AD 64: The Year Nero Died

Keenir

Banned
What if Nero, Emperor of the Roman Empire, had died in 64 AD, during the Great Fire that had engulfed so much of the City of Rome?

Would this spare the Apostle Peter from being crucified in the wake of the fire?

Who was in line to inherit the mantle of Emperor, with Nero's abrupt departure from the mortal realm? Who might have seized the mantle?

And what - if anything - would this mean for the people of Judaea and for Rome's neighbors?
 
What if Nero, Emperor of the Roman Empire, had died in 64 AD, during the Great Fire that had engulfed so much of the City of Rome?

Would this spare the Apostle Peter from being crucified in the wake of the fire?

Who was in line to inherit the mantle of Emperor, with Nero's abrupt departure from the mortal realm? Who might have seized the mantle?

And what - if anything - would this mean for the people of Judaea and for Rome's neighbors?

Thre is NO evidence that Peter ever went to Rome much less was executed there.

What did Nero do to Judaea besides give it good governence?
 
Thre is NO evidence that Peter ever went to Rome much less was executed there.

What did Nero do to Judaea besides give it good governence?

Nero's appointees weren't exactly paragons of virtue or intercultural understanding. Of course there is little reason to think that another emperor would have done things differently. Judaea wasn't treated much differently from other provinces, it just reacted differently.

The Christian position could end up being massively different, though in all truth we don't really know enough about the actual events back then. Peter or no Peter, the law that declares Christianity an illicit religion and opens the possibility of persecution throughout the Empire appears to have been passed under Nero, following the fire of Rome. If it is true that Nero consciously chose to blame them, his death could lead to Christianity becoming a questionable cult subject to occasional expulsion, but generally tolerated, much like other un-Roman faiths. If the Christians were already suspects to many Romans, though, the events are more likely to go as per OTL (except Nero will get a better rep and his successor will be declared a monster).

The Jewish War is still likely to happoen, though it is possible that a new appointee will end it earlier and more comprehensively. The new emperor is liable to come from Gaul rather than the East. After the Pisonian conspiracy, a senatorial candidate is quite unlikely, and the dynasty is practically extinct.
 
Thre is NO evidence that Peter ever went to Rome much less was executed there.
quote]

Well, how could you say there is NO evidence for Peter being in Rome, or executed there. I do not know exactly what it says in the Bible, however, most christians acknowledge that it happen. Surely Christians were there when it happened so of course it was passed down through the generation. And why would there be evidence, Peter would not have been proabably been written about by Romans since he was just a criminal in their eyes, and they thought that Christians were like what Communists were in the 1960's.Therefore, there is great probably, almost likely, that it did happen. I personnaly believed it happened.


I don't percisely know how Nero governed Judaea, however the rebillion would still happen of course. There would probably be a civil war with generals reaching for the throne. It happened throughout Roman history. There was a civil war after Nero died in 69 AD! Vespasian would not be emperor probably. There would need to be a general with legions loyal to him. Any suggestions?
However, could Nero's position in history and how the Romans thought of him change because he died in the fire?
 
Thre is NO evidence that Peter ever went to Rome much less was executed there.
quote]

Well, how could you say there is NO evidence for Peter being in Rome, or executed there. I do not know exactly what it says in the Bible, however, most christians acknowledge that it happen. Surely Christians were there when it happened so of course it was passed down through the generation. And why would there be evidence, Peter would not have been proabably been written about by Romans since he was just a criminal in their eyes, and they thought that Christians were like what Communists were in the 1960's.Therefore, there is great probably, almost likely, that it did happen. I personnaly believed it happened.


Not to be a Christian basher or anything, but if you look at history, You may notice that early records kept by early christians and monks were quite abit biased for their own favor. Specially with the Apocolyptic Death Cult that Early Christianity was.
Plus froma more common sense view, having an apostle-hero die a martyr smacks of good propaganda.
 
If Nero dies in 64, then you don't have him taking control of all the land destroyed by the fire, and using it to increase the wealth of the Emperor. Also more then likely you a situation like in 68 when he died where you had 4 emperors in one year. If not that you have someone within the army or senate take command. History would then develop depending on that person.
 
Well, you wouldn't have the Colosseum, at least not on that spot, as it was built on the terrain of Nero's post-fire palace, which also was demolished.

Christian persecution probably becam a bit less intense, but someone as important as Peter (provided those sources are true), would probably still have been captured. The average Roman might not have hated Christians as much as Nero did, they still would've arrested their leader. Cut off the head and the snake is harmless, they probably would've thought.

Ofcourse, Chritianity was more like a Hydra, but that's hindsight.
 
Top