Where did the Great Fire start?

[qselby]

Where did the Great Fire start? I have found some sources stating that it actually started in Regio I, by the Capena Gate. This was only a short hop from the eastern side of the Circus Maximus. Tacitus refers to the east side of the CM but the market area clustered around the gate actually fell in this area even though the CM was consigned to the regio XI.

[Faustus]

Where did the Great Fire start? I have found some sources stating that it actually started in Regio I, by the Capena Gate. This was only a short hop from the eastern side of the Circus Maximus. Tacitus refers to the east side of the CM but the market area clustered around the gate actually fell in this area even though the CM was consigned to the regio XI.

 

Tacitus states that the fire was driven by a southeasterly wind. He describes the fire as moving both south up the Aventine Hill and north up the Palatine, implying that this apparently unnatural pattern was due to arson. Today we know that the larger a fire becomes the more updraft it creates -- breezes that interfere with prevailing winds and allow the fire to spread out in search of oxygen, especially up a hill like the Palatine.

[Gaius Octavius]

Italy has cyclones?

[Faustus]

Italy has cyclones?

 

To have said "cyclones" was wrong. To have said "cyclonic pattern" would've been more accurate.

 

Faustus

Edited April 28, 2008 by Faustus

[caldrail]

Although heat conduction would have caused adjacent buildings to catch fire spontaneously, the fire spread faster along open streets that naturally tended to capture wind. This means the fire might spread in direction not aligned with the prevailing wind direction.

 

tacitus reported that those men attempting to fight the fire were attacked and forced back, and others seen spreading the fire were claiming to be acting on orders.

 

The main suspects are....

 

1 - Nero, acting against senatorial rivals by ensuring their homes (and thus their places of political business) were destroyed, also because it meant he had an opportunity to rebuild Rome as his own personal city, Neropolis. Notice Nero wasn't present when the fire started and he made very visible efforts to co-ordinate the relief effort.

 

2 - Christian Activists, since Nero and the city of Rome were deeply loathed by christians of the period for their decadence. The Book of Revelations in the bible dates from this time and clearly states the resentment felt by judaean exiles.

 

3 - Opportunists - who sought to profit from land exchanges by some advantageous land clearance

 

4 - Political rivals, who decided that a disaster would end Nero's career and notice that the fire restarted on the estate of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor.

 

5 - Bad luck, in that another fire in the tinder-dry city of Rome got out of hand and that the current weather assisted the spread of flames.

 

Cyclones are natural air movements that you find everywhere in the world. There's one pushing over Britain as I write this. Sometimes it has strong winds associated with it if the pressure gradient is high, but not always.

[Octavia]

I watched a documentary on the fire in 64 A.D. and I can't remember where they said it started. I think I do remember reading what one of the other members said about the fire starting near the circus maximus though. My question is, do you all think Nero was to blame? Sorry if this is sort of off topic. Lol! Even though he was south of Rome, from what I'd heard, he could have had others do his dirty work for him. On the other hand, the documentary I watched said that possibly one of the reasons the fire started was because the shops and things wern't safe from such things.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I watched a documentary on the fire in 64 A.D. and I can't remember where they said it started. I think I do remember reading what one of the other members said about the fire starting near the circus maximus though. My question is, do you all think Nero was to blame? Sorry if this is sort of off topic. Lol! Even though he was south of Rome, from what I'd heard, he could have had others do his dirty work for him. On the other hand, the documentary I watched said that possibly one of the reasons the fire started was because the shops and things wern't safe from such things.

Salve, Lady O.

Even PC Tacitus himself (a child some nine years old by that time) considered plausible the Great Fire was just an accident; (Annales, Liber XV, cp. XXXVIII):

Sequitur clades, forte an dolo principis incertum (nam utrumque auctores prodidere), sed omnibus,.

" A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,".

 

I think most scholars would exonerate Nero, because:

- No rationale: Nero was supposedly destroying not only HIS capital, but his house and palace too. The explanations given by C Suetonius (plundering) and Tacitus (the founding of a New city!) simply doesn't make sense. Nero actually tried his best for controlling the conflagration and its consequences (ibid, cp. XXXIX):

sed solacium populo exturbato ac profugo campum Martis ac monumenta Agrippae, hortos quin etiam suos patefacit et subitaria aedificia exstruxit, quae multitudinem inopem acciperent; subvectaque utensilia ab Ostia et propinquis municipiis, pretiumque frumenti minutum usque ad ternos nummos.

"However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck".

 

- Fires in Rome, even huge, were commonplace: Suetonius described two under Tiberius (cp XLVIII-L), one under Claudius (cp XVIII) and another under Titus (cp. VIII), plus "many fires" in provincial cities under Vespasian (cp XVII). No one required any specific explanation for all those fires.

 

- Arsonism was commonly attributed to mad and/or criminal rulers: Suetonius did it so in his Vita Vitellii (cp XV):

succensoque templo Iovis Optimi Maximi oppressit, cum et proelium et incendium e Tiberiana prospiceret domo inter epulas.

"Then he set fire to the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and destroyed them, viewing the battle and the fire from the house of Tiberius, where he was feasting".

Edited June 17, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

- Arsonism was commonly attributed to mad and/or criminal rulers: Suetonius did it so in his Vita Vitellii (cp XV):

 

Yes, and it's not unique to Suetonius. Didn't Cicero claim that Catiline intended to set fire to the city? Come to think of it, the admirers of Clodius and Caesar actually DID set fire to the city--making them worse than even Nero!

[caldrail]

I think most scholars would exonerate Nero, because:

- No rationale: Nero was supposedly destroying not only HIS capital, but his house and palace too. The explanations given by C Suetonius (plundering) and Tacitus (the founding of a New city!) simply doesn't make sense.

Whilst I remain neutral on this issue, I'm going to play the prosecution lawyer here. Nero wasn't a sensible person. he attempted to have Rome renamed Neropolis after its reconstruction, and his comment after the Domus Aurea was complete was "Now I can live as a human being". The fact he was away when the fire started does not exonerate him at all, it may be a wish to distance himself from his work, and the efforts made to assist the public during and after the fire might simply have been a publicity stunt, since Nero was never one to baulk at breaking laws to get what he wanted. Nero identified himself with the god Apollo, regarding himself as beyond mere mortals in a very immature way. In any case, since the influence of the senatorial elite was an obstacle to getting his way doesn't it make sense to burn their homes and therefore do away with their places of business?

 

Your witness....

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think most scholars would exonerate Nero, because:

- No rationale: Nero was supposedly destroying not only HIS capital, but his house and palace too. The explanations given by C Suetonius (plundering) and Tacitus (the founding of a New city!) simply doesn't make sense.

Whilst I remain neutral on this issue, I'm going to play the prosecution lawyer here. Nero wasn't a sensible person. he attempted to have Rome renamed Neropolis after its reconstruction, and his comment after the Domus Aurea was complete was "Now I can live as a human being". The fact he was away when the fire started does not exonerate him at all, it may be a wish to distance himself from his work, and the efforts made to assist the public during and after the fire might simply have been a publicity stunt, since Nero was never one to baulk at breaking laws to get what he wanted. Nero identified himself with the god Apollo, regarding himself as beyond mere mortals in a very immature way. In any case, since the influence of the senatorial elite was an obstacle to getting his way doesn't it make sense to burn their homes and therefore do away with their places of business?

 

Your witness....

Thanks, but my witness has extensively declared on my last post and I doubt we require to say any more. Just check it out.

Anyway, briefly:

- No Rationale. The fire destroyed his own palace, and he didn't require the fire to built a new one.

- Accidental fires, even if extensive, were commonplace.

