Talk:Nero/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Nero. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nero Mini-Series

I'm not a long a time registered user, but I think that the two-part 2004 mini-series "Nero" (also called "Imperium: Nerone") should be added. Its not highly accurate, but if Rocky and Bullwinkle get a mention, this mini-series should get a mention.

Nero DVD

I watched a DVD on Nero last night. Got it at the local blockbuster. I found out there is a Wikipaedia entry for the movie Nero. It may not be accurate 100% historically but probably worth a link from the main Wikipaedia entry for Nero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakamsani (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Name

Where did the name Tiberius Claudius Nero Domitianus Caesar come from? I think it is wrong or at least very unusual. The names of Nero are known as:

Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (at birth)
Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus (at adoption)
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus(when Emperor)
Imperator Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (later during his reign)

CharlesS 09:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does Nero mean something in Latin?

Didn't he commit a suicide on June 9 ????

I have read somewhere I cannot recall, but it was not directly from an ancient source to be sure, that "Nero" means "strong" in Etruscan; if this be true, then it is probably a corruption of the Etruscan word. "Nero", to the best of my knowledge, has no meaning in Latin whatsoever taken per se. Lucius Domitius 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Latin personal names in -anus, like Domitianus or Octavianus, denote the gens the individual originally hails from and are given in instances of adoption; it would seem reasonable that Nero belonging to the gens Domitia would be called "Domitianus" and the string "Tiberius Claudius Nero" has denoted several members of the Claudian house, being the name of Emperor Tiberius' father, Tiberius himself before his adoption by Augustus, the Emperor Claudius and others probably. So the name Tiberius Claudius Domitianus Caesar seems in fact appropriate although I have never encountered it on an ancient testimony. In fact since "Nero" is a cognomen I have always wondered myself what his actual praenomen was after his adoption by Claudius: was he called Tiberius? Did he retain "Lucius"? I would be grateful to anyone clearing this matter up for me, preferably providing some reference to a text or inscription. Lucius Domitius 02:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

His adopted name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. Nero had been used as praenomen since the time of Tiberius' brother Drusus the elder (whose name was Nero Claudius Drusus). Germanicus probably had this praenomen before his adoption by Tiberius, as did his son Nero Caesar. Here is an aureus issued under Claudius showing Nero's name. Sometimes the Caesar was left off as in this sestertius. The praenomen Tiberius had already been taken by Britannicus. I'm sure Domitianus was probably at the end but left unsaid. LaurenCole 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nero and the Fire

Christians were killed by dogs, not lions.

"Modern historians still debate the causes of the fire and those responsible for the fire. Nero and the Christians remain popular suspects while others consider the fire to be an accidental disaster."

The former sentence is true; I'm not convinced the latter is. Who argues that the Christians really set the fire? Indeed, it seems unlikely even by most historians that Nero arranged the fire to provide a clean start for his later projects. In terms of damage he was the single greatest victim, so if it was planned it was impressively incompetent.

As I understand it current majority opinion is that it really was likely to have been an unfortunate accident. Unless someone provides a link to a contrary recent discussion I will rewrite accordingly.

I believe that the fire in Rome was an accident. No one started it as there is no clear evidence that either the Christians or Nero himself did it. I saw "The Caesars" documentary which claims evidence that Nero tried to put out the fire. At the end of the day, they needed someone to pin it on and Nero chose the Christians cause they were easy scapegoats. When you consider that the Roman had heard that the Christians, "Ate the body and drunk the blood of their saviour" you can almost understand Nero thinking they better be rid of. How was he meant to know it was symbolic. He was a bit bonkers, sure... But I doubt hightly he set Rome alight and doubt even more that he sat back and just watched it burn. --Camblunt100 14:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, there are two accounts of Nero and the Fire. Account 1- Nero didn't do it, but killed Christians (Tacitus) because he was mean and liked blood. Account 2- Nero did it and sang (Suetonius). No one claims that Nero did it and blamed the Christians. Tacitus' reasoning is ambiguous. Modern historians tend to believe that Nero didn't do it, but blamed Christians to avoid the blame himself. Tacitus falls short of claiming Nero did this, instead opting to claim that Nero had bloodlust rather than a calculating mind. Because of this, Tacitus' words leave open the possibility that Christians were to blame.

The main supported for the theory that Christians did burn Rome is Professor Gerhard Baudy. But his ideas seem to have recently spread due to television productions based on them. See among others:

The theory is based on the long standing concept that Christians of the 1st century were anxiously waiting for the world to end in fire and/or other disaster. The idea is that fanatics among them would not only celebrate otherwise natural disasters as signs of the second coming of Jesus Christ (which is attested) but seek to hasten the end by planting their own disasters. I have found this theory supported or discussed in several recently published Greek publications. Please rewrite if I have misrepresented the popularity of the theory but do mention that Nero is not the only suspect. User: Dimadick

Was just browsing and came across this inconsistency. I hope someone who knows more about Nero than me can set the record straight.

