Our history includes a ton of cruel leaders and crazy tyrants, to whom many outrageous events are attributed.
Nero, the 5th emperor of the Roman Empire, and whose reign crossed over the period between 13 October 54 and 9 June 68, is often associated with tyranny due to the amount of awful acts he committed during his reign.
One of those most infamous acts, is claimed to setting Rome on fire and watching it burn. Often prescribed as:
Nero fiddled while Rome burned
This statement is so famous, that a well-know software product used to burn CD/DVDs was called "Nero Burning Rom", and is still available around.
This misconception is the topic of this post, and while we are not defending Nero the emperor from all his tyranny, yet we are scientifically looking into proper historical evidence to confirm that this statement is not accurate.
On with the details
Rome actually caught a big fire on July 64, which lasted 6 days and caused 70% of the city to burn.
Historians nowadays agree, and due to several reports identifying that Nero was actually at his villa at Antium - 35 miles away from Rome at the time of the event, that his actual action on the burning and watching Rome burn is not correct.
They even argue that many of the atrocities associated with his reign were far from true, which they believe to be a general bias against Nero (referring to book: On general bias against Nero, see Edward Champlin, Nero, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003, pp. 36–52 (ISBN 0-674-01192-9) in first reference below)
In further details, Tacitus, a famous historian of the Roman Empire, reports that as Nero learnt about the fire, he headed back to Rome, and helped with the relief efforts. Reports even state that he opened his gardens for the now homeless, ordered emergency accommodation, cut down the cost of corn and provided food for people affected by the fire.
Tacitus also adds that a "rumor" spread among the masses that the emperor had sung of the destruction of Troy from his palace stage.
Being a rumor, there is no real scientific evidence that he actually initiated the fire, watched it burn, or sang while it did. On the contrary, reports above show that he took action to help out through the atrocity of the situation.
And how did the fire start? there is no clear evidence as to how it initiated, yet if Nero did not start it due to the lack of any proof, and for being outside the city as scholars agree, it could have started as an unintentional accident within shops through flammable goods.
And finally, Tacitus also recites that after the passing away of Nero, lower classes mourned his passing, while the senators, the lower classes welcomed it, which contributes to the notion of a certain bias against Nero.
This concludes our scientific research for the day, with the finding that Nero evidently did not stand still, or play the violin while Rome burnt, and this being a historical misconception.
Hope you learned something new today .. and thank you for stopping by!
From this series:
If you enjoyed this post, you might want to check out my earlier posts from the "Misconceptions" series:
- Misconception #6: Low Voltage Shocks Are Not Dangerous
- Misconception #5: Mount Everest is the Tallest on Earth
- Misconception #4: Ducks Quack Doesn't Echo
- Misconception #3: Ostriches Bury their Head in Sand When Scared
- Misconception #2: Water is a Good Conductor of Electricity
- Misconception #1: Humans Only Have 5 Senses
References:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
- https://www.thoughtco.com/nero-burning-rome-119989
- Some modern historians question the reliability of the ancient sources on Nero's tyrannical acts.
Photo Credits:
My posts aim to be contribute to the following projects:
- #steemSTEM / @steemstem - A project to increase both the quality as well as visibility of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (and Health).
- #steemiteducation / @steemiteducation - A project to promote high quality educational posts on Steemit.