The Emperor Nero

[Silvestria]

I was just wondering what you thought about Nero, the Roman Enperor. I'm studying Tacitus Annals XIV (The Fire of Rome) and I'm rather confused. Tacitus is clearly anti Nero, but was he really all that bad?

I seem at the moment to be drawn to the 'Chap-who-just-wanted-to-sing-but-was-forced-to-be-emperor-by-a-domineering-mother' view. Kind of like Arnold Schwaznegger being forced to be Governor of California, or whatever. :whistle:

What do people think about his character?

~Silvestria~

[Auror Williamson]

Here';s some information on the Emperor Nero.

Nero's Early Life and Reign
The death of Claudius in 54 A.D., generally thought to have been planned and carried out by his wife Agrippina Minor, secured for her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus the place as emperor which she had so carefully arranged. Before his death, Claudius, though he already had a son Britannicus, had adopted Lucius, who changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar, (a great-great-grandson of Augustus) at Agrippina's instigation; instrumental too in the transfer of power was the influence of Seneca, Nero's tutor, and of Sextus Afranius Burrus, the praetorian prefect. Since Nero was only an adolescent, the early part of his reign was characterized by direction from these older figures, including Agrippina herself. Some scholars see a struggle between Agrippina against Seneca and Burrus for control of the young emperor, and when Agrippina began to show favor to Britannicus, a legitimate (though slightly younger) heir and possible rival, Britannicus' murder was arranged (55 A.D.) and Agrippina's authority displaced.

Nero's Dissolute Nature
The traditional portrait of Nero's dissolute life derives at least in part from the years which fallowed soon after his accession; the attraction of Poppaea Sabina who was married first to Rufrius Crispinus end then to Otho (himself a close friend of Nero), may have had same connection with the divorce, exile, and murder of Nero's first wife, Octavia, Claudius' daughter. Poppaea became Nero's mistress in 58 A.D., and the next year Agrippina herself was murdered, with Nero's knowledge. Burrus and Seneca continued in their guidance until 62 A.D. when the former died and the latter entered retirement. In their place that year appeared a counselor, Gaius Ofonius Tigellinus, who had been exiled in 39 A.D. by Caius (Caligula) for adultery with Agrippina, but who returned to find favor with Nero and a post for himself as praetorian prefect, from which position he exerted a further degenerating influence on Nero.

Nero's Marriage and the Burning of Rome
Poppaea and Nero married in 62 A.D., and she bore a daughter to him the next year, but the child died only a few months later. The events of 62 and the next few years did little to improve public perception of Nero. In 62, at Tigellinus' instigation, a series of treason laws were put to deadly use against anyone considered a threat. In 64 A.D. a great fire left much of the city in ruins, and while it is not certain that Nero himself had the fires set, it is true that his ambitious building campaign, which followed the fires (and in particular the construction of the Domus Aurea), represented to many a private selfishness at a time when public reconstruction was most needed. In 65 A.D. Nero's artistic inclinations, present since his accession, became truly public, and in a display which shocked conservative tastes he appeared on stage and sang for audiences.

Nero's Fall From Power
His enemies had become numerous, and that same year a plot to assassinate Nero and to replace him with Gaius Calpurnius Piso was both formulated and betrayed; among those forced to commit suicide in connection with the Pisonian conspiracy were Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, and Tigellinus' colleague in the prefecture (his replacement, Nymphidius, was to be influential in the accession of Galba three years later). Poppaea died in 66 A.D., and the next year Nero left Rome altogether for a tour of Greece, during which his extravagances alienated him further still from general citizens and military commanders alike. More crucially, in his paranoia after the conspiracy he ordered a popular and successful general, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, to commit suicide, a decision which left other provincial leaders in doubt about his next move and inclined toward rebellion rather than inaction.

The Year of the Four Emperors
In 68 A.D. Vindex revolted in Lugdunensis, as did Clodius Macer in Africa. Galba declared his allegiance to the Senate and the Roman people, rather than to Nero. Such unrest in the provinces, coupled with intrigue at Rome among the praetorians (orchestrated at least in part by Nymphidius), provided Nero's enemies, especially within the Senate, with their chance to depose him. He committed suicide on 9 June 68 A.D.

