- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
Sorry buddy, nero might have been many things, but the myth that he sat with his thumb on his ass while rome burned is christian propaganda
![]()
Did Nero really play the fiddle while Rome burned?
The Roman emperor Nero is said to have played his fiddle while the city burned and his people suffered. Could he really be that cruel, or is it all just a story?history.howstuffworks.com
Technically, it began as propaganda by the Flavians and then was expanded and reinforced by the Christians after they took over the Roman Empire in its declining years
He murdered a lot more than that. Nero was a horrible statesman, his responses to everything were either "more festivities!" or "just kill them".
Nero wasn't a great statesman but he also wasn't the incompetent tyrant he's made out to be. Most of the bad stuff about Nero was written long after he died by two main groups who had very good reasons to hate him and wanted to delegitimize his rule.
The first was the Flavian Dynasty who took control of the Principate after Nero's downfall and the "Year of Four Emperors" disaster and Flavius Vespasian needed a way to justify taking control of the empire from the Julio-Claudians that established it. Then after that came the Christians who took over Rome in the Fourth Century.
Really, Nero was a reluctant schmuck who found himself forced on the throne as a catspaw for the wider patrician class and he awkwardly tried to "drain the swamp" in an era before due process and Rule of Law were fully codified and political violence was not only acceptable, but the norm.
Fake news!
Agrippina's death is also fake news. In fact there's multiple tales, all appearing long after Nero's death, and all contradictory, so she's about as real as the 3 fucking wisemen lol. As for Seneca, it was highly romanticized and all proof of his probable innocence only surfaced long after Nero's death. And honestly expecting people accused of attempting to murder the emperor to survive, even if he had given the evidence that was found after the fact, is very foolish. That's just inviting more plots to murder you.
As for the deficit, most of that was directly caused by the senate. Senate which btw was the same organism that attempted to murder him repeatedly and funded said rebellions. And people wonder why he became paranoid and started persecuting his own officers...
Yeah but that's because the swamp tried to murder him repeatedly, can't exactly make an omelet without cracking a fuckton of eggs once it gets to that point. As for the festivities... Name a single emperor that didn't throw festivities as soon as shit started going down south to try and keep the rebellions to a minimum.
Ok one that ISN'T AURELIAN. There wasn't exactly many other ways to calm the people, and with the fucking senate constantly trying to pull another caesar and constant fucking uprisings by christcucks and gauls funded by said senate it's not like he had much of an option there.
Nero's rule was catastrophic to rome, yes, but this can't really be blamed on Nero himself. He got in at a point at which the patricians' corruption had reached pick stupidity and the christian and jewish bloodlust peak barbarism. If anything at least he kept rome from completely collapsing, I'd say not much else could be asked of him taking into account all he had against him.
This but unironically
Tellingly, most of his biggest detractors outside of the Flavians who needed to justify their initial takeover of the Empire were the Christians and (((Judea)))
At least Flavius Vespasian was trying to keep the empire from falling apart into further civil war.
Last edited: