Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Nero - Misunderstood?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by neilstone1970 (U5424576) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Watching last week's drama documentary on Nero, does anyone else wonder if Nero really was as insane as commonly portrayed. I remember Tony Robinson on Channel 4 doing a revisionist look at Caligula,saying that he was a tryant but was n't mad. For example the story of him making his horse a senator could have been him making a point to one of his senators that "my horse would make a better senator than you!"
Equally, could it be that Nero was just rather too interested in the arts for the taste of his macho Roman comtemparies and maybe bisexual too. His high taxation would have made him unpopular. But these traits were exaggerated by later Roman historians to become a taste for embarrassing himself by performing in public and castrating his slave.
Neil -
Message 2
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 28th September 2006
It is often hard to tell fact from fiction, particularly when looking at the Julio-Claudians.
For Caligula, he initially started off as a pretty good ruler. He was very popular with the plebs in the beginning, and the army was fiercely loyal to him because he was the son of Germanicus, a popular and successful general who the army held in very high esteem.
However, there seems to have been an un-named illness which affected him greatly. He was apparently so ill that the whole of Rome was hoping their beloved emperor would pull through. He did, but immediately his behaviour changed. The illness had definitely had some long term mental effect on him, and he did become progressively depraved as his reign went on. The "horse for Consul" episode pales into insignificance when you look at his favourite party piece-inviting senators and their wives round for dinner, deciding which wife he would sleep with, then taking her off to bed, only to return and tell the rest of the party how she performed in bed.
Nero wasn't exactly the sanest individual either, although that I would put down to his seriously dysfunctional family. His adoptive father Claudius had got rid of his first wife Messalina, who held a contest with a famed prostitute as to who could satisfy the most men in one night. Messalina won. He then married Agrippina, Nero's (at that time Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus) mother and his own niece, which was basically incest. Then Agrippina wormed Nero into Claudius' affections at the expense of his own son Britannicus, got him to declare Nero his heir, then got his physician to poison him. Nero assumes power, and like Caligula is a benevolent ruler at first, most probably due to Seneca's influence on him, if not Seneca's direct control. Britannicus is poisoned as the only remaining Julio-Claudian male opposition, and the only heir, and all looks well. Then the great fire of Rome (where Nero allegedly fiddled-not true) and his having his mother murdered (an unforgivable crime in Roman times) on the second attempt. His wanting to perform on the stage, chariot racing and poetry all became his obsession, and he neglected his Empire to the point where he almost bankrupted it to build his palace, the "Golden House". He wasn't really mad though, just obsessed with personal glory, and a product of a seriously dysfunctional family. Old Pompey Magnus must have been laughing his head off from beyond the grave! -
Message 3
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Well! I wonder just what a guy has to do to be called mad!
What would you call Tony Blair,or the Queen, if he or she decided to call their dead sister a god, and, when someone in Parliament objected, have him sawn in half!
Or say Blair decided to use a third of London to build a huge house and gardens. Straight away you would call him unhinged.
Nero and Caligula were both brutalised by their upbringing. What seriously unhinged them, to my mind, was the fact that they were given too much power. Being young, they considered themselves utterly invincible. Caligula, in particular, seems to have honestly believed he was on a par with the gods (who he did seem to believe in totally).
They were both mad, but I say they were more evil than mad. -
Message 4
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Hi fascinating,
Well! I wonder just what a guy has to do to be called mad! Β
In my day, running down the street naked and shouting "wibble" at lamp posts used to be enough. Now although that sounds like something Caligula may have done, I don't think you could ever accuse Nero of behaviour like that. He may have performed his "Sack of Troy" to the lamp posts, but as a credible artiste he would never have shouted "wibble".
I like Nero, and I think you and Hereticus are being a tad unfair to him...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
You like a bloke who kicked his wife to death, and later had a slave castrated because of his deluded fantasy that he looked like the wife he slaughtered?
-
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
ummm... anyone have any advice on how I can dig myself out of a hole quickly?
RF -
Message 7
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
If the sources of these events were senatorial historians then you could argue that they may have been biased against him, and not have been 100% reliable.
