Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pliny the Elder is the only [adult] contemporary who mentions the fire and it was not as "great" as history has painted it. Another one during the reign of Titus a few years later was far worse. Tacitus the Roman historian, a little boy at the time, makes mention of it years later and his account is often what is referenced because he also mentions that Nero blamed the Christians for the act. In addition, Tacitus may have had an ax to grind in regards to Nero so his account may be somewhat jaded.
Other contemporaries such as Josephus, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, et al either mention the fire or make no mention of it at all but none of them connect the fire to Christians or mention that Nero blamed the Christians for it. Tacitus alone mentions this and it is the one account the church used to support the idea that they were a heavily persecuted sect leading to later horrific images of Christians hanging on crosses and used as torches or food for lions.
Some have suggested that perhaps the fire in Rome may have been started by Jewish fanatics which also included the Christians, Jew and Gentiles. They posit that the Jews/Christians both viewed Rome as an evil empire that violated the people of God and should be or would be punished. As a result, they believed Rome would burn to the ground. There were predictions being made of Rome's demise and some feel it is not that great a stretch to think that some radical Jews and/or Christians could have tried to help the prophecies along in light of the idea that some felt the world was close to an end. The tactic would have been similar to that of modern day terrorists/freedom fighters (depends on which side you're on) who initiates war with others to bring about a desired effect.
I have been reading a lot about history and more specifically how it has been diluted. the facts of history seem to go under a lot more proverbial layers of dusty BS.
I have researched a lot of other historical figures line Columbus and found that the guy was nowhere near the here that we seem to make him out to be and that the story is full of omissions to the point of it being nearly an outright lie. Yet a great Columbus is the common idea that everyone gets. The same with a lot of other historical figures. This being said I have developed a way of looking at historical events and looking at what is built on it. It seems more often than not that if a historical event is used to justify something, that you are only hearing part of the story or the real story has many omitted parts.
Maybe the fire got started because ancient Rome didn't have a predecessor to Smokey the Bear. Or, I should say, Smokius Ursinus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
