https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/22/was-nero-cruel-british-museum-offers-hidden-depths-to-roman-emperor
interesting re the split between opinions of the elite and the plebs
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?
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!
Proof, if any was needed, that history is not always written by the victors, but only by the literate.
8)
A great fiddler though, by his own account.
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.
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
And more...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/24/fiddler-framed-nero-good-guy-emperor-british-museum
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.
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 25, 2021, 10:13 AM
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
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?
Quote from: RichT on May 25, 2021, 10:49 AM
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?
It seems to me from a basic understanding of Roman politics that it depended a great deal on the relationship one had with the Emperor. The plebs in Rome, provided they had bread and circuses, probably liked the Emperor of the day unless news of some disaster broke out from the rarified elite ranks, like a major defeat. Senators having to deal with trying to keeping the legions happy, screw money out of the system and avoid the Emperor molesting their wives and daughters had a different perspective. People in the provinces were so distant from the centre that, most of the time, it was about the handling of local issues by local leaders that engaged them not moral judgements about the guy at the top.
Quote from: Mick Hession on May 25, 2021, 10:43 AM
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.
Or course. He had the temerity to keep his promise to the woman he loved and marry her even though she was a commoner. Then he went off and became a papist (gasp!). To make matters worse he said this: "suppose... there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different [religious] opinions as for being of different complexions." Unacceptable! And then he
acted on his convictions and passed the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, negating the laws that punished Catholics for being Catholics and Protestant Dissenters for being Dissenters.
That was the last straw.
He had the singular misfortune of being about two centuries ahead of his time and history has never forgiven him for it. Ah well... ;)
James II was rubbish at keeping on being king, the first requirement on the job spec of a Good King.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 25, 2021, 11:17 AM
Quote from: RichT on May 25, 2021, 10:49 AM
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?
It seems to me from a basic understanding of Roman politics that it depended a great deal on the relationship one had with the Emperor. The plebs in Rome, provided they had bread and circuses, probably liked the Emperor of the day unless news of some disaster broke out from the rarified elite ranks, like a major defeat. Senators having to deal with trying to keeping the legions happy, screw money out of the system and avoid the Emperor molesting their wives and daughters had a different perspective. People in the provinces were so distant from the centre that, most of the time, it was about the handling of local issues by local leaders that engaged them not moral judgements about the guy at the top.
Emperors had to be wary of other members of the elite who might seek to replace them and if you weren't paranoid to begin with the nature of the job would change your attitude soon enough, I suspect - many of the atrocities visited on the senatorial class may just reflect an excess of caution on the part of the incumbent. The lower classes by contrast were relatively easily pleased and not an existential threat once certain conventions were observed. In fact, were any incumbent emperors overthrown by the mob?
cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on May 25, 2021, 03:04 PM
In fact, were any incumbent emperors overthrown by the mob?
Off the top of my head, the closest was probably Didius Julianus. Killed by the Praetorian Guard in time honoured fashion, but the crisis that led to the usurpations by Severus and his rivals, and his murder, are credited to the Roman mob being a tad displeased at his austerity measures to rustle up the money to pay the Praetorian donative that he had promised to get the throne.
I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.
Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.
Third would be to keep being king after that.
The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else
One of the most intense good/bad king debates is over Richard III.
I find it difficult to get interested. Most people judge historic figures through the lens of contemporary values which to my mind is nonsense.
Quote from: Mark G on May 25, 2021, 08:31 PM
I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.
Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.
Third would be to keep being king after that.
The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else
I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. :-\
Quote from: Dave Knight on May 26, 2021, 05:43 AM
Most people judge historic figures through the lens of contemporary values which to my mind is nonsense.
It's a bit inevitable, though. Even if we do the "good historian" bit and try to apply what we understand were the values of the time, the past has to be related to the now. And even if we apply the values of the past, we do so as outsiders because we come from the " foreign country" of the present.
I think the best approach is to try and get a rounded picture of past figures in the context of their time and circumstances, rather than look for heroes or villains. But I think you can't avoid having a better opinion of some than of others.
Quote from: RichT on May 25, 2021, 10:49 AMThat said, Roman Emperors do seem to have been carpet-eating, favourite-keeping, drooling loonies right from the start
All of them? Most seem to have been capable enough. They weren't overly concerned about the approval of the masses since their power was built on the army. Give the plebs some free grub and entertainment and remind them the Praetorian Guard lived at Rome if they had any notions about wanting more. The plebs for their part were subordinate enough and the upper class had no choice but to kowtow - or take the really risky option of assassination, and that was done only as a last resort. It was potential rival generals who were the emperor's real problem.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 26, 2021, 07:24 AM
Quote from: Mark G on May 25, 2021, 08:31 PM
I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.
Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.
Third would be to keep being king after that.
The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else
I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. :-\
In the Middle Ages, I would suggest you got yourself the priviledges of clergy before making such radical suggestions. Otherwise, your career at court may have been short :)
Most of the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" emperors came to the throne at a relatively early age. Nero was 17.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 25, 2021, 11:26 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on May 25, 2021, 10:43 AM
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.
