The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD

[quo-vadis50]

There appears to be some disparity among the accounts of the damage done by the Great Fire. Some say 70% of the city was incinerated; others say only 10% was torched. Anybody have any ideas.

 

For example, one account says 0nly four of the fourteen districts were untouched. Anybody know which ones they were?

 

Nero was supposed to have persecuted the Christians in "the only arena that had not been burned down." Which was what? The Circus Gai et Neronis? Any ideas?

 

Also, does anyone know if the Theater of Pompey was spared? Supposedly the Theater of Marcellus burned, but what about Pompey?

 

I'm just full of questions today!

 

QV

[caldrail]

According to roman historians ten of the fourteen districts were devastated. Thats five sevenths. Rome was a tinderbox of wooden framed buildings closely packed together so a firestorm of that size isn't so unexpected. The problem is, there are reports that people actually fed the fire. Suetonius mentions that people were seen carrying firebrands and claiming their masters had ordered them to do it.

 

One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction.

 

More likely is the desire for landlords to cash in on buildings that were falling down anyway. A lot of those apartment blocks were jerry-built and vermin infested, so claiming insurance payment or selling off the land for a quick profit might have been a motive. On the other hand, its known that Pompey became rich by buying land after buildings had burned down at cut prices - so was an entrepeneur at work here?

[Gaius Octavius]

Romans insured buildings?

 

I think that Crassus (in his time) had a fire brigade of his own. When a fire broke out, he would go to it and try to buy the building from the owner at a rock bottom price. If he succeeded in buying, he would attempt to put the fire out; if not - burn baby, burn.

 

What were the vigiles doing?

[Andrew Dalby]

... One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction ...

 

So what is this circumstantial evidence?

[caldrail]

... One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction ...

 

So what is this circumstantial evidence?

 

I'll look it up. Report to follow. For myself I have doubts because Rome suffered fires regularly and there was another great fire during Titus's reign wasn't there? Regarding house insurance I opened a thread on this forum on that subject earlier.

 

On the other hand, its known that Pompey became rich by buying land after buildings had burned down at cut prices

 

DOH! I meant Crassus....

[Gaius Octavius]

From: http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/shiplaw/imic99.htm

 

"Although not an insurance contract in its own right, the maritime loan, disburdening the uncertainty of events onto the lender, is reported by Trennery[6] as having been embraced by the Venetians, the Greeks and the Romans.

 

Somewhat surprisingly, the Romans did not recognise a contract of insurance which was not coupled to a maritime loan.[7] Yet the notion of the transfer of risk to another for a price was certainly well developed by the time of Justinian, whose Digest contained provisions regulating the rate of premium interest covering the assumption of risk as part of a maritime loan.[8]"

 

This is rather sketchy, but a start.

[quo-vadis50]

From: http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/shiplaw/imic99.htm

 

"Although not an insurance contract in its own right, the maritime loan, disburdening the uncertainty of events onto the lender, is reported by Trennery[6] as having been embraced by the Venetians, the Greeks and the Romans.

 

Somewhat surprisingly, the Romans did not recognise a contract of insurance which was not coupled to a maritime loan.[7] Yet the notion of the transfer of risk to another for a price was certainly well developed by the time of Justinian, whose Digest contained provisions regulating the rate of premium interest covering the assumption of risk as part of a maritime loan.[8]"

 

This is rather sketchy, but a start.

 

 

Uhhhh.....okay -- while all this talk of insurance, etc., is fascinating, does anyone have answers to the original questions: Which of the districts were not burned (i.e., what were the names of the districts)? Was the Circus Gai et Neronis left untouched by the fire? And what of the Theater of Pompey? Did it escape the flames?

[caldrail]

In AD64 the city of Rome suffered a fire that destroyed or damaged ten out of fourteen districts, more than three and half square miles of devastation. The fire began in a shop beside the Circus Maximus and quickly spread along the length of that stadium. Driven by the dry wind of the hot summer it then travelled down the Triumphal Way and began burning homes of the aristocracy on the Palatine hill. From there it destroyed the forum, the temple of vesta, and spread into the wood and brick slums of the subura, home to hundreds of thousands of poor people.

 

The fire was intense. Experiments at the Building Research Establishment at Watford on replica roman rooms suggest that with typical furniture and construction a room could be destroyed utterly within thirty minutes reaching temperatures of six hundred degrees. In fact, archaeological evidence has turned up shattered bronze statue bases that suffered temperatures up to a thousand degrees. The radiant heat was literally causing houses to spontaneously combust. Even the traventine stone was melting.

 

The fire lasted six days, then mysteriously re-ignited at the estate of Tigellenius, Nero's close advisor, and burned for another three days before it finally went out.

 

Given Nero's enthusiasm for recreating Rome it was suspected that he was behind it, thus giving rise to the legend that he 'fiddled while Rome burned'. In fact he hadn't. Nero was at Antium partying with friends thrity five miles away when the fire started. Some aristocrats suspected he had burned their houses on purpose, since politics was decided in their atriums as much as the senate floor. However, its also true that Nero's own palace, the Domus Transitoria, was also hit by the fire.

