Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 4500071, member: 93416&quot;]Amusing question. Oddly I find myself taking Nero’s side, whilst being fully aware that I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the guy.</p><p><br /></p><p>I suppose the main positive I see is through his association and elevation of Petronius – since the account Petronius gives of the civil war seems head and shoulder above most writings on economic history (at any time) that I am aware of.</p><p><br /></p><p>But aside from that it troubles me that Nero’s setting of 8 denarii per uncia is so often written off as “a debasement” or some such. It was striking at 7 to the ounce that was crazy – moving to 8 was just plain rational.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I had not noticed myself - but that Harl strongly brings out - is that the whole push to a planned billion fiat currency began with Nero in Egypt. Admittedly that ended badly – but not for Nero in Egypt – it only started to unravel a couple of centuries later. So credit for the innovation which failed under others maybe?</p><p><br /></p><p>A final thought. Like Julius Caesar in Rome, or Wang Mang in China, Nero seems to have been taking on the vested interests of his own time. But Caesar and Mang came up through the political system, and they did it because they were by nature (surely?) very psychologically robust. Caesar seems to have stayed sane, Mang eventually lost his sanity. Given their circumstances, my surprise is Caesar stayed sane (?). Nero seems to have been more of an ordinary sort of bloke who got power and influence thrust onto him. If he ultimately cracked up under the pressures applied to him – that hardly surprises me. I suspect I might too.</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in