Josephus writes:
"But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter viii)
SOURCE : Wikipedia
Cheers,
RF -
Message 8
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
rainbow, and what do you conclude from Josephus' quote?
-
Message 9
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Hi Fascinating,
From Josephus' quote I'd conclude that he believed that some writers had lied and exaggerated about Nero - for differing reasons. Josephus was granted Roman citizenship during the reign of the Flavians and was a Flavian client, so I would not have expected him to be defensive towards the last of the Julio-Claudians. He wrote the quoted text in c97AD, which would have been during the reign of one of the first couple of "Good Emperors", so why defend Nero's character in any way? The Jews - according to Scullard - believed Nero to be the Anti-Christ, and again I find it strange that Josephus should say anything that would paint Nero in less than a damning light. This makes me question later writers (Cassius, Suetonius) who weren't contemporaries of Nero, and who probably used the sources that Josephus is referring to.
Tacitus - being a near-contemporary of Nero - could throw a spanner in the works as far as my argument goes, but he would have only been about 11 or 12 when Nero died and wrote his Annals in 117AD, almost 50 years later. He was also a senator from the late 90's and senators had plenty to grumble about when it came to Nero. Could he have been biased too, or in writing so long after Nero's reign used the sources that Josephus refers to?
The main thing I've concluded is if I have a crackpot idea on my lunchbreak to defend Nero, based on an argument weaker than British Rail tea, then I shouldn't quote something from Wikipedia without looking at it properly...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 10
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Rainbow, I will just say that Josephus is not really defending Nero, he is only saying that some writers have lied about Nero, either by making points in favour, or against, him. Josephus says he is not surprised people tell such lies, since they also tell lies even about previous emperors, who died long ago and could not do any harm to the writers.
Some stories attributed to Nero could be false, but things like the death of his wife, I do not think that can have been falsified. -
Message 11
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Hi Fascinating,
It's not that I see Josephus defending Nero (I should have used a different word to "defend"), more that I would have expected him to have omitted any reference to previous writers lying about Nero. I'm puzzled why - apart from genuine honesty and integrity - Josephus mentions this, especially considering the politics of the time he was writing in, and personal prejudices he may have had.
I wasn't trying to defend Nero completely, but I do think he gets a somewhat unfair press. He had a good few years at the start of his reign, possibly down to the influence of Seneca, and he was very popular in the east of the Roman Empire (apart from with the Jews and Christians who thought he was the Anti-Christ!).
I believe that some of the most sensationalist stories may be false (or exaggerations), but I don't which of them (if any!) I can say are false for definite. I'm learning to be critical of primary and near-contemporary sources, and maybe I'm being a bit more than over-zealous in that respect.
Nero wasn't the nicest chap in history and I'd hate for you to think that I thought he was! Just being the "Devil's Avocado" as my Mum would say...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Thanks for making me think a bit! -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th October 2006
Glad to see a bit of recanting going on there RF!!
So tell me (going off on a tangent) what did you think of the portrayal of Tiberius Gracchus on last night's Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ docu-drama type thing? I must admit that I was impressed again...
I can't say I've ever read anything on Gracchus being the first over the wall at Carthage, can anyone confirm whether this happened? On the whole, although docu-drama type programmes are pretty poor, I am well and truly impressed with having the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ screening Roman Republican history at 9pm on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ1, especially since most people's knowledge of Rome is limited to the Imperial period.
I thought Gracchus appeared to be a true "man of the people" in last night's programme, and suspect that portrayal was closer to reality than most contemporary historians have portrayed him, since they were, after all, either members of the patrician or equestrian classes, or employed by them, and therefore automatically opposed to righting the wrongs committed by the Roman nobility. To sum up, Gracchus, and his brother to a lesser extent (his reforms merely helped the Equites more, and did nothing for the plebs) were true champions of the people. -
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 9th October 2006
Hi HM,
I have to say that I'm still really undecided on the Gracchi and their motives, but there's not exactly a shedload of source material to help me make my mind up! The major sources (Appian and Plutarch) are a century or two later, and Livy's books that would have covered this period are only available in a heavily abbreviated form. The works of the contemporary historians such as Piso, Fannius, Asellio and Posidonus are lost (I think).
