Explanation: When the famously corrupt and arbitrary Roman Emperor Nero discovered one of the Imperial slaves looked like his recently deceased wife (whom he himself had killed, according to some accounts), he had said slave, Sporus, castrated and had a marriage ceremony in which Sporus was subjected to the position of Nero’s bride.
Nero was not exactly a model of human behavior by any society’s standards. Later Roman Emperors would outlaw castration entirely.
That’s super romantic.
Let’s kiss by the castration chamber
He was actually a super-super popular emperor, even after his dead they prayed for his return. While we can’t say for certain whether he was behind the fire of rome ( ad 64), if he was that kind of sociopath that wants burn everything that he would not have paid for the complete reconstruction of it! He even ordered the roads to be built to wide that 3 fire fighter carts (?) can fit next to each other so that this catastrophe may never repeat again!
So why is he remembered as an incompetent, retarded dickback? He prosecuted Christians in his reign
So why is he remembered as an incompetent, retarded dickback? He prosecuted Christians in his reign
I don’t think that the persecution of Christians factors into this - many other emperors did it that we remember fondly.
I just think that he wasn’t very good at the propaganda game. Many historians belonged to the senatorial class, which was at odds with the emperor (all of them), and Nero was not able to counter that.
Impartiality - or a lack thereof - is a problem that we face with a lot of historical figures. I very much doubt that Xerxes flogged the Hellespont, for example, but the Greek historians loved that tidbit because it showed his hybris. Same with Nero playing music while Rome burns.
From what I remember of my studies, he was a “good enough” emperor, especially in his earlier years, but didn’t know how to play the political game at all. The senate hated him (but honestly, they were a corrupt bunch who hated pretty much everyone), and a lot of people around him attempted to use him for their own political games, which eventually made him grow suspicious of everyone else.
deleted by creator
Yeah, this has come up before. The ancient historical record is full of lies, and mean words about the just-deposed should always be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, Pug still leans towards believing it, because of Nero’s youth among other things.
Oh, so much of his dirty disgusting acts as an emperor are fabricated lies in order to run his popularity down! But the dirty disgusting acts as a child? Why would anyone fabricate that? They are obviously true unlike the others!!!
I mean the fact he became emperor while still young.
And you think he would become more responsible later on? Once he was crowned and declared as a demi-god, removed from any and all possible supervision?
Look, what I tried calling out in my last comment is the contradiction in your logic! You don’t accept the records of his later life for being forgeries, but the early ones contained within the same sources? Those are ought to be true… cause ummm… reasons
I actually haven’t read the original sources in depth at all. Clearly, there’s been some kind of miscommunication.
He was not a ‘super-super popular emperor’. He considered throwing himself at the mercy of the Roman people, but in the end rejected this possible way out - not because the people could not deliver him from his fall, but because the people would not do so. He knew he would be torn to pieces by the crowd. Nero remained popular only in Greece, where his profligacy and liberality with imperial privileges earned him allies amongst the so-bribed Hellenic cities. The military was openly hostile to him, the rest of the eastern provinces indifferent, and the western provinces in uproar.
Nero was a paranoiac, a tyrant, a spoiled narcissist, and a moron. And to chalk all that up to ‘He prosecuted Christians in his reign’ when hostility to Nero long predates the ascendency of Christianity in the records is foolishness.
The Great Fire of Rome doesn’t even factor in to any of this. He was a terrible Emperor without needing to enter into those unlikely rumors.
Wowsies, your source is from 1914?!??
Your source only levels criticism against him on a personal level? Some of which originates from the homophobia and sexism of the age of the doc, considering that voyerism and homosexuality used to be commonplace in rome!
Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women…
Some of which is kind of even funny
He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of sick game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women…
But for the sake of the argument, conceding all that; what effect would him being a dickbag in his personal life have on his emperorship?
It also has clearly untrue statements! Claudius was killed by Agrippa!!!
He began his career of parricide and murder with Claudius…
It also seems to often cite itself as its own source multiple times?
Wowsies, your source is from 1914?!??
It’s Suetonius. It’s from 121 AD.
Ooooof