A Historical Assessment of Nero as Emperor
Nero, last of the Julio-Claudians, had been placed in the difficult position of absolute authority at a young age coupled with the often-contradictory efforts of those in a position to manipulate him. Augustus, however, had not been much older when he began his bid for power, and so a great deal of the responsibility for Nero's conduct must also rest with the man himself. Nero's reign was not without military operations (e.g., the campaigns of Corbulo against the Parthians, the suppression of the revolt of Boudicca in Britain), but his neglect of the armies was a critical error. He left Rome not to review his troops but to compete in Greek games, and as a further slight had left a freedman, Helius, in his place at Rome to govern in his absence. The suspicion which surrounded him after the treason trials and the conspiracy set the stage for a series of civil upheavals, "the Year of the Four Emperors," which included the rise to power of men, such as Otho in Lusitania and Vespasian in Judaea, whom Nero himself had sent to the frontiers, unaware that they were to become his successors.

[Liselle]

is it such a bad thing to be anti the man who played his violin while his city burnt? I will be the first to admit that I don't know an awful lot about Nero but he did some bloody deeds (how many of those "close" to him did he give the chop to?) so if anyone was anti him it seems like they had their heads on straight even if they were dancing a dangerous dance

Liselle

[Discordia]

Wasn't he the one that killed everyone in Rome with so much as a drop of royal blood to secure his throne?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wasn't he the one that killed everyone in Rome with so much as a drop of royal blood to secure his throne?

I think you're thinking of Herod the Great, king of Judea. But it applies to a great many kings. :)

[Discordia]

I think you're thinking of Herod the Great, king of Judea. But it applies to a great many kings.

No, the one I'm thinking of is a Roman Emperor, one of the worse ones but it was one of them in particular. I think it was Nero but he was infamous for his little slaughter of all the nobles. He killed nearly everyone with any genetic ties to royalty to get rid of any threats to the throne.

[lorna]

I'm wondering if you are thinking of Caligulia. In his rather brief reign in Rome he executed large numbers
of people. Or Tiberius who was before.
As far as the "fiddling while Rome burned" thing,it is very possibily not accurate. After all marie antoinette did NOT
say "let them eat cake"
Not that Nero was a great leader or anything, whatever I've read of him he comes across as weak as opposed to out and out nasty. And keep in mind alot of the history of Rome was written by historians who did not like him and
the early christian historians who had an axe to grind.
For fun, (if not historical accuracy) see if you can find a copy of I Claudius (book by Robert Graves, 13 part series by the BBC)
Both are awesome stories about the first four Cesears
Augustus, Tiberus, Caligula and Claudius.

[Genesis Blue]

Lorna, Nero's reign is notable for its cruelty and barbarity.

He assassinated his younger step-brother, Britannicus, and his own mother.

[Ranador]

Nero was responsible for one of the few Christian Persecutions so he ranks near the bottom for my list of people I like.

Also he elected his horse to the senate, which may have been a shrewd political move/statement, or a sign of his dimentia.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Ranador wrote
Also he elected his horse to the senate, which may have been a shrewd political move/statement, or a sign of his dimentia.

That was Caligula who was even madder than Nero. Both shows that if you give too much power to a person , especially a young person it can go to their heads but most of the Roman Emperors were nutters in one way or another.

[Hannibal Barca]

interestingly, there was another Nero long before the emperor. during the time of the Second Punic War, while Hannibal Barca was terrorizing Rome, Nero was a (hmm, proconsul?) for Rome. Hannibal was running out of soldiers and needed reinforcements to continue his war.

his brother Hasdrubal crossed the Alps with another large army (and more elephants) to join up with Hannibal. had he done so, it is likely Hannibal would've destroyed Rome. but Nero went north in secret with 7,000 of the best fighting men in Rome to reinforce the Roman commander that was standing before Hasdrubal.

a collection of unfortunate circumstances, and the brilliance of Nero led to the defeat of Hasdrubal.

how ironic that when most people hear the name Nero they think not of the man who saved Rome, but the man who (supposedly) let Rome burn.

[Ranador]

That's right, my bad.

[accioinsight7]

Nero was a horrible man. He ordered the burning of Rome (I heard it had something to do with the smell, and 10 of 14 sections were destroyed). It was either he or Claudius who expelled the Jews from Rome. He began the persecution of the Christians in Rome (Right after Acts of the Apostles ends, Luke has quit writing the book because Nero has begun persecution). I can't question his many fallacies while emperor, though I'm sure he bowed a mean fiddle.

[LynorEclipse]

This title caught my eye... I took Film 100 last year and my teacher gave us an article about Nero and film. Apparently, there are many films (early films) made about him, and something about the attraction of his story on film. Sorry, I don't really remember much about it, and I left that article in my room at home, 4 provinces and 3 time zones away... I won't be able to reread it till I go back for Christmas...