As far as Tiberius being first over the wall at Carthage:
"This young Tiberius, accordingly, serving in Africa under the younger Scipio, who had married his sister, and living there under the same tent with him, soon learned to estimate the noble spirit of his commander, which was so fit to inspire strong feelings of emulation in virtue and desire to prove merit in action, and in a short time he excelled all the young men of the army in obedience and courage; and he was the first that mounted the enemy's wall, as Fannius says, who writes, that he himself climbed up with him, and was partaker in the achievement. He was regarded, while he continued with the army, with great affection; and left behind him on his departure a strong desire for his return."
SOURCE: Plutarch's "Life of Tiberius Gracchus", translated by Arthur Hugh Clough (from Project Gutenburg):
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I've read Plutarch's Lives, but haven't read Appian yet. He's supposed to be the better historian of the two... -
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 11th October 2006
Cheers RF,
I haven't read Plutarch either! Thanks for the info, I will add it to my "must read" list! -
Message 15
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
Hi HM,
I'm a big fan of Plutarch, but have only read his Roman lives covered in Penguin Classics ("Makers of Rome" and "Fall of the Roman Republic" are both great translations). You would love his lives of Marius and Sulla - his description of Marius towards the end of his career is hilarious and reminds me a bit of my Dad dancing at weddings. The Roman lives in the Penguin's are (I think):
Fall of Roman Republic:
Marius
Sulla
Crassus
Pompey
Caesar
Makers of Rome:
Coriolanus
Fabius Maximus
Marcellus
Cato the Elder
Tiberius Gracchus
Gaius Gracchus
Sertorius
Brutus
Mark Antony
Cicero
They're full of anecdotes and plenty of humour which more than make up for the fact that they may not be 100% accurate historically. I can't recommend them highly enough - even if lolbeeble did describe Plutarch as "a boring old didact"...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
RF
How come everyone always forgets Catiline?
Incidentally, for a more modern narrative history I'd recommend Tom Holland's "Rubicon". An excellent read, with lots of colour and more "fleshed out" than most, but also historically accurate. I'm about halfway through it at the moment and loving it! -
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
hmmm... I know where I can get a hardback copy of Rubicon for about a fiver. Was tempted to pick it up a few days ago, but after your recommendation I think I can blow the price of 2 pints on it this weekend!
Catiline? hmmm... There's Sallust (which I forgot to buy
) and Cicero who wrote about him. Some might say that Cicero is just a little bit biased and judgemental tho'... 
FROM THE SECOND ORATION OF M. T. CICERO AGAINST LUCIUS CATILINA. ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE
"What prisoner, what gladiator, what thief; what assassin, what parricide, what forger of wills, what cheat, what debauchee, what spendthrift, what adulterer, what abandoned woman, what corrupter of youth, what profligate, what scoundrel can be found in all Italy, who does not avow that he has been on terms of intimacy with Catiline? What murder has been committed for years without him? What nefarious act of infamy that has not been done by him?"
SOURCE :
About the only thing Cicero doesn't mention is Catiline's habit of urinating in the public baths...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Cicero!?!
Bah! I wouldn't think his view of old Lucius would have even a trace of objectivity! As I've said before I do hava a bit of a soft spot for Catiline, whereas I can't help thinking that Marcus Tullius Chickpeaface was a toadying creep, even though he was consul.As for Catiline peeing in the public baths, come on! I bet they all did! -
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Hi HM,
Well if you don't fancy Cicero's views on Catiline then there's plenty about him in Plutarch's life of Cicero. It starts with:
"They had a leader Lucius Catiline, a bold and versatile character and one who was ready for anything. He was guilty of many serious crimes and had once been accused of taking the virginity of his own daughter and of killing his own brother. Fearing that he would be prosecuted for this murder he had induced Sulla to put down his brother's name, as though he were still alive, on the lists of those condemned to death. This then was the man whom these scoundrels took as their leader, and they gave pledges of faith to each other which included the sacrificing of a man and the tasting of his flesh."
