Emperor Nero scapegoated - ?

[Strix454]

The New Yorker Article "How Nasty was Nero Really" features arguments by "scholars" who reject the written roman histories (all of them) concerning Nero based literary analysis of the works. The usual technique is to take any particular account of history presented in the written works and claim it is a copy or analogy of some other story. Therefore it has to be false.
Then, having discounted the WHOLE of written history about the subject, they apply "science" to discover the real truth. They look at the placement and elucidation of objects: statues, busts, coins, inscriptions and graffiti. And from all that random stuff, they use their spider-sense to discover the true history. And wouldn't you know it, they discover that Nero was a great man.
There is a general trend toward rejecting classical historians and the classics in general in favor of archaeology based speculations. Historians are always problematic because they wrote what they wrote. But with archaeology, its possible to invent just about anything.

The written histories tend to portray Nero as someone who spent public money extravagantly and wastefully often on himself. But using "science", certain modern historians suggest that Nero was a wise leader fighting deflation in the economy by stimulus spending.

That of course illustrates one of the main problems with "modern historians". That the narratives they replace the classical historians with are inevitably modern political narratives. Classical history is rewritten such that the lessons of it are lessons that prove that contemporary political policies are correct.

What we know for sure is that he was in power for 14 years. At the end of those 14 years, certain armies staged revolts against his rule. Nero found no support among much of anyone. Nobody was on his side and nobody was going to fight for him. He ended up fleeing rome with a few friends and then killed himself.

What can be concluded from that is that he was a bad ruler, that by the end of his rule he was so unpopular that literally nobody (including his own guard) were willing to fight to defend him.

 

[Little oak tree]

There is a general trend toward rejecting classical historians and the classics in general in favor of archaeology based speculations.

Those complement each other.

Look bro I just superficially hovered over your comment.
I'll get back to you when I'm willing to kill a couple billion neurons

 

[Mothra1988]

Those complement each other.

Look bro I just superficially hovered over your comment.
I'll get back to you when I'm willing to kill a couple billion neurons

You're a fucking idiot, and you should feel bad about it.

 

[Little oak tree]

The New Yorker Article "How Nasty was Nero Really" features arguments by "scholars" who reject the written roman histories (all of them)

Show me some of them. Give me concrete examples.

Like, for a chess game you have to bring actual pieces to the board.

 

[Mothra1988]

Show me some of them. Give me concrete examples.

Here's a concrete example, you're dumb and you suck cocks.

 

[Strix454]

Show me some of them. Give me concrete examples.

I just did. I cited the article you posted "How Nasty Was Nero, Really?". The article dismisses all of the major written classical sources for Nero's life including specifically Dio, Tacitus and Suetonius in the article.

The article suggests in substitution for those historical sources, that what should be used are: " the placement and elucidation of objects: statues, busts, coins, inscriptions, graffiti. "

An example of this technique in the article leads to a refutation of the classic historians as far as the fire in Rome during Nero's reign and instead claims: "Moreover, much of what was destroyed was slum housing constructed by exploitative landlords. During the fire, Nero “led the relief effort,” in Opper’s words, and afterward instituted a new building code."

All the written sources for the period are rejected and yet the article is able to claim DEFINITIVELY that Nero personally led the relief effort for the fire, the nature of all the fire damage in the entire city of rome, the motivations of the people who constructed that housing, the ownership of that housing and claims to know specific details of roman building codes and their origins.

How does the article know all these are true? It never really makes an argument to prove that they are. Often the style of argument presented is appeal to authority. At other times, the article just says things which are to be taken as fact with no supporting arguments whatsoever.

The article says:

"Nero enacted tax and currency reforms, steps that may have been unpopular with the wealthy but were welcomed by the broader public. "

What support is offered that statement?

- The emperor Trajan said decades after that Nero's reign contained "five good years"
- A saterical poet later praised the public baths built by Nero.

The article searches for arguments in support of the idea that Nero was a popular ruler in rome. This is one of the arguments it comes up with:

"....digitized reproduction of a graffito scratched into a building on the Palatine Hill. The image, which matches depictions of Nero on surviving coinage, shows him bearded and full-faced, with an ample double chin, and a hint of a smile on pursed lips. Opper takes the portrait to be admiring, rather than satirical, noting that no graffitied slogan suggests otherwise."

