Editing Caracalla (section)

=== Modern portrayal ===
Caracalla has had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors, a perception that survives even into modern works.<ref name=":28">{{Cite book|title=Quinquennium in provinciis: Caracalla and Imperial Administration 212–217|last=Sillar|first=Shamus|year=2001|page=iii}}</ref> The art and linguistics historian John Agnew and the writer Walter Bidwell describe Caracalla as having an evil spirit, referring to the devastation he wrought in Alexandria.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Eclectic Magazine: Foreign Literature, Volume 2|last1=Agnew |first1=John |last2=Bidwell|first2=Walter|publisher=Leavitt, Throw and Company|year=1844|pages=217}}</ref> The Roman historian David Magie describes Caracalla, in the book ''Roman Rule in Asia Minor'', as brutal and tyrannical and points towards psychopathy as an explanation for his behaviour.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Roman Rule in Asia Minor|last=Magie|first=David|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1950|pages=683}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Quinquennium in provinciis: Caracalla and Imperial Administration 212–217|last=Sillar|first=Shamus|year=2001|pages=127}}</ref> The historian Clifford Ando supports this description, suggesting that Caracalla's rule as sole emperor is notable "almost exclusively" for his crimes of theft, massacre, and mismanagement.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ando|first1=Clifford|title=Imperial Rome AD 193 to 284: The Critical Century|date=2012|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|isbn=978-0-7486-5534-2|page=57}}</ref>

18th-century historian [[Edward Gibbon]], author of ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', takes Caracalla's reputation, which he had received for the murder of Geta and subsequent massacre of Geta's supporters, and applied it to Caracalla's provincial tours, suggesting that "every province was by turn the scene of his rapine and cruelty".<ref name=":28" /> Gibbon compared Caracalla to emperors such as [[Hadrian]] who spent their careers campaigning in the provinces and then to tyrants such as [[Nero]] and [[Domitian]] whose entire reigns were confined to Rome and whose actions only impacted upon the senatorial and equestrian classes residing there. Gibbon then concluded that Caracalla was "the common enemy of mankind", as both Romans and provincials alike were subject to "his rapine and cruelty".{{sfn|Dunstan|2011|p=406}}

This representation is questioned by the historian Shamus Sillar, who cites the construction of roads and reinforcement of fortifications in the western provinces, among other things, as being contradictory to the representation made by Gibbon of cruelty and destruction.<ref>{{cite book |title=Quinquennium in provinciis: Caracalla and Imperial Administration 212–217 |last=Sillar|first=Shamus|year=2001|pages=46–47 }}</ref> The history professors Molefi Asante and Shaza Ismail note that Caracalla is known for the disgraceful nature of his rule, stating that "he rode the horse of power until it nearly died of exhaustion" and that though his rule was short, his life, personality, and acts made him a notable, though likely not beneficial, figure in the Roman Empire.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Asante |first1=Molefi K.|last2=Ismail|first2=Shaza|date=2016|title=Interrogating the African Roman Emperor Caracalla: Claiming and Reclaiming an African Leader|journal=[[Journal of Black Studies]]|volume=47|doi=10.1177/0021934715611376|pages=41–52 |s2cid=147256542}}</ref>