SOURCE : Penguin Translation by Rex Warner
So this is the guy you have a soft spot for, yet you criticise me for liking Nero eh?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th October 2006
I don't buy it!
Catiline had a lot of followers, enough to induce them to fight for him. Were he a simple criminal he would simply have been murdered out of hand. The description Plutarch gives could be one used for any of the rabble-rousing types, for example Clodius (after all he was accused of getting jiggy with his sister), yet Clodius never generated enough support to inspire Romans (admittedly the dregs of Roman society) to stand and fight against a legion! There simply has to be more to it. -
Message 21
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Hi HM,
True, Catiline had a lot of followers who were willing to fight for him, but so did David Koresh over in Waco. His debt reforms would also have been popular with the plebians which again would have given him quite a mob. According to Plutarch in the next paragraph to the ones that I quoted before:
"Catiline had also corrupted a great number of the young men in Rome by approaching them individually and supplying them with amusements, drink, and women, pouring out money for them to spend on these dissipations."
Why can't my friends be like that?
I don't know of any ancient source who has much good to say about Catiline - or at least who doesn't counter it with something pretty nasty. Is it only in the recent past that he has been reassessed? As you say, there probably is a lot more to it, but with the absence of evidence I find it hard to say he was one of the good guys. Maybe if there was at least one ancient historian more favourable to him, but I don't know of any (that doesn't mean there aren't any - just my lack of knowledge!!!). The Gracchi upset plenty of people and had lots of followers but they don't seem to have received anywhere near the same amount of bad press as old Catiline.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Clodius must have had cojones the size of spacehoppers to dress up in drag, and get into Caesar's house because he fancied Julius's wife. He even renounced his patrician status so he could become a Plebeian Tribune. Not one of the most honourable, but definitely one of the most colourful characters! -
Message 22
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th October 2006
And people wonder why so many still find ancient Rome interesting. The characters are so colourful, and so fascinating that you simply couldn't make it up!
Being as you've been listing characters,
here's my list of the most notable dodgy Romans!
(in no particular order)
Marius
Sulla
Catiline
The Gracchi
Clodius
Milo
Scipio Africanus
L.Domitius Ahenobarbus (the one who fought against Caesar, not Nero!)
Brutus (You can't kill the dictator without a Brutus!)
Metellus
Caesar
Mark Antony
Octavian
(Note no mention for Cicero!)
From the Imperial period-
Germanicus
Caligula
Seneca
Agrippina (Caligula's mum)
Vitellius
Vespasian
Trajan
Pertinax
Carausius (if he counts, the old pirate!)
And to be perfectly honest, I sort of lose interest once we get into the Christian era, there's so many Caesars, Augustii and divided empires, they're all pretty poor! -
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Good list up to now, but off the top of my head, I'd add from the early years ...
1) Remus (for being the originator of the shortest ever rendition of the "Hokey-Cokey")
2) Sextus Tarquinius and his dad Tarquin the Proud (for their help in creating the Republic)
3) Coriolanus (for being a mummy's boy)
4) Marcus Manlius (the ultimate hero to zero)
5) Camillus (for beating the schoolteacher from Falerii who would betray his own city to the Romans)
Cheers,
RF -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 16th October 2006
Almost forgot one!
Probably the most "colourful" character of them all! Messalina! Naughty, naughty lady...(although that should be "lady")... -
Message 25
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 16th October 2006
You're doubting that Messalina was a lady? Well I suppose she did walk like John Wayne after at least one certain night out in Rome.
RF -
Message 26
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 16th October 2006
Message 22
It's a bit harsh to describe Vespasian as 'dodgy'! -
Message 27
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 17th October 2006
Vespasian would have been fine, only he made one big mistake- he didn't say "I've got a banging headache" to Mrs Vespasianus on the night Domitian was conceived!!!
-
Message 28
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 17th October 2006
-
Message 29
Posted by ladytee (U6267504) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
i think that there was a certain amount of madness in nero but i also think that he was misunderstood too. what was wrong with wanting to make rome a beautiful artistic city. im sure he didnt need to go to such extremes as in stealing from the temples but i can understand him wanting to beautify the place
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.