New video and coin. Nero (54-68 AD), Æ As, Rome mint, 62-68 AD, RIC 212, WCN 272, BMC 256, Sear 1978 (8.37 g, 23 mm) Obverse: NERO CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG GERMANIC, laureate head of Nero right Reverse: PONTIF MAX TR POTEST IMP P P, laureate Nero, as Apollo Citharoedus, advancing right in billowing robes, playing lyre; S-C across fields, I in exergue
Technically this video is very well made, I wish I could make videos like that. But that's not history at all. AI created images cannot illustrate history. And there are so many myths about Nero... The famous Nero's marble portrait that makes him look like a pure psychopath, for example... You can find this portrait on thousands of websites and even books. It's not Nero at all ! It's a head of Titus, later recarved to make it a Domitian, smashed to pieces, just one of which was retrieved in the 17th c. and used to make a baroque Nero... If you look carefully you can see what is ancient in it, and what is modern. The mad Nero is just a 17th c. fantasy. Other problem : the coins. From my own point of view (being no authority on Nero), the Apollo Citharoedus depicted on the reverse of asses and dupondii is not Nero : it's just Apollo Citharoedus, as a young god. I copied Apollo's face from hi-res pictures of these coins on ACSearch : you can see it's not the features of Nero at all. This Apollo, laureate, wearing long robes, walking forward while playing his cithara, draws inspiration from a classical 4th c. BC prototype, known from a 2nd C AD copy found in Tivoli, now in the Vatican Museums : "Apollo Citharoedes", or "Apollo Musagetes". A famous statue in Ancient times. It illustrated verses 182-185 of the Third Homeric hymn, to Apollo Pythian : "εἶσι δὲ φορμίζων Λητοῦς ἐρικυδέος υἱὸς φόρμιγγι γλαφυρῇ πρὸς Πυθὼ πετρήεσσαν, ἄμβροτα εἵματ᾽ ἔχων τεθυωμένα: τοῖο δὲ φόρμιγξ χρυσέου ὑπὸ πλήκτρου καναχὴν ἔχει ἱμερόεσσαν." "Leto's all-glorious son goes to rocky Pytho, playing upon his hollow lyre, clad in divine, perfumed garments; and his lyre, at the touch of the golden key, sings sweet." Then the problem of Nero's talent. I am convinced Nero was not stupid. He was a brillant young man, Seneca's pupil, even his enemies acknowledged it. During the 5 first years of his reign, the "quinquennium Neronis" many opinion leaders in Rome from senatorial ranks saw him as a good emperor. But, after the death of Britannicus, of Agrippina his own mother or Poppaea his wife, he was seen more like a tyrant and his passion for Greek culture became highly criticized. Suetonius describes a ridiculous emperor dreaming he was a great singer, forcing people to listen to him and to applause, else... This is caricature. We know he trained a lot, worked hard to improve his voice. One day he dared perform in public. Not in Rome where there was no tasteful audience and where an emperor, a Pontifex Maximus ! singing in public like an histrio would have been a scandal (imagine today the pope singing opera in a theatre at Rome !). He went to perform in Naples, for the Napolitans, Greek-speaking people back then and always fond of Bel Canto. And he was not ridiculous at all ! He went afterwards to Greece in order to participate in sport and artistic "agones" (competitions), including the Olympic Games. Yes of course, I agree to believe the official judges could not avoid giving him the prize, because he was Caesar... But think of the thousands of people attending : if Caesar had been a bad singer he would have been booed by the crowd ! Greeks were educated people. Hundreds, thousands of anonymous people would not have been at risk of being arrested... But this did not happen, no historical source ever mentioned it, probably because Nero's performance was not ridiculous. I am convinced he was actually talented but, from a Roman point of view, a noble Roman, a high magistrate singing in a theatre for "graeculi" was unthinkable...
This is an excellent comment: genuinely appreciate the thoughtful critique and the nuance. I completely agree that Nero is one of those figures where later tradition, hostile senatorial sources, modern cinema, and internet mythology have all become tangled together. One of the biggest challenges with making videos like this is balancing dramatic storytelling with the fact that many ancient sources were themselves highly biased or writing long after events. Your point about Roman elite attitudes toward public performance is especially important. A Roman emperor passionately pursuing Greek artistic prestige was deeply shocking to traditional Roman aristocratic values, and that absolutely shaped how writers like Suetonius and Tacitus framed Nero. I also think your broader point about Nero’s talent is fair. Even if victories were politically inevitable, it’s difficult to imagine thousands of Greek spectators tolerating performances that were genuinely catastrophic. The reality was probably far more complex than the caricature of a completely delusional buffoon. Regarding the Apollo Citharoedus reverse…fair point as well. I probably should have framed it more carefully as Nero consciously associating himself with Apollo and musical imagery rather than stating the reverse figure itself was definitively intended as a portrait of Nero. And yes, the “mad Nero” visual tradition is hugely shaped by later imagination, especially post-antique depictions. Really appreciate comments like this. They make the discussion far more interesting than a simple “Bad/Crazy Nero” narrative.