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (December 15, 37 AD - June 9, 68 AD ... His death on June 6, 68 was reportedly the result of suicide assisted ...

Bdice 20:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess this exemplifies how choatic it was in the Year of the four emperors ... :-) -- PFHLai 20:53, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Just informing about some recent edits to the "fire" section. Removed the "forged" reference concerning the letter to Seneca, as the citation it refers to does not back this up. If someone can provide a citation, this can go back in. Removed the paragraphs beginning with "It should be noted that other than this incident, there is no report of Nero abusing Christians or the Christian religion." and Most likely, this was an act of political desperation , as they are uncited and constitute original research.Djma12 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the Numerology stuff be removed from this article? Sure Nero purportely threw early Christians to the lions, but the number of the beast is not helpful information in describing this historical figure.

"Nero had to engage in scapegoating of his own and chose for his target a small Eastern sect called Christians."

I dont think its right to say he "had to"

Jonatan 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nero and the Olympic Games

As far as I can see Nero's participation in the Olympic Games is not mentioned at all. This article only hints at his travel to Greece (where he stayed for more than a year). Instead, Nero's artistic preference is slightly exaggerated. Nero even forced Olympia to postpone the games so he could participate, and of course did he win - and was rewarded with the laurel.

The Greeks even erected a villa for him on the holy grounds of Olympia. The foundation and some mosaics and frescos can still be found there on the archaeological site and in the museum.

Besides - I'm not really sure what to make out of all these citations and historical sources. Do these long paragraphs of cited texts really belong into a encyclopedia? A short summary or a reference should be good enough - not to mention the fact that some of the translations are just.. awful.

--Guo 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1800 medals at the Olympics?

Today my history teacher told the class that Nero awarded himself 1800 medals at the Olympics, can anyone confirm or deny this?

No, I can't, but you might as well get something useful out of that: (1) see if you can find out where they read that (if they read it at all and not just made it up); (2) ask them what their source was: that's the first thing a historian does. Aha, you tell me X; now tell me how you know it....

"Medals" is exceedingly unlikely, by the way, since medals are an invention of the modern Olympics: in Antiquity, victors got crowns of various foliage. But loosely speaking, one might say "medal" to get something across to a class. 1800 is also unlikely, since there were very few events compared to modern Olympics, and Nero didn't last long enough to get 'medals' in many Olympic Games: but then just maybe he managed to make them award him more stuff than there was available. On balance, my guess is the story is fabrication or at least gross exaggeration. Good luck tracking it down: it's what historians do for a living! Bill 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

As with Caligula, I'm seeing a harsh discrediting of any negativity toward Caligula. It gives the impression that Suetonius had a grudge against him and simply wanted to besmirch his otherwise flawless name. This viewpoint needs to be turned down greatly. It also needs to read more like an encyclopedia article as opposed to an academic essay proposing the aforementioned idea. AdamBiswanger1 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Were the sources biased against him or not?--Panarjedde 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the article completely discredits the commonly held view that Nero was a monster. I wouldn't be so quick to doubt this. AdamBiswanger1 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any criticism? The article is filled with Suetonius' and Cassius Dio's ridiculous claims. Both of them were, without a doubt, biased. Other classical sources claim Nero was very popular and Josephus accuses othes of slandering Nero. In short, Suetonius is but one source. His words have prevailed in fame, but, in truth, they are not accurate.

Funny how you should note that some classical sources claim that Nero was popular, especially in the east, as the source for these statements are Cassius Dio and Tacitus ;-) It's difficult to read through each author's historical bias, but it's excessive to claim that *all* the historians on Nero had an ax to grind, especially since there is a high degree of consensus among the three major sources (outlandish stories aside.) Furthermore, the Josephus defense isn't so much that Nero was unblemished, but that some past sources were exaggerated.

Of course, it's appropriate to include statements questioning historian POV in a wiki article, but it should be stated as proposition, not fact. Djma12 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've included (moderated) statements on the possible bias of historical sources, do we need the POV warning anymore? I'm removing it but feel free to add it back on (along with a rationale) if you feel it appropriate. Djma12 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nero in ancient literature: Link to self?