"Science" in action: He takes an image scratched into a building in the center of rome that looks similar to the official images of Nero on coins and concludes from this that Nero was an extremely popular ruler. His "science sense" allows him to know the motivations of this person 2000 years ago scratching the image and through that single person know the opinions of the roman people as a whole over the entire reign of nero.

And how are the works of the classic roman historians dismissed as wrong? Through finding analogies in other classic literature to whatever is being said. Through that "scientific" discipline known as literary analysis.

Concrete example:

"Modern scholars have determined that many of the tropes used to characterize Nero’s depravities bear a remarkable similarity to literary accounts of mythical events. Opper said, “The whole thing is based on literary techniques that were taught in Roman rhetorical schools.” Tacitus’ and Dio’s accounts of the Great Fire of Rome, in 64 A.D., in their detailed evocations of citizens wailing and mothers grabbing their children, closely echo earlier accounts of attacks on cities, especially the siege of Troy. "

If two stories cover the burning of a city and those two stories feature people emotionally upset and mothers concerned for their children, the methods used here say that the latter story has to be false. That human reactions to catastrophe tend to always be rather similar is not even considered.

I'm not saying that the classical authors are by any means faultless or that the historical portrayal of Nero in their works is beyond question. The faults of those authors and the less trustworthy parts of the works have been understood for centuries. But I am critical of the attempts of certain individuals to invent new history out of nothing or out of material that is even more questionable than the worst of the classic sources.

Any engagement with classical history requires humility and the ability to admit that there are many questions that cannot be answered and will never be answered. The study of any of it requires careful analysis and avoiding drawing broad/reaching conclusions.

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Source?
Like, for a chess game you have to bring actual pieces to the board.
I don't know if that happened to that Emperor, but your cool story adds nothing to the discussion.

Domitian had Agricola fully subjucate the areas that would become Brittania and did a few modest campaigns into Germany, his big thing was serious construction of the Limes Germanicus. He also started campaigns into Dacia that Trajan would complete. Domitian was an all around solid administration, but he had total contempt for the Senate whom he viewed as terrified backstabbers, Domitian was in Rome during the year of the 4 Emperors and watched all of these dipshits instantly hail this or that guy as the new Emperor after Nero got assassinated and he himself had to go into hiding when his father Vespasian broke off from his Jerusalem siege to become Emperor. Most of the successes of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty was because Domitian set up the Empire for success. Domitian got attacked by the Senate because he didn't go full fire and sword into Dacia, instead letting the place be a client kingdom, paying Decabulus to fortify the region was a sticking point with the Senate, perhaps justifiably because Decabulus would buck the treaty the moment he heard Domitian had been assassinated and would later get fucking steam rolled by Trajan. Most of the stuff Trajan and Hadrian became famous for were just continuation of Domitian's policies because they were so logical and correct.

 

[Little oak tree]

the written roman histories (all of them) concerning Nero

I just did.

No, you didn't dumbass. Try again.

Show me some of them. Give me concrete examples.

Of the written Roman histories.

And how are the works of the classic roman historians dismissed as wrong? Through finding analogies in other classic literature to whatever is being said. Through that "scientific" discipline known as literary analysis.

Ok, again, show me concrete examples

I'm not saying that the classical authors are by any means faultless or that the historical portrayal of Nero in their works is beyond question.

The whole point is the possible smear campaign and the motivations behind it.
Not innocent mistakes but deliberate defamation, show me the Roman writings or at least mention them

Any engagement with classical history requires humility and the ability to admit that there are many questions that cannot be answered and will never be answered. The study of any of it requires careful analysis and avoiding drawing broad/reaching conclusions.

I'm open to it, I really want to. I want you to give me solid arguments so I can learn more but you are just fucking stupid and I can't. I already know you'll answer another meaningless wall of text, so If you don't give an actual record from the beginning I'll stop responding and continue when I feel like researching myself or when someone with a brain gives me solid shit

 

[Dyn]

What support is offered that statement?

They're not discounting classical sources. Almost everything positive they're saying about Nero comes from Tacitus, with the exception of him leading the grain relief efforts, which came from Seutorius. Some of it, like the new urban planning codes he enacted, is also backed up by archaeological findings.

The classical sources are suspect, biased, and open to interpretation, and Nero's legacy as a mad emperor is a result of centuries of treating him as uncharitably as the sources allow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking a fresh look, with a fresh angle. That's what historians do.

edit ; Tacitus also places Nero leading the grain relief, my bad.

