Did Nero really allow Rome to burn in order to implement his own grand design for a new city?Or did he help put our the fires as some other historians suggest? Which version is correct? Which historians on the subject give a reasonable account of the events?
I look forward to your answers. Thanks.
davidmich
This is likely going to be moved but I thought he wasn’t even in the city at the time of the fire and, if I remember from the History of Rome podcast, he generally is believed to have done a lot to help displaced citizens with shelter, food and whatnot.
Reported for forum change.
Moved from ATMB to General Questions.
samclem
No, he had not the slightest interest in burning down his own capital city and incurring huge costs that were basically out of his own pocket (the “state’s” money and the “emperor’s” money not really being distinguished). The people who accused Nero of that were basically the same sort of conspiracy theorists who accused Bush of deliberately destroying the World Trade Center. It is a testimony to the unpopularity of a government when a theory of that time gains some traction, but it should not be taken seriously.
thank you all for your helpful replies.
davidmich
This Fox News vs the Liberal media battle has been going on longer than I had thought. 
Yeah Bob X, thanks. That put a lot of perspective on it thanks …
This does not, however, cause me to remove Nero from my list of “Bad Roman Emperors” for future cat-naming purposes. 
Lol true law monkey …
Gordian. Now that’s an Emperor who made Rome burn…with rage.