Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cachecoins, post: 4535304, member: 111237&quot;]I remember when I first became obsessed with Roman history. It was after readingi I, Claudius by Robert Graves, a great book indeed. I was working in the college library that has a full set of the expansive works of Cassius Dio and other Roman historians so I began reading them. I then began reading modern biographies by historians of our time. I then got a history degree. What I learned along the way is that it is just as important to examine the sources , especially ancient ones, as it is to examine the subject.</p><p><br /></p><p>I used to read trash history with titles like &#039;Mad Monarchs&#039; and what not until I realized that those were worthless junk only looking to sell books by regurgitating the worst things ever written about the subjects with no analysis. One in particular I noticed had spelling errors and misattributed images.</p><p><br /></p><p>I remember reading a biography of Caligula called &#039;Caligula: The Corruption of Power&nbsp; by a very good historian Anthony Barrett. The bibliography, notes and references and multiple appendices were extensive including coins and every inscription about him known. It was not as much entertaining as it was a bit tedious but also enlightening about the real historical process and how hard it is to make clear what is true, probable, possible, unlikely or almost certainly untrue. Ancient historians did little to clarify these things for the reader.</p><p><br /></p><p>I walked away from reading that with a realization that the job if the historian is not to entertain but to make sure that the subject is thoroughly researched and every source, from coins, statue inscriptions, and every word written about the subject by contemporary, near contemporary, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are examined and each bit of information is vetted and clearly defined as to it&#039;s relevance and veracity.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for Nero, I would say that there are very good works dedicated to his life and most would say that he is problematic to assess with any certainty. It is not wrong to examine sources as with Nero, most were not contemporary and those who were close may have been highly biased and of course they would be the ones used as sources down the line.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nero, and even more so Caligula, was more popular more with the people than the Senate, which generally seemed to hate him, and certainly the Senate was still in a state where many envisioned a day when the emperor would be eliminated and they would retake their rightful power as heads of state.</p><p><br /></p><p>Does this mean they were good men who were simply maligned? Not at all, most biographers would say they generally deserve the bad reputation they gained and did serious damage to the pricipate. Where there is smoke there is probably at least some flame if not a blaze. However I don&#039;t think many historians give much credence to the fire while he fiddled story.</p><p><br /></p><p>One serious problematic aspect of his story is Nero as a persecutor if Christians. Nero was born in 37, shortly after the death of Christ and of course died in 68. His rule, 54 to 68, began just about 29 years after the death of Christ. Tacitus was a little 8 year old patrician during the great fire and Suetonius would not be born for another 3 year...after Nero&#039;s death.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is quite likely that by the time they were writing, Christians were a little better known but at the time of Nero&#039;s reign it is very likely he knew little to nothing about them and even Tacitus and Suetonius seem to have a tenuous grasp as to what a Christian was. It is hard to say who Nero punished or what he knew and how clear the concept of a Christian was to any of them, let alone that he put many if them to death. It is more likely they were Jews who were then confused for Christians down the line. Its difficult to believe there were many Christians at all in Rome at the time since that religion was still in it&#039;s earliest of days with few worshipers.</p><p><br /></p><p>Not to ramble on but I tend to agree with the characterization that he was more likely a spoiled fickle prince with a large but fragile ego who neglected his duties and manipulated the people around him, wanted to be revered even if it was through fear and bullying., I think the time for rehabilitating him has past, he was not a good ruler by any measure both ancient or modern but his popularity was driven, much like Caligula, in the ancient world by his ability to pander to the masses (who did not write biographies) and to modern readers because we love an over the top villain and in Christian sources, he is presented as a two dimensional villain and a scourge of God.</p><p><br /></p><p>However I did love the portrayal of Nero by Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis even though I have a feeling it is quite off base...all the same...love it</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Peter_Ustinov_2.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>[/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