Was Nero Really A Crazy Emperor?
By: Federico Sacchi
Tags: Roman, Rome, Ancient History, History, Roman Empire

Was Nero Really A Crazy Emperor?

Imagine your worst enemies writing your biography

Nero becomes Emperor (1867) | Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Public Domain

Marked as one of the worst Roman emperors ever lived, Nero isn’t exactly considered as a good example. However, as we dig into his life, we can discover some interesting facts that can change our opinion of him.

What if those who wrote against him had specific interests to do so? What if the primary sources we have to reconstruct his personality are that of those who opposed him? Let’s examine the accusations against him.

The accusations

Insolence, lust, audacity, greed, and cruelty, at first, were revealed in him gradually and almost mutedly, as a kind of errors of youth, yet, until then, no one could doubt that these were vices proper to his disposition, not of age. After dark, he grabbed a hat or cap, went around, and wandered around the wards, having fun doing harm to others. He beat those who came home from the banquets, and if they reacted, he usually hurt them and threw them into the sewers. Sometimes he would burglary and ransack the shops and open a shop in his house, where he auctioned the loot and shared the proceeds. Often in such brawls, he risked losing his sight and even his life, and he was once almost beaten to death by a senator for stretching his hands on that man’s wife — Suetonius

The first and most famous accusation towards Nero is that of being a horrible person, even before being a bad emperor. The ancient historian Suetonius has no kind words in describing his personality.

Nero is depicted not only as evil but also as crazy, lustful, greedy, and cruel. Not, indeed, a person you would like to be friends with.

Well, at least apparently. Where’s the trick here, you say? Suetonius and the other most famous historians — Cassius Dio and Tacitus — were all aristocrats. Nero’s politics was centered around the needs of the lowest classes, not the highest ones. Combine this fact with Nero’s hate towards the senate, and you have your motivation for his biographers’ hostility.

Young Nero with toga (1st century CE) | Roman artwork, Public Domain (Photograph by Jastrow)

For example, Nero raised taxes for the highest classes so he could provide food distributions to the poor. This is a historical fact. How did the aristocrats manipulate it? It was simple: they omitted food distributions and said that Nero used that money to order expensive parties.

Of course, you may wonder: but then, why don’t we have at least one old apology of Nero? The answer is easy: the only ones who could get educated and acquire the ability to write were the aristocrats. So, even if a blacksmith or a farmer had loved their emperor, they wouldn’t have been able to pass down their approval century to century: they couldn’t write!

You may be surprised to know that an ancient historian, Josephus (37–100), while not having a positive opinion of Nero, openly wrote that many historians had altered many pieces of information in his life:

There have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero. Some of them have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him. Others, out of hatred to him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred since those writers lived a long time after them — Josephus

As time goes forward, we finally had a commendation of Nero in the 16th century. The Italian mathematician Gerolamo Cardano wrote an apology of the emperor, presenting him as a savior for the lowest classes and as an enemy of the unworthy privileges of the highest ones.