Where did the Great Fire start?

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Salve, O

Excuse me, but I can't follow the argumentation: If he wanted to rename the city and build some huge`palaces, then he required to set Rome on fire? That makes no sense to me.

 

Even being an evident megalomaniac, Nero was not anomalous in his architectural taste; most Emperors tend to build bigger constructions that their predecessors; ie, Nero's constructions were modest by Hadrian standards, and so was the latter relative to his succesors.

That was not just self-satisfaction; it was propaganda too, showing the World in general and the Roman people in particular how great each individual semi-divine Emperor was. Technological improvements may have had a role too.

As far as I know, no Emperor required to burned the city for building their progressively bigger projects.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici:

We can follow this argument ad infinitum, but the general idea won't change unless some new evidence is presented.

 

NO RATIONALE:

Virtually any hard fact points the Neronian administration was quite prudent.

Not only the fire destroyed great portions of Nero's direct property, but great expenses had to be made for the global city reconstruction (not just for the Domus aureus' works).

Nero might have been a maniac, not a retarded. Why on Earth would he waste his precious money in such a stupid way?

 

NO REASON TO DOUBT THE FIRE'S ORIGIN WAS AN ACCIDENT:

Only difference of the Great Fire relative to the myriad conflagrations that occurred all over Rome and its Empire is that it was... great, as judged by the chroniclers.

Naturally, you can equally blame Christian fanatics, Zealot terrorists, Persian spies, Radical Senators, any of the multiple Nero's victims relatives, slaves or freedmen... or just any number of unintentional mishaps in a fire-prone metropolis.

 

ARSONISM WAS A COMMONPLACE DIFAMATORY GOSSIP AMONG HOSTILE CLASSICAL HISTORIANS:

Without additional proof, such accusation is equally doubtful when it's made against Aulus Vitellius and many other ancient rulers.

 

No one can prove Nero (or any other contemporary at Rome) didn't start the fire.

Anyhow, I must conclude Nero is far beyond any onus probandi (Burden of proof) allegation.

Nero

[caldrail]

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.

Salve, O

Excuse me, but I can't follow the argumentation: If he wanted to rename the city and build some huge`palaces, then he required to set Rome on fire? That makes no sense to me.

Land clearance. Nero needed to remain popular so evicting lots of people from their homes and businesses (including the wealthy senatorial properties whose ownsers were an impediment to Nero's magnificence). Makes perfect sense to me, given that Nero's ego was no longer under any restraint whatsoever. He had this image of how things were to be and expected his minions to simply make it happen.

 

Even being an evident megalomaniac, Nero was not anomalous in his architectural taste; most Emperors tend to build bigger constructions that their predecessors; ie, Nero's constructions were modest by Hadrian standards, and so was the latter relative to his succesors.

Nero did not see hadrians works, they came later. I strongly suggest that had Nero seen such works were possible, he would have ordered bigger ones, and in any case, his redevelopment was grander than what had been there before.

 

That was not just self-satisfaction; it was propaganda too, showing the World in general and the Roman people in particular how great each individual semi-divine Emperor was.

Quite. Given the 100' high bronze statue Nero had made of himself, one has to conclude who the main beneficiary of this proganda was intended to be.

 

As far as I know, no Emperor required to burned the city for building their progressively bigger projects.

They didn't have to. Nero had already made the space

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Salve, O

Excuse me, but I can't follow the argumentation: If he wanted to rename the city and build some huge`palaces, then he required to set Rome on fire? That makes no sense to me.

Land clearance. Nero needed to remain popular so evicting lots of people from their homes and businesses (including the wealthy senatorial properties whose ownsers were an impediment to Nero's magnificence). Makes perfect sense to me, given that Nero's ego was no longer under any restraint whatsoever. He had this image of how things were to be and expected his minions to simply make it happen.

 

As far as I know, no Emperor required to burned the city for building their progressively bigger projects.

They didn't have to. Nero had already made the space

Salve C; you're misinformed. Nero actually rebuilt the city, as any other Emperor after any of so many conflagrations. Subsequent Emperors required additional space.

 

It just doesn't make any sense; you're just elucubrating on your perception of Nero's psychology, as you're trying to get any potential explanation on why he would stupidely destroy his own property with no conceivable benefit.

 

You're not bringing any additional evidence, presumably because you couldn't find it. What more can I say?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Even being an evident megalomaniac, Nero was not anomalous in his architectural taste; most Emperors tend to build bigger constructions that their predecessors; ie, Nero's constructions were modest by Hadrian standards, and so was the latter relative to his succesors.

Nero did not see hadrians works, they came later. I strongly suggest that had Nero seen such works were possible, he would have ordered bigger ones, and in any case, his redevelopment was grander than what had been there before.

 

Even if you're strongly elucubrating again on a "what if" scenario, it perfectly agrees with my stated point there.

 

That was not just self-satisfaction; it was propaganda too, showing the World in general and the Roman people in particular how great each individual semi-divine Emperor was.

Quite. Given the 100' high bronze statue Nero had made of himself, one has to conclude who the main beneficiary of this proganda was intended to be.

 

I give up. Who?

 

Do you really think Nero's was the only huge (potentially pathologic) Ego among all Roman Emperors?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Land clearance. Nero needed to remain popular so evicting lots of people from their homes and businesses (including the wealthy senatorial properties whose ownsers were an impediment to Nero's magnificence). Makes perfect sense to me, given that Nero's ego was no longer under any restraint whatsoever. He had this image of how things were to be and expected his minions to simply make it happen.

 

As far as I know, no Emperor required to burned the city for building their progressively bigger projects.

They didn't have to. Nero had already made the space

Salve C; you're misinformed. Nero actually rebuilt the city, as any other Emperor after any of so many conflagrations. Subsequent Emperors required additional space.

 

BTW, check on Hadrianus' Imperial Villa video

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici. Just for the record:

For many reference works (ie, wikipedia), today would be the 2071st anniversary of the Neronian Great Fire.

 

Strictly speaking, that's a miscalculation; we must wait until tomorrow.

 

Here comes Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, Liber XV, cp. XLI:

 

fuere qui adnotarent XIIII Kal. Sextiles principium incendii huius ortum, quo et Seneones captam urbem inflammaverint.

 

"Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 14th day before the Sextilis' Kaleandas (19th of July), the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome".

 

This confusion is explained by the way the Romans counted their days; it was backwards and doubly inclusive (including both the day from which they started as well as that of the moon phase -Kalends- to which they were counting down), as they didn't use here the concept of zero.

 

Therefore, August 1 was Kaleandas Sextilis;

July 31 was Prairie Kaleandas Sextilis (literally "the day before Kalends Sextilis" or "two days before KS");

July 30 was "three days before Kalendas Sextilis" and so on.

July 19 was "XIIII (14) days before Kalends Sextilis".

[Octavia]

Okay. Let's just possibly close this debate and say that the fire happened by accident, which was maybe the case. We will never really know the real truth. The historians that have written the books liked to tell stories, so no one really knows. However, Nero did what he should have done as far as supplying people with shelter and food, but he didn't have to build a statue of himself and make such a large palace.