Why in each of the topics in the Nero in ancient literature section does "main article" link to this very same Nero article? I keep this for posterity, but I realize that they are directed to parts of the site that for some reason no longer exist, the sections on Jewish Tradition, Christian Tradition, New Testament, and Later Christian Writers. In the past couple of days the following disappeared:

Jewish Tradition
At the end of 66 conflict broke out between Greeks and Jews in Jerusalem and in Caesarea. According to a Jewish legend in the Talmud (tractate Gitin 56a-b) Nero came to Jerusalem and told his men fire arrows to all four corners of the earth (wherever they fired, all the arrows landed in the city). Thus he realized that the Lord had decided to allow the Temple to be destroyed. He then asked a passing Jewish child to repeat the verse he had learned that day (a common Talmudic method of telling the future). "I will lay my vengeance on Edom through the hands of the my nation Israel [for destroying Jerusalem]..." (Ez. 25,14) said the child. Nero became terrified, realizing that the Lord would punish him for destroying his Temple, saying to himself, "God wants to destroy his people and wipe his hands clean of me." He then fled Rome and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution[3]. Titus was then dispatched to put down the rebellion - this led to the wholesale massacre of many Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem (the last remnants of the insurrection died at the stronghold of Masada). The Jewish tradition reconciles this view of Nero with that of Roman historians by alleging that they could not abide the idea of a Roman emperor converting to Judaism, and therefore made up the story of his insanity and subsequent suicide. [edit]
Christian Tradition
Because of Tacitus's claim about Nero blaming the fire on Christians, Christian tradition paints Nero as a first persecutor of Christians and the killer of Peter and Paul.
The Bible gives no indication on how or when Peter or Paul died. The bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (275-339) was the first to write that Paul was beheaded during the reign of Nero. Yet, other accounts have Paul traveling to Spain and Britian during this period. Peter is first said to have been crucified in Rome by the apocryphal Acts of Peter. [edit]
New Testament
Some religious scholars, such as Delbert Hillers (John Hopkins University) of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number 666 in the Book of Revelation is a code for Nero[4], a view that is also supported in Roman Catholic Biblical commentaries. [5] [6]. [edit]
Later Christian writers
Main article: Number of the Beast
Sibylline Oracles, Book 3, allegedly written before Nero's time, prophesies about the Anti-Christ and identifies him with Nero. However, it was actually written long after him and this identification was in any case rejected by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 5, 27–30. They represent the mid-point in the change between the New Testament's identification of the past (Nero) or current (Domitian) antichrist, and later Christian writers' concern with the future anti-christ. One of these later writers is Commodianus whose Institutes, 1.41, states that the future antichrist will be Nero returned from hell.

Was this the result of that idiotic vandal with the 216 ip address or was it someone else. A deletion like that should have an explanation (if not a discussion) on the talk page. Valley2city 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nero insane?

Multiple sources (books, documentaries, etc.) I've run across clearly portray Nero as not just cruel and deluded, but as insane. I just finished watching a Discovery Channel show documenting his reign and it shows him progressivly going mad as his reign went on, much like Caligula. It said that, after the fire, Nero became utterly distraught, and then idealistic. He ordered Rome rebuilt on a grand scale and the empire began to run out of money. Nero ordered the pillaging of temples and, eventually that members of the aristocracy will all their wealth to him and that they kill themselves on the spot, so that he could have the money. It also said that his obsession with the arts was so great that when his wife mentioned his dropping of a prop (a disgrace in ancient Roman acting), he kicked her to death. He talked of singing to the rebelling Gauls to appease them. He also said that because his murders and pillagings had gone unpunished, that he must be a god. That sounds pretty insane to me yet the idea of Nero being insane isn't even mentioned as a theory in this article. Most sources I have come across, in fact, not just the documentary, seem to be of the belief that Nero went insane. These are just examples of what I have heard and based on all that, I think the artice should be revised, or at least the facts checked. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 05:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Original sources sometimes call Nero cruel and sexually depraved, but none really call him crazy. Cassius Dio, the latest and least reliable classsical source, mentions the possibility in passing, but does not go into it seriously. If a biased sources that hated Nero don't really mention insanity, why should the article?

The above statement isn't mine, JSYK. Anyway, I agree. My sources state him as being cruel & all that, but refrain from calling him mad or crazy. It may have been a factor (honestly, sleeping with your mother is like soooo 4th Century people!), but I've yet to come accross a source in my books saying that he was indeed mad. It may be true, but I haven't seen it yet. Spawn Man 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's curious. It does make you wonder where these various documentations I spoke of got their information. The books I've read lean more to the cruel side but still seem to portray him as insane on at least some level. Now I don't own those books, I just perused them in libraries and I can't really remember the titles so that doesn't help. I don't know. It was a long time ago (68 AD). In the TV documentary, he was an absolute psycopath. Paranoid, delusional, out of touch with reality, cruel, and murderous. That was general impression I had of Caligula, not Nero. Perhaps there could be some confusion between the two. Then again, maybe he was crazy, Rome had its fair share of loonies. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 06:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Nero could have very possibly been insane, it's just that I can't find any sources on it. You never know, people never actually knew what depression was etc for a long time. So Nero could have been insane, but was attributed as being cruel etc. Anyway, Spawn Man 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladitorial dispute

In the overview section of the article, it states that Nero banned the killing of gladiators in Rome. However, the book I have just finished reading, "100 Great Live of Antiquity", states that he thought of banning it, but was in fact persuaded not to by his advisors as this would displease the Roman people. Does anyone have a citation for that claim, & if no one objects, I'll change the text to my reference's claim if no one can find one. If there is a cited claim for him banning the killings, then we could do the ol' "Some historians say he did ban the gladitorial killings, whilst others say he was told not to...." Thanks everyone, Spawn Man 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead with the new text. Posted this here for a few days, so I assume that it's okay... Spawn Man 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

About the public outcry

I saw that there is a small edit-revert war about whether there was a public outcry for the removal of Nero or not. According to my book (written by Arthur Weigall), Nero was very popular in the eyes of the people when he died. Therefore, I must agree with Hoshidoshi that they didn't want him to be overthrown.

We should keep the current edition. Introgressive

My source, 100 Great lives of Antiquity, edited & compiled by J. Canning, states that the people had grown tired & suspicious of Nero towards the end of his reign. This coupled with the military anger lead to his downfall. I want to know why Hoshidoshi has deleted my edits, both of which are cited, while his are not, & why he has removed all of my inline citations, stating that it is not an original source?! To my extent of knowledge, a book is a original source? Or am I wrong? I'd like some end to his reverts. I'm not saying there wasn't a military outcry, I'm saying that he hasn't got any book which says there wasn't a public outcry. I do have a source. Plus the sentences: "following Claudius' death. In 66, he added the title imperator to his name. In 68, Nero was deposed by a military coup. His subsequent death" sound really bad & short for an opening. That's why I want to add the outcry (source remember) to that middle sentence. Also, why has he consistantly removed "However, it may be impossible to differenciate between what is fact and what is fictious exaggeration" from the opening, which both explains the preceding text, but also is again cited. He's saying that it clutters the opening; take a look as Tyrannosaurus for a start & that is much longer. The reason why this article is B-Grade, is because it has editors holding it back. Am I allowed to make any edits to this article without it being reverted?? I have s ource, but apparently it isn't good enough. If this matter isn't sorted, I will have to request protection for the article before one of us gets blocked for violating the 3RR. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this user has indeed reverted all of my edits to the article - see [1]! All cited, all correct, all constructive & well written. They took a lot of my time, why is this happening? Spawn Man 04:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, and I don't advocate most of these reverts by this user. Maybe you should request protection. Introgressive 13:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to let the public outcry thing go, & just leave it as a military outcry, but my other edits are entirely truthful & my citations are reliable, in contrast to what Hoshidishi says. I've asked around for someone to interviene, as I don't want to have to protect the page, as that would only prevent beautiful edits to the page, which I think could easily be brought up to A-class or even FA status if Hoshi Doshi reliquished control on the page. Thoughts on how to solve this problem or come to an agreement anyone? Spawn Man 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "outcry" mean in this context? If the military was unhappy with Nero, isn't it already abundantly apparent in the very fact that they deposed him in a military coup? Why is any change needed? What is gained with the term "outcry" other than oddly painting a picture that they were somehow in pain. I just want facts listed.

Also, I don't agree that your citations were quite reliable, but that's discussed below.Hoshidoshi

Regarding military and public opinion after Nero died. According to Tacitus, the upper class was happy with Nero's death while the lower class mourned him:

The Senators enjoyed the first exercise of freedom with the less restraint, because the Emperor (Galba) was new to power, and absent from the capital. The leading men of the Equestrian order sympathised most closely with the joy of the Senators. The respectable portion of the people, which was connected with the great families, as well as the dependants and freedmen of condemned and banished persons, were high in hope. The degraded populace, frequenters of the arena and the theatre, the most worthless of the slaves, and those who having wasted their property were supported by the infamous excesses of Nero, caught eagerly in their dejection at every rumour. (Tacitus, Histories, Book I)

The local military was said to have been bribed by Galba to betray Nero. They were then not too loyal to Galba and wanted Nymphidius to be Emperor:

