Who was Emperor Nero? Was he such a bad egg?
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
Of all the Roman Emperors, Nero is amongst the most interesting. This is because history can’t decide if he was a ‘goodie’ or a ‘baddie’. Some claim that Nero was misunderstood and was unfairly blamed for a whole lot of stuff that just wasn’t his fault. Others think that Nero was a total twerp, an incredibly cruel ruler who totally deserve his reputation as being a complete scumbag. Perhaps after reading a bit more about him, you can decide for yourself if Nero was naughty or nice?
Born on the 15th of December 37 AD, Nero, like many other Roman Emperors started off with a different name before he was Emperorfied (pretty sure that’s a real word). He was called Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. At birth, little Lucius was not expected to be an Emperor at all. But then, after his Dad died, his mum – the infamous Agrippina the Younger – married Emperor Claudius, who then adopted Lucius as his heir. Boom! Just like that, Lucius would be Emperor one day.
After Claudius slightly suspicious death – did Agrippina murder him so her son could rule? History just can’t decide! – Lucius became Nero and ruled as Emperor. Things started off quietly enough, with Nero basically doing everything his Mum told him to. But soon, according to Roman Historians like Tacitus and Suetonius, things were kicking off.
Nero killed off his mum, took control of Rome and soon got up to all sorts of mischief. There was the usual murdering of family members that Roman Emperors seemingly enjoyed so much. Nero had his own wife (she was also his stepsister because, erm, Romans) executed and was responsible for many other murders too.
Rumours had it that he killed his second wife, the beautiful Poppaea Sabina, by kicking her in the stomach whilst she was pregnant. Alongside all this despicable behaviour, he also failed to deal with a massive fire that caused Rome to burn for nine days, destroying vast swathes of buildings. Some even believe that Nero was responsible for the fire, starting the flamefest so that it would melt away a large area of the city to give him space to build a massive golden palace devoted to himself. We are told that Nero even competed in the Ancient Olympics and used his position as Emperor to cheat and win every event he took part in, what a rotter!
The odd thing is though, the historical sources of the time also tell us that the Roman public loved Nero, they thought he was a swell guy. Why? First off, under his rule the Romans won a lot of battles, and Romans love it when they win battles. Nero oversaw the defeat of Boudica in Britain as well as victory against the Parthian Empire. Also, Nero built loads of stuff for the Roman people to enjoy. He ordered the construction of numerous amphitheatres for the general public to go and have fun watching epic sporting events – like Gladiator fights and chariot racing. Nero also made public appearances, taking on the role of an actor, poet, or musician to entertain the masses. The public loved him for this, they found him very charming and, unlike many Roman Emperors before him, Nero seemed intent on ensuring his people actually liked him.
Who paid for all this though? Well, that would be the rich citizens of course. Who definitely did not like Nero, mostly because he taxed the absolute denarius out of them. And who left all the written sources for future historians to read? Well, again, that would be the rich people, who most definitely had a gladius to grind. Perhaps if we had access to the thoughts and feelings of the average Roman citizen at the time, we might discover a completely different account of Emperor Nero, perhaps he’d even be considered one of the five good Roman Emperors? Well, six good Emperors then I guess. Instead, Nero is on the bad emperor list.
Also, don’t forget, historians Suetonius and Tacitus were both writing their histories of Nero after he had died (incidentally, Nero ended up committing suicide after a successful revolt from a Governor called Galba removed him from the throne. Galba didn’t revolt for any noble reason, he just wanted to be Emperor instead). Nero was the last in the line of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of Emperors; with a new dude wearing the purple, it made sense for historians of the time to curry favour with their new boss by having a go at the last bloke in charge. Or maybe Suetonius and Tacitus were just telling it how it was, and Nero really was a monster?
So, what do you think, Emperor Nero, stinky rotten bad egg or tasty nutritious good egg?
