Nero

[DDickey]

My interest in Rome is largely in the Republican era, but I have long been interested in Nero. However, it seems to me that he is largely misrepresented. Granted, his reign was colorful and sometimes appalling, but what interests me is how well he seemed to govern the Empire for the most part. Equally interesting is his disdain for violent death--its seems the only time he killed was when he feared for himself in someway. It just seems to me that he was a much more complex person than is given credit.

[caldrail]

Far from disdain, Nero comes across in his story as something as a less than heroic. For instance, although he raced chariots, in one race he was recorded as falling off twice and didn't finish, yet was still declared the winner. Further, when the senate had declared him an enemy of the state and sent troops to deal with him, Nero panicked and fled, eventually asking his servant to kill him because he didn't have the necessary courage to do that himself.

 

Nero's early reign does show signs of good management, but at that time he was still being advised by people somewhat more capable in administration than he was. After Agrippina was assassinated and his advisors pushed aside, Nero asserted his himself and followed art, performance, and partying as his chosen vocation. Which of course meant he wasn't so interested in overseeing politics.

 

Complex? Yes he was, but its hard to like him. For all his outrageousness and style, he was essentially a very selfish man whose insecurities led to to a path of self-aggrandisment.

[Northern Neil]

when the senate had declared him an enemy of the state and sent troops to deal with him, Nero panicked and fled, eventually asking his servant to kill him because he didn't have the necessary courage to do that himself...

 

Nero's early reign does show signs of good management, but at that time he was still being advised by people somewhat more capable in administration than he was. After Agrippina was assassinated and his advisors pushed aside, Nero asserted his himself and followed art, performance, and partying as his chosen vocation. Which of course meant he wasn't so interested in overseeing politics.

 

Having read very little on the politics of the early prinipate, this suggests to me that at this time the position of Emperor was regarded still as a political office rather than a maonarchy, and that the person filling this office was still directly answerable to the senate. Does this not then suggest that Rome was still a republic?

[Primus Pilus]

Having read very little on the politics of the early prinipate, this suggests to me that at this time the position of Emperor was regarded still as a political office rather than a maonarchy, and that the person filling this office was still directly answerable to the senate. Does this not then suggest that Rome was still a republic?

 

Not truly, the facade still existed in the form of institutions and offices, but what remained of that facade in governing practice had largely been done away with by Tiberius/Sejanus. Nero's was a case where he was managed by such accomplished advisors as Seneca, Burrus and his mother Agrippina, but like his step-father Claudius, his entourage/circle of advisors including many freedmen and equites.

 

As his independence from the three afore-mentioned advisors began to emerge we begin to see some political shift. However, Nero's behavior seems to have remained fairly consistent from youth through the end of his life. The senate itself was not so much a true representation of the Republic but was rather a pool of the rich and powerful families from which maqistrates, advisors, etc. could be plucked. Despite the constant complaints by the Senate throughout the sources that their power was being curtailed by just about every princeps (Tacitus, Cassius Dio especially, etc.) , they lacked the sort of deliberative authority that they held as a body in the Republican period. The mere existence of the authoritative Princeps really rules out the notion that the Republic still existed. Other than the short-lived appointment of Nerva after the murder of Domitian, the Senate despite all their attempts, really had little to no measurable success in the nomination of their own candidates for "emperor".

[caldrail]

Having read very little on the politics of the early prinipate, this suggests to me that at this time the position of Emperor was regarded still as a political office rather than a maonarchy, and that the person filling this office was still directly answerable to the senate. Does this not then suggest that Rome was still a republic?

I would say it suggests the continued wealth and status of the senate membership, since they obviously still had some influence at that point. But since Rome did not vote for its emperor, how could it be a republic?

[Maty]

Technically speaking it was very much a republic, although the reality had been well and truly subverted. The emperor, or properly speaking Princeps, was not a single office, but a number of different powers rolled into one person. The most important two were maius imperium which means that the holder could take precedence over the governor of a province (and therefore command of the armies) and tribunican power in Rome, which means that the holder was sacrosanct, and could propose and veto legislation.

 

These powers were not heritable, but had to be conferred on the holder by a vote of the senate. The senators in turn received their places through being magistrates, and the magistrates were (still, I think) voted into office by the people. All very republican.

 

Next you will be saying that England where 42 days imprisonment without charge or trial has just been voted for at the behest of our (unelected) Prime Minister, is not a democracy ...

[M. Porcius Cato]

These powers were not heritable, but had to be conferred on the holder by a vote of the senate. The senators in turn received their places through being magistrates, and the magistrates were (still, I think) voted into office by the people.

 

No--the people stopped electing magistrates during the reign of Tiberius. Transfer of election of magistrates to the senate was the most definitive break from the republican constitution, and it's also a full return to the way the senate operated under the Tarquin monarchs.

 

My source is terribly outdated, however: Abbott, Frank Frost (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Still looking for corroboration from an ancient source.

Edited June 13, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[Maty]

You are quite right, thanks. I had a quick look at my biographical notes for Tiberius. The process was known as destinatio, where the emperor proposed the candidates, the senate 'elected' them, and the comitia ratified it all. Not all candidates originally, and efforts were made to reverse the process under Caligula and Trajan, but failed.

 

Here's my references

 

Suetonius Caes 41 div Aug 40.56 Tac hist 1.77 and Dio 53.21 Appian BC 1.103

 

Can't look them up right now ... am dummy in a game of bridge!

[caldrail]

Next you will be saying that England where 42 days imprisonment without charge or trial has just been voted for at the behest of our (unelected) Prime Minister, is not a democracy ...

Ummm... lets see... shall I? Shan't I?...... No. I think in future I'll decide what I want to say