“We've had vicious kings, and we've had idiot kings, but I don't think we've ever been cursed with a vicious idiot for a king!” says Tyrion Lannister, a fictional character in the highly acclaimed TV series “Game of Thrones”. In this scene, Tyrion conveys the idea that mainly two characteristics epitomize a terrible ruler; his viciousness and his stupidity. Essentially one who possesses both of them is no doubt a terrible king. While Tyrion is talking about the fictional world of Westeros, I think this point is just as valid for the real world.

When asked to think of a historical ruler with both attributes, one name predominantly emerges, Nero: the most notorious Roman Emperor. But why does Nero have such an abysmal reputation and what atrocities has he committed to warrant such disdain?

Alleged Atrocities

The most infamous wrongdoing attributed to Nero is playing the fiddle while Rome was engulfed in the great fire that destroyed two-thirds of the city. This is supposed to represent his callous indifference while the city under his protection burned to ashes. The general people suspected that Nero was the one who started the fire in the first place. However, they could not prove this due to insufficient evidence nevertheless Nero was still blamed. To prove his innocence he had to find a scapegoat. He shifted the blame to the Christians in Rome and proceeded to have them executed. Due to this, he is remembered as “Nero The Antichrist” as the historical Christians believed that he was the literal personification of the Antichrist.

Alongside being indifferent to the people’s profound suffering, he is also believed to possess the same disregard for his own family. Historical testimonies suggest that not only did he have his mother murdered in cold blood but he also had his first wife publicly executed partly because she could not bear him an heir. Both of the previous murders were not physically committed by Nero which might hint at a salvaged shred of humanity within him. That might have been the case but he irrevocably lost that too while allegedly attacking and killing his second wife who was pregnant with his child.  All of these heinous accusations culminated in Nero becoming the most notorious emperor.

Fact or fiction?

One can see how all of these heinous accusations culminated in Nero becoming the most notorious emperor due to the gruesomeness of it all. However, on closer inspection, some cracks begin to appear in this narrative. It is said that Nero executed his first wife partly because of being infertile. This suggests that he immensely valued and desired the birth of an heir but then we also learn that he kicked his pregnant second wife which would shortly fulfill this deep desire of his. Then would it seem plausible that he would mercilessly kill the woman bearing his heir? 

When such cracks become apparent to you, you might also realize that during the aforementioned account of Nero’s deplorable deeds, I tried to be extremely cautious with the wording. You might have noticed the use of words such as “allegations” “supposedly” and “historical testimonies”. These words point towards severe contention and scepticism in all the previous accusations which are objectively speaking just that, accusations. But why is that? Why is there contention regarding the sources of the man termed as “the most notorious emperor”? Well for that we have to look into the authors of the sources themselves.

The Authors of Nero’s Fate

Almost all of the historical accounts about Nero are provided by three Roman senators whose names are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. The validity of their claims warrants severe scrutiny because they were the political enemies of Nero and they were supporters of the new regime and played a vital role in it. Their success directly depended on the success of the new government so it was in their best interest to defame the previous rule of Nero so that by contrast their rule was significantly better. This narrative of deceit to a certain extent is further reinforced when we come to know about a political tactic known as “Vituperation”. This was a Roman political strategy that allowed the fabrication of the actions of political opponents for the reasons of defamation. This is proof that in that era, in politics it was not thought unethical or immoral to slander someone’s reputation for their own political prosperity. 

Refuted Allegations

Therefore, this practice in ancient Rome coupled with the political bias and motives there is reasonable doubt regarding the validity of these sources about Nero’s actions. This doubt is further reinforced when some of the claims by the senators are outright refuted. The most significant discrepancy in the narrative painted by the senators is Nero’s role in the Great Fire of Rome during which he was accused of playing the fiddle. First of all, the fiddle didn’t even exist then but maybe “playing the fiddle” was a metaphor for his lack of care. However, his lack of care has also been proven wrong because not only was Nero not playing the fiddle in his palace while Rome burned, he wasn’t even in Rome when the fire started. He was in the countryside and when he caught word of the fire he rushed back to the capital and opened his doors to the affected people who had nowhere to go. The testimony of the senators and the reality are polar opposites, and this instance supports the viewpoint that they were not truthful while recording Nero and his actions, at least not completely truthful.

Finding the real Nero

You see, I am not advocating that Nero was a perfect and pious individual and emperor. I have tried to be as unbiased and neutral as possible to portray both sides of the coin. Some historical sources have painted Nero to be this vile megalomaniac monster while other sources have painted him to be a just emperor to some degree who is just trying his best to do his duty. In my opinion, I think like all people he was a little bit of both. You may argue that he might tip more towards the bad side and I would agree. I think that Nero was more of a terrible ruler than a just one but the senators exaggerated his actions beyond belief. Therefore, taking all of the evidence into account, I hope we can all agree that he was definitely not as bad as the senators have portrayed him to be. 

Controlling the Narrative

“Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter”. This proverb eloquently describes the principle of “controlling the narrative”. This notion suggests that the victor often paints the vanquished in a negative light. This is the exact subtle manipulation of history done by the senators who were the victors and Nero was the vanquished.

However, you would be naïve to think that only Nero was the victim of narrative control. Even in the contemporary age, there might be countless other figures who have become a victim of this tactic. However, with humanity’s staggering progress even the most devious arts such as this one, would have surely become more refined than ever before. They might have been perfected to such an extent to leave almost no evidence behind. Manipulating the general public has become a subtler art than ever with more avenues than we can count. Now the victor has the limitless power of social media to spread their propaganda. So, readers tread with caution and beware of such tactics. Do not be misinformed and don’t believe everything you read before checking the validity of it yourself. This is the age of disinformation and I hope that you will not be a victim of it like Nero.