The soldiery of the capital, who were imbued with the spirit of an old allegiance to the Caesars, and who had been led to desert Nero by intrigues and influences from without rather than by their own feelings, were inclined for change, when they found that the donative promised in Galba's name was withheld, and reflected that for great services and great rewards there was not the same room in peace as in war, and that the favour of an emperor created by the legions must be already preoccupied. They were further excited by the treason of Nymphidius Sabinus, their prefect, who himself aimed at the throne. Nymphidius indeed perished in the attempt, but, though the head of the mutiny was thus removed, there yet remained in many of the soldiers the consciousness of guilt. There were even men who talked in angry terms of the feebleness and avarice of Galba. The strictness once so commended, and celebrated in the praises of the army, was galling to troops who rebelled against the old discipline, and who had been accustomed by fourteen years' service under Nero to love the vices of their emperors, as much as they had once respected their virtues. To all this was added Galba's own expression, "I choose my soldiers, I do not buy them," noble words for the commonwealth, but fraught with peril for himself. His other acts were not after this pattern. (Tacitus, Histories, Book I)

Citation

Yes indeed, I have no idea why you are reverting my edits to the article. There are a couple of points I'm amiss about. Firstly, all my edits are cited, or have a reliable source which I have provided. This shows that I'm not just adding rubbish to the article. Also, all my edits are well prosed & factual, as well as relevant to the article. Further, I'm confused why you deleted all my references because "Revert. "J. Canning" is not an orginal source". I don't quite understand. A book doesn't have to be an original source to be allowed. As long as it's real & factually accurate or gives a special perspective, then it is allowed. I've converted my "public outcry" sentence to both military & public oputcry, so that both our views are expressed. I would appreciate if you didn't revert any more of my edits to the article without asking first. I've asked on the Talk:Nero page, but you haven't replied. I feel we can get the article to FA status, but we need to work together. I'm not making a personal attack on you when I edit the article, I'm merely trying to improve it. You seem knowledgable in the subject & I am looking forward to working with you on it. Any questions, suggestions or frustrations, ask me here. Have a great day, Spawn Man 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I in no way want to discourage anyone from adding to the article, but I am quite frustrated when a secondary source (i.e. J. Canning) that I have never heard of is used instead of a primary source. Nero's primary sources are poor and biased enough, but they are all we have. A secondary source has merely read the primary and is coming up with his or her own opinion. The primary sources are all listed at the bottom and are online. Go to the source, read it, find what is said and report on it.

I have have problems with a number of your edits. Specifically, 1) what primary source discussed a "public outcry" for Nero's removal? Most describe him as popular. What is a "public outcry"? All of the Roman Empire? I doubt it. A few Spaniards that supported Galba? He was absolutely beloved in the east according to primary sources. He was emperor and considered devine. 2) Its not just fact and exadgeration. There are also just plain lies (i.e. dancing and singing during a fire)). 3) Original souce on gladiator fighting would be nice. 4) "Nero was often away performing opera or chariot racing. The majority of his work was deligated to his advisors and senior officers." Sources claim his advisors has a large role only in the first 1 (Dio) to 5 (Suetonius) years. 5) Nero had many failures as an emperor? What? 6) Why add this J. Canning citation randomly in places. No one desputes that Nero married Claudia. Why the citation? Are you advertizing this book or something?

--Hoshidoshi

Placed notice on your talk page. Note, you are currently in violation of 3RR. Spawn Man 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, since I've been asked to comment, four points:

Mass reverting is a bad way to build articles. Please discuss things before we devolve into a pure edit-war mode.
In general, respectable secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (which are notoriously difficult to work with, in many cases). Primary sources should be used only for purely descriptive claims; the broader assessments being drawn here really need to be sourced to the authoritative historians making them. (And, indeed, the article should generally follow the work of later historians as much as possible; if primary sources are used directly, it is very difficult to determine whether particular claims made in them are actually accepted by modern historians, or are considered fanciful.)
Further, more citations are generally a good thing. In theory, there's no reason why every statement in the article cannot be cited directly.
Having said that, Canning's name doesn't ring any bells; is he a particularly authoritative figure here? Certainly this period has attracted no shortage of historians; are there any that are generally regarded as authoritative? Those would be the ones to start working from, I think.

Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of 3RR. I did check, and "100 Great Lives of Antiquity" pulls up 65 Google hits [2]: it's not an entirely unknown work. It also appears to be used as a reference work here. Do you have a reference work which completely refutes this citation, Hoshidoshi? If you don't, Spawn Man's entry can stay. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm prepared to work together on the article with Hoshidoshi if he can behave accordingly. I've already said I'll let a couple of things go, such as the public outcry bit, which I had already given a joint solution to. In response to Kirill's comments, As I've said above, Canning is only the editor of the book who complied all the essay's. I didn't know how to show this in the reference, so if someone could, it would be great. Anyway, the person who wrote the essay which appeared in the book was a Michael Hardwick. I don't know who he is, but I hope that I've cleared up the misunderstanding about the Canning thing. I agree (although biasedly ;) with Firsfron, that unless you have a definite reference which strictly contradict's my source, then I would like to see my edits stay. If you have a better source than mine which does contradict me, then indeed my edits should go. However, if that is so, it's up to you to expand the article accordingly. I have many pages to write up here, but this disaggreement is halting progress on what could easily be a good article. Kirill, Firsfron, how long do I have to wait for a response from Hoshidoshi before I can get someone to revert to my previous edits or I can do it myself, (as this user doesn't seem that talkative...)?? Thanks a bunch guys... Spawn Man 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I advise leaving it alone for now, even if that means a few days. Your material can always be re-added, if Hoshidoshi provides no sources which refute yours. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As were my intentions.... Thanks for the reply... Spawn Man 03:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The outcry issue is above, of course. I did a mass revert because I didn't agree with the shading of the article that was added in the beginning and the oddness of the of 7 or 8 citations to "Canning". I don't feel Canning is famous or legitimate enough and I don't feel the citations were placed in the right place. Additionally, because Canning's text isn't online, it makes it very difficult to check the work unlike the more famous sources. Not all of the changes I disagree with, for instance, I'm checking on the gladiator issue, but it is an arduous task going through the entire article checking other people's work. Often people change articles to what they heard without researching themselves (i.e. I've changed "lions" back to "dogs" several times because people think it should be lions). Because the changes I found were a bit careless, I assumed the majority of changes would be. The whole process is meant to be a fun learning experience. I don't want any fighting or to discourage anyone from giving up and not contributing. I guess I favor discussing issues and coming to a consensus on things before editing the article. Hoshidoshi

Is that why you reverted all of my edits without consulting anyone first. I posted here first but it's not my fault if you can't take the time to read my posts beffore destroying hours of work. In any case, have you read any of the opinions given by the admins above? An author doesn't have to be famous to write a factually correct book. Heck, if I had access to the original sources I could write a good book too. As I've said above, Canning is only the compiler. The author of the paper that is in the book is Michael Hardwick. Not all books are printed online either. This is an older book (1980's) & not all books from that period were posted online. And if you answer back that my book is too old to be used then, then read some of the dinosaur articles which use sources from the 1920's. They're not on the internet, but they are still reliable. As Firsfron said, modern historians decide what is to be used, not biased historians from Nero's rule. There is no oddness adding a citation to an article. As Kirill said, every statement could in fact be cited, but I was only adding it to the ends of the paragraphs in which it supported the information. My changes are not careless. Have you heard the opening??? "following Claudius' death. In 66, he added the title imperator to his name. In 68, Nero was deposed by a military coup. His subsequent...". It sounds like a 5 year old's written it. My factually correct statements at least helped it sound highschool grade. The people were outcrying because Nero was spending too much time away from Rome trying to attain fame in the opera & chariot races. A lot of the work was delegated to the advisors. And when you assume, it makes an ass out of you & me. My work is always reliable. I think you need to brush up on the rules, especially on citations, verifibilty, & reverting. As the admins said, if you can't find a reliable source that clearly contradicts my source in a couple of days, then my changes can go back up. Thanks Hoshidoshi. Spawn Man 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not make this a flame war. I too have given countless hours of work to this article. Citation should be on a the word or line level, not the paragraph level. You have access to all the original sources. There are links at the bottom of the page. Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Cassius Dio, Plutarch, and Philostratus are all there. Modern historians base all of their opinions on what these guys said. The ancient historians often contradict eachother which is why the article is filled with "X claims...". None-the-less, there is nothing that a modern historian says that at least one of these guys also said. So, if you're quoting a modern historian, if he's correct, there's at least one ancient historian who agrees.

Exactly. My sources are right, regardless of whether yours are. That's what I've been saying all along. Citation need not be on the word or line level. I've worked on many articles & paragraph level is fine. The only time I put word or line level citations is when I put a claim such as "This restaurant is the best in the world." That comment would be unbelievable, so therefore one would need to place a source. For a paragraph which has about 10 sentences, all of which are sourced by a citation, it would be insane to place a citation after each sentence. Anyway, I'm still waiting for a reliable source which says I can't put my text up. Thanks Hoshidoshi for becoming more vocal. :) Spawn Man 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Banning the Killing of Gladiators

There recently has been some dispute whether Nero banned the killing of gladiators.

Suetonius claims that Nero didn't have any gladiators, even criminals, killed.

