"Did Caligula Intend to Invade Britain?" Topic

Did he intend to invade, or was it some kind of ritual or mental aberration of his?

There is so much mythology around Caligula that it's hard to verify how much of what we know about him is even true. Considering the general opinion of emperors about incidents that are pretty much falsifiable (e.g. Nero's complicity in the burning of Rome) I think we have to work from the principle that almost everything we think we know about Caligula might be wrong. The only contemporary sources (Philo and Seneca) were always likely to be hostile, the one having serious religious problems, the other unfavourable to an emperor who cast off the sham trappings of republican government, as Caligula was pretty much the first to do.

With that in mind, it's hard to judge his motivations, or how serious his mental condition was. I suspect it's probably most likely he at one point planned an expedition to Britain for PR purposes, as Caesar did, but how serious he ever was about it, why it was cancelled, and what his response to that cancellation are… who knows.

I'd say he intended it as it was an off an on imperial project from the time of Augustus. Something spooked him and led to the shells incident probably internal imperial politics.

Perhaps he really intended to land in Britain, more for propaganda reasons than actual military combat. The troops probably decided not to embark, or his military staff dissuaded him from the campaign. In a fit of pique he had his soldiers gather seashells as a "victory over Neptune" and an insult to the army. He had a wicked sense of humour. He made his horse a senator remember. He was dead a little less than a year later.

Can we believe or trust Suetonius?
Is he the only source we have on Caligula? Besides Gore Vidal's screenplay of course.

Deuce03 nailed it from the start, I think. Roman winners were ready to invent all kinds of lies about their dead enemies to damn their memories. "The sources are mostly lies, but without the sources we are nothing", one historian said. "The sources" must always be greeted with skepticism.

Can we believe or trust Suetonius?
Is he the only source we have on Caligula? Besides Gore Vidal's screenplay of course.

There are four, at least of any significance, two contemporary (or who at least lived through Caligula's reign) and two later ones who were clearly influenced by the first two but introduced some new material. The first two are Philo (an Alexandrian Jew) and Seneca (the Stoic, best known for his dealings with Nero). Suetonius and Cassius Dio wrote later under the Antonine and Severan dynasties. Of course there were probably other sources since lost, but which they may have had access to.

No, he never intended to but Incitatus was thinking seriously about it.

If you believe Bob Guccione,he probably really was to busy with other things…..