#23 - The traditional view of the Roman emperor Caligula as

[Brook Miscoski]

Pragmatism,

I think that what you're addressing is the possibility that, at the time the ancient histories were written, the behavior attributed to Caligula was not thought cruel or insane. If appointing your horse to the Senate was just something everyone was doing, then maybe that takes the wind out of the idea that it was intended to cast Caligula in a bad light. Thus, it would strengthen the argument for us to know that, at the time the ancient histories were written, there was consensus that such behavior was cruel or insane. If that's what you mean, then yes, that is a reasonable explanation for why (C) is the correct choice. I think that Rachael's earlier explanation is just as strong, which is more or less that (C) suggests that Romans just had some go-to claims to make about rulers they didn't like.

[Pragmatism]

I really appreciate it.

[Agent00729]

Hi all,

Answer choice (C) says that the specific acts Caligula is accused of are very similar to acts attributed to other alleged tyrants. How does this one strengthen the argument? It makes it seem less likely that they are accurate. It's like the enemies just copy/pasted a list of complaints and bad acts to attribute to Caligula. The standard "tyrant" list. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have done the things listed, but that it seems less persuasive.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

Hi! How does this information make it less likely it is accurate? We don't have any information regarding the accuracy of those writings. Couldn't we just as easily assume that they were extremely accurate, in which case C would strengthen the argument?

[Agent00729]

Hi all,

Answer choice (C) says that the specific acts Caligula is accused of are very similar to acts attributed to other alleged tyrants. How does this one strengthen the argument? It makes it seem less likely that they are accurate. It's like the enemies just copy/pasted a list of complaints and bad acts to attribute to Caligula. The standard "tyrant" list. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have done the things listed, but that it seems less persuasive.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

Hi! How does this information make it less likely it is accurate? We don't have any information regarding the accuracy of those writings. Couldn't we just as easily assume that they were extremely accurate, in which case C would strengthen the argument?

Correction: *in which case C would weaken the argument

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be putting too much pressure on the answer here, Agent00729, expecting it to prove the conclusion rather than merely support it. For a strengthen question, the correct answer is one that we could put over in the "pro" column while listing the pros and cons of a position. While we cannot be sure that these histories that attribute to Caligula very specific actions that sound a lot like what earlier rulers were accused of doing were falsified, it certainly does look suspicious, and that puts this answer squarely in the "pro" column. It gives us just a little more reason to believe that maybe this was just his enemies rewriting history to make him look bad.

The correct answer doesn't need to prove the conclusion, or even be very convincing on its own. It just has to add to the body of evidence in support of the conclusion.

[J1445]

Hi

I had trouble eliminating AC A because it leaves open the possibility of having ample oral histories about Caligula as a great and not tyrannical emperor in spite of having comparatively little documentation. Can someone explain why A is still wrong with this line of reasoning? Thanks!

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi J1445!

The thing that jumps out to me the most in that line of reasoning is that if there are ample oral histories portraying Caligula as a great emperor, then there wouldn't be a "traditional view" of Caligula as a cruel tyrant. So, it isn't really consistent with the information in the stimulus. The main issue with answer choice (A) is that it doesn't give us any reason to doubt the historical accounts we do have. We are looking for a reason to believe that Caligula's enemies falsified the histories that we have today, and answer choice (A) doesn't directly provide us that reason. Hope this helps!

[BMM2021]

Hello,

I'm still struggling with this one, specifically with why answer A is wrong and C is right.

I chose answer A because it seems to undermine the idea that we can make any conclusions about Caligula at all, and thus the traditional view of him could therefore be incorrect. The labels of "cruel and insane" are relative, inherently. Caligula could have been a cruel and insane individual, but if all other Roman emperors were worse, he may have instead been traditionally viewed more positively. Regardless, if we only have "little documentation" of Caligula's reign compared to other emperors' reigns, that, in my mind, weakens any relative conclusions we can draw about him. If only two documents are available, and one says he was great and the other says he was cruel and insane, that scenario renders any conclusions about his qualities relative to other emperors fairly unfounded. We simply have too little evidence to go off of.

Alternatively, answer C only says that the cruel acts attributed to Caligula are "very similar" to acts attributed to other rulers accused of being cruel tyrants. Sure, these acts could have been copied and pasted by Caligula's detractors, but they also could have simply been genuine actions by rulers who shared similar cruel/insane outlooks/moralities as Caligula. I feel like you have to assume away the possibility that two different people can do the same cruel things for this one to look appealing. I understand the answer doesn't need to prove the conclusion, but this one seems to neutralize itself by either strengthening or weakening the argument, depending on how you choose to read it. Perhaps Caligula got his ideas from past cruel leaders? Also, historically, I'm confident there was a lot of redundancy in cruel punishments, executions, tortures, etc. within the Roman empire, so that initial reaction to the statement is coloring my view of it as well.

Anyway, both A and C seem to me to be somewhat neutral answers; they could both support and weaken the argument. However, the claim itself is that the traditional view of Caligula isn't necessarily right, which I feel like is more easily supported by the idea that we have too little evidence on which to base any conclusions about Caligula (Answer A) than by the idea that the records we do have share similarities with other records of cruel behavior by Roman leaders (Answer C). For answer C to strengthen, you have to assume that those who recorded Caligula's acts were copying ideas from the past and that Caligula was not simply (knowingly or unknowingly) repeating their cruel actions. I don't know why we're expected to make that assumption. Answer A doesn't require assumptions, in my view, it simply muddies the waters on Caligula's character, which I think makes it easier to believe the non-traditional interpretation of Caligula posited in the stimulus.

Thanks for any thoughts on this,

[Adam Tyson]

In my view, BMM2021, answer A doesn't do much, if anything, to help the people who are challenging the traditional view. We already knew that there was very little documentation to support that claim, so saying that there is very little total documentation about Caligula doesn't do much. You might even say that it hurts the claim, because that means the documentation we do have is a relatively large percentage of the total. How interesting that we have so little documentation, but what we do have paints him as cruel and insane? Or, looked at another way, an overall lack of documentation (a lack of evidence) isn't going to help either side in this argument. Arguing based on a lack of evidence is a classic logical flaw!

What I like about answer C is the use of the word "specific." It's not just that Caligula is generally accused of some awful things that are similar to what prior rulers did, like torture or executions, but that there are some specific actions that look a lot like something specific that was previously attributed to someone else. It's the specificity that makes me think that someone may have been rewriting history. When you couple that with the fact that the stuff we do have was written by his enemies, it at least makes me stroke my whiskers and say "hmmmm, that's a little suspicious."

[Overthinker99]

I agree with a lot of the posters here. AC C required just as much, if not more assumptions that AC A. C requires we assume the specific acts were in someway unique. Perhaps they are specific acts that actually characterize a cruel ruler, such as collective punishment of families or arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.

A could support the argument with the one assumption that having less documentation than every other emperor of the same empire makes his entire history suspect--not just the fact that his enemies were biased. This assumption seems reasonable even, as the first part of their premise has to do with there being "little" documentation, showing that is grounds for suspect. So little documentation we already know strengthens the argument.

I can try and contort more assumptions to make C not as appealing. "less" is vague. Maybe it is only one document less, and that would not make his history relatively suspect. Perhaps also modern historians do think that other emperors histories are suspect even though they do have more documentation--but then why did they use documentation levels as a premise if it is irrelevant?