How bad was Nero really? - new BM exhibition

[Erpingham]

That said, Roman Emperors do seem to have been carpet-eating, favourite-keeping, drooling loonies right from the start. Is it plausible to put that impression down entirely to a few stuffy disapproving senators?

It seems to me from a basic understanding of Roman politics that it depended a great deal on the relationship one had with the Emperor.  The plebs in Rome, provided they had bread and circuses, probably liked the Emperor of the day unless news of some disaster broke out from the rarified elite ranks, like a major defeat.  Senators having to deal with trying to keeping the legions happy, screw money out of the system and avoid the Emperor molesting their wives and daughters had a different perspective.  People in the provinces were so distant from the centre that, most of the time, it was about the handling of local issues by local leaders  that engaged them not moral judgements about the guy at the top.

[Justin Swanton]

Indeed. And even "the real" person can be judged good or ill depending on the observer's perspective: Elizabeth I and Victoria would be considered far less favourably in my neck of the woods than in England, I am sure. Though we can all agree James II was rubbish.

Or course. He had the temerity to keep his promise to the woman he loved and marry her even though she was a commoner. Then he went off and became a papist (gasp!). To make matters worse he said this:  "suppose... there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different [religious] opinions as for being of different complexions." Unacceptable! And then he acted on his convictions and passed the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, negating the laws that punished Catholics for being Catholics and Protestant Dissenters for being Dissenters. That was the last straw.

He had the singular misfortune of being about two centuries ahead of his time and history has never forgiven him for it. Ah well... 

[RichT]

James II was rubbish at keeping on being king, the first requirement on the job spec of a Good King.

[Mick Hession]

That said, Roman Emperors do seem to have been carpet-eating, favourite-keeping, drooling loonies right from the start. Is it plausible to put that impression down entirely to a few stuffy disapproving senators?

It seems to me from a basic understanding of Roman politics that it depended a great deal on the relationship one had with the Emperor.  The plebs in Rome, provided they had bread and circuses, probably liked the Emperor of the day unless news of some disaster broke out from the rarified elite ranks, like a major defeat.  Senators having to deal with trying to keeping the legions happy, screw money out of the system and avoid the Emperor molesting their wives and daughters had a different perspective.  People in the provinces were so distant from the centre that, most of the time, it was about the handling of local issues by local leaders  that engaged them not moral judgements about the guy at the top.

Emperors had to be wary of other members of the elite who might seek to replace them and if you weren't paranoid to begin with the nature of the job would change your attitude soon enough, I suspect - many of the atrocities visited on the senatorial class may just reflect an excess of caution on the part of the incumbent. The lower classes by contrast were relatively easily pleased and not an existential threat once certain conventions were observed. In fact, were any incumbent emperors overthrown by the mob?

cheers
Mick

[DBS]

In fact, were any incumbent emperors overthrown by the mob?

Off the top of my head, the closest was probably Didius Julianus.  Killed by the Praetorian Guard in time honoured fashion, but the crisis that led to the usurpations by Severus and his rivals, and his murder, are credited to the Roman mob being a tad displeased at his austerity measures to rustle up the money to pay the Praetorian donative that he had promised to get the throne.

[Mark G]

I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.

Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.

Third would be to keep being king after that.

The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else

[Dave Knight]

One of the most intense good/bad king debates is over Richard III.

I find it difficult to get interested.  Most people judge historic figures through the lens of contemporary values which to my mind is nonsense.

[Justin Swanton]

I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.

Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.

Third would be to keep being king after that.

The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else

I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. 

[Erpingham]

Most people judge historic figures through the lens of contemporary values which to my mind is nonsense.

It's a bit inevitable, though.  Even if we do the "good historian" bit and try to apply what we understand were the values of the time, the past has to be related to the now.  And even if we apply the values of the past, we do so as outsiders because we come from the " foreign country" of the present.

I think the best approach is to try and get a rounded picture of past figures in the context of their time and circumstances, rather than look for heroes or villains.   But I think you can't avoid having  a better opinion of some than of others.

[Justin Swanton]

That said, Roman Emperors do seem to have been carpet-eating, favourite-keeping, drooling loonies right from the start

All of them? Most seem to have been capable enough. They weren't overly concerned about the approval of the masses since their power was built on the army. Give the plebs some free grub and entertainment and remind them the Praetorian Guard lived at Rome if they had any notions about wanting more. The plebs for their part were subordinate enough and the upper class had no choice but to kowtow - or take the really risky option of assassination, and that was done only as a last resort. It was potential rival generals who were the emperor's real problem.

[Erpingham]

I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.

Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.

Third would be to keep being king after that.

The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else

I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. 

In the Middle Ages, I would suggest you got yourself the priviledges of clergy before making such radical suggestions.  Otherwise, your career at court may have been short

[Cantabrigian]

Most of the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" emperors came to the throne at a relatively early age. Nero was 17.

[Anton]

Indeed. And even "the real" person can be judged good or ill depending on the observer's perspective: Elizabeth I and Victoria would be considered far less favourably in my neck of the woods than in England, I am sure. Though we can all agree James II was rubbish.

Or course. He had the temerity to keep his promise to the woman he loved and marry her even though she was a commoner. Then he went off and became a papist (gasp!). To make matters worse he said this:  "suppose... there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different [religious] opinions as for being of different complexions." Unacceptable! And then he acted on his convictions and passed the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, negating the laws that punished Catholics for being Catholics and Protestant Dissenters for being Dissenters. That was the last straw.

He had the singular misfortune of being about two centuries ahead of his time and history has never forgiven him for it. Ah well... 

Yes, the reality was quite different from the popular view.  Removing the legal discrimination against Catholics and Dissenters is what did for him.  A third of the land of England had changed hands via the Reformation.  Many of the beneficiaries felt their title threatened and the rest is history.  Land, money and power as ever.

[Justin Swanton]

Most of the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" emperors came to the throne at a relatively early age. Nero was 17.

Someone said somewhere that every Emperor who became Emperor before the age of 25 went mad. It probably had something to do with becoming a god before you were old and creaky enough not to take it too seriously.

[RichT]

I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. 

Ha ha ha! What a quaint and ridiculous notion!

Concerning James II, I imagine that he was in favour of tolerance of Catholics not because he was in favour of tolerance, but because he was Catholic. But he is at any rate a good example of a ruler with a long Bad King historiography, who now has a number of vocal Good King defenders.

I don't suppose many of the various contenders for the Roman Imperial throne had any particular agenda of justice and welfare. I don't suppose they had any agenda at all, other than attaining power for themselves, and I don't suppose one of them could have given an acocunt of why they wanted power ('so that I can enact justice', I don't think so), the truth being that millions of years of evolution caused them to pursue power and status with no more idea of 'why' than a moth knows why it flies into the flame. Bollocks to 'free will'.

It's probably the case that it is very hard to give the sort of power and license enjoyed (?) by a Roman Emperor to any one man (or woman) without them taking a few bites out of the carpet, in the end.