Hey Minimalist

[A Theist]

Must be one of them fucking miracles, huh?

Caligula was sadistic and certainly possessed traits of a socio-path.

Caligula, Herod the Great and Nero have one thing in common. The only writings we have about them are by their enemies. In all 3 cases, these were popular leaders who had the backing of the commons but either quickly lost (Nero and Caligula) or never had (Herod) the support of the nobility.

There were no popular rebellions against any of them. In fact, when Herod died there were revolts against his sons taking over for him and they had to be installed at the point of a sword. The Caesars of the Julio-Claudian dynasty understood that they needed to keep the city mob happy and they did so through bread and circuses. But they got their money from the upper classes and the provinces. Herod seems to have had the benefit of the lower classes supporting him because his construction projects employed great numbers and made them less dependent on the nobility.

So, when ancient historians write stuff about Caligula screwing his sister or making his horse a senator I recall that these calumnies are being written by members of the class that Caligula was demanding money from. Could they be true? Yes. Could they be fictitious. You bet your ass. There is no way to know.

Could they be true? Yes. Could they be fictitious. You bet your ass. There is no way to know.

Still a pretty good bet though given Caligula's continual feuding with the Senate. Also found this on Wikipedia which bolsters your contention that Caligula enjoyed the support of the "commons"...

Public reform:

In AD 38, Caligula focused his attention on political and public reform. He published the accounts of public funds, which had not been made public during the reign of Tiberius. He aided those who lost property in fires, abolished certain taxes, and gave out prizes to the public at gymnastic events. He allowed new members into the equestrian and senatorial orders.

Perhaps most significantly, he restored the practice of democratic elections. Cassius Dio said that this act "though delighting the rabble, grieved the sensible, who stopped to reflect, that if the offices should fall once more into the hands of the many ... many disasters would result".
During the same year, though, Caligula was criticized for executing people without full trials and for forcing his helper Macro to commit suicide.

...certainly enough to piss off the Roman aristocracy.

---

He was also portrayed as an individual who had no love for the Jews and even less patience for their religious customs.

I'd like to backtrack a moment to this point you raised. There is a bit of a recurrent theme in Greco-Roman thinking. Antiochus IV was the Hellenistic king of Seleucid Empire. He is blamed in the bible for desecrating the temple.

When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery. ”

— 2 Maccabees 5:11–14

Those numbers are, of course, total bullshit since the city at this time had no where near the water supply needed for a population anywhere near that large.

To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing Jewish religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god (2 Maccabees 6:1–12). This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the resistance, the city was destroyed, many were slaughtered, and a military Greek citadel called the Acra was established.[7]

The tendency of a Greco-Roman elite to regard the jews as primitive barbarians thus far pre-dates, Pilate.

The tendency of a Greco-Roman elite to regard the jews as primitive barbarians thus far pre-dates, Pilate.

But didn't the Greco elite regard all conquered people that way? I know that Pilate certainly regarded the Jews that way but didn't Rome offer the nations they conquered to become Roman allies as well as becoming Roman citizens? I don't recall the Greeks doing that.