Why is Nero a girl and potrayed in a sympathetic light? Pretty much everyone in Rome hated him, and he was a selfish evil bastard, not to mention incompetent as fuck and a child murderer.
>>137185744
its not only nero, faggot
>still not scanned
>>137185744
fanservice
>>137185744
>Pretty much everyone in Rome hated him, and he was a selfish evil bastard, not to mention incompetent as fuck and a child murderer.
All of that was pretty much proven to be false my modern historians anon. As an emperor, Nero was actually pretty mild and just was unlucky to live in a bad period.
>>137185900
She's literally Nero you retard
>>137185986
Him killing kids of rival houses is a fact. Modern historians agree that he was one of the worst emperors
>>137185744
He was also gay as fuck
>>137186028
No, modern historians agree that he was a rather clever man and really popular among the roman citizens and the senate.
The whole monster side was something made up by Roman elites who were antagonized by him and Christian, the two groups that oh what a coincidence were the ones who controlled the writing of history for the next few centuries. But the truth is that he wasn't more of a monster than other emperors, he was just demonized decades after his death.
Also, he never burned Rome and no serious historian claims that today without other historians laughing at his face.
>>137185744
https://www.academia.edu/9939510/From_cautious_ruler_to_cruel_monster_The_development_of_the_image_of_Nero_as_murderer_arsonist_and_persecutor_of_Christians
Anon we have a /his/ board now you could ask this on, unless this is a thinly veiled Red Seiba thread
>>137185744
>Pretty much everyone in Rome hated him, and he was a selfish evil bastard, not to mention incompetent as fuck and a child murderer
>He fell for senate propaganda
Literally everyone in the senate hated him, yet he was very popular with the common folk.
>>137185986
So he was the Obama of emperors?
>>137186135
Citations needed.
>>137186914
He had his support in the senate too, but he had a good bunch of enemies among the roman elites.
"De vita Caesarum" did a lot of damage.
>>137186290
The whole thing is so badly written, it can't possibly be from a credible self-respecting historian.
It reads like a highschool essay.
>>137187023
Pretty much most of the studies and papers on Nero in the last thirty years.
There is even one in this very thread.
>>137187072
See >>137187071
That was written by a graduate student anyway. I'd rather trust the opinion of established and reputable historians.
>>137187071
Papers are just bad and uninteresting readings overall.
Still, that's more or less the consensus today about Nero, nobody takes seriously "De vita Caesarum" anymore because Suetonius was a really subjective source as he has his own sharing in political intrigues and took sides a lot. Add all the fantasies and omens he adds just to give a bit of flavor to history.
>>137187143
There is no consensus. It's only a significant minority of historians who seek a historical revisionism of Nero being a terrible man.
The vast majority of historians that are specialized on Roman history believe Nero was indeed much more brutal than usual emperors.
Historians like Edward Champlain are not in majority.
The sources portraying Nero negatively isn't just Suetonius, it's also Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
Maybe some of Nero's actions were exaggerated but most of them bare his name.
>>137187132
The reason why most historians take that stance today is because all the important sources of Nero's life come from sixty years after his death and from sectors who he antagonized, so it's obvious there is a lot of propaganda there to make him look more bad. Most of the Julio-Claudian emperors had their own sharing of bad stuff, but compared to what people like Augustus did, Nero just seems like a scapegoat to blame.
>>137187280
>most historians
They don't. Stop repeating that lie.
>>137187280
>all the important sources of Nero's life come from sixty years after his death and from sectors who he antagonized
There could be reason to be skeptical but historical revisionism solely based on skepticism of a source will only lead to speculation and nothing more.
Evidence always trumps speculation. And the evidence points to Nero being particularly brutal and insane.
>it's obvious there is a lot of propaganda there to make him look more bad.
That's just speculation. The parts of Roman society Nero was against could also be saying the truth. Just because you're oppressed doesn't mean everything you say suddenly becomes a lie.
>>137187253
>There is no consensus. It's only a significant minority of historians who seek a historical revisionism of Nero being a terrible man.
I'm an historian myself and I can say you that I haven't seen anybody taking the stance of Nero being more brutal than the other Julio-Claudian emperors. Actually, everyone who argued using those legends (like the burning of Rome and the Sporus castration) was looked down upon as using someone who used made up stories as a source.
