To answer your question though, if things went as IOTL save for Nero’s suicide, he would have been first imprisoned and then executed. No Roman emperor in Rome’s history was deposed and got to live to tell the tale, save for Vetranio, whose elevation and abdication were arranged from the beginning, and Romulus Augustus, when the very title of Emperor in the West wasn’t even worth holding any longer. From Nero’s death, things go pretty much as IOTL, except there won’t be Nero pretenders popping out every once in a while in subsequent years.
Nero just had to keep his nerve and he would have kept his throne. Galba had just one legion with him, Julius Vindex had already been defeated, the worst of the rebellion had been stomped out, and most of the generals were still loyal to him. A swift and decisive action on Nero’s part would have crushed Galba.
The Praetorian Guard would have just offed him then. The only difference is we don't get the apocryphal quote "what an artist dies with me".
Couldn't they have been bribed off by Nero and the Senate to let him live but he is placed under arrest?
Then why didn't Nero do that to begin with?
Because he thought the Senate wanted to kill him as well and he was super paranoid?
I was under the impression that the Senate were unwilling to kill him as he was the last Julio Claudian and instead wanted to work out an arrangement. Wouldn't that mean Nero remains princeps but stays under house arrest with very little power and no communication with outside world?
This is a topic I've given some thought to.
Suetonius claims that after fleeing Rome, Nero "turned over various plans in his mind, whether to go as a suppliant to the Parthians or Galba, or to appear to the people on the rostra, dressed in black, and beg as pathetically as he could for pardon for his past offences; and if he could not soften their hearts, to entreat them at least to allow him the prefecture of Egypt."
It's interesting to ponder what would have happened had Nero decided to go to Parthia. Had Nero somehow made it to Parthia unhindered, I think Vologases I would have supported him since as Suetonious says "when Vologases sent envoys to the senate to renew his alliance, earnestly begged this too, that honour be paid to the memory of Nero. In fact, twenty years later, when I was a young man, a person of obscure origin appeared, who gave out that he was Nero, and the name was still in such favour with the Parthians that they supported him vigorously and surrendered him with great reluctance." I don't know if Parthia would have intervened militarily for Nero, but as evidenced in the War of Armenian Succesion that ended 5 years earlier, Parthia still was capable of confronting Rome on near equal terms. In 68, Vologases even offered Vespasian 40,000 horse archers for use in gaining control. I also rember reading somewhere, though I can't find a source, that Parthia raided Roman Syria sometime in the 70s.
So had Nero made it to Parthia, Vologases might have used him as a pretense to invade the Roman East with a goal of relitigatimg the previous Romano-Parthian War and reasserting sole Parthian Control over Armenia, especially with Corbulo dead and Vespasian and his legions occupied in the end stages of the Jewish Revolt. This is not unprecedented, Artabanus III almost invaded Rome when a persuasive Psuedo-Nero came to Parthia, and only desisted when he learned his Nero wasn't the real deal, this happened again during the reign of Domitian.
With 3 legions busy in Judea, and another legion having taken significant casualties in the beginning stages of the revolt, Roman eastern defences were undermanned. Proclaiming his support for the restoration of Nero, Vologases could have enacted a campaign similar to the Pompeian-Parthian invasion of 40 BCE, complete with some Roman defectors and support in Judea. With Vespasians forces straddling the way to lightly guarded Egypt, Vologases probably would have focused on Galatia and Cappadocia, taking Antioch and maybe venturing as far south as Damascus while supplying material aid to Jerusalem and causing local Roman client kings to rethink their allegiances.
Vologases began the Parthian trend away from Hellenism and was active in promoting older Achaemenid ways. Perhaps he would have used this opportunity to try and recreate the old Achaemenid empire. I'd imagine in this situation that some of the chaos of the Year of 4 Emperors would not happen, that with Nero still alive Otho would not assasinate Galba for fear that the Senate might invite Nero back. However, due to the time necessary time for Nero to reach Ctesiphon, and Vologases to plan an invasion, the Rhine and Vitellius might already be in revolt against Galba. Depending on how succesful the Parthian invasion is, I could see the unruly Danubian legions and possibly Vespasian declaring for Nero. In that case, with entire richer Eastern half of the Empire under his dominion once again, facing a fractured set of opponents there could be a restoration of Nero, where with Partian support he reascends to the throne. I would not want to be a Senator in this timeline, much of Roman aristocracy would get purged to the extent that Sulla would look like angelic in comparison.
Well as far as we know he didn't try. Even without support from the senate, his military commanders weren't obeying his commands, he had no palace guard, and Galba was far more popular. Considering the situation he was in, even someone who isn't paranoid would see the writing on the wall. He's getting offed by the Praetorian Guard.
Galba wasn’t more popular than Nero, he got his head cut off months after taking power, while Nero’s memory was still much cherished around the empire. Nero just needed more strenght of character and he would have recovered, instead at the first sign of trouble he completely lost it, even when his generals, without his orders, were fixing the situation. Indeed, they would have all obeyed, had Nero bothered to give any orders.
At the end of the day, the decision would rest on the emperor, and Galba would never take the risk to let Nero live only for someone to try to restore him. As for the pretorians, they refused to obey him because they could see he was unresponsive, paranoid and unwilling to take any action. In other words, he was a lost cause, that’s why they stopped backing him. Also, Sabinus, one of the prefects, wanted to make his own bid for the throne.
I meant that Galba was more popular THAN NERO. I know he isn't the most capable, otherwise there wouldn't have been a "year of the four emperors". If Nero was so much more popular, then he would have stayed as princeps. No, if he was so "cherished", then he wouldn't have suffered the fate he did. He was only popular in the east like Judea.
A lot of revisionists really want to exonerate Nero and Caligula.![]()
I thought Galba refused to declare himself emperor until after Nero was confirmed dead? He was rebelling not to make himself emperor but to end the perceived tyrannical actions of Nero. He respected the legitimacy of the dynasty and his actions upon becoming emperor showed he never really wanted the job. What he wanted from the rebellion was only to force Nero to back down on his tax and spend policies.
As for the praetorians there's a difference between deserting Nero and murdering him. If another claimant can sway them maybe they will kill Nero but I doubt it since they killed Sabinus their own commander after he tried to declare himself emperor. Kill the last scion of the dynasty would also look bad so supposing someone managed to win the loyalty of the legions (a tall order given the prestige of the dynasty) they would choose house arrest instead.
Galba wasn’t more popular than Nero, lots of popular emperors lost their thrones and lives, Nero lost against Galba because he broke down, he was just a weak boy never fit to be emperor, and what happened in 68 fully displayed it.
I have no simpathy for Caligula, he brought his death upon himself by trying to turn the Roman Empire into an Hellenistic monarchy when the time wasn’t right, and rather viciously at that. He may not have been as crazy or as bloodthirsty as sources paint him to be, but his overbearing ego and his failures as emperor are facts.
Nero though, I won’t go around and say he was a good emperor, he wasn’t, but neither he was a maniac out of his mind. He was just a boy thrust upon a role which never belonged to him as a person. Years from his death, people laid flowers in his memory in Rome, he was loathed by Senators, but the masses had a whole different opinion. Verginius Rufus, when faced with the choice, sided with Nero. From the East no generals pledged for Galba before Nero’s death. In no way Galba was more popular than Nero.
Galba wasn’t more popular than Nero, lots of popular emperors lost their thrones and lives, Nero lost against Galba because he broke down, he was just a weak boy never fit to be emperor, and what happened in 68 fully displayed it.
I have no simpathy for Caligula, he brought his death upon himself by trying to turn the Roman Empire into an Hellenistic monarchy when the time wasn’t right, and rather viciously at that. He may not have been as crazy or as bloodthirsty as sources paint him to be, but his overbearing ego and his failures as emperor are facts.
Nero though, I won’t go around and say he was a good emperor, he wasn’t, but neither he was a maniac out of his mind. He was just a boy thrust upon a role which never belonged to him as a person. Years from his death, people laid flowers in his memory in Rome, he was loathed by Senators, but the masses had a whole different opinion. Verginius Rufus, when faced with the choice, sided with Nero. From the East no generals pledged for Galba before Nero’s death. In no way Galba was more popular than Nero.
A
Wrong, early on he was a boy set upon the throne (by his mother), with the help of the murder of his stepfather. However, he became a maniac later on. He had his mom killed FFS. If he was so popular, Vespasian wouldn't have demolished is fething golden palace to build the Colosseum.
He was a maniac. Perhaps not as much as Commodus or Elgabalus (that's more a reflection on the late Princeps), but a tyrant nonetheless.
Either way, to the point of the OP, as I pointed to before, he was dead either way. You just miss out on a semi-memorable quote attributed to a sociopath with power.