Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Dochenryh22 (U6641117) on Saturday, 18th November 2006

  Doing a history individual assignment as part of my A level course based on the above topic. All help and comments would be much appreciated
  thanks

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 18th November 2006

  To put it bluntly - there's no such as as "the typical Roman Emperor". Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (i.e. 'Caligula'), Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian... they're all different.
  
  For example:-
  
  Augustus: Strong leader, good administrator, builder of public works, but overreached the Empire in the botched attempt to conquer the German territories east of the Rhine.
  
  Tiberius: Paranoid recluse; he wanted little to do with the governance of Rome, preferring to live a debauched life on Capri.
  
  Gaius (aka Caligula): Cruel, eccentric, despotic and depraved, but, initially at least, popular - especially with the Army - due to his father Germanicus, a military hero of the Empire.
  
  Claudius: A scholar, a good and largely fair administrator, and oversaw the expansion of the Empire (including the conquest of Britain). However, his regime was also vulnerable and in consequence he acted ruthlessly against suspected plotters.
  
  Nero: Cruel and licentious, and failed to maintain the stability of the Empire (Boudican and Jewish Revolts) but popular, cultured, a good administrator and with a concern for the well-being of the citizens of Rome.
  
  Galba: Well-intentioned but weak; alienated the Army and the population of Rome.
  
  Otho: Popular, intent a fair regime, but sought power through violent means and treachery and was ruthless in dealing with his enemies.
  
  Vitellius: A good commander with the potential to be a good administrator, but failed to maintain the discipline and his troops, was unpopular, and over-influenced by his advisors leading to vicious excesses.
  
  Vespasian: A brilliant if ruthless commander, a good and just administrator, builder of public works; restored the Empire after civil. However, popularity affected by his hard-line taxation policies.
  
  See what I mean?

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 18th November 2006

  Hi Anglo-Norman,
  
  I can't really argue with you but I guess Doc Henry does still have to complete the assignment! What advice can he be given?
  
  In view of what you say it might be worth his while checking whether the question reflected the Julio-Claudian emperors or first century emperors only. Trying to compare Nero with third century military rulers, whi dealt with a totally different world, does seem pretty pointless.
  
  The career of Nero might be taken as a classic example of the corrupting effects of power, and consequently give the writer the opportunity to use Lord Acton's famous observation. There are other examples: Caligula, Domitian and Commodus spring to mind. Other emperors, like Hadrian and Antoninus Pius seemed largely immune. Was it simply a matter of age? Were emperors with successful military careers behind them preferable? Tiberius is not a very promising example but Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan and Septimius Severus kept the state in good order.
  
  Then there is the matter of sources. Having your biography written by Suetonius was rather like appearing in 'The Sun'. Entertaining and racy perhaps, but concentrating on the more exciting and extravagant episodes of Nero's family life and leaving foreign policy alone. To what extent Nero 'caused' the Jewish and Boudican rebellions is a most interesting question, and might be worth a thread on its own. Whatever his faults Nero (or his advisors) appointed able governors like Suetonius Paulinus, Vespasian and Corbulo - although the last probably felt that Nero's subsequent gratitude lacked warmth.
  
  I don't say that I would welcome the opportunity to attend one of Nero's musical performances (much less a chance to be a Christian subject or his mother) but his excesses were tempered by an administrative talent as you rightly point out.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 18th November 2006

  Some good thoughts, TwinProbe.
  
  It might also be worth considering the question from the point of view of what Romans expected from their Emperors. In other words, how did Nero compare to other Emperors in meeting (or failing to meet) the standards of the ideal Emperor (Augustus often being seen after his death - perhaps somewhat romantically - as representing that ideal).

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 19th November 2006

  It's an interetsing question from the point of view of how you interpret it. I think you have to go with how each Emperor behaved, i.e. how they handled being put into the position of supreme power, and what their aims were once they got there.
  
  For some, including Nero, it was the use of power itself, to have the whole empire geared towards serving their own hedonistic desires. For others , such as Vespasian, it seems to me they regarded it as more of a job that had to be done to keep the empire running in good order.
  
  Nero was defiitely typical of the first sort, although one has, of course, to be careful about putting people into neatly labelled categories. After all, what is a typical human being?

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006

  It should be also kept in mind that like in so many other states in history (including the vast majority of countries today) it is not the political leadership that forms the politics but the financial and/or military leadership of the state. In Roman times financial and military leadership where strongly related. Afterall it was mainly the military leaders that preferred the governance via emperors and not the traditional aristocracy of Rome that would prefer much more the Senate.
  
  It had been obvious that in many cases the military leadership often would chose young and inexperienced Emperors just in order to pass more easily their own will. A more experienced and more strong personality would be less easily manipulated but personalities like Nero or Elagabalus (that silly young and short lived Emperor of the mid-3rd A.D. century) could just offer a new face of the leadership of the Empire while behind the manipulators could pass their own politics just easily. People tend to think that the face of leadership is responsible for taking the decisions but then so often the face of leadership is just a face... a person without a strong own will whose decisions are others' decisions imposed on him which he accepts to remain in power as much as possible.
  
  Nero was not the typical Roman Emperor but was the typical example of the young emperor chosen by the army on the basis of his little experience and the expectation that he could be more easily manipulated. It is no secret that the example of Nero repeated 2-3 times more, with that of Elagabalus being the most close to him. Nero as an emperor as pointed above was not at all 100% bad, he was an educated young man that showed genuine care for the well being of the citizens and who had a new vision for the Empire, though a very perplexed one due to his troubled mind. A troubled mind that came mainly from the fact that he raised to the throne at such a young age (just as in the case of Elagabalus).... thus presenting similar characteristics with those young people today that became instantly rich and famous and then "lose the ball" falling into debauchery, narcotics, loss of contact with the real world and finally depression. It is not accidental that both young emperors ended up being murdered (Elagabalus body was thrown in the Tiber river, Nero's one I do not remember if it was buried normally).

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by d82Z06 (U6519793) on Friday, 24th November 2006

  ur a loser and your going to fail ur individual assignment

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by adwCymru (U6568136) on Friday, 24th November 2006

  You might want to listen to the 'Roman Way' series on radio 4.
  
  
  
  For emperors, select 'life at the top'

  Link to this forum: To what extent did Nero conform to the typical Roman Emperor?

  Report message8

Back to top