>The sources portraying Nero negatively isn't just Suetonius, it's also Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
Tacitus was twelve years old when Nero died and he was a lackey of the Flavian dynasty. Cassius Dio is not even a contemporary source, he lived 100 years later.
>>137187393
>Evidence always trumps speculation. And the evidence points to Nero being particularly brutal and insane.
But there isn't a single evidence that points in that direction from contemporary sources. All the sources that claim he did all that stuff are from after he died.
>>137187445
>I'm an historian myself
If you want people to believe you, make sure you get the spelling and grammar right first.
There is no survey about modern historians opinion of Nero but most of the historians who wrote about the period or Nero personally are quite clear on him being particularly wicked.
>Tacitus was twelve years old when Nero died and he was a lackey of the Flavian dynasty.
And that is still better evidence than speculations.
>>137187473
Tacitus lived in a time where many people who were alive during Nero's reign would remain when he wrote the annals.
Cassius Dio wouldn't have met any of them.
People just hate Nero because
>They killed muh saints.
>>137187393
>>137187591
>If you want people to believe you, make sure you get the spelling and grammar right first.
I don't care if you don't believe me, I'm not even an english native speaker. Still, using ad hominem will not prove your point.
And Nero's fiddling as Rome burned was proven to be a legend. The same about other atrocities like what happened with Sporus.
>And that is still better evidence than speculations.
Speculations? You want actual contemporary sources that paint Nero in a good light? Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, Dio Chrysostom and Seneca the Younger for example.
All of those were contemporary to Nero and never said anything about him that Suetonius,Tacitus or Cassius Dio claimed... people who weren't even there. So they are a better source than any of them.
>>137187591
>If you want people to believe you, make sure you get the spelling and grammar right first.
Depending on how he pronounces it, what he wrote was correct since a/an depends on how beginning vowel sound. :^)
Also, Nero was loved by the people. Stop skipping your history classes.
>>137187591
>most of the historians who wrote about the period or Nero personally are quite clear on him being particularly wicked.
Old history writings, sure. Now it's more or less in debate. That's the thing with history, it's supposed to be revised all the time because the veracity of the sources can't be proved perfect because of a lot of factors (better sources can show up, the one who wrote that was being subjective, the source is incomplete).
http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2015/12/11/actualidad/1449837567_576654.html
>>137187720
>Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
Neros close friend and who was given important status thanks to that.
Clearly unbiased
>Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
>Neros tutor
Unbiased source anon
>>137187808
>Depending on how he pronounces it
I don't care
If he pronounces it 'istorian OR an historian he deserves to be raped
>>137187676
>>137187720
>Still, using ad hominem will not prove your point.
And using reverse ad hominem (by claiming you're a historian, which is probably a lie especially on 4chan) doesn't prove your point.
>Nero's fiddling as Rome burned was proven to be a legend.
Tacitus didn't even give much credibility to the notion that Nero did it. You're grasping at straws at this point.
Dio Chrysostom wrote very little about Nero. So expecting him to mention or dwelve into any bad things Nero did is silly.
Nero ordered Seneca to kill himself when the latter wasn't even part of a conspiracy.
Lucan was part of Nero's circle and fell out of favor with him. He ended up saying some pretty bad things about Nero in poems. And that's according to the poet Statius. Particularly, according to Statius, Lucan is describing Nero as a criminal tyrant whose flame is burning heights of Remus. And like Seneca he ended up being killed by Nero.
The more you dig deeper, the more you realize Nero was a particularly wicked figure.
>>137187808
>Nero was loved by the people.
So was Hitler.
>>137187822
It seems like it's a majority since most papers are now revisionist. What's been said has already been said, what's being written now is just speculation that lacks evidence. Lots of new historians and graduate students are trying to make a name for themselves. The way they do it is historical revisionism. That's not particularly wrong... when there's evidence like archaeological.
>>137185744
>a fate thread
>>137187918
All sources are biased, that's the whole point. Still, from a historiographic stanpoint those are most valid than Suetonius and Tacitus (also biased) because of being contemporary.There are also alleged claims about Seneca being behind Nero's suicide, but that's also being disputed.