[The Gurg]

Nero was, I suppose you could say, 'a mishap in the Emperor linage' ofr the Roman society. He simply wanted to be someone with minimal power. Just an ordinary person.

[Aurora Evans]

I think that it should be noted that a lot of the primary evidence on Nero was written by Christian historians and people who were anti-Nero from the start.

As for Nero ordering the burning of Rome; there is significant historical evidence to the contrary. The lay-out of the city and the overall disgusting condition of the city (like London in the late 17th Century) made the danger of a fire significant. lorna is right about the inaccuracy of Nero's fiddling - it is probable that Nero was not even in the city at the time of the fire.

As for Nero murdering his step-brother Britannicus (as pointed out by Genesis Blue); the story goes (if I remember correctly) that at a family dinner Nero had him poisoned - this story was written by Suetonius (known for his 'gossipy' histories). There are two things wrong with his description of events: 1) This was a Julio-Claudian family, well-familiar with poisoning as a means of murder. It is logical to assume that a family like this would be extremely careful with all food and drink that they ate (and would employ a food-taster to eat the food in front of them). 2) Suetonius describes the poison as having an almost immediate effect, but the types of poisons available at that time in history did not work that way.

Nero was by no means a great and good Emperor; he was weak, young and easily manipulated by Seneca and Burrus (who were more often than not behind his less-than-savory acts). However, he was not nearly as bad as some of his fellow Emperors, and certainly not as bad as Christian historians like to make out.

[sergorat]

I think that he was just a weird man, who had a bad childhood. :sad: Sometimes the wrong people have too much power. :upset:

[legstump]

this is not my article but it might shine some more light on the subject

The Nero you do not know by Joseph Kleinman
Many of us consider the Emperor Nero to be one of the most evil men ever to march across the stage of world history. Right up there with Hitler, Stalin and our present day adversaries in the war on terror. But if we take an objective view and look at the facts, we come to the conclusion that history doesn’t support all the bad press that is heaped upon the head of Nero.

Before going into some specifics associated with the career of Nero let’s begin with his background and early education. Nero was a Roman Patrician and as such received a liberal education. In particular he was schooled in philosophy and law and studied the classics in both Latin and Greek. He was an accomplished athlete, artist and actor. In fact, it was his artistic activities that caused the nobility of Roman society to ridicule him.

Suetonius, in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars, reports that he had a deep booming voice that would have required good training and much practice. He came to the throne in AD 54 at the age of 16. Early in his reign he improved the economy, reduced taxes and was generally kind and generous. The young emperor was even interested in the artistic merit associated with the coinage issued by his mints and did much to improve its style.

The two most dastardly and cowardly acts attributed to Nero was his starting the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 and then blaming the Christians for the blaze in order to shift suspicion away from himself. Let’s examine those charges. In the first place, Nero wasn’t anywhere near the city when the fire broke out, but at his villa 35 miles away. When he received the news he rushed back to the city and made every effort to have the fire extinguished. Then he organized aid for the victims after the blaze was put out. At that time there were few Christians in Rome and the ones that were there were considered to be Jewish. Nero at the time was married to Poppaea, a woman who was well disposed to the Jews so any policy established against the Christians would have been opposed by Poppaea whom Nero loved. Additionally, there is no mention of a Christian persecution in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish Historian and a contemporary of Nero. Most importantly, there is no mention of a Christian persecution in any of the New Testament writings. Perhaps the only New Testament reference to Nero may be found in The Book of Revelation written by written by the Apostle John who mentions “The Beast.” This reference may be associated with the first Jewish War against Rome which broke out in AD 66, two years before the death of Nero.

=========================================================
There is an intersting quote from the talmud,which may have at least aliitle to do with bad or at least slanted press he recived.

"He [God] sent against them [Israel] Nero the Caesar. As Nero was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot toward all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy, 'Repeat to me the last verse of Scripture that you have learned.' He said, ' I will wreak My vengeance on Edom through My people Israel.' Nero said, 'The Kadosh Barukh Hu [the Holy One] desires to lay waste His Temple and to lay the blame on me. So he ran away and converted to Judaism, and Rabbi Meir was descended from him.'" [Gittin 56a]

[haha]

Here are some useful websites i found on the topic if anyone's interested in having a look: :)
http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/nero-index.html
www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm
campus.northpark.edu/history/ WebChron/Mediterranean/Nero.html
www.bible-history.com/nero/ - 3k - 5 Jan 2005
www.swan.ac.uk/classics/staff/dg/lectures/remp/nero.htm