How bad was Nero really? - new BM exhibition

[Duncan Head]

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/22/was-nero-cruel-british-museum-offers-hidden-depths-to-roman-emperor

[Imperial Dave]

interesting re the split between opinions of the elite and the plebs

[Duncan Head]

You get similar arguments with other emperors - all the senatorial historians hate Domitian and Maximinus Thrax, for instance, but does that mean they were bad emperors?

[Imperial Dave]

all depends on why the elites didnt like a particular emperor I guess. It could be because they were 'bad' in terms of running the state but equally they could have been a little more populist which normally hits senators in the pocket!

[Nick Harbud]

Proof, if any was needed, that history is not always written by the victors, but only by the literate.

[stevenneate]

A great fiddler though, by his own account.

[DBS]

Indeed, look at Hadrian.  Thought of by historians since Renaissance times as one of the better emperors; by the Anglophone community in particular for building "that Wall", but also because he was clearly an intellectual.  But really disliked at the time for extra-judicial murders of senators at the beginning and end of his reign, giving up Trajanic conquests (no matter how strategically sensible it now seems), and, perhaps most of all, just being so unbearably Hellenised.

[Imperial Dave]

unbearably Hellenised.

hirsute......

[Jim Webster]

I remember reading somewhere that not only was he popular with the plebs he was also popular with the Eastern part of the Empire (the predominantly Greek speaking bit) because he made an effort to take their culture and suchlike onboard
Indeed if he had managed to escape to the East, there may be the possibility that he could rally support

[Duncan Head]

And more...

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/24/fiddler-framed-nero-good-guy-emperor-british-museum

[Justin Swanton]

I think you need a little more evidence that the details of Nero's life were made up other than the idea that the upper class hated him and so invented it all. Neither article supplies that evidence (though, sure, the fiddling story has long been debunked). Nero could simply have been savvy enough to keep the plebs happy with bread and circuses, allowing him to deal with those nearer to him as he pleased. If I recall correctly, Caligula was also popular with the masses, at least initially, and he was out of his tree.

[RichT]

The conclusion - "The 'real Nero' ... is no longer recoverable" is reasonable though, if not very exciting. If it can be shown that all the accounts of Nero we have had an agenda, and if, even better, there are alternative accounts that give a different picture (which the article doesn't show but the exhibition might), then it would be fair to at least take the usual accounts with a pinch or two of salt.

The trouble with the whole Good King or Bad King approach is that opinion at the time was no doubt divided, for all sorts of reasons. Hitler (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) remained highly popular to the end, in some circles. Trump (at the risk of straying into politics) still is.

One thing I don't like is the idea that you can tell anything at all about a person's moral character by the shape of their face.
"[The statue] was heavily restored in the 17th century by a baroque artist who gave Nero that mad chin and depraved mouth". Mad chin? The beard is mad, I'll grant you, but the chin looks pretty sane. This is just the modern version of phrenology.

[Erpingham]

The trouble with the whole Good King or Bad King approach is that opinion at the time was no doubt divided, for all sorts of reasons. Hitler (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) remained highly popular to the end, in some circles. Trump (at the risk of straying into politics) still is.

Hitler, as a historical figure, is probably fair game.  Trump, as a contemporary politician , is a no-no under moderatorial guidelines, I'm afraid.

Taking the historical point, it is interesting how Good King/Bad King shifts depending on perspective.  Henry V, for example, is still often seen through the heroic lens of Shakespeare's play, whereas the real man was rather darker.

[Mick Hession]

Taking the historical point, it is interesting how Good King/Bad King shifts depending on perspective.  Henry V, for example, is still often seen through the heroic lens of Shakespeare's play, whereas the real man was rather darker.

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.

Cheers
Mick

[RichT]

Yup. Or Alexander. Baby-eating monster or heroic unifier of mankind? Good King/Bad King is usually an opinion or value judgement, not a historical fact, and given the separation in time from the likes of Nero, and dearth of evidence, it seems improbable that we can form a truly fair judgement now.

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?