And nobody is saying that Nero never did awful things, just that he wasn't any worse to other emperors in the same dynasty.
>>137187882
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9995690&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0075435815000982
That's a good one too yeah, but anon will not care because he read a book about Nero being a bad guy and that's the truth period for all eternity.
>>137185744
Actually, even Nero admits that she's selfish and incompetent. Also, doesn't really deny what gave her a bad alias.
>>137187996
>which is probably a lie especially on 4chan
Bringing the 4chan conspiracy isn't giving you more credibility.
>>137188132
And then F/GO shits on all of that by making Nero a Mary Sue in the Roma chapter who gets fellated by all the other summoned Roman emperors that can't stop gushing about how great she is. Even fucking Romulus.
>>137187996
>And using reverse ad hominem (by claiming you're a historian, which is probably a lie especially on 4chan) doesn't prove your point.
I never tried to prove my point with that, just that it's silly to fall into such accusations in the first place.
>Nero ordered Seneca to kill himself when the latter wasn't even part of a conspiracy.
Tactius is the source of that so we are just going in circles with that.
>Statius
As far we know, Statius never met Seneca or Luca so he was just making up stuff about something he never experienced for the sake of dramatism.
>That's not particularly wrong... when there's evidence like archaeological.
Well, those actually exist, but can be said to paint him in good light because it was during his reign so nobody would make coins or inscriptions against the Emperor.
And you can't blame it just to new historians because reputed late scholars like F.W. Clayton wrote a lot about how reliable our sources on Nero atrocities. You also mentioned Edward Champlin and he isn't new blood precisely.
>>137188698
Or Brent D. Shaw as was posted earlier.
>>137185744
>Pretty much everyone in Rome hated him, and he was a selfish evil bastard
not even /his/ but this is triggering me
>>137187996
>It seems like it's a majority since most papers are now revisionist. What's been said has already been said, what's being written now is just speculation that lacks evidence. Lots of new historians and graduate students are trying to make a name for themselves. The way they do it is historical revisionism. That's not particularly wrong... when there's evidence like archaeological.
Or you know, the information we have can lead us to think that maybe our sources aren't that correct as we thought and we should probably look for other sources to compare and reach a conclusion. It could be said that's what it's happening with some classical sources in the last decades and events like these are always object of revisionism, so blaming it to new historians and graduate students to reinforce your point is just silly.
>>137185744
Can't be a saber clone without a 'tragic' backstory for the otaku to latch on
>>137188949
King Arthur was a selfless king, also a warlord who defended the Isles from barbarians.
Nero was just a punk ass bitch who did anything he wanted because he can. He's a poor man's Gilgamesh.
>>137187996
>So was Hitler.
Are you retarded?
Have you ever studied history outside of your highschool books?
Nero was loved by the people because he was:
a)A huge narcissist
b)Hated the senate and most of the nobles' guts
c)Believed that the people are what made the Empire
You cunts are always quick at whipping out sources for slander and talking shit about stuff or people you don't like but always leave out very important facts.
>Under Nero, restrictions were put on the amount of bail and fines. Also, fees for lawyers were limited. There was a discussion in the Senate on the misconduct of the freedmen class, and a strong demand was made that patrons should have the right of revoking freedom. Nero supported the freedmen and ruled that patrons had no such right.
>The Senate tried to pass a law in which the crimes of one slave applied to all slaves within a household. Despite riots from the people, Nero supported the Senate on their measure, and deployed troops to organise the execution of 400 slaves affected by the law. However, he vetoed strong measures against the freedmen affected by the case.
>After tax collectors were accused of being too harsh to the poor, Nero transferred collection authority to lower commissioners. Nero banned any magistrate or procurator from exhibiting public entertainment for fear that the venue was being used as a method to sway the populace. Additionally, there were many impeachments and removals of government officials along with arrests for extortion and corruption
>When further complaints arose that the poor were being overly taxed, Nero attempted to repeal all indirect taxes. The Senate convinced him this action would bankrupt the public treasury. As a compromise, taxes were cut from 4.5% to 2.5%. Additionally, secret government tax records were ordered to become public. To lower the cost of food imports, merchant ships were declared tax-exempt.
