DBWI: Nero One of Rome worst emperor

Nero was probably one of the man that brought the Roman Emperor to untold might and prestige, WI he had been one of the worst emperor like say Caligula (Think insanely bad)
 
I don't know what would have happened. It's really hard to imagine.

That's like suggesting that Claudius had the potential to govern the country despite having the intelligence of a 6-year old.
 
The Romans may have never managed to whip the Germans into submission under someone else.

If he were insane like Caligula, he probably would have done the usual Roman psycho thing; touch little boys, try to make believe he was a god, marry his mother, put a horse in the senate. The usual.

OOC: Is Rome still up and running in this universe or did it still fall?
 
That's pure ASB, Nero a bad emperor, let alone one of the worst :eek:

Thanks to his efforts, a potentially disastrous fire was kept relatively harmless, and the area scoured by its flames was rebuilt for its inhabitants, with a sumptuous bathhouse added to it.

And let's not forget his wonderful plays, he was truly one of the greatest writers of theater of the Empire.
 
I don't know what would have happened. It's really hard to imagine.

That's like suggesting that Claudius had the potential to govern the country despite having the intelligence of a 6-year old.

Well they do say that Talent skip a generations

The Romans may have never managed to whip the Germans into submission under someone else.

If he were insane like Caligula, he probably would have done the usual Roman psycho thing; touch little boys, try to make believe he was a god, marry his mother, put a horse in the senate. The usual.

OOC: Is Rome still up and running in this universe or did it still fall?


I'd say just consider how different how Eastern Europe culture would be totally different.

Would there would have been an empire of the east, south, west and north?

OOC: Rome went down (look how many antique empire survived to our time), but it went down in a different fashion
 
I have an idea. Have him gat in a horse accident halfway though his Empeorership and make him meantally insane.
 
Actually, it's not completely out of character. Nero, for all his excellent qualities, was an eccentric of the highest order. Many historians today credit most of his foreign policy successes (both the Vespasianic campaigns in Germany and Felix' victory at Machaerus) to his subordinates. The role of his advosors, especially in his early years, is much more emphasised these days, and the legend of the 'genius philanthropist' tends to take a back seat. If you make his life take a different route - more confrontation with the senate, more strife in the family, a more assertive Britannicus faction - and he would likely revert to form as an early princeps. They were not pleasant people as a rule, and being asked to fill that kind of role at a young age (especialöly if you're a sensitive soul) is not conducive to good mental health.

Of course, 'worst' is pushing it. I can't see how Nero could begin to compete in that league.
 
It's a fair point that a lot of the accomplishments Nero is credited with were actually executed by his subordinates, but a lot of Nero's brilliance lay in his ability to recognize talent in others and delegate his power to the people who could use it most effectively. One of his more remembered traits was making appointments of governors, generals, and other officials that seemed completely random and insane at first, but worked out brilliantly.
 
It's a fair point that a lot of the accomplishments Nero is credited with were actually executed by his subordinates, but a lot of Nero's brilliance lay in his ability to recognize talent in others and delegate his power to the people who could use it most effectively. One of his more remembered traits was making appointments of governors, generals, and other officials that seemed completely random and insane at first, but worked out brilliantly.

I know. For example, his appointment of a complete unknown, such as Saul of Tarsus, as Governor of Iudaea turned out to be just brilliant. By reconciling the breakaway Nazarene cult with mainstream Judeasm, he managed to calm down the province for the next 50 years.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
:)) Nero, a tyrant? You would destroy the whole roman tourism. I mean, you've got the Domus Aurea in the middle of Rome, clearly one of the greatest construction projects of the past, and the poor guides would have to explain to the Japanese that the man who built it killed, pillaged, raped and other horrific acts, too gruesome to mention...

Ok, joke's over. I can't see it happen. Nero started the trend to eliminate the hereditary system of Imperial Rome, which everyone agrees was the only way to go after the excesses of the first emperors. Ok, he had no sons, so he wouldn't have lost much, but it's quite an accomplishment to denounce a system that made it possible for Nero to achieve the supreme seat. The 54-317 period is clearly a product of Nero's vision: good emperors, sharing their power with the Senate and the provincial assemblies, nominating as their successor the best man for the job.

One thing I would criticize him for would be his position regarding the eastern frontier. He conquered Germania, Hibernia and Dacia, but he left a mixed legacy in the east. The Heftalits invaded in 317 clearly because the Romans viewed the East only as a defensive frontier and made no efforts to help the crumbling Sassanids. Nero died in 98, 200 years earlier, but I still believe his policies influenced negatively the Eastern part of the Empire.
 
Ok, joke's over. I can't see it happen. Nero started the trend to eliminate the hereditary system of Imperial Rome, which everyone agrees was the only way to go after the excesses of the first emperors. Ok, he had no sons, so he wouldn't have lost much, but it's quite an accomplishment to denounce a system that made it possible for Nero to achieve the supreme seat. The 54-317 period is clearly a product of Nero's vision: good emperors, sharing their power with the Senate and the provincial assemblies, nominating as their successor the best man for the job.

Yea the sucession clearly defined what separate an Emperor from a king, since King often don't have to face assembly unlike emperor

Well what kind of Tyrant and his greastest act of madness could be an interesting question, but really that's pure speculation (Could go from burning Rome and blame it on Nazarenes and later to castrate a guy because he wanted to pseudo-marry him)

Still Nero and his sucessor probably redefine how the Europeans continent was seen, the developpement of the empire probably would affect the vision of the future ruler after the fall.

Some consider his conquest made the empire too big and accelarated the fall (even though it came many centuries later) do you think if the empire had somehow stagnate in its conquest it would have taken longer before an official fall
 
Last edited:
Yea the sucession clearly defined what separate an Emperor from a king, since King often don't have to face assembly unlike emperor

Well what kind of Tyrant and his greastest act of madness could be an interesting question, but really that's pure speculation (Could go from burning Rome and blame it on Nazarenes and later to castrate a guy because he wanted to pseudo-marry him)

Still Nero and his sucessor probably redefine how the Europeans continent was seen, the developpement of the empire probably would affect the vision of the future ruler after the fall.

Some consider his conquest made the empire too big and accelarated the fall (even though it came many centuries later) do you think if the empire had somehow stagnate in its conquest it would have taken longer before an official fall

Well, as I see it, Nero was the first roman ruler that recognised that Eastern adventures were pretty much doomed. While Caesar conquered Gallia, while Augustus tried to conquer Germania, while Claudius (the incompetent) managed not to screw the conquest of Britannia, everyone dreamt about Eastern riches, Eastern empires, Eastern trade. Even if Nero would have seemed an unlikely candidate for Northern expansion (let's remember his hellenic cultural background, plus his original attempt to move his capital to Corinthus), he accepted peace with the Parthians, adopted Tiridate as his vassal king of Armenia and forced peace in the East. He planted the roots for the eventual dissolution of the Euphratus frontier in 317, but, as I said, he cannot be only the one to blame.

Well, maybe the Empire would have lasted longer if it would have maintained its Mediteranean center. But after reaching the Baltic Sea, Vistula and Niester, it was only logical to assume that the Rhine and Danube would become the Empire's life lines.
 
Top