Or course. He had the temerity to keep his promise to the woman he loved and marry her even though she was a commoner. Then he went off and became a papist (gasp!). To make matters worse he said this: "suppose... there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different [religious] opinions as for being of different complexions." Unacceptable! And then he acted on his convictions and passed the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, negating the laws that punished Catholics for being Catholics and Protestant Dissenters for being Dissenters. That was the last straw.
He had the singular misfortune of being about two centuries ahead of his time and history has never forgiven him for it. Ah well... ;)
Yes, the reality was quite different from the popular view. Removing the legal discrimination against Catholics and Dissenters is what did for him. A third of the land of England had changed hands via the Reformation. Many of the beneficiaries felt their title threatened and the rest is history. Land, money and power as ever.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on May 26, 2021, 08:29 AM
Most of the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" emperors came to the throne at a relatively early age. Nero was 17.
Someone said somewhere that every Emperor who became Emperor before the age of 25 went mad. It probably had something to do with becoming a god before you were old and creaky enough not to take it too seriously.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 26, 2021, 07:24 AM
I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. :-\
Ha ha ha! What a quaint and ridiculous notion!
Concerning James II, I imagine that he was in favour of tolerance of Catholics not because he was in favour of tolerance, but because he was Catholic. But he is at any rate a good example of a ruler with a long Bad King historiography, who now has a number of vocal Good King defenders.
I don't suppose many of the various contenders for the Roman Imperial throne had any particular agenda of justice and welfare. I don't suppose they had any agenda at all, other than attaining power for themselves, and I don't suppose one of them could have given an acocunt of why they wanted power ('so that I can enact justice', I don't think so), the truth being that millions of years of evolution caused them to pursue power and status with no more idea of 'why' than a moth knows why it flies into the flame. Bollocks to 'free will'.
It's probably the case that it is very hard to give the sort of power and license enjoyed (?) by a Roman Emperor to any one man (or woman) without them taking a few bites out of the carpet, in the end.
Quote from: RichT on May 26, 2021, 09:04 AM
Concerning James II, I imagine that he was in favour of tolerance of Catholics not because he was in favour of tolerance, but because he was Catholic.
I find it interesting that James' detractors all run him down because of what they supposed his motives were or what they supposed he intended to do rather than what he actually did. Reading the Wiki article on him (hardly a partisan account) I can't see that he did anything wrong other than have a roving eye for the ladies.
QuoteI don't suppose many of the various contenders for the Roman Imperial throne had any particular agenda of justice and welfare. I don't suppose they had any agenda at all, other than attaining power for themselves, and I don't suppose one of them could have given an acocunt of why they wanted power
Marcus Aurelius?
"From my brother Severus, to be kind and loving to all them of my house and family; by whom also I came to the knowledge of Thrasea and Helvidius, and Cato, and Dio, and Brutus. He it was also that did put me in the first conceit and desire of an equal commonwealth, administered by justice and equality; and of a kingdom wherein should be regarded nothing more than the good and welfare of the subjects."
With apologies to Douglas Adams
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made Emperor should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 26, 2021, 09:14 AM
I can't see that he did anything wrong other than have a roving eye for the ladies.
And so alienating his subjects that they kicked him out, thus rendering his plans for indulgence moot, whatever his motives might have been. (And I don't know what his motives were; but anyway we are a couple of hundred years out of period.)
Quote
Marcus Aurelius?
Ah, the one sane Emperor. :)
Quote from: RichT on May 26, 2021, 09:44 AMQuote
Marcus Aurelius?
Ah, the one sane Emperor. :)
The
Meditations were his self-medication for depression - proto-CBT.
If one were to attempt in eighty years to reconstruct the details of a modern leader's contribution on the basis of a few celebrity tweets, the odd facebook rant and a couple of incomplete Guardian articles, you probably wouldn't be too far off Suetonius!
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 26, 2021, 07:24 AM
Quote from: Mark G on May 25, 2021, 08:31 PM
I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.
Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.
Third would be to keep being king after that.
The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else
I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. :-\
Actually avoiding civil war and a succession crisis is ruling your subjects with justice and seeing to their welfare
I suspect that achieving these was to meet the gold standard of Kings. Just as the ability to accept you've lost an election and step down is the gold standard of democratic politicians, for much the same reason, it avoids civil war and succession crises 8)
Exactly, Jim.
Once you have a mechanism for transfer of power without succession crisis or civil war, other things become more important, but if you can't guarantee that transition then avoiding it is the only thing that matters.
Consider what state America would be in if November had gone a different way. All those armed civilians, those states with army depots, those governors claiming legitimacy, those state assemblies exercising their rights. Those neighbours prepared to intervene to ensure their preferred form of stability...
Quote from: Mark G on May 26, 2021, 03:56 PM
Exactly, Jim.
Once you have a mechanism for transfer of power without succession crisis or civil war, other things become more important, but if you can't guarantee that transition then avoiding it is the only thing that matters.
Consider what state America would be in if November had gone a different way. All those armed civilians, those states with army depots, those governors claiming legitimacy, those state assemblies exercising their rights. Those neighbours prepared to intervene to ensure their preferred form of stability...
I think we have enough historical accounts of anarchic power transfers to avoid needing to use modern ones.