No fucking surprise he was loved by the commons.
>>137188141
People lie on the internet. Welcome to the 21st century.
>>137188698
>I never tried to prove my point with that,
You did or else that comment would be unnecessary.
>Tactius is the source of that so we are just going in circles with that.
Seneca being killed as part of a conspiracy against Nero is not something Tactius would made up.
>Statius
Statius corresponded with Lucan.
On the matter of historians: F.W Clayton and Champlin are not the majority. I was refuting the notion that Nero being not particularly wicked for a roman emperor was a consensus for historians (or at least historians specialized in Roman history).
>>137188939
I'm not saying there's no room for skepticism. I'm stating that skepticism itself is not evidence of anything.
Skepticism is good because it leads to efforts into looking for more evidence. But it is not proof in itself.
>>137189026
And Hitler was loved by the people because he was
>Huge narcissit and charming
>hated the previous german elites who were accused to have a hand in screwing over Germans.
>Believed that average German is what made the nation strong and prosperous
And Hitler did a lot of social reforms. He also made possible the new industrialization of Germany and raise the living standards of many.
That doesn't wash off his sins, like Nero.
You're a retard who's incapable of making any parallel.
>>137189026
>quoting verbatim from wikipedia
So you were projecting about your ignorance of Roman history except from highschool material.
People who at least took some courses in university or read books on the matter, wouldn't need to quote verbatim from a wiki article.
>>137185744
>Why is Nero a girl and potrayed in a sympathetic light?
Because boobs.
>>137189288
>>hated the previous german elites who were accused to have a hand in screwing over Germans.
And ironically became the very cause of the demise of his nation unlike Nero
>>Believed that average German is what made the nation strong and prosperous
>Average German
That's why he hunted down jews and other minor ethnic groups that were a part of Germany's population, most of which were arguably the some of the most renowned minds in his nation, right? Nero never did anything like that.
>That doesn't wash off his sins, like Nero.
His "sins" are as average as those of any roman emperor and not even comparable to what people like Caligula or Elagabalus did.
The fact that Nero was one of the few emperors who took the side of commons AND made a lot of great stuff in general for the empire already puts him in a way better light than a lot of other emperors.
If you wanna say that he was a faggot with a lot of fetishes, well fuck you, that was the norm back then.
>>137189355
If you actually looked at those references they are all literally taken from Tacitus and Suetonius, if you kids can't be bothered to actually spend a few seconds to check the sources of what people quote you shouldn't try to be sassy, you only look like idiots.
>>137189630
>And ironically became the very cause of the demise of his nation unlike Nero
Germany's adversaries were far stronger than Rome at Nero's time.
>That's why he hunted down jews and other minor ethnic groups that were a part of Germany's population,
They were not the average German. A minority is not the average, you retard.
You should learn basic English and logic before attempting to discuss something that's clearly too complicated for a simpleton like you to understand...,
>those references they are all literally taken from Tacitus and Suetonius
Then write in your own words after reading those sources.
The fact that you're incapable of doing that and need to resort to quote word by word a wiki user interpretation of a source instead of doing it yourself, shows you're unfamiliar with the topic.
I'm not even disagreeing with the quotes. I'm questioning your lack of basic cognitive abilities. And the fact that you can't even tell the difference is more proof that you're a retard.
>>137189827
>Germany's adversaries were far stronger than Rome at Nero's time.
Nero also didn't start wars like a retard.
>They were not the average German
They were literally the average german citizen since centuries, Jews and other minor groups such as Polish communities were a part of Germany's populace since forever. Problem is that Hitler's idea of "average" German was cringeworthy racial bullshit with neither rhyme nor reason, and the results of that notion are well known.
So instead of telling others to learn basic English or logic you should heed your own advice, learn to read between the lines a bit more and also study a bit more history since you have enough time to look like a moron on the internet, nice punctuation by the way.
>Then write in your own words after reading those sources.
So you're butthurt I didn't waste time to rephrase an article?
I don't have time to spoonfeed tourettic retards like you, stop posting and take a walk outside, your brain needs oxygen.
>>137185744
>Believing propaganda about rulers
I really hope you do not do this.
