wow his people. Even though it provided for great entertainment for the mass, not enough attention was being provided to the empire.
Commodus did not belittle the senate but ignored it rather than Caligula who actively targeted senates/senators. The senate was important to Rome if either emperors liked it or not and both fell to the same fate due to the senate. History has not be kind to Caligula or Commodus and as well as a few other names, tend to be discussed as some of Romes worst emperors. Historians often describe Caligula as a complete lunatic while Commodus is linked to a little child.
The time when Caligula was throned had been a promising time to the Roman Empire with adequate emperors before him. Tiberius was not great but I'm sure most of Rome would have picked him over the "madman" Caligula and rightly so. Now to come back to the original question I would rather Caligula. Why?
Well even though Caligula did some absurd things he always kept good care of the empire all together. Commodus's ascension usually marks the steep decline of Rome that spanned a few centuries. Caligula additionally knew he was mortal and did not kid himself that is why he committed the mass killing spree as he felt danger was close. Commodus would actually walk around and greet the mass with a lightening bolt in his hand! Caligula wins for me I'm afraid.
Comments