America is not the new Rome

Peter Jones writes a weekly column for the Spectator magazine Ancient and Modern which looks back to the past for parallels to current affairs. I’m envious because it’s something I have great difficulty with. For instance a lot of people write America as the New Roman Empire pieces. But is there really a comparison with the plots and politics of ancient Rome and modern America. I’m not sure. Some political situations were surely unique to the ancient world. Take for instance Suetonius’s record of the life of Caligula.

Unlike Caligula, George Bush served as an active member of the armed forces during a war.

Caligula was born Gaius Caesar, the name Caligula literally translates as “little boots”, which derives from his mother’s habit of dressing as him up a small soldier as a child. He became a mascot for the army as they campaigned in Germany. Thus Caligula’s greatest major military achievement in his youth was merely dressing up and playing soldier. His father, Germanicus, also campaigned in the Middle East, though his career, ended after this (as did his life). Without his father, Caligula was thrust into the care of Tiberius, the then emperor of Rome, and the cut and thrust of Roman politics.

At the time Tiberius was paying little attention to the affairs of state, leaving control in the hands of his advisor Sejanus. Caligula’s elder brothers and mother suffered exile or death on the orders of Sejanus. Caligula appears to have survived by abandoning any principles and acting as a competent administrator for Tiberius, accusations that could never be levelled at the current president of the United States.

On the death of Tiberius the succession was far from smooth. There were two people with equal claim on the title of Emperor. Caligula succeeded by having the magistrates decide he should be sole heir. The reason for entrusting the state to Caligula appeared to simply be that he was his father’s son.

Caligula claimed victory without actually securing the territory.

What the source of Caligula’s policies were is open to debate. Suetonius records that he used to chat with the Gods on a regular basis. Certainly both his foreign and home affairs were questionable. Undertook military campaigns where his father had been for cheap glory, but appears have had little understanding of what waging a war meant. In the case of Britiannia he announced that the land had been conquered after receiving a defector from a British warlord. On the basis of this he informed the Senate that his mission was accomplished, though he didn’t actually achieve any victory over the islanders.

The extremely un-horselike Harriet Miers.

At home he would often make strange assignments. His most famous eccentricity was an attempt to appoint a completely unqualified candidate as one of the top magistrates of Rome. Incitatus, a horse, does not appear to have ever actually been made consul.

Further, the character of Caligula and the current president can hardly be compared. Caligula appears to have been a spoiled brat with little regard for learning, though he could make a passable speech. Ultimately if you end up taking a leader from one era and simply look for parallels out of context from another you end up looking a bit foolish. —–