Nov 9, 2020 09:26 PM
(This post was last modified: Nov 9, 2020 11:07 PM by C C.)
Cynical Sindee: So in the context of modern classifications, Nero might be the equivalent of a leftist populist, with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela (or other Marxist takeovers of the past) arguably being closer to a contemporary example of the situation that Nero parasitized upon (poor vs elite). Bits might be applicable to the US -- for instance, even the article mentions FDR's utilization of collectivist altruism to sucker-in attract the white poor vote of the past. Note that "liberal-minded intellectuals" back in ancient Roman times would crudely compare to "classic liberals" rather than the open-ended progressives conflated with that label today. (If one is going to entertain that "liberal" could retrospectively be applicable to that era of class systems.)
- - - - -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...19706.html
EXCERPT: . . . The new research confirms that the accusation, that the Emperor Nero sat on his imperial balcony, 'fiddling while Rome burnt', was a malicious fabrication concocted by his political enemies. But the remarkable new investigation – carried out by the one of the world's greatest authorities on the period – reveals, for the first time, that the scale of the Great Fire itself was also exaggerated by Nero's detractors.
Roman chroniclers, trying to curry favour with his anti-Nero political successors, claimed that around two-thirds of Rome had been utterly destroyed or badly damaged by the conflagration [...] But now, the new investigation – conducted by British archaeologist and historian Professor Anthony Barrett – has revealed for the first time that only 15-20 percent of the city was actually destroyed. Much of the crucial information, that he has drawn on, is ancient fire-damage evidence, unearthed over recent years by Italian and French archaeologists.
[...] The fire took place just 90 years after the Roman aristocracy's political power had been substantially extinguished by the changeover from republican 'democracy' to imperial dictatorship – and there was therefore still latent aristocratic hostility to holders of imperial office (and some remaining sentiment supporting a return to the republican system).
[...] In order to rebuild the devastated parts of Rome, Nero decided to increase taxes on the provinces – which would have hit the great provincial estates owned by the aristocracy. But to make matters worse, Nero then went on, for the first time in Roman history, to debase the Empire's coinage by issuing silver coins that were only 80% silver (with the rest of their weight being mainly in copper).
[...] he still insisted that taxes (including taxes on aristocrats) had to be paid in pure silver - not in his own new debased coinage. The fire-induced coinage changes thus meant that the aristocrats' plebeian tenants paid their rents in debased coinage, while the aristocratic estate owners had to pay their imperial taxes in pure silver.
It was largely through that monetary process that Rome's Great Fire metamorphosed into a political one. After almost 2000 years of silence, Professor Barrett's new investigation is the first to reconstruct those post-fire financial mechanisms that led to Rome's temporary political collapse (attempted revolution, followed three years later by military revolt, civil war, mass murder, mutiny and barbarian uprisings).
Politically, psychologically and socially, Nero was one of the most interesting rulers of the ancient world. [...] The poorer, less educated sections of the population seem to have adored him. His complete disregard for upper-class behavioural norms scandalised the elites – but did not damage his standing among the poor. On the other hand, the social and economic elites (including more liberal-minded intellectuals and others) tended to loathe him.
But his huge building projects and large-scale public employment schemes (which, in modern times, have sometimes been compared to Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal) endeared him to ordinary working class Romans. And his refusal to help the wealthier victims of the fire (including those elite families who had lost their palatial homes to the flames) also, no doubt, appealed to those nearer the bottom of society.
[...] As well, as marrying three women (and killing one or possibly two of them!), he also married two (or possibly three) men. In at least one of those same-sex unions, Nero was the bride – while, in the other, he was the groom. Same sex relationships (including under age ones and unofficial marriages) were widely accepted in the Roman world – but only if they respected Roman social and gender power norms.
Freeborn men (including high status ones) were expected to be the dominant (i.e. penetrative) partners in any sexual relationship (whether heterosexual or homosexual) - and (by being the bride in at least one of his male marriages), Nero deliberately and very publicly defied that convention. In homosexual relationships, social norms also required the non-dominant partner to be a slave or ex-slave - and again, Nero defied that convention by becoming the bride (rather than the husband) of an ex-slave.
The Emperor also defied social convention in other ways. Although he physically obliterated much of his own family, he seems to have craved the adoration of ordinary citizens. Contrary to the accepted social norms that applied to elite Romans, he adored performing acts of athletic, theatrical and musical prowess in front of the general public.
[...] some Christians believed that he would return to Rome as the Antichrist. ... Nero appears to have sought to scapegoat Rome's small Christian community for the fire - and ancient sources suggest that he launched a persecution of them and that St Peter and St Paul will both executed during his reign.