Is there anything that mentions that this order was not put in effect or repealed? Hoshidoshi

Well you're wrong in one case already! "Nero didn't have any gladiators, even criminals, killed" is wrong. When the great fire of Rome broke out, Nero blamed it on the Christians & thus many of them were killed. So yes he did in fact have prisoners labelled as criminals killed. This is what my sopurce says, quoted exactly from the book, but I won't use it in the article as that would bring copyright troubles:

"...In fact, he [Nero] professed to an abhorrance for taking human life: he had wanted to put an end to gladitorial combats to the death, but was persuaded that this would be unpopular with the people, who preferred blood to ballets any day. When he was compelled to sign a warrant for a justified execution he groaned that he wished he had never learned how to write his name..."

Exactly how it is said in the book. Besides, if Nero had put an end to gladitorial fights, why was the sport still continued for many years after his reign??? Spawn Man 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Nero, like all emperors, certainly had people executed. Suetonius is not talking about any people. He's talking about gladiators and criminals who were forced to be gladiators. After gladiators fought, the loser would be at the mercy of the crowd. The crowd could choose to have the loser executed. Nero banned the execution of losing gladiators, even criminals who were forced to be gladiators. Glatiator fighting still went on just not the execution at the end of a fight.

Now, regarding your source, what is it and where do they cite from? Here's the original ancient text for the ban:

"At the gladiatorial show, which he gave in a wooden amphitheatre, erected in the district of the Campus Martius within the space of a single year, he had no one put to death, not even criminals." (Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero, 12) Hoshidoshi

Back again, I've been reading through the old sources and I'm more confused than ever about the state of gladiator fighting. I realized the citation I have is only for one theater. I've found mention of Nero banning gladiator killing in some cities, but I have not found a empire wide edict, nor an attempt. I have found a ban on certain public entities running the entire fights. I found a modern source that claims a ban on capital punishment, which is very weird and not believable. I'll keep reading and hopefully something will come up to help clarify. Hoshidoshi

I don't think I'm the one who's confused here. You said that nobody was killed, not me. Then above you state that he did have people killed. Make up your mind before I lose my sanity! And as you said, it was not a national decree, so therefore, in some instances you are right, that Nero did put a stop to the killings. However, I'm also right in the fact that he didn't put a stop to all killings because that would be unfavourable. We could use a sentence like: "Nero was opposed to senseless killing; indeed he put an end to gladitorial fights to the death in some provinces, but was persuaded not to in the bigger coloseums by his advisors as this would be an unpopular choice with his people." Now that's an excellent sentence & incorporates both sources. Can we end this part of the dispute now that I've come up with a solution to satisfy both parties? Thanks, Spawn Man 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the gladiator line all together from the overview. I'm in the process of creating a "Nero, the Administrator" section that goes into his domestic work. I think your sentence, or something like it would go well in the new section. After all, this one issue is a little specific for an overview anyway. I should have something to show you tomorrow (I do have a real job after all). Hoshidoshi

Headline text

Hoshidoshi, I have given you about a week now to come up with suitable references, some of which you have. However, none strictly contradict my sources & therefore, by the advice of the admins, my edits are allowed to go back up. I hope now that this dispute is out of the way, we can both get on with making this article FA worthy. So I'd appreciate if you didn't delete or revert my edits now, unless they're obviously wrong, in which case could you leave a message on my talk page & I'll get back to you within 24 hours. I think this could be a very good article, but it just needs our cooperation. Will post this on your talk as well. Thanks Hoshidoshi, Spawn Man 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spawn Man, there are still major problems with your edits. Additionally, people have lives. I have been specially researching the gladiator issue. You're throwing in a bunch of edits and claiming I haven't responded. I have been, but this is a lot of work and reading. You're reading one article. I'm reading all of the original material. Let's go one issue at a time, please!

-In the opening, "however" is used incorrectly. "However" implies that a sentence will contradict what has come before (i.e. I went to the store. However, I didn't buy anything.) -In the opening, "fictious exaggeration" is not strong enough. People lied about Nero (i.e. he never burned Rome), it should be "fiction" -I have serious, serious problems with you randomly adding "J. Canning" places. Citation goes with a fact on the line level. You have added it randomly on the paragraph level. Plus, the source is still dubious. -Your edits in the overview are rough.: "Despite this predominantly calm and prosperous era in Roman history, Nero was often away performing opera or chariot racing." You're not using "despite" correctly. "Despite" implies that two halves are in contradiction (i.e. Despite being sleepy, the man went to work) "the majority of his work was deligated to his advisors and senior officers" This is discussed in length in the early rule section. It is unknown how much Nero was involved. Sources conflict. Additionally, the order of events is off. Nero started performing late in his rule and had advisor's influence was early in his rule. "Nero had failures like many other leaders". What failures? What did Nero fail at? The line is pretty general. -The fire has been a very touchy issue. I will be cleaning that up. "which he then pocketed for himself". What does that mean? Tacitus claimed Nero paid for the repairs himself.