 

Although the city had seven thousand firemen, none had tackled the fire and its reported that 'menacing gangs' prevented attempts to do so. People were observed torching buildings whilst openly claiming they were obeying orders to do so. On the one hand, the claims that Nero had started the fire as a land clearance scheme seem to have crecedence, but it also seems unlikely he would burn his own palace and that home of his close advisor. Unfortunately, despite Nero's relief efforts and his building safety legislation brought in afterward, his new Domus Aurea was such a statement of power that claims against him were difficult to avoid.

 

Conventional wisdom holds that Nero became aware of the increasing criticism and blamed the unpopular christian sect as being responsible. They were perfect as scapegoats. Rumours of vampirism, necrophagy, and denial of the imperial cult put them beyond the pale. The persecution of christians that followed was the first, and was so cruel that many romans began to have sympathy for them. Its because of these burnings and crucifixions that Nero is popularly known as an anti-christ.

 

The fire took place on the evening of July 19th, the same date as a major fire more than four hundred years earlier. There was also an egyptian prophecy known at the time throughout the eastern mediterranean that a great city would fall when the dog star Sirius rose. In AD64, Sirius rose on July 19th. Christians, many of whom were disaffected jews, had no legal recourse to vent their complaints so were prone to apocalyptic prophecy as a way to express their anger. Although christianity is now seen as a passive peaceful faith, back then it was not. The violent fundamentalism we now expect of islam was present in christianity then, and within a few years of the Fire, a revolt in Judaea took place led primarily by religious zealots.

 

The christian activist theory relies on these points. July 19th would have been seen as the perfect date to bring retribution to decadent Rome. Indeed, these sentiments are expressed in the Book of Revelations ascribed to St John thirty years after, although its unlikely he actually wrote them himself. If the Seven Headed Whore of Babylon was in fact the Seven Hills of Rome as the theory requires, then the description makes quite clear that hatred of Rome and its domination of the world was keenly felt by contemporary christians, who were exorting others to wreak revenge on the city in exactly the same way that modern moslems do against america today.

 

If the Activist Theory is correct then why has this not been translated into modern acceptance? The most obvious reason is sanitisation of christian history. As Rome turned away from pagan beliefs the bishops of Rome would not want their compliant flocks to see a religion tainted by the anti-roman zealotry of their predecessors.

 

Of course this is difficult to prove. There is a hint of conspiracy theory about this. The dates may be mere coincidence, and the Book of Revelations is possibly only the result of a nightmarish vision of someone high on mushrooms. Nonetheless, the parallels to our modern world are there and the Activist Theory, if proven, would mean that Nero did not pick on the christians as scapegoats, but exacted revenge executions on the cult that attempted to destroy his empire at its heart.

[Andrew Dalby]

A fascinating piece of history, Caldrail. Thank you very much for all that work.

 

The implication of your last few paragraphs is that, at this period, Jews and Christians were not so easily distinguished, and that 'activists' or 'extremists' might well have links to both. It's an attractive new perspective (at least, new to me).

[Kosmo]

Do you know any terrorist act/open revolt carried by christians?

Saying that between christians and jews was no big difference (but we know not of jew persecution then or christian persecutions at jewish revolts) and afterwards christians rewrote history, makes it hard to argue against this theory, but for me looks like an attempt to equate christianity with extremist islam.

Not mentioning that we have only christian sources for executions and something that might be a christian modification.

[quo-vadis50]

Again -- this is very interesting information, but it still doesn't answer the original direct questions about whether the Circus Gai et Neronis and the Theater of Pompey were burned, and the names of the districts which were not burned. Is this info not available?

[caldrail]

I haven't found much aside from the reports of Tacitus and an archaeologist named Andrea Carandinas, who's been digging in Rome for 20 years. Only four districts were left untouched, and three were completely flattened. The inference is that many of the public buildings were indeed burned, but it would help if I knew which area they were in. The center of Rome, around the palatine, was ruined so if the buildings you metion were there, they too suffered from the fire.

[caldrail]

Do you know any terrorist act/open revolt carried by christians?

Saying that between christians and jews was no big difference (but we know not of jew persecution then or christian persecutions at jewish revolts) and afterwards christians rewrote history, makes it hard to argue against this theory, but for me looks like an attempt to equate christianity with extremist islam.

Not mentioning that we have only christian sources for executions and something that might be a christian modification.

 

I understand your point. The parallel is there although the situation in Rome was slightly different in that ancient 'terrorists' wouldn't have the training or sophistication that we see today. As for 'terrorist' incidents, its impossible to say. We're talking about handfuls of aggrieved individuals who act without modern organisation. Given that Rome may have suffered up to a hundred fires a day, of which two or three might be considered serious who's to say how many were started by pyromaniacs? Of the knifeings that went on after dark, were they all thieves or were some political murders? If so, the number of these incidents are small. people of this nature don't act with wild abandon. They usually plot and plan, seeking mutual support until their increasing confidence and brashness results in activity, after which they would tend to lie low in order to escape suspicion. What they wouldn't do in the lack of modern anonymous communications is boast about it publicly. However, there are claims that evidence of propaganda leaflets dating from this era exist. I haven't seen any.