Neos Dionysos Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yeah perhaps - it was a lapse in detail; i was half asleep when i typed that Maybe we should just vote for Theodora to be the Byzantine's Nero - especially if half the stories about her sexual acrobatics are true, as well as her treatment of the Empire's best General, Belisarius I say Phocas be named the Byzantine Nero... even over Theodora... and if her antics are true... perhaps we know why Justinian wanted her so badly... LoL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Now I read "History about Michael and Andronicus Paleologus" of Georgius Pachymeres and if Pachymeres is completely reliable it means that Michael Paleologus diserve to be Byzantine's Nero. He blinded, mutilated and put to death a lot of his subjects, and general accusations were the contempt of the emperor and the disagreement with his religios policy. He presecuted everybody - nobles, monks, commoners, even his friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel I Comnenus Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I would have to agree with whoever said that no Byzantine Emperor ever matched the likes of Nero. There were Byzantine Emperors that were cruel and harsh to the barbarians that invaded their lands.. but Nero was cruel and harsh to his own people. I don't think there is any Byzantine Emperor in my mind that killed his own people so ruthlessly as Nero did in Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Phocas and Andronikus Comnen are my options to the job. Anyway, Nero had a terrible press and I'm not sure he was such a bad emperor. The senatorial historians made all emperors of the first century look bad. A novel of Stephan Zweig it's about a fake Nero that wins a huge support in Syria. We know that the army was not happy about his murder and the Senat was divided about him. His foreign policy was sound and effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) A novel of Stephan Zweig it's about a fake Nero that wins a huge support in Syria. You should read primary sorces, like Tacitus. About this time Achaia and Asia Minor were terrified by a false report that Nero was at hand. Various rumours were current about his death; and so there were many who pretended and believed that he was still alive. The adventures and enterprises of the other pretenders I shall relate in the regular course of my work. The pretender in this case was a slave from Pontus, or, according to some accounts, a freedman from Italy, a skilful harp-player and singer, accomplishments, which, added to a resemblance in the face, gave a very deceptive plausibility to his pretensions. After attaching to himself some deserters, needy vagrants whom he bribed with great offers, he put to sea. Driven by stress of weather to the island of Cythnus, he induced certain soldiers, who were on their way from the East, to join him, and ordered others, who refused, to be executed. He also robbed the traders and armed all the most able-bodied of the slaves. The centurion Sisenna, who was the bearer of the clasped right hands, the usual emblems of friendship, from the armies of Syria to the Pr Edited February 1, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Not even this persecution of christians is certain as the fragments about this seem to be christian era fakes. Edited February 1, 2006 by Kosmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Not even this persecution of christians is certain as the fragments about this seem to be christian era fakes. The only thing in question regarding the death of Christians is Nero's reasoning. While Christian writers attempted to twist history to make it seem as though Nero targetted Christians out of some sort of evil spite, it would seem far more likely that had Rome not burned, he may never have even bothered the Christians. They provided an easy scapegoat for an embattled emperor (as the bulk of the Roman population distrusted and feared the Christian strangeness). Even if the nature of Christian 'martyrdom' (being lit up like candles and such) was faked by later writers, I don't see any reason to disbelieve that Nero used them to deflect criticism. Also, the army was not upset about Nero's death (you may be thinking of Domitian's assassination which did greatly upset the legions). The army largely hated Nero for a series of accusations, prosecutions and executions of popular generals. It was this lack of loyalty that inspired Nero's suicide. The Roman mob may have been frightening, but if the Praetorians and the general army had remained loyal, the mob would not have been a concern. Nero was pretty much universally despised. Unlike Tiberius and Claudius, etc., Nero's one guy I generally don't think much revision of history will ever catch on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Not even this persecution of christians is certain as the fragments about this seem to be christian era fakes. Fragments? The Acts of the Apostles, "Church history" of Eusebius (with qoutes of ancient church writers), Tacitus, Tertullian, they are all falsifiers? Edited February 1, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Fragments? The Acts of the Apostles, "Church history" of Eusebius (with qoutes of ancient church writers), Tacitus, Tertullian, they are all falsifiers? It is possible! I'm no specialist and I don't care much about this but... http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christi...ns/tacitus.html http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christi...ns/tacnero.html I don't say that Nero was a good guy, but he was villified by many. Edited February 1, 2006 by Kosmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) It is possible! Possible? Why don`t you think that all antique writers are falcifiers? Not only christians? I mean christians lie because they hate pagans, pagans lie because they hate christians, democrates lie because they hate republicans etc. http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christi...ns/tacitus.htmlhttp://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christi...ns/tacnero.html If even Tacitus is falcifiers or lier, it doesn`t mean that Tertullian and other christian authors are liers and Nero didn`t persecute christians. And christians wouldn`t call themselves "class hated for their abominations" etc. (as Tacitus says) And there were no reasons to falsify because there were no doubts in New Testament. Edited February 1, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 All antique writers are falcifiers. They write things as they see fit. A lot of the history books are made to glorify someone and others books to villify someone. Which book of Procopius of Caesareea should one belive? When Justinian looks like a saint or when it looks like puppet? If Caesar says that he killed one million gauls, and captured one million we should believe him? Or, should we believe Herodot description of Babylon with a wall 27 meters thick and 40 meters high, but no Garden of Semiramis when we know the size of that wall from archeology? We should always be careful about what they say like we are with today tabloids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) At least there are no real proofs that "Anneles" were corrected by christians, but only supposition that they could do it. P.S. Such "proofs" like "there are no other pagan sources, that confirm Tacitus" are not convincing. Edited February 1, 2006 by Philhellene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 All antique writers are falcifiers. They write things as they see fit. A lot of the history books are made to glorify someone and others books to villify someone. Which book of Procopius of Caesareea should one belive? When Justinian looks like a saint or when it looks like puppet? If Caesar says that he killed one million gauls, and captured one million we should believe him? Or, should we believe Herodot description of Babylon with a wall 27 meters thick and 40 meters high, but no Garden of Semiramis when we know the size of that wall from archeology? We should always be careful about what they say like we are with today tabloids. We held a recent discussion about Analyzing ancient historians. While its safe to say that there are probably certain imbedded biases, etc. within the ancient texts its simply unprovable to call them all 'falsifiers'. There is a fine line between propoganda and fact, and of course we should examine all available information (archaeology, numismatics, etc.) but writing off the ancients as liars is as equally absurd as believing every word verbatim. 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.