-Arsonism was commonly attributed to purported mad rulers (ie Suetonius himself on Vitellius).

Edited July 5, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Thanks, but my witness has extensively declared on my last post and I doubt we require to say any more. Just check it out.

Anyway, briefly:

- No Rationale. The fire destroyed his own palace, and he didn't require the fire to built a new one.

I understood the Domus Transitoria was damaged, not destroyed, and in any case, Nero was not the sort of person to be satisified with something built for a lesser emperor. He was Nero, the living Apollo, a man who needed and deserved a statement of grandeur. Further, since the land clearance necessary for Domus Aurea and its grounds meant evicting large numbers of people from their property would Nero wish to risk unpopularity? He may have seen himself as a self-important celebrity, he was also very concerned about his public image, and as later events showed none to self confident in a crisis.

 

- Accidental fires, even if extensive, were commonplace.

No argument there, however the reports of individuals fanning the flames and declaring they were under orders to do so must be considered. Further, the fire restarted on the grounds of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor, for no obious reason.

 

-Arsonism was commonly attributed to purported mad rulers (ie Suetonius himself on Vitellius).

Possibly, but why should criminal or vengeful activity of other people be discounted, especially since they weren't standing in the spotlight.

[ASCLEPIADES]

- No Rationale. The fire destroyed his own palace, and he didn't require the fire to built a new one.

I understood the Domus Transitoria was damaged, not destroyed, and in any case, Nero was not the sort of person to be satisified with something built for a lesser emperor. He was Nero, the living Apollo, a man who needed and deserved a statement of grandeur. Further, since the land clearance necessary for Domus Aurea and its grounds meant evicting large numbers of people from their property would Nero wish to risk unpopularity? He may have seen himself as a self-important celebrity, he was also very concerned about his public image, and as later events showed none to self confident in a crisis.

No Rationale:

Nero had no way to control the destruction of his personal property Besides ALL THE CITY was his property.

The Empire (Nero's Empire) lost a lot of money with both the Fire and the reconstruction; Nero was notoriously greedy.

Administratively, the Neronian rule was always quite sensible; not even his fiercest enemies could said otherwise..

Subsequent Emperors built far bigger palaces and architecture without any popularity concern; retrospectively, it seems they were right.

Edited July 13, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

-Accidental fires, even if extensive, were commonplace.

No argument there, however the reports of individuals fanning the flames and declaring they were under orders to do so must be considered. Further, the fire restarted on the grounds of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor, for no obious reason.

There was no obvious reason besides Roman construction malpractices and lack of caution for any of the myriad fires at Rome and virtually any other Roman city (for some notorious examples, check on sompe previous posts in this same thread).

 

Why would Nero want to start the Fire in his favourite's property? No better choice available?

 

All those "reports" were basically acknowledged rumours from quite hostile Flavian sources; nuff' said.

Edited July 13, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Arsonism was commonly attributed to purported mad rulers (ie Suetonius himself on Vitellius).

Possibly, but why should criminal or vengeful activity of other people be discounted, especially since they weren't standing in the spotlight.

Obviously, it can't be proved that ANYONE had NOT provoked ANY fire at Ancient times, being either Nero, Tigellinus, the Christians, the Jews, Parthian agents, the Senate, Epictetus, Seneca's freedmen, Aggripina's ghost or whoever you like. BTW, you can said the same on Vitellius and any of the other purported pyromaniac ancient rulers.

 

Nero was quite popular long after his death; Flavian and even Antoninian propagandists needed to counteract that popularity in some way. They used gossip, and I have to admit they made the right choice.

[Octavia]

This topic is very interesting. I'm of a mixed oppinion of what everyone is saying here. Somehow, this comes to mind. If Nero didn't start the fire, then why would he want to rename the city and call it after himself, build a palace larger than what the old palace had been, and make a remark like that. It seems as if he wanted something larger than life, and that he wasn't satisfied with what he had.