[...] although Nero exploited the Great Fire to rebuild Rome, the accusation, that he started it, is almost certainly unfounded. “The traditional theories that Nero himself started the fire, or that Christians started it (to hasten the second coming of Christ) are both almost certainly wrong. There is absolutely no credible evidence supporting either of those two explanations,” said Dr Barrett, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia.... (MORE - details)
- - - - -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...19706.html
EXCERPT: . . . The new research confirms that the accusation, that the Emperor Nero sat on his imperial balcony, 'fiddling while Rome burnt', was a malicious fabrication concocted by his political enemies. But the remarkable new investigation – carried out by the one of the world's greatest authorities on the period – reveals, for the first time, that the scale of the Great Fire itself was also exaggerated by Nero's detractors.
Roman chroniclers, trying to curry favour with his anti-Nero political successors, claimed that around two-thirds of Rome had been utterly destroyed or badly damaged by the conflagration [...] But now, the new investigation – conducted by British archaeologist and historian Professor Anthony Barrett – has revealed for the first time that only 15-20 percent of the city was actually destroyed. Much of the crucial information, that he has drawn on, is ancient fire-damage evidence, unearthed over recent years by Italian and French archaeologists.
[...] The fire took place just 90 years after the Roman aristocracy's political power had been substantially extinguished by the changeover from republican 'democracy' to imperial dictatorship – and there was therefore still latent aristocratic hostility to holders of imperial office (and some remaining sentiment supporting a return to the republican system).
[...] In order to rebuild the devastated parts of Rome, Nero decided to increase taxes on the provinces – which would have hit the great provincial estates owned by the aristocracy. But to make matters worse, Nero then went on, for the first time in Roman history, to debase the Empire's coinage by issuing silver coins that were only 80% silver (with the rest of their weight being mainly in copper).
[...] he still insisted that taxes (including taxes on aristocrats) had to be paid in pure silver - not in his own new debased coinage. The fire-induced coinage changes thus meant that the aristocrats' plebeian tenants paid their rents in debased coinage, while the aristocratic estate owners had to pay their imperial taxes in pure silver.
It was largely through that monetary process that Rome's Great Fire metamorphosed into a political one. After almost 2000 years of silence, Professor Barrett's new investigation is the first to reconstruct those post-fire financial mechanisms that led to Rome's temporary political collapse (attempted revolution, followed three years later by military revolt, civil war, mass murder, mutiny and barbarian uprisings).
Politically, psychologically and socially, Nero was one of the most interesting rulers of the ancient world. [...] The poorer, less educated sections of the population seem to have adored him. His complete disregard for upper-class behavioural norms scandalised the elites – but did not damage his standing among the poor. On the other hand, the social and economic elites (including more liberal-minded intellectuals and others) tended to loathe him.
But his huge building projects and large-scale public employment schemes (which, in modern times, have sometimes been compared to Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal) endeared him to ordinary working class Romans. And his refusal to help the wealthier victims of the fire (including those elite families who had lost their palatial homes to the flames) also, no doubt, appealed to those nearer the bottom of society.
[...] As well, as marrying three women (and killing one or possibly two of them!), he also married two (or possibly three) men. In at least one of those same-sex unions, Nero was the bride – while, in the other, he was the groom. Same sex relationships (including under age ones and unofficial marriages) were widely accepted in the Roman world – but only if they respected Roman social and gender power norms.
Freeborn men (including high status ones) were expected to be the dominant (i.e. penetrative) partners in any sexual relationship (whether heterosexual or homosexual) - and (by being the bride in at least one of his male marriages), Nero deliberately and very publicly defied that convention. In homosexual relationships, social norms also required the non-dominant partner to be a slave or ex-slave - and again, Nero defied that convention by becoming the bride (rather than the husband) of an ex-slave.
The Emperor also defied social convention in other ways. Although he physically obliterated much of his own family, he seems to have craved the adoration of ordinary citizens. Contrary to the accepted social norms that applied to elite Romans, he adored performing acts of athletic, theatrical and musical prowess in front of the general public.
[...] some Christians believed that he would return to Rome as the Antichrist. ... Nero appears to have sought to scapegoat Rome's small Christian community for the fire - and ancient sources suggest that he launched a persecution of them and that St Peter and St Paul will both executed during his reign.
[...] although Nero exploited the Great Fire to rebuild Rome, the accusation, that he started it, is almost certainly unfounded. “The traditional theories that Nero himself started the fire, or that Christians started it (to hasten the second coming of Christ) are both almost certainly wrong. There is absolutely no credible evidence supporting either of those two explanations,” said Dr Barrett, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia.... (MORE - details)