Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 3rd April 2009

  The name of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus aka Nero came up earlier on the Friday Quiz thread - and some of the Hublandish were unsure what, exactly, Nero did to garner such unmitigated opprobrium, and whether his reputation was deserved or not.
  
  What do you think?

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 3rd April 2009

  Only towards the end, certainly not in the beginning. He was a young man with excellent education and some intelligence and certainly had a positive vision of Rome. His reaction to the fire seems to have been that of quite an experienced polititian - organising games to entertain people, setting plans for a "new, more fashionable city" etc.
  
  However since he was young and did not enjoy but partial back-up from his environment he became very dependent to external consultation which was not the optimum as guys like Vitelius or Vespasian would only care about personal profit rather than the fate of Nero. Naturally his already existing paranoia (he had already killed his mother, but then she was known to had been a monstrous woman anyway) passed the limits of madness: he ended up lost in dreams of being an emperor-god-artist-guitarist-actor-poet... really whatever.
  
  Had he remained in the company of more correct people he would had been more focused and who knows, despite his psychological problems he might had benefited the Romans and be remembered as a successful Emperor.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:43 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 2
  
  guys like... Vespasian would only care about personal profit rather than the fate of Nero 
  
  Would you care to elaborate on this criticism of my favourite Emperor? Since when has he been a profiteer?

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Not referring to Vespasian's other qualities, but then why would he be helping Nero take correct decisions anyway? For the good of the Empire? We know that egos and personal profit was almost always above the common peoples' interest. However, I think it was guys like Vitelius that were more close to Nero (personal opinion) and profited from his increasing madness, then trying to succeed him.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Certainly when Vitellius succeeded in picking up the reins he asked for, and applauded, a piece by Nero. The "quinquennium Neronis" is the real vposer, though. If it refers to the first five years of Nero's rule (some argue it doesn't), it consorts ill with his later reputation.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:26 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 4
  
  Sorry, Nik, you're not convincing me. Even if we assume that Vespasian had any real influence on Nero (which is doubtful, IMO), accounts indicate a man who genuinely had Rome's interests at heart, and who resisted the opportunity to profit from his position (indeed, as Governor of Africa he actually fell into financial difficulties).

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  The root of the problem seems to have been SPQR -- "The Senate and the People of Rome", with the Senate and the People being two rather distinct entities.
  
  Most of the Julio-Claudian emperors failed to find a sustainable balance of power between themselves and the Senatorial class. The office of emperor resided more in a person than an institution, and a result great power ended up in the hands of personal servants of the emperor. These could be of any class, including freedmen, as educated slaves and freedmen traditionally filled the roles of administrators of the properties of wealthy Romans. But this situation seriously annoyed the members of the Senatorial class, who regarded the high offices of the state as being theirs by birthright. They reacted by conspiring, and the emperors in turn reacted with a reign of terror and murder (judicial or otherwise).
  
  Gossip that Caligula wanted to make his favourite horse a consul, or that Claudius had called the senators fit to be made slaves, may have been apocryphal, but it illustrates the problem. For an emperor to be in open conflict with the senate was still dangerous, and Nero was declared a public enemy at the end of his reign.
  
  Roman historians tended to be upper-class: Members of the Senatorial class (Tacitus, Cassius Dio) or Equestrian class (Suetonius) with a good education and a fortune that allowed them enough leisure. They had little sympathy for emperors who had robbed men of their class of serious career prospects. Apparently the later emperors found a better balance of power, sharing more of it with the upper classes of Rome. (Suetonius became personal secretary to Hadrian, an office that under the Julio-Claudian emperors was more likely to be held by a freedman.) Also, the later emperors recognized the crucial importance of subsidizing historians...
  
  It's more than likely that Nero's reputation suffered further because of the filtering applied by generations of Christian scribes. It is mentioned surviving texts, that there once were Roman historians with a favourable opinion of Nero. But his reputation, deserved or not, as a prosecutor of Christians probably made the monks very reluctant to copy such works, and they have all been lost. All we have are some accounts of Nero's popularity among the lower classes.
  
  So we don't have an objective account, and we have to remember that the moral standards of the Romans were not ours. It is quite possible that grim old Senators who merely muttered "good riddance" when Nero had his mother killed, where genuinely horrified when the emperor saw fit to perform music in public. Even some Roman historians seem to have regarded both acts as equivalently heinous.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Anglo-norman, honestly i have no more knowledge on the issue regarding Vespasian (I merely mentioned him as one of the circle of power). Hence, I cannot say anything more on that - if you disagree, then will join your point that Vespasian was a more conscious Roman ruler in comparison to others (I never had any negative picture of him anyway - merely mentioned that no-one of these people would care about Nero's image or performance).

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:09 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 8
  
  To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to suppose he had any influence at the Neronian court, so what advice - if any - he offered to the Emperor I cannot say. However, is is reported to have governed Africa justly and avoided corruption.
  
  As Emperor he did much to restore the Empire after the Civil Wars, restoring much that he been destroyed, refilling the treasury whilst living a relatively simple life himself (he even - horror of horrors - supposedly took his own boots off!), strove to eradicate corruption and instituted a programme of public building.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Does any one know how Domitian he was. I lack italics for the proper adjective here.
  
  I am undecided if the Domitii were self seekers or just conservative. I gained my interest in on going research about the Domitii in Provence which they thought their own. So what of Nero and the family strain - has anyone any opinion on it - or places where I might research further?
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Sunday, 5th April 2009

  I didn't mean to kill this thread dead with my request - please continue with the main discussion which is so interesting.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Nero - was he as bad as Suetonius etc say?

  Report message11

Back to top