 

[Little oak tree]

Almost everything positive they're saying about Nero comes from Tacitus,

No.

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/tacitus-annals/introduction/tacitus-nero-narrative#:~:text=Tacitus'%20portrayal%20of%20Nero%20is,responsible%20for%20setting%20Rome%20afire.

 

[Dyn]

No.
View attachment 5101904
View attachment 5101906
View attachment 5101907
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/tacitus-annals/introduction/tacitus-nero-narrative#:~:text=Tacitus'%20portrayal%20of%20Nero%20is,responsible%20for%20setting%20Rome%20afire.

Nobody's going to treat your arguments seriously until you learn to use your words instead of copy pasting random screenshots you're clearly googling on the fly like a schizoid faggot.

 

[Little oak tree]

Nobody's going to treat your arguments seriously until you learn to use your words instead of copy pasting random screenshots you're clearly googling on the fly like a schizoid faggot.

You just don't have anything to add stupid shithead, use whatever excuse you want

 

[Strix454]

The whole point is the possible smear campaign and the motivations behind it.

Dio and Tacitus are negative toward Nero because his rule was a massive failure. He ran the country for a short period of time. Parts of the army revolted against him. Nobody supported him against the military. He had to run away from Rome with a handful of friends and then he killed himself. His death marked the end of the dynasty he belonged to and kicked off a very bloody civil war within the Roman Empire.

 

[Little oak tree]

Dio and Tacitus are negative toward Nero because his rule was a massive failure. He ran the country for a short period of time. Parts of the army revolted against him. Nobody supported him against the military. He had to run away from Rome with a handful of friends and then he killed himself. His death marked the end of the dynasty he belonged to and kicked off a very bloody civil war within the Roman Empire.

"...And ascending a tribunal he delivered a long and detailed speech against Nero, saying that they ought to revolt from the emperor and join the speaker in an attack upon him, 3 "because," as he said, "he has despoiled the whole Roman world, because he p175 has destroyed all the flower of the senate, because he debauched and then killed his mother, and does not preserve even the semblance of sovereignty. 4 Many murders, robberies and outrages, it is true, have often been committed by others; but as for the other deeds committed by Nero, how could one find words fittingly to describe them? I have seen him, my friends and allies, — believe me, — I have seen that man (if man he is who has married Sporus and been given in marriage to Pythagoras), in the circle of the theatre, that is, in the orchestra, sometimes holding the lyre and dressed in loose tunic and buskins, and again wearing in general-soled shoes and mask.2 5 I have often heard him sing, play the herald, and act in tragedies. I have seen him in chains, hustled about as a miscreant, heavy with child, aye, in the travail of childbirth — in short, imitating all the situations of mythology by what he said and what was said to him, by what he submitted to and by what he did.3 Will anyone, then, style such a person Caesar and emperor and Augustus? Never! Let no one abuse those sacred titles. 6 They were held by Augustus and by Claudius, whereas this fellow might most properly be termed Thyestes, Oedipus, Alcmeon, or Orestes; for these are the characters that he represents on the stage and it is these titles that he has assumed in place of the others. Therefore rise now at length against him; succour yourselves and succour the Romans; liberate the entire world!"..."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer... tribunal he,the senate, because he debauched

Dio sounds incredibly stupid. And just makes their political interests even more clear.
Nero just sounds like a creative guy

 

[Strix454]

..And ascending a tribunal he delivered a long and detailed speech against Nero, saying that they ought to revolt from the emperor and join the speaker in an attack upon him,

The passage being quoted from Dio has Dio documenting the public motives that Gaius Julius Vindex allegedly gave for launching his failed rebellion against Nero in 68.
I guess its being proposed that in his history Dio should have Vindex, on launching his rebellion, have praised Nero and his rule. That presenting a man trying to overthrow Nero as saying negative things about Nero is inaccurate.

-------
Edits for clarity in italics

 

[Little oak tree]

The passage being quoted documents the public motives that Gaius Julius Vindex allegedly gave for launching his failed rebellion against Nero in 68.
I guess its being proposed that Vindex should, on launching his rebellion, have praised Nero and his rule. That presenting a man trying to overthrow Nero as saying negative things about Nero is inaccurate.