Last night I saw a history of the Roman Emperor Nero

[burythehatchet]

on Discovery ch.

I had never realized the extent of his brutality and mental illness, though I won't go into such detail here.

It occurred to me that if the Halliburton story plays out and leads to Cheney's resignation, and Rummy is sure to be pushed out in advance of any hearings the dems begin, the littlest emperor will have only his harem of queens - condi, Karen, Harriet - and I believe things are going to get really bizarre.

Best reality show ever, I think.

Watching Emperor Nero destroy Rome brought home the point for me.

[AzDar]

1. The parallels are striking, aren't they? n/t

[CatWoman]

2. That was on the Discovery Channel

not the History Channel :hi:

I watched it too.

Fascinating.

It continues next Sunday - can't wait.

P.S. - I'm still looking for her.

[burythehatchet]

3. .

;)

[Warpy]

4. "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS a couple of years ago

said the Christians gave Nero a bad rap, that THEY started the great fire, that Nero opened palaces and temples to house refugees, that over a period of many days every time the fire was put out in one section or another, someone would restart it. That's the story the forensic anthropologists uncovered.

The persecution came after the fire. Nero knew who the culprits were. And yes, that's when things got really brutal and ugly.

I see more parallels with the rise of fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, and Peron than I do with Nero.

Remember, Rome didn't fall until some 400 years after Nero was gone.

I've noticed the History Channel pushing a lot of Christian myth lately, trying to make archaeology conform to bible stories. This is just another myth they're pushing. 'Scuse me, but I'd be more likely to trust the dry, scientifically based PBS than the "history" written by Christian monks the History Channel is pushing.

[burythehatchet]

5. thanks for the perspective

[Garbo 2004]

6. Nero "destroyed" Rome by bankrupting it to fund his rebuilding project. That

was the main thesis of the program, also his unchecked absolute power that allowed him to do so. The program really didn't go into the Christians/fire story as you seem to think.

[happyslug]

7. Christians just continued an old tradition

Remember Nero was OVERTHROWN by Galba (Who subsequent died and whose killers were overthrown by Vespasian). Titus Flavius Vespasianus (A.D. 69-79) had to justify his reign by demonizing Nero's.

In the only non-Christian or non-Jewish reference to the Early Christians, Tacitus' Annales 15.38-44,http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/HWC22/Rome/Pagans_v_Christians/Tacitus.html, Tacitus mentions two reasons for the fire (Tacitus tends to ALWAYS write two reasons, like one is the GIVEN Reason at the time of the incident, the other is the REAL Reason). The second causation for the fire one being that the Nero blamed the Christians (after mentioning that most people blamed Nero who wanted the area for a new Palace for himself). A clear reading of Tacitus indicates a clear dislike of Christians, but also that it was clear that the Christians did NOT start the fire, but they were a easy target for Nero to blame for the Fire. Furthermore as Emperor, Nero was SUPPOSE to help people in distressed, thus his opening up of temple and public buildings to the homeless was what was EXPECTED of the Emperor. That fact he provided NO new Housing and instead built his new Palace on the spot of the fire just reinforced two things, First Nero started the fire to build his Palace, and two, Nero did NOTHING to help the people of Rome to recover from the Fire. When Nero lost the support of the People of Rome do to his handing of the Fire, his lack of support in the Senate and in the Army meant he was do to be overthrown and he was.

My point is Nero had been attacked by NON-Christians during the reign of Vespasian, and the Christians continued this tradition. A secondary factor was Vespasian started the "Flavian" dynasty. Constantine started the "Neo-Flavian" dynasty. These two Dynasty ere over 200 years apart but Constantine seems to have traced his family back to the first Fl avian Dynasty. This just reinforced the existing anti-Nero view among Christians.



http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm

[Warpy]

8. Tacitus confused coincidence with cause

because the very careful forensic archaeology proved the opposite, that the Christians did set multiple fires and RESET the ones that were put out.

As for Nero's new palace, that was just a continuance of another very old policy, taking advantage of slum clearance by disaster to "improve" the area for the few.

[happyslug]

9. There is NO WAY we can tell we set a fire 2000 years ago

Archaeologist can find that fires were started and re-started, Archaeologist can determine if these were done by small groups or large groups, but without written records we can NOT see by archaeologist reports WHO set the fire. Just think about it, how would a Christian set a Fire Differently than a pagan from his same class? Used holy oil that leaves the sign of the Cross? Fire is Fire.

Tacitus reported that people did see people stop people from putting out the fire, Tacitus reports people saw other people re-starting fires that had been put out. Tacitus then say Nero blamed these acts on the Christians in Rome. That is the ONLY Contemptuous written record we have on the fire (and even it was written AFTER Nero was no longer Emperor). To jump to the conclusions that Nero had been right in blamming the early Christians based on evidence that the fires were re-started over and over again is a violation of any rule of logic I know. Tacitus clearly says that Nero picked on the Christians ONLY after people started to blame him. Christians were an easy target, they were viewed as Jews and Rome was in the middle of putting down the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD at the time of the fire. The Early Christians had no real power in Rome of that time period so an easy target. In fact the Jews living in Rome probably saw the Christians as Heretics and helped out Nero in looking for Christians (More to show their loyalty to the Empire and Rome given that the Jews in Judea were in full Revolt).

Sorry, given the situation in Rome at the time of the Great Fire, only one person had the ability to get a large group of people to keep a fire going, and that was Nero himself. His Palace minions would have done it just to make him happy. Since the time of Augustus Caesar, fire suppression had been an Imperial responsibility

People forget how Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives (Commonly called "Crassus"), the Third man in the First Triumvirate of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar, had made his money. Crassus set up the first Fire Department in Rome. His fire department would appear at a fire and buy the building from the existing home owner who preferred to get something rather then see the whole building burn to the ground. Crassus's fire department would then put out the fire and Crassus would have a building at the fraction of the cost if he had built it himself. For more on Crassus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus

Anyway, NO Ruler after Julius Caesar were going to permit someone, anyone, to get as rich a Crassus had become do to his control of the fire department. Thus from Julius Casar onward Fire suppression in Rome was an Emperor Concern, and at the time of the Fire the Emperor was NERO. Thus the only person who COULD have permitted the fire to spread was NERO not the Christian even if they were large enough in numbers to do spread the fire (A fact most historians doubt, putting the Number of Christians in Rome at the time of the Fire in the Hundreds maybe a couple of Thousands at the most in a city with a population over 1 million).

[Warpy]

10. The whole thing may be archived on the PBS website

Go look for it. It's fascinating.

They arrived at the conclusion by the way the fire had been set in multiple locations in Christian slums, the way it showed unmistakable signs of being extinguished, and how it showed signs of being reset. The work was painstaking, covered a long period of time, and surprised the forensic archaeologists, who expected to support your bias.

Read the article.

[happyslug]

11. No one disputes THESE facts.The Issue is WHO did these events? Christians or Nero?

My point was the ONLY person capable of such a widespread setting of fires and re-setting of Fires at the time of Nero was Nero. Tacitus states that Nero had the fire started and re-started where it had stopped. In the original posting it was said that the archeology records shows the Christians were the ones who started the fire. My point was archeology can NOT shows Who did it, but can confirm the story of Tacitus that people were seen re-starting the fires in areas were the fire had been put out. Thus Tacitus story of people seeing other people starting the fire and re-starting the Fire has been confirmed, but that is all. Archeology can NOT tell us WHO started and re-started the fires. The original Posting said the Archeology supported that CHRISTIANS set the fire. My point was such a conclusion can NOT be made from Archaeological records. All archeology can say is that the fires were NOT one big fire, but a series of Fires seeming started by the hands of man. Why it was done means we have to look into the mind of people who set the fire, and for that we MUST look outside the Archaeological record.

Thus the fact that the Fire Department of Rome was CONTROLLED by the Emperor and at that time NERO was the Emperor, we can conclude he and only he had the means to start and re-start the fire (and even STOP the fire from being put out). We must do this NOT from Archaeological record but from what we know of HOW Roman Society was set up during this time period. To jump from an archaeological finding of someone starting and re-starting the fires to the "fact" that such action were done by Christians (or even Nero) is beyond what we can conclude from Archaeological records. For that we MUST look at the power Structure and WHO benefited from the fire. The Christians did not benefit. Nero did.

As to the fact the slums burned had a good number of Christians in them (and thus Christian symbols) just confirms what most historians believe of the early Christians, they were concentrated among the poorest elements of Roman Society, the people who tend to live in the Slums. Again this proves nothing, for who whats to burn their own home? Especially when NO ONE, not even the Emperor was under a obligations to get you a new one. Even during the race Riots of the 1960s it was rare for a private home to burn, businesses were set on fire but not private homes. Why? the Blacks who were rioting in the 1960s did NOT want to burn their own homes (But more then willing to burn down the businesses of people they saw as ripping them off).

There are limits to what we can find in the Archaeological records and WHO started the Great Fire OF Rome is one of them. For who we MUST look in the historical Record and the Record tends to show it was Nero who had the fire set for he had the most to gain from the fire.