In the early morning hours of July 19, A.D. 64, the Great Fire of Rome erupted. The fire occurred during the reign of Emperor Nero, and Rome's fledgling Christian community was turned into a scapegoat, though the actual cause of the fire was the subject of much speculation at the time and since.
The last emperor from the Julio-Claudian line, Nero had succeeded his stepfather and distant uncle Claudius at the age of 16. Claudius' son Britannicus was named co-emperor with Nero, and Claudius' daughter Octavia became Nero's wife. Within a few years of his ascension to the purple, Nero had killed Britannicus and Octavia, as well as his mother, Agrippina the Younger (sister to the mad emperor Caligula).
As Nero entered his 20s, his rule became more erratic. The young man held a series of games celebrating youth, wrote poetry, performed as a gladiator, singer and actor, and sponsored artistic contests to celebrate his rule. When he was performing, so the Roman historian Suetonius tells us, no one was allowed to leave the theater for any reason whatsoever. Women were said to have given birth in the stands and men faked being dead to leave.
Throughout his reign, Nero continued to murder those he thought disloyal, or even on a whim. He frequently ordered those found guilty of trumped up charges to commit suicide with only an hour's notice, and doctors to “assist” them if they dawdled. Others he treated with exceptional kindness, generosity and apparent civility.
The Great Fire of Rome burned for six days and caused massive destruction to the city. The city contained 14 districts, roughly two per hill, which had been seven or more district settlements in the metropolitan area's earliest years. Three districts were completely devastated, while seven more experienced significant damage.
The Roman historian Tacitus described the fire's outbreak in his “The Annals of Imperial Rome,” stating, “Now started the most terrible and destructive fire which Rome had ever experienced. It began in the Circus, where it adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills. Breaking out in shops selling inflammable goods and fanned by the wind, the conflagration instantly grew and swept the whole length of the Circus. There were no walled mansions or temples, or any other obstructions, which could arrest it.”
Tacitus continued to describe the horror, as Rome's citizens fought to flee the inferno, and how many tried to escape “unselfishly supporting invalids.” He also reports the fire may have been accidental, or it may have deliberately set by agents of the emperor.
Suetonius is less ambiguous, charging Nero with personally committing arson. In his “The Twelve Caesars” he wrote, “Pretending to be disgusted by the drab old buildings and narrow, winding streets of Rome, he brazenly set fire to the city. … He also coveted the sites of several granaries, solidly built in stone, near the Golden House (Nero's palace, built after the fire); having knocked down their walls with siege-engines, he set the interiors ablaze.”
The fire burned itself out near the Esquiline Hill, though smaller fires continued to spring up about the city, perhaps the work of looters, causing more casualties. It was in the ruins of the blaze that Nero began construction of his opulent new palace, a move that engendered suspicion in Rome's populace. Nero attempted to appear generous in the wake of the fire, hoping it would dispel the rumors of his involvement.
Historians Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Garcola and Richard J. A. Talbert wrote in their work “The Romans: From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine," “The scandal persisted even after he proposed a rational plan for rebuilding the city and let the dispossessed camp in his imperial gardens.”
As more and more citizens grumbled against the emperor, Nero sought out scapegoats. His targets belonged to a new cult that had risen from the east, what many Romans had long considered merely to be a new sect of Judaism — the Christians.
Several Christians confessed to the fires, most likely while under torture. This gave Nero the pretext he needed to round up many more. (A very similar situation arose nearly two millennia later when Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag fire as a pretext to round up German communists). Most Romans initially accepted the Christians as responsible because of their perceived anti-social nature. Many Christians were ripped apart by dogs while dressed in animal skins, some were crucified and some were burned to death. The executions took place at the circus and in the gardens of the imperial palace.
Tacitus noted the persecution and mass murders of the Christians backfired. “Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied," Tacitus wrote. "For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest.”
Nero paid the ultimate price for his many crimes only four years later. In June of A.D. 68 while only 30 years old, the young emperor had succeeded in alienating every section of Roman society — the army, the Senate, the equites class and the people. When the senate finally declared Nero an outlaw, he killed himself — the mad emperor's final casualty.
The case of the Great Fire of Rome is interesting because, among other things, it highlights the problems with historical understanding, particularly when it comes to antiquity. Did Nero “brazenly set fire to the city?" Did he have underlings do it? Was the emperor entirely innocent of arson? Was arson not even a factor, and the fire a result of accident or nature? Certainly Tacitus and Suetonius did not know the answer for sure anymore than we do today.
One thing is certain, however, that the popular myth of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned did not happen. For starters, Tacitus said the emperor was in the port city of Antium (modern Anzio), roughly 30 miles from Rome, and only returned to the capital when the flames approached his original palace. This, of course, is at odds with Suetonius' assertion that Nero was involved in setting the fires, but there is an even more basic reason the story is false.
The fiddle did not exist in ancient Rome, it was a product of the Middle Ages. It is, of course, possible he played a lyre, but most likely the story was meant to portray a larger truth — Nero simply didn't care what happened to the people of Rome, so long as he was content.
Cody K. Carlson holds a master's in history from the University of Utah and teaches at Salt Lake Community College. An avid player of board games, he blogs at thediscriminatinggamer.com. Email: ckcarlson76@gmail.com