Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Haspen]

Caligula was perverted psycho and murderer.

Nero was pervert and murderous psycho

[tahujdt]

Caligula was perverted psycho and murderer.

Nero was pervert and murderous psycho

Is there anything to distinguish him from any other Roman Emperor?

[Pnx]

There's a lot of speculation that his craziness might have been flanderised or made up wholesale.
The Romans were not always very unbiased sources of historical records, and it's thought that people started spreading rumours about him being an insane deviant when he started trying to expand the powers of the Roman Emperor to the detriment of the upper class. Especially since up until about two years after his reign began there's absolutely no mention of crazy stuff at all as regards him.

[tahujdt]

Especially since up until about two years after his reign began there's absolutely no mention of crazy stuff at all as regards him.

Almost as if he had the power to execute anybody who disagreed with him.

[10ebbor10]

Then again, it's very strange that all bad emperors didn't agree with the senate, and all good emperors agreed and cooperate with them in utmost harmony.

((Hint: Allmost all roman Historians are senators.))

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Apparently Nero was quite popular due to killing rich people randomly at gladiatorial events.

[Pnx]

Especially since up until about two years after his reign began there's absolutely no mention of crazy stuff at all as regards him.

Almost as if he had the power to execute anybody who disagreed with him.

And he suddenly stopped having this power two years in?

It's also worth mentioning there's room for alternate character interpretation on some of his more famous actions, like the appointing his horse a senator thing.

See the emperor and the senate often had power struggles, but these were ones the emperor would typically win because of the emperor's ability to appoint new senators (it was actually this power that the original Julius Caesar used to make himself emperor in the first place, he filled the senate with cronies that would vote for more power for him). When he appointed his horse a senator he might have just been making a political statement on how the senate was an impotent institution, and possibly saying something along the lines of "even my horse can be a senator".

[Culise]

Especially since up until about two years after his reign began there's absolutely no mention of crazy stuff at all as regards him.

Almost as if he had the power to execute anybody who disagreed with him.

And he suddenly stopped having this power two years in?

It's also worth mentioning there's room for alternate character interpretation on some of his more famous actions, like the appointing his horse a senator thing.

See the emperor and the senate often had power struggles, but these were ones the emperor would typically win because of the emperor's ability to appoint new senators (it was actually this power that the original Julius Caesar used to make himself emperor in the first place, he filled the senate with cronies that would vote for more power for him). When he appointed his horse a senator he might have just been making a political statement on how the senate was an impotent institution, and possibly saying something along the lines of "even my horse can be a senator".

Or that a horse would still be a better senator than most of the ones he had to actually deal with, which is the interpretation I'm partial to.

The aforementioned Nero really does get a bad rap for the Great Fire, though.  Most historians after him for quite some time repeated the old maxim that he fiddled (or played the lyre) while Rome burned, or less anachronistically, that he sang the Sack of Illium.  However, what of Tacitus, the historian that actually lived through it as a child and later wrote of it in his histories?  Tacitus reports that Nero returned immediately to Rome and organized a massive relief effort and urban renovation that he funded through a combination of increased tributes from the provinces and his own funds.  Then, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, because the people demanded a culprit for the devastation, and it was either making the Christians a scapegoat or ending up being the scapegoat himself.  "Fiddling while Rome burned" was the revenge of Senators upset about the significant increases in taxation/tributes that were the cost of Nero's urban renewal/bread and circus policies, that he supported the rights of the freedmen over the patrons (i.e., the Senatorial aristocracy), that he tended to pander to the lower classes in ways they considered shameful or immoral (public performances, opening theatres), and that he ruled Rome in a time of economic unrest and instability (either due to his own policies or by already-extant issues at the time of his accession); it was then subsequently perpetuated by early Christians after they finally came to power. 

[tahujdt]

Came to power?!? Please explain.

[10ebbor10]

The aforementioned Nero really does get a bad rap for the Great Fire, though.  Most historians after him for quite some time repeated the old maxim that he fiddled (or played the lyre) while Rome burned, or less anachronistically, that he sang the Sack of Illium.  However, what of Tacitus, the historian that actually lived through it as a child and later wrote of it in his histories?  Tacitus reports that Nero returned immediately to Rome and organized a massive relief effort and urban renovation that he funded through a combination of increased tributes from the provinces and his own funds.  Then, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, because the people demanded a culprit for the devastation, and it was either making the Christians a scapegoat or ending up being the scapegoat himself.  "Fiddling while Rome burned" was the revenge of Senators upset about the significant increases in taxation/tributes that were the cost of Nero's urban renewal/bread and circus policies, that he supported the rights of the freedmen over the patrons (i.e., the Senatorial aristocracy), that he tended to pander to the lower classes in ways they considered shameful or immoral (public performances, opening theatres), and that he ruled Rome in a time of economic unrest and instability (either due to his own policies or by already-extant issues at the time of his accession); it was then subsequently perpetuated by early Christians after they finally came to power. 

Ow, don't go saying Tacitus liked Nero. Because well, he frequently accuses Nero of fueling the fire, preventing fire extinguishing attempts, all to build his own awesome palace on the ruins*. He also clearly states that all these rebuilding efforts were not done out of compassion with the people, but in order to gain popularity with them. He concludes that this attempt was unsuccesfull.

((And that's ignoring the incest tales, murdering his brother, his mother, and many others, ...))

And yeah, the Early Christians didn't like Nero. For a decent reasons though, as he liked to use them as candles.

*Which is an unfortunate coincidence, isn't it.

[RedWarrior0]

Short of time travel, we aren't going to know the perfect truth about anything the Romans did.

[Owlbread]

I don't know why we've started to compare the North Korean dictatorship to the despotic Roman emperors anyway. They aren't crazy, otherwise they wouldn't have survived this long. If you want crazy look at the old Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev from the early 90s who styled his moustache in the shape of an airplane's wings and claimed that the Russians were trying to destabilise the country with man-made earthquakes from Georgia and Azerbaijan. Or compare him with Saparmurat Niyasow, the late President of Turkmenistan and all his eccentricities e.g. naming bread after his mother, demanding that an ice palace be built in the desert...

[Fniff]

I wonder how many dictators have died peacefully in their beds while still ruling their nation.

[Owlbread]

I wonder how many dictators have died peacefully in their beds while still ruling their nation.

Niyasow was probably poisoned but at least he died ruling the nation. Same with Stalin.

[Devling]

I wonder how many dictators have died peacefully in their beds while still ruling their nation.

Probably a bunch actually.
Also depends on how liberally you apply "Dictator".