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.
I know that it is supposed to be history and a foregone conclusion that Nero burned down Rome in 64 CE, but for some reason, I am not so sure about this. It has been posited by a few that perhaps he had a hand in burning down an area so he could find an excuse to build his dream palace but that [some] radical Christians took the opportunity to set their own OR reset fires that were already extinguished. Considering those times, this hypothesis just might have some legs to it.
When you think about it, the Christian Jews were little different from their radical Jewish brethren. Both saw Rome as the enemy to both them as a people, their way of life and their beloved holy city, Jerusalem. We are made well aware that amongst the Jews, there was rabid end times euphoria leading up to 70 CE, kindled by popular apocalyptic books such as Daniel, the First Book of Enoch, First Book of Maccabees, Esdras and a few others. The Jews saw themselves as the people of god being persecuted by evil empires and kings ruled by the devil. They firmly believed the time had come for god's people to pick up arms, resist the influence of these evil empires and look forward to the arrival of a cosmic hero (messiah), sent from god, who would bring ultimate victory. Seems that these self-proclaimed messiahs came a dime a dozen and Rome was always executing them here and there bringing any bright ideas they may have to an end.
The New Testament gives us a glimpse into this world. It too is filled with end time madness. We read of predicted signs and Jewish Zealots joining with Jesus, thinking him to be the messiah who would restore Israel to glory. The apocalyptic message of the New Testament was that a great time of suffering was coming but those who endured to the end would be saved. The enemy (Rome) would advance on Judea. Those on rooftops were to stay there and others were exhorted to flee into the mountains.
As we can see, the Christ followers were just as paranoid. Their leaders told them the end was near and they were to live as though the end was near. It appears some were even taking advantage of this and refusing to obey Roman law (see Romans 13).
As with examples then and today, it is clear that the fringe radicals pushed the dials, removed limits and set the dictates on how things were going to go down (Yes, note the striking similarities with cults and rabid conservatives throughout history AND today). They were suspicious of government, played up the victim card, dished out blame, believed they were doing god's work, felt the need to force others to comply with THEIR way, threatened and/or killed their own they suspected of conspiring with the enemy or even being sympathetic toward them and preached the idea that it was a badge of honor to fight for the re-establishment of the kingdom of god on earth. Jewish Sicarri (assassins or "men of the concealed daggers") roamed the country killing Roman soldiers and Jewish Roman sympathizers. They were daring Rome to come meet its doom. They clearly dreamed of being the new revolutionaries in the tradition of the Maccabees 200 years earlier; those great heroes who rose up against the heathen Selucid Greeks led by Antiochus Epiphanes.
If the Book of Revelation is any indication, it was quite clear the Jewish Christian community hated Rome as much as their other Jewish brethren. In their estimation, Rome was going to burn and suffer ultimate humiliation for all the blood she spilled. The cosmic hero, believed to be a returning resurrected Jesus, would destroy that great empire of evil, seat of Satan, symbolic Babylon. This was to happen any day now, in their estimation, so when Rome began to burn, was this the sign the end had begun? Was the fire supposed to die out without the city being burned flat to the ground? Was Nero right in his suspicion that the Christians just may have done it to bring about their predicted end time scenario? Did they take his plot a step further?
Your thoughts and compare the near orgasmic threads next door about America's predicted doom and how she is often compared to Rome in the Book of Revelation in the ever reinterpreting of that outrageous book. You get the idea that some CAN'T wait for that day when gloom and doom hit the earth so they can say...
Good post. I have still not thrown my balls in the urn as yet. I have the overall sense that Nero might have been the target of a vilification campaign by the Flavian successors whose claim to the purple was doubtful. The prime way of doing this was accusations of sexual perversion and madness. Nero's problem was his being more of a self -appointed artist than a politician. That he left to creatures Like Tiggelanus and I don't see it as coincidental that former Roman ally Boudicca revolted in 61, Rome burned in 63 and the Jewish war broke out in 66.
Whether Nero did it himself to clear space for a new Rome with a spanking big palace or he just took advantage of a not uncommon event though an uncommonly big one I'm not sure.
Nor am I sure whether the Christians really did it. Their fulminations against Rome in both Dead sea scrolls and the curiously similar St John Apocalypse and the constant refrain by Jews and Christians (apparently) alike, about Rome going down to perdition in fire, plus the dislike by Romans of Christians as immoral atheists (I always am tickled by that ) would have made them a ready scapegoat.
However, I recall that the Jews rebelled because of the high handedness and rapacity of the procurators(Josephus and Philo) which was apparently the reason for Boudicca's revolt, too (Tacitus) not because their people were burned alive in animal skins on Nero's front lawn. So if it's true (I tend to be sceptical of the account of his public brothels, too(1) they wouldn't go to war over a bunch of Paul -followers.
So I'm really not sure. In the end.
(1) beg pardio. That was Caligula, not Nero.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-27-2009 at 09:32 AM..
I have the overall sense that Nero might have been the target of a vilification campaign by the Flavian successors whose claim to the purple was doubtful.
Great minds think alike
I'm a Rome geek. I've read Titus Livius cover to cover, more than 10 times (geeky of such complexity), and I must say this is the first time I am seeing someone echo similar thoughts on Nero.
Let's look at the major sources which posterity got - Suetonius, Cassius Dio and the like There's no way in hell these buggers are gonna have any love left for Nero.
Nero was probably a self-deluded fool and a crazy jerk, but he actually made some sane imperial decisions He's much better than Caligula or Domitian.
I'm a Rome geek. I've read Titus Livius cover to cover, more than 10 times (geeky of such complexity), and I must say this is the first time I am seeing someone echo similar thoughts on Nero.
Let's look at the major sources which posterity got - Suetonius, Cassius Dio and the like There's no way in hell these buggers are gonna have any love left for Nero.
Nero was probably a self-deluded fool and a crazy jerk, but he actually made some sane imperial decisions He's much better than Caligula or Domitian.
Thanks, Yes. An impartial read shows that he made attempts to be a decent Emperor and I note that his settlement in the east was regarded with admiration by the people there. However, the Romans, with their tradition of military glory, thought Nero far too peaceable.
It's unavoidable that he polished off a few persons in dodgy circumstances but I wonder whether it was Nero involved in that or his ambitious mother Agrippina? If he did arrange her death, might it not have been because she was intending to replace him?
You may know better than me as a Rome nut whether it was leaving administration to greedy court favourites was the cause of the two big rebellions plus the rising in Germany and the subsequent revolts of Vitellius, Otho and Galba.
I thought it being Nero was largely debunked. It being the Christians is a recent speculation I'd heard, but it didn't strike me as anymore than that.
I think the urge to blame someone for events is one I find rather sad. Do we even know it was arson? Couldn't it have just been a cooking fire or something? Fires in ancient cities were not unheard of, far from it. Looking it up there were several other major fires in 1st-2nd c. AD Rome. The fire also apparently occurred in a region with shops so it doesn't seem implausible they were cooking stuff in some of those or using kilns to make things or what have you.
It's been a long time since I took Roman history, but I think I still might have my notes somewhere. Until I get them out it seems like it's either "cause unknown" or "accidental fire."
I think the urge to blame someone for events is one I find rather sad.
......
It's been a long time since I took Roman history, but I think I still might have my notes somewhere. Until I get them out it seems like it's either "cause unknown" or "accidental fire."
There are the three generalized reasons, The third could be that someone was irresponsible at even putting out a sporadic ignition. Techniques were outmoded then.
Blaming individuals was nevertheless something Nero was very inadequate at. Caligula was better but ruthless.
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.
) would have made them a ready scapegoat.
There's no way in hell these buggers are gonna have any love left for Nero.
He's much better than Caligula or Domitian.
