
) 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.