ravaged city nero set fire to rome to build a new city but he will rename the after himself. and the biggest nero cliche of them all while a city was burning nero mounted his private stage and comparing modern disasters with ancient and some of the destruction of troy. was what is there. in the story appears to corroborate accounts of his expressive facilities as an artist and of the way he presented himself at other times it s one of the many scenes that one is tempted to regard as an exaggeration of the literary sources but i m not so sure. consider. what tacitus noted as a rumor was recorded as a fund to tony s nero started the fire. and a century after so tony use casio s dio wrote nero said his heart on accomplishing
remains lie beneath its altar. a church to seal off neuros grave to banish him to the depths of the earth for all eternity. strong christian symbolism designed to put an end to the superstitions that plague the locals. christian tactics to counter the magic of the demon nero. in medieval rome banishing nero s remains to eternal obscurity seemed like a good idea nevertheless the priest at the church of santa maria don t pop although knows where nero is he had. an ancient tunnel beneath the church leads to the place where nero sarcophagus was allegedly stored. but the chamber at the end of the cord are. these empty.
revenge of the roman elite and an emperor who rejected what they saw as decorum. nero s biographers began painting a negative picture of the emperor as soon as he died and his body is reputation and survived into the twenty first century. thing. i m certain that all surviving texts in any way connected to the famous fire of rome were tainted by all teary and motives it is interesting that it escaped validas there is no valid primary source testimony from which one could deduce that nero actually set fire to rome and if you try to list the reasons why he may have done so after all the arguments appear very tenuous there really is no motive that one could assign to a dark and tif. critter. even if nero played no part in starting the fire the romans blamed him none the less as pontifex maximus he was the high priest of
and facilitate iran s downfall and the or shameless. the new prefect of the praetorian guard in future use of venus informed nurul that his loyalists had all abandoned him. but this was a lie. as tacitus wrote nero was undone by rumors and vague intelligence not by force of arms. just as on which bits if you combine i think what was particular about nero was that he knew no boundaries he staged his life like a play his life was one big spectacle. what if and i believe he always planned his end accordingly. and so in scenario doesn t it didn t play out that way because of the particular circumstances and also because he panicked too soon but in the rose life there s virtually no way of differentiating between theater drama the stage and real life will go on forever he goes on. nero fled
as an artist and only in second place as emperor that s why i always described nero as the emperor artist question. the ancient drama starring emperor nero ended with his words what an artist dies in me then he stabbed himself in the throat with a dagger. the script of nero s life needs a rewrite it remains unclear whether st peter was ever in rome to heighten the drama of his narrative christian historians later cast nero as the anti christ. nero was. no monster nor was he any more brutal than many so-called good emperors but the dead do not write their own history and nero s was tainted by the passage of time. the bishop of rome became the head of the church and rome the center of christianity.