Fire Of 64

[frankq]

This from Dio's description of the 64 fire:

 

The whole Palatine hill, the theatre of Taurus, and nearly two-thirds of the remainder of the city were burned, ....

 

The theater of Taurus was the Amphitheatrum Statilii Tauri, Rome's first stone theater.

 

Any case, ''the whole Palatine''...? I don't buy this, if so it would've wiped out several of the major imperial residences not on the damage list. Nero's Domus Transitoria was on the lower eastern edge and naturally got nuked. Since the fire started on the Palatine side of the Circus Max, I can see how it would get especially hit, also because the winds were coming from the south east. But the ''whole of it''?

 

Anyone have insight on this? Was anyone there to see the fire? If so, did you call 911?

 

 

 

Tacitus also states that the Regia was destroyed but invesitgations have shown that this isnt true.

[phil25]

We know that what are now called the House of Livia and the House of Augustus survived because you can see and visit them. There is no record of the latter and its precious contents being lost. The House of the griffins, under Domitian's "chapel of the Lares" is also republican, I believe.

 

Much of the palace of tiberius - probably Claudian - is under the farnese gardens and has not been excavated extensively, but I recall no mention from the reports i have read, that it showed signs of early destruction.

 

On the other hand, Domitian clearly had room to build his massive palace on the hill which might suggest that 20 years or so after the fire the land was not much occupied. Or maybe he just compulsorarily purchased the site??

 

My judgement would be - palatine took some damage, but was played up to make it seem that the rich were affected as much as the poor in the Subura and elsewhere. Hyperbole, is probably your answer.

 

Phil

[frankq]

We know that what are now called the House of Livia and the House of Augustus survived because you can see and visit them. There is no record of the latter and its precious contents being lost. The House of the griffins, under Domitian's "chapel of the Lares" is also republican, I believe.

 

Much of the palace of tiberius - probably Claudian - is under the farnese gardens and has not been excavated extensively, but I recall no mention from the reports i have read, that it showed signs of early destruction.

 

On the other hand, Domitian clearly had room to build his massive palace on the hill which might suggest that 20 years or so after the fire the land was not much occupied. Or maybe he just compulsorarily purchased the site??

 

My judgement would be - palatine took some damage, but was played up to make it seem that the rich were affected as much as the poor in the Subura and elsewhere. Hyperbole, is probably your answer.

 

Phil

 

Hmmm. This interesting. And I agree, hyperbole is the answer. Dio's statement caught me and I reared back.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This from Dio's description of the 64 fire:

The whole Palatine hill, the theatre of Taurus, and nearly two-thirds of the remainder of the city were burned, ....

 

Dio says these locations were "burned" not "destroyed". I burned my hand once, but I've still got two. What about this is difficult to understand?

[phil25]

I would still suggest MPC that the surviving remains on the palatine which i mentioned - all dating from Republican times essentially - show no signs of having been burned. the wall paintings are intact.

 

Phil

[frankq]

This from Dio's description of the 64 fire:

The whole Palatine hill, the theatre of Taurus, and nearly two-thirds of the remainder of the city were burned, ....

 

Dio says these locations were "burned" not "destroyed". I burned my hand once, but I've still got two. What about this is difficult to understand?

 

The fact that the Theater of Taurus has been recorded as being destroyed by the fire. Nero built another amphitheater to replace it. The fault is not in my lack of understanding but in Dio's choice of words and lumping the Palatine in along with it. And the other 2/3rds of Rome which was rendered in most parts unusable and had to be rebuilt. Moreover, read carefully his line and the hyperbole Phil suggested, ''the whole Palatine Hill...''

 

So what exactly is your sarcastic point...?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would still suggest MPC that the surviving remains on the palatine which i mentioned - all dating from Republican times essentially - show no signs of having been burned. the wall paintings are intact.

 

The wall paintings still being intact supports the argument that Dio was engaging in hyperbole. Presumably if there were a conflagration enveloping the whole Palatine Hill, the heat would have destroyed the paint even if it did leave the stone structures intact (though I admit I'm no fire marshal).

[phil25]

So you agree then MPC, that Dio was wrong even to suggest that all or even muchof the Palatine was even burned?

 

You seemed to be suggesting earlier that he was right, but the hill was burned, just not destroyed when you wrote:

 

Dio says these locations were "burned" not "destroyed". I burned my hand once, but I've still got two. What about this is difficult to understand?

 

I am just seeking to understand what YOU think happened.

 

.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

So you agree then MPC, that Dio was wrong even to suggest that all or even muchof the Palatine was even burned?

 

I really hadn't formed an opinion on the matter and didn't know about the surviving wall paintings. On the assumption that wall paintings could not survive a fire, however much of the paintings survived puts an upper limit on the amount of the Palatine that burned. So, while it wasn't really all of the Palatine that burned, the archaeology (that I know) still doesn't make clear whether it was .9%, 9%, or 99% of the Palatine that burned. If it turns out that 99% of the Palatine were burned, chastising Dio for a mere 1% exaggeration would be pedantic; on the other hand, if it turns out that only 9% of the Palatine were burned, one would wonder where Dio got his information.

[caldrail]

This from Dio's description of the 64 fire:

 

The whole Palatine hill, the theatre of Taurus, and nearly two-thirds of the remainder of the city were burned, ....

 

The theater of Taurus was the Amphitheatrum Statilii Tauri, Rome's first stone theater.

 

Any case, ''the whole Palatine''...? I don't buy this, if so it would've wiped out several of the major imperial residences not on the damage list. Nero's Domus Transitoria was on the lower eastern edge and naturally got nuked. Since the fire started on the Palatine side of the Circus Max, I can see how it would get especially hit, also because the winds were coming from the south east. But the ''whole of it''?

 

Anyone have insight on this? Was anyone there to see the fire? If so, did you call 911?

 

 

 

Tacitus also states that the Regia was destroyed but invesitgations have shown that this isnt true.

 

Well I wasn't actually there (contrary to popular rumour) but as I understand the evidence shows partial damage to the palatine hill, not extensive. Certainly not all of it. The fire followed the course of three intersecting roads near to the circus maximus and spread to buildings nearby. The wind was a major factor in its spread, as were servants of greedy landlords setting their flea-bitten insulae ablaze to claim insurance and probably evict difficult tenants without recourse to lawyers.

 

PS - I can ring 911 if you want but I might be a little late.