Defense of Nero section

I have just editted the defense of Nero section so it is a little more objective. The previous edit stated historical bias as if were fact, rather than a specific POV, and this has been corrected. Furthermore, the section starting with "For instance, in 57, he removed the control of the administration of the treasury (aerarium Saturni) from the senate." has been removed because the citation is very unclear. This can probably return once a specific source is found. Djma12 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. POV can be avoided- we have Josephus and Dio Ch. I think in the future this section will change. Knowing the lense that Nero is seen through is important to understanding him. How to approach it without having a POV will be a challenge.Hoshidoshi

Thanks for the edits Hoshidoshi, appreciate your scholarship. I agree with you that the Seneca letter was probably forged, but do we have a citation for this? The past citation was to the actual letter and makes no mention of forgery. I think it's proper to put the letter in context, but the letter probably shouldn't even be in here until we have proper citation on it being a forgery. Secondly, I have issue with the statement that Nero was "the height of Pax Romana." Edward Gibbon makes the specific point that time of the "Five Good Emperors" (Nerva to Aurelius) was the height of Pax Romana, and it is also verified by external scholarship. In fact, even the wiki article on Pax Romana states this. Though the Lucanus did indeed write a poem about this time period, it can hardly be considered historical scholarship, and is only comparing the time period to previous ones (not to the rule, of say, Marcus Aurelius.)

I'll leave the "forged" commentary in for the time being but is is possible to track down a citation for this? In the meantime, I'm removing the "height of Pax Romana" statement but will leave the original statement in (with some edit.) Please feel free to comment. Djma12 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, can we really call a time period with one major war (Parthia) and three major revolts (Britannia, Judea, and Gaul, all three of which in response to Roman policy) a time of "relative peace and prosperity." In comparison to Caligua and Claudius, maybe, but not to Augustus and Tiberius and definitely not to Nerva - Aurelius.Djma12 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the whole concept of "Pax Romana" is suspect. The concept is abstract, dubious, modern and not supportable. Of course, one big misconception of Nero is that Rome suffered from his mismanagement. Nero may have been a bad guy in his personal life, but he actually administered Rome well and many people liked him for it. Hopefully, the relative prosperity of Rome can come out in other places in the article. Hoshidoshi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.162.143.21 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Expanded section on Philostratus. Noticed that it was a little odd that the anti-Nero sources have long sections questioning their reliability (appropriately), but that the only "pro" Nero source, a little known Athenian writer known as Philostratus, doesn't even link to his wiki article ;-) Furthermore, removed the "Senatorial" reference to historians, Philostratus cannot be considered even remotely influenced by the Senate. Djma12 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoshidoshi, like what you did with the re-arranging into "Defense" and "Assault." Much more succinct and readable. My only issue is the "Assault" is a bit strong, changing to "Criticism." Furthermore, adding a small section on the inherent bias of his defenders as well (mostly Greeks, all from outside of Rome.) Cheers, Djma12 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on Historians

Though I am completely in favor of highlighting the individual prejudices of Nero's biographers (both sympathetic and critical, is there a way we can condense this? The section on his biographers now takes up nearly 1/3 or the article. Djma12 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on condensing. I think a big problem with the whole article is that big quote chunks take up so much room. Hoshidoshi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.162.143.21 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Maybe we can make the whole controversy with Nero's biographer's into an entirely different article, then link to that in a "Historians" section? That way, we don't need to scrimp on fully detailing indivdual biases, and we don't take up 1/3rd the article with block quotes.Djma12 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Octavia "just died"?

Under Matricide and consolodation of power it says of Octavia's death:

In 62 Nero's adviser, Burrus, died.[47] Additionally, Seneca was again faced with embezzlement charges.[48] Seneca asked Nero for permission to retire from public affairs.[49] Nero declared a divorce to Octavia on grounds of infertility, leaving him free to marry Poppaea.[50] Octavia suddenly died on June 9, 62. To consolidate power, Nero executed some of his few remaining relatives that year as well-

Am I the only one who thinks this is underplaying her death somewhat? According to her own page Octavia was banished by Nero which resulted in discord among the populace, enough to make Nero reconsider marrying her. After Poppaea convinced him not to remarry, he signed Octavia's death warrant, having her killed as if she had committed suicide and her head then being sent to Poppaea. It sounds as though she didn't "suddenly die". Shouldn't it perhaps be corrected to include her execution and banishment? Saying she "suddenly died" doesn't really elude to her alleged exeuction, it sounds more like confirmation she either died of natural causes or did commit suicide but her own Wiki speaks of it firmly as being an execution. I think clarification on the event would be useful to keep both Wikis consistent. --Emperor Wu 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I fixed up the section. Octavia was a big enough deal for public protests. Her execution should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.162.143.21 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC).