A Case for Nero
By OJCL Historian Alex Grass (Seven Hills)
Nero has always been cast as arguably the worst emperor in Roman History
(see Alan’s Fall article). Historians from Suetonius to Cassius Dio state that he
even was playing his lyre as he burned down Rome to build his Domus Aurea.
However, in antiquity, historians were rarely objective, and it is time to take a
closer look at whether Nero is genuinely a terrible emperor.
In Nero’s first three years of public life, beginning when he was only 14,
Nero defended the Ilian and Apameans people in the Forum, requested tax relief
for cities suffering from earthquakes, and did the same after a deadly fire roared
through Bologna. After Claudius’ death, Nero came to power amid the most
considerable deflation of the first century of the Roman Empire. While Suetonius
writes that Nero funded huge and extravagant works which ruined the provinces,
the fact is that these were most likely public works and charity to help save the
poorest in the Empire from utter bankruptcy.
In emperor Nero’s first speech
before the state, he set out his goal as
ruler: to end the corruption of previous
reigns, to bring glory back to the title
of emperor, and to respect the Senators
and their privileges. Immediately
following this, Nero removed Marcus
Antonius Pallas, an ally of his
murderous and corrupt mother, from
his role as treasurer. Moreover, Nero,
beloved by the Populares, tried to rid
the Empire of taxes in AD 58 to free
many from this form of slavery.
Although the plan ultimately failed,
Nero’s love for his common man was evident.
Some might see his attempts to
kill his mother as a blemish on his
A presenter teaching OJCLers about the classics at
Fall Forum
page 15