Featured How Bad Was Nero?

I dunno man. In the past I would have said yes, but after reading about Tamerlane I’m inclined to say that Nero was an incompetent brat rather than truly evil. Reading about Tamerlane strait up sent chills down my spine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks. Its odd how we chose our particular stance on such things. Nero seems to me (personally) forgivable – like what would happen if you made John Lennon king. I enjoyed the Cicero books by Robert Harris – but a different side of him came out when I saw him interviewed on TV. Harris really really really hates Caesar. Seemed a bit weird to me…….

Yeah. I recall reading about the night before he fought Delhi. He had 15,000 men. I forget the Delhi side - 200,000 plus elephants perhaps? So – the night before battle Richard III was asleep in his tent. But nobody slept in Tamerlane’s army. Each contingent were sitting at their fire, and all night Tamerlane went from fire to fire, building up the confidence of his men. But I never really understood the guy.

As far as I can tell - Ghengis Khan seems to have seen things very much in black and white. If his generals took a city, and accepted their surrender, that was OK. If the city then broke their word, he just killed the general and sent another. After a false start, generals figured out it was always safest just to kill everybody.

The guy that left the biggest impression on me however was Ala-ud-Din Muhammed Khalji. (Delhi, 1296-1315) Perhaps just because we have better accounts of his doings? Diocletian could not get the economy to work, but the same was child’s play to Ala-ud-din. A king of India who sent a letter to the Mongol Khan, scoffing at his puny efforts.

Rob T

 

If Nero had been played by Paul Newman in the movies, Nero would be more popular.

 

He committed matricide and kicked his pregnant wife to death. Even by ancient standards that's appalling. His 'bad' reputation in antiquity speaks volumes.

 

@EWC3
One of the most disturbing stories about Tamerlane is when he invaded the Delhi sultanate and was told that all his indian prisoners were potentially a threat. He then ordered his men to kill all their indian prisoners and servants or they themselves would be considered traitors. Some historians put the death toll well into the tens of thousands, and that’s not even counting his genocide of the city of Delhi once he captured it.

 

There are very serious doubts about Nero murdering Poppaea.

 

Interesting post and question!

Here's my view. I dont believe we can draw any such conclusion based on our current, modern view of things that happened back then. I mean, the Roman world, morals and customs are something completely different. Our 'bad' is nothing like their 'bad'.
Secondly, I do think this question needs to be answered from the perspective of that time, which is difficult, because sources from that time are hardly objective. Nero was murderous? But name one emperor, even the 'good' ones, that was not. Nero was extravagant? Name one emperor that did not bath in luxery. Nero built an enormous palace for himself? Perhaps his mistake was not to build one in the countryside, like Hadrian, or Tiberius on Capri.

I do admire Nero due to the artistic quality of his coins which appeal many of use even today. You have some really nice coins, @kevin McGonigal. My coins are shown below.

On a side note, what is up with Agrippina!? Sister to Caligula; did she have a sexual relationship with him? And then marry Claudius and killing him, really? And trying to rule the empire 'over' Nero's head? Really?

 

I'm curious as to what these doubts may be (miscarriage?). Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio all report the incident. Even his modern biographers acknowledge the story is most likely true (see Champlin Nero p. 105).

Apparently, the only doubts hinge on whether it was accidental or not.

 

I find it interesting that some of the conventional ideas of Nero are challenged here, but as I have read from quite a lof of sources, perhaps based on the same original material, that he killed thousands of Christians and killed Poppaea, it would be nice to see reference to the sources that say he didn’t.

My impression is that Nero had a degree of malign narcissism, through the traditional portrait of him, but you could say that about several world leaders, both then and now. I’m thinking about the need for attention, the increasingly extreme sexual behaviour, the apparent lack of empathy, etc.

It is hard to answer «how bad» he actually was, in an ancient world where you would easily find those who are worse. You can’t expect people to have strong humanist values, in a world where humanism wasn’t invented yet. Where is the baseline for «bad»?

I think we can look to the Roman virtues to see what was considered «good». Do we see emperor Nero having many of these traits? It doesn’t look like it to me, but I’m open to new knowledge (again, please, the reference). My belief is that Nero was bad, in light of the values in our world, and the values in his world:

Personal Virtues
These are the qualities of life to which every citizen should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana--the Roman Way--and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world:

• Auctoritas--"Spiritual Authority": The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
  
  
  
• Comitas--"Humor": Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
  
  
  
• Clementia--"Mercy": Mildness and gentleness.
  
  
  
• Dignitas--"Dignity": A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
  
  
  
• Firmitas--"Tenacity": Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.
  
  
  
• Frugalitas--"Frugalness": Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
  
  
  
• Gravitas--"Gravity": A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
  
  
  
• Honestas--"Respectibility": The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
  
  
  
• Humanitas--"Humanity": Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
  
  
  
• Industria--"Industriousness": Hard work.
  
  
  
• Pietas--"Dutifulness": More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
  
  
  
• Prudentia--"Prudence": Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
  
  
  
• Salubritas--"Wholesomeness": Health and cleanliness.
  
  
  
• Severitas--"Sternness": Gravity, self-control.
  
  
  
• Veritas--"Truthfulness": Honesty in dealing with others.

 

Here's a link to The Nero Files. This program is part of the PBS series Secrets of the Dead.

This episode is no longer free, so in order to view it you need to subscribe to PBS Passport. This might be well worth the cost, since membership gives you access to lots of interesting programs and series, including all of the programs of Secrets of the Dead, and you can view them at any time.

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-nero-files-tztkdq/

 

Thank you for the tip, @robinjojo

For those who save their money for coins:

 

That's a fair objection. Most folks here realize that much of what we know about the emperors comes from the three historians, Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. They all tell a good story but their anti emperor bias needs to be taken into account. If one believes their biographies to be accurate, then the Nero kicking a pregnant Poppaea to death is quite plausible. Well not quite. The kicking to death story as popular literature is actually found only in Suetonius. Tacitus mentions it as a possibility (maybe he poisoned her) as does Dio, who wrote well over a century after her death. There is no shortage of histories of Rome that tell of her death from the Suetonius account. Going through my own library (I prefer printed to on-line sources) I found two different ancient history encyclopedias, a "dark history" of Rome and a history of early Rome up to Nero. Sure enough they tell the Suetonius story. I only have two biographies of Nero as the main topic.

The first is Nero, The End of Dynasty by Miriam T. Griffin, where the death of Poppaea is covered on pp.168-170. where she discusses the wide spread belief at that time that her miscarriage and death were caused by Nero's kick. She expresses doubt about its accuracy based on Nero's apparent real grief and the elaborate funeral she was given. That of course is a judgement call by that author. That perhaps his grief was caused by an attack of conscience is also a possibility. The second biography I have is, Nero,The Man Behind the Myth by Richard Holland where on pp. 195 and 196 he discusses her death. The author cites the relevant portions of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. He strongly concludes that the rumor that spread that Nero had killed Poppaea has no merit and that Nero really loved her and sincerely grieved over her death. Maybe.

Knowing how much emperors like Nero were despised by the traditionalist Roman historians and their tendency to treat rumor as established fact and their pulp fiction quality of sensationalism I am hesitant to accept the story. If I were writing a biography of Nero, I would mention the story, but point out that its veracity is questioned. Absent a contemporary (and suicidal) eye witness account of such a murder I would question the story's accuracy.

 

Though it is a secondary source, the book, Nero, The Man Behind the Myth by Richard Holland has a chapter Eleven titled Saving Rome from the Christians, pp.165-180. In that chapter he writes about the fire and the possible involvement of the small Christian community. I get the impression the author sees Nero in a sympathetic light and if I am reading him correctly he sees the small Christian community and their role in the fire as less important than later Christian authors did. If you get ahold of it (used book stores have it on line) and read it let us know what you think of his treatment of Nero and especially the role of Christians in it.

 

As bad as he may have been, he did rule for 14 years. One thinks that if his behavior had been as bad as Caligula, he would have been overthrown much earlier.

NERO

Type: Billon Tetradrachm, 25mm 12.73 grams

Obverse: NERW KLAY KAIS SEB GER, Radiate crowned head facing right.

Reverse: AVTO-KRA, Draped bust of Egyptian god Serapis facing right, wearing Kalathos (basket) on head, date LI (year 10)

Reference: Milne 222, Koln 160, RPC 5274, BMCGr 156: Sear 2001.

 

I have the Griffin bio as well and from what I understand she makes no call on whether the story is true or not. She hints that it may have been accidental given Nero's reaction, which I agree with.

The other bios I have on Nero at hand are by Grant, Warmington, and Champlin. I'll have to check out the Holland one.

Normally, I tend to side with modern scholarship's revisionisms, but in this case with all the primary sources in agreement it's difficult to do so. It seems more probable that the incident is a sad case of domestic violence followed by profound regret.

 

I can readily see profound grief following a moment of loss of control.

 

Certainly many ancient authors did exaggerate, such as Suetonius. We know there was a great deal of animosity between the senatorial class and imperial household. But I don't believe any historians, ancient or modern, who actually dispute that Nero was indeed responsible for his own mother's murder. Regardless of Agrippina's character, this was a most horrible crime. If someone is capable of killing one's mother, is it so inconceivable to believe he would be capable of eliminating his step brother and beating his wife?
Sometimes we tend to believe what we want to believe at the expense of the elephant in the room.
It reminds me of that old joke... "Well, aside from that incident , Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

 

That is a gorgeous, strikingly beautiful coin. That is an As, is it not? As for Nero killing his mother, it is indeed, hard to wrap one's mind around. I always wondered why he could not have just locked her up on an estate on Sardinia, sort of like Henry II locking away Eleanor of Aquitaine or Augustus, Julia on whatever little island that was (Pandateria ?). Murdering the woman that bore you does seem beyond any pale by anybody's standard.

 

Mehmed II is up there. He had a weird fetish for sawing people in half.

 

Which is why the attempts to rehabilitate Nero by a few modern scholars has largely fallen flat. He was a reprehensible person by both ancient and modern standards. You can't whitewash matricide.