|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 13, 2014 9:49:47 GMT
Emperor Nero played the fiddle or Violin while Rome burnt ...
That was supposed to be in around 64AD, but, as far as I can find out, it was almost 1,500 years later than that when the violin was invented?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2014 15:16:42 GMT
Emperor Nero played the fiddle or Violin while Rome burnt ... That was supposed to be in around 64AD, but, as far as I can find out, it was almost 1,500 years later than that when the violin was invented?.... the most plausible suggestion was that the original phrase implied that Nero fiddled around while Rome burnt - and was later interpreted to mean Nero was literally playing the fiddle. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 13, 2014 15:54:57 GMT
There are some sources, Cassius is one that claim that Nero deliberatly set the fire, in order to clear parts of the city he wished to redevelop with new buildings such as his Golden Palace, and celebrated as he watched those parts burn playing a Lyre rather than a Violin. This has been later transferred to being a fiddle.
If these are true or propaganda, is not clear he may even have been elsewhere at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2014 16:16:17 GMT
There are some sources, Cassius is one that claim that Nero deliberatly set the fire, in order to clear parts of the city he wished to redevelop with new buildings such as his Golden Palace, and celebrated as he watched those parts burn playing a Lyre rather than a Violin. This has been later transferred to being a fiddle. If these are true or propaganda, is not clear he may even have been elsewhere at the time. the first reference I heard addressing the myth said he was out of Rome at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 13, 2014 16:24:33 GMT
I think that it depends on which source you think is correct, there are some Pro Nero ones that claim he was elsewhere and returned to Rome quickly, giving out disaster relief in effect to those harmed by the fire, and Anti ones that claim he revelled in the fire as he was a giggling Madman playing the Lyre. I do not know what the modern consensus amongst historians is to what the real story is.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2014 16:29:21 GMT
I think that it depends on which source you think is correct, there are some Pro Nero ones that claim he was elsewhere and returned to Rome quickly, giving out disaster relief in effect to those harmed by the fire, and Anti ones that claim he revelled in the fire as he was a giggling Madman playing the Lyre. I do not know what the modern consensus amongst historians is to what the real story is. I think most historians agree that he was a rather inept ruler, and agree the highest likelihood was negligence rather than malice. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 14, 2014 7:33:57 GMT
That sounds most likely to me, now I have read a bit more.
So to answer SDs origianl question, he probably did not do it, but the accounts of the time where he used a Lyre not a violin.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 15, 2014 1:09:22 GMT
I know I've heard individuals speculate as to whether or not Nero was mentally ill, which could well speak to his being incompetent if he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 19, 2014 14:01:33 GMT
I had to do a report on this guy in High School & I was given an A by a very fussy (aka anal) teacher. My report started the following:
Nero DID NOT fiddle while Rome burned because as it's been pointed out the fiddle or violin hadn't been invented yet so he would have used a Lyre.
His enemies saying he did nothing while Rome burned was just anti Nero propaganda cooked up by his later detractors. (As every politician knows if you want to make yourself look better, smear the rep of the guy who came before you.) As it happens Nero WAS in Rome when the fire broke out, (there are reliable sources from the time that state as much) & he opened the doors to the grounds his palace to the general populace that was fleeing the fire.
The reason Nero gets such a bad rap for the fire is that he took over half of the burned out city & decided to convert it into his own private pleasure palace/grounds without compensating the homeless victims. This sparked the rumors about him starting the fire ect & eventually lead to Nero blaming & persecuting the Christians, using them as human candles at his BBQ's & such like. (& for these actions he has a justifiably earned bad reputation)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 19, 2014 15:14:03 GMT
I had to do a report on this guy in High School & I was given an A by a very fussy (aka anal) teacher. My report started the following: Nero DID NOT fiddle while Rome burned because as it's been pointed out the fiddle or violin hadn't been invented yet so he would have used a Lyre. His enemies saying he did nothing while Rome burned was just anti Nero propaganda cooked up by his later detractors. (As every politician knows if you want to make yourself look better, smear the rep of the guy who came before you.) As it happens Nero WAS in Rome when the fire broke out, (there are reliable sources from the time that state as much) & he opened the doors to the grounds his palace to the general populace that was fleeing the fire. The reason Nero gets such a bad rap for the fire is that he took over half of the burned out city & decided to convert it into his own private pleasure palace/grounds without compensating the homeless victims. This sparked the rumors about him starting the fire ect & eventually lead to Nero blaming & persecuting the Christians, using them as human candles at his BBQ's & such like. (& for these actions he has a justifiably earned bad reputation) After his death he had plenty of detractors IIRC, wasn't it called the year of the Four Emperors, with Vespasian eventually winning the Laurels ? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2014 8:59:35 GMT
Them Emperors were a pretty bad bunch when all is told...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 21, 2014 11:40:31 GMT
I had to do a report on this guy in High School & I was given an A by a very fussy (aka anal) teacher. My report started the following: Nero DID NOT fiddle while Rome burned because as it's been pointed out the fiddle or violin hadn't been invented yet so he would have used a Lyre. His enemies saying he did nothing while Rome burned was just anti Nero propaganda cooked up by his later detractors. (As every politician knows if you want to make yourself look better, smear the rep of the guy who came before you.) As it happens Nero WAS in Rome when the fire broke out, (there are reliable sources from the time that state as much) & he opened the doors to the grounds his palace to the general populace that was fleeing the fire. The reason Nero gets such a bad rap for the fire is that he took over half of the burned out city & decided to convert it into his own private pleasure palace/grounds without compensating the homeless victims. This sparked the rumors about him starting the fire ect & eventually lead to Nero blaming & persecuting the Christians, using them as human candles at his BBQ's & such like. (& for these actions he has a justifiably earned bad reputation) After his death he had plenty of detractors IIRC, wasn't it called the year of the Four Emperors, with Vespasian eventually winning the Laurels ? Yes 10 points (& an "I'm impressed" look from me) to you mrfatso for knowing that. Yes the Year of the Four Emperors (in order they were Galba, Otho, Vitellius & last but not least Vespasian) The suicide of emperor Nero, in 68 AD, was followed by a brief period of civil war, the first Roman civil war since Mark Antony's death in 30 BC. .Since Nero hadn't named a heir the Senate assumed that they'd have the Republic restored & all would be well. The problem was the Republic was that not only well & truly dead as a dodo, but had also had its proverbial ashes scattered to the four winds. & every General who had a big enough army slugged it out with each other in a bid to either become Emperor. Or have their candidate become Emperor, till only Vespasian remained. Yes I know I'm a (History) Geek (& Darn Proud Of It!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 21, 2014 11:41:38 GMT
Them Emperors were a pretty bad bunch when all is told... Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 22, 2014 10:07:53 GMT
After his death he had plenty of detractors IIRC, wasn't it called the year of the Four Emperors, with Vespasian eventually winning the Laurels ? Yes 10 points (& an "I'm impressed" look from me) to you mrfatso for knowing that. Yes the Year of the Four Emperors (in order they were Galba, Otho, Vitellius & last but not least Vespasian) The suicide of emperor Nero, in 68 AD, was followed by a brief period of civil war, the first Roman civil war since Mark Antony's death in 30 BC. .Since Nero hadn't named a heir the Senate assumed that they'd have the Republic restored & all would be well. The problem was the Republic was that not only well & truly dead as a dodo, but had also had its proverbial ashes scattered to the four winds. & every General who had a big enough army slugged it out with each other in a bid to either become Emperor. Or have their candidate become Emperor, till only Vespasian remained. Yes I know I'm a (History) Geek (& Darn Proud Of It! ) I read it in a book, well,actually a book series by a British author called Lindsey Davis, if you like Roman history her Falco books are good, a cross between a noir detective story and Roman life. I like to read all sorts of books and gain little bits of nuggets of info, may be not in as much depth as many others here. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 22, 2014 10:16:53 GMT
Heck, most of what I know about Roman history is from Time Team and other TV shows, some BBC and some discovery.....
Yes some is other sources, but the TV sure does show some good stuff, if you look hard enough for it that is?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 25, 2014 8:34:09 GMT
Heck, most of what I know about Roman history is from Time Team and other TV shows, some BBC and some discovery..... Yes some is other sources, but the TV sure does show some good stuff, if you look hard enough for it that is?... I love Time Team, but it's still hard to look at the TV & NOT see Baldrick on the screen for the first two seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 25, 2014 8:49:02 GMT
He is getting old though, isnt he?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Nov 28, 2014 13:41:53 GMT
He is getting old though, isnt he?...  Yah I'll admit Sir Tony is kicking on a bit but as for still seeing Baldrick when I look at him on TV. Well I recon it's a bit like looking at your Mum & Dad, ok so when you look at them you see them how they are now. But there's still a part of you that sees them not as the silver haired pensioners (or near about depending on how old you are) that are before you, but as the younger versions of themselves that you knew as a child. & for me it's the same with Sir Tony, Black Adder was a interregnal part of my childhood. Ok I didn't get some of the jokes he told till I was older, but it was still funny to watch him on screen being told off & the like by Lord Black Adder as a child. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 28, 2014 15:09:11 GMT
It is just sad that Channel 4 killed Time Team off, they still use the name as a brand when they want to do an archeological documentary, but Tony, Phil etal will not dig any more sites in just 3 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 29, 2014 8:47:58 GMT
Wasnt that more that the whole team were getting on a bit?....
And three days is a lot of an ask to do "serious" archaeology.
Shame its gone, the shows are still being repeated (and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated etc) on more4 and other channels.
|
|
)