trouticus Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar novus Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar novus Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesuisavectoi Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) 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:" 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: guy also known as gaius Edited February 1, 2011 by guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) 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. He joined in October 2009, wrote one post, and was never heard from again. guy also known as gaius Edited July 24, 2010 by guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yehudah Posted September 18, 2010 Report Share Posted September 18, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.