Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
trouticus

Was Nero all bad?

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum.

 

To be honest I know little about classics.

 

However, I will be doing a few roman classics papers next year, to add a bit of variety to my sometimes dry economics degree. So I signed up here because I thought I would learn a bit from this site.

 

As we all know, Nero gets a pretty bad name for obvious reasons. Nero was a perverted matricidal lunatic.

 

However, my friend believes that Nero had many positive attributes.

 

Is there any evidence at all, buried in the ancient sources, that there were any positive traditions in his reign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any evidence at all, buried in the ancient sources, that there were any positive traditions in his reign?

Like Caligula or Henry VIII, he started out really well. I heard he had some redeeming features even later, but one sticks in my mind from a lecture that said he was the last emperor who proposed a return to partial democracy. It wasn't put into effect, and the professor thought Nero might have been up to no good somehow. Anyway it would have allowed voting only for some something relatively minor, like city councils or the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like Caligula or Henry VIII, he started out really well. I heard he had some redeeming features even later, but one sticks in my mind from a lecture that said he was the last emperor who proposed a return to partial democracy. It wasn't put into effect, and the professor thought Nero might have been up to no good somehow. Anyway it would have allowed voting only for some something relatively minor, like city councils or the like.
Regarding such political interlude, I guess your professor was actually referring to Caius (aka Caligula), not Nero.
Is there any evidence at all, buried in the ancient sources, that there were any positive traditions in his reign?

Nero has always been a popular topic; I'm sure there should be some positive traditions buried here at UNRV; just try the search function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that over 50% of the graffito discussing the emperors in Pompeii are concerned with Nero and almost all of them in a positive manner. That should give you a hint about the what the population was thinking, considering that the normal text evidence was written by a pissed of aristocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but that doesn't mean he was a likeable guy (you get the impression he was snide, arrogant, very demanding, wasteful, and yet strangely weak willed). The populace saw him in the same way we would a celebrity in the modern age, and Nero played to the crowd like the unashamed attention seeker that he was. For all his faults, he was a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding such political interlude, I guess your professor was actually referring to Caius (aka Caligula), not Nero.

Right, that seems to be Seutonious talking about Caligula. I think the prof did throw in a few kudos for Nero, but since there is no exam I never activated my photographic memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his early reign, Nero seemed content to allow able advisers to administer the empire. It's after he asserted his own authoritarian power that the trouble seems to begin. Was this negative connotation a case of resentment by the aristocracy? It was certainly influenced by the perceived slight against the traditional roles of the same aristocracy, but Nero wasn't exactly revered for his leadership skills either.

 

Some quick successes of Nero off the top of my head:

Quelling of the Iceni rebellion of Boudicea in Britain and essentially putting the final stamp of Roman rule in southern Britannia.

 

Victory of Corbulo over the Parthians in Armenia.

 

The two previous examples not withstanding, the empire largely experienced a continuation of the "Pax Romana".

 

Despite later connotations that Nero was the cause of the great fire in Rome, he was pro-active in rebuilding the city, providing housing and care for the numerous who were displaced, and re-building to prevent future outbreaks. He filled the swamps of Ostia with the rubble from the fire which could be credited for reducing malaria (and or other mosquito born disease), whether it was intended or not.

 

He instituted corruption oversight of some forms of tax collection and restricted fines and legal fees for those of lesser means. He also protected the rights of freedmen against former slave holders.

 

He was a great proponent of arts and "culture". Although the extravagance of building gymnasia, arenas and theatres all over the place was a major factor in the drain of the treasury, and he was a cultural embarrassment to his socio-economic class and political station by performing on stage and in the "gym", one can't really argue that Nero didn't promote the arts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching a documentary about Nero the other day, it was really interesting. The people loved him for a while, whether this was because of the role his advisers had or his lineage and he had some great intentions for Rome after the most of the city was destroyed in fire but seemed to lack understanding about how to go about it,from the accounts I've read he sounded like a complete spoiled brat so I'd imagine budgeting wouldn't have been on his mind! He wouldn't everything and refused to wait, even ransacking a temple to get money for lavish statues, artwork, building etc; but I think when we look back at Nero the bad will always outweigh the good to most people, this is a man who killed both his wives and then had a young slave castrated to become the living image of his deceased second wife. Speaking of that, I haven't had much luck in researching Sporus, the castrated servant, I think it was mentioned in Suetonius but I can't find anything with a bit more detail. The psychological implications of that are fascinating, especially after Sporus kept up the facade years after Nero's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Nero was all bad. Everything good that happened during his reign happened in spite of Nero rather than because of Nero.

 

BTW, I think it's utterly naive to think that pro-Nero graffiti came from "the people" rather than Nero's paid henchmen. If he had the power to scapegoat Christians for the conflaggration of 64, I'll bet he also had the power to have his praises scrawled on walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, MPC, what a cynic you are! But I agree as it happens, although describing him as 'all bad' sort of paints a complex character in one colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Nero was all bad. Everything good that happened during his reign happened in spite of Nero rather than because of Nero.

 

Ah, Cato. "Full of vim and verve as usual:" :lol:

 

Nero has been described as an insecure egomaniac and narcissist with a borderline personality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

 

 

The problem is that we have only his critics as sources.

 

They fail to emphasize his patronage of the arts, making him popular among the masses, especially in the eastern, Hellenized portions of the Empire. If anything, he was obsessed with being popular with the lower classes. Suetonius (the great Flavian apologist) and other critics of Nero came from the higher echelons of society and reflected the senatorial values of Rome. They were not amused by his frivolous spending and his artistic pretenses.

 

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/49d465/

 

Plaque dedicated to Nero at Corinth AD 68:

 

post-3665-021216800 1296521768_thumb.jpg

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited by guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys, I'm new to this forum.

 

Is there any evidence at all, buried in the ancient sources, that there were any positive traditions in his reign?

 

Wow. We must have frightened off Trouticus from this forum. :oops: He joined in October 2009, wrote one post, and was never heard from again.

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited by guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Nero was in Greece when the Great Fire broke out; he supposedly rushed back to Rome and was seen helping the citizens look for family and possessions amongst the rubbel. Is there any truth to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×