MovieChat Forums > Quo Vadis (1951) Discussion > Was Nero right to blame the Christians f...

Was Nero right to blame the Christians for the fire?

posted 7 years ago by m-de-werd
9 replies | jump to latest

There are other threads about the lack of historicity of both the film and the novel, but as far as I know no one has put up this essential question yet: was Nero right in putting the blame for the fire of Rome on the Christians? Of course after nearly 2000 years it is impossible to find out the whole truth, but a number of serious historians believe there are good arguments for this theory. One of is Gerhard Baudry of the University of Constance in Germany, who has made an extensive study of the apocalyptic scripts, that were circulated among early Christians in the poor districts of Rome. In these it was predicted that an inferno would reduce the city to ashes.

Moreover the date of the 19th of July seems to indicate that the fire not an accident. According to an Egyptian prophecy, that was popular among Christians the fall of Rome would take place when the dog star Sirius would rise. This happened on 19th July 64 A.D., the very day the fire started. Moreover 19th July was also the day of similar event in the year 390 BC when by Gallic invaders burned down Rome. For it seems plausible that some Christians helped to fulfil these prophesies.

I think the stereotypes of evil Nero and the good Christians stuck so deep, that people have forgotten that early Christianity was an eschatological sect. To get a more realistic view of them just read the Apocalypse, which describes the destruction of the Whore of Babylon – a metaphor for Rome – by fire.

[–] Furienna (3322) 4 years ago

Actually, all of this just seems to be anti-Christian garbage from some "progressive" left-wing scholars.
They seem to miss too that most Christians would have been ordinary people, who wanted to just go on with their lives.
What would they gain by setting the city of Rome (including their own homes and livelihoods) on fire?
Besides, the fire was probably due to some flame somewhere accidentally setting something ablaze and spreading.
Thus I doubt that it was a planned on purpose by either the Christians or Emperor Nero or anybody else for that matter.
Fires were common in densely populated cities in older times, especially during the hot and dry summer months.
They were accidents and never had any evil masterminds behind them, even if people might have wanted scapegoats.
Only a complete lunatic would ever think about setting their whole city on fire anyway.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

Christians were extremely active back then. It was a new religion, and Christians were absolutely convinced to hold the truth. Christianism was back then what Wokeness is today.

What would Wokes gain by setting US cities on fire?

So, yeap, Christians could have been behind the fire... or not. Nobody really knows. I think the most likely option is that it was an accident, but that doesn't mean that's the only option.

What's sure is that Christian historians had a double standard when it came to Roman emperors. They particularly demonized Emperors that persecuted Christians, as Nero.

[–] Furienna (3322) 4 years ago

Well, Nero got a lot of criticism already by Roman writers like Tacitus and Suetonius and Dio Cassius.
These were not Christian writers, so it's clear that the demonization against Nero wasn't only a Christian thing.
Even so, it is indeed most likely that the fire started by somebody setting something ablaze accidentally.
So it's really pointless to look for a scapegoat in either Nero or in some crazy Christian fanatics.
Especially so many years afterwards, so it makes no difference anymore anyway.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

I'm not saying that hi was criticized only by Christians. But the immediate question would be: up to what point Tacitus and Suetonius are considered great historians because they fit the narrative?

[–] Furienna (3322) 4 years ago

Some of these ancient scholars were indeed idolized through the Middle Ages and beyond.
Because the Catholic Church found that much of what they had written fit into what the Church taught.
Just look at how Aristotle was revered until people like Galileo Galilei showed us where he had been wrong.
But still, it is clear that Nero and Poppaea managed to rub a lot of their contemporaries the wrong way.
Otherwise, it would have been hard for Tacitus and Suetonius to give us such a negative portrayal of them.
However, it is true that these historians also admitted that Nero and Poppaea had been popular in some circles.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

I'd recommend a book called Faked News in the History of Rome. The book is currently in Spanish and Italian, I don't know if it has translated to English.

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2019/06/05/fake-news-in-the-history-of-rome/

Tacitus in particular is not portrayed as a very trustworthy source. The opposite, indeed.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 4 years ago

What narrative? Tacitus called Christians a "class hated for their abominations". That´s hardly flattering.

[–] Furienna (3322) 3 years ago

Yeah.
It is clear that you didn't have to be a Christian to give Nero and Poppaea a negative portrayal.

[–] Zilkin (401) 4 years ago

I think Nero did it, he needed an inspiration for his songs you see.