Was Nero a good Emperor?
On the one hand, Nero was a good emperor because he saved his people from the great fire that hit Rome in 64 AD. This makes Nero a good emperor because an emperor should take care of his people and should do as much as possible to save their souls. Nero was also a good emperor because after the great fire, when all of Rome had burnt down, Nero decided to reconstruct the city but this time, using much stronger material that would last longer and was more resistant to fire. This makes Nero a good emperor because an emperor should protect his people and as soon as the city is destroyed, he should reconstruct it to give shelter to his people. Nero was also a good emperor because the new Rome that he built was, first of all, much more immune and resistant to fire, second of all there were lots of gardens where Romans could go to for recreation, and last of all, he placed lots of beautiful decorations, sculptures etc. all around the city for everyone to admire. On the other hand, Nero was a bad emperor because during the rebuilding program for Rome, Seneca, one of Nero’s best friend, which was also a senator, told Nero that there was not enough money for the reconstruction project. At first, Nero did not want to believe this, but quickly he realized himself that there was not enough loot to pay for the program. Therefore, Nero firstly decided to ransack the Roman temples (this made the Romans very angry) and secondly he raised the taxes to painful amounts, this caused famine and starvation. This makes Nero a bad emperor because an emperor should put himself in his peoples’ shoes in such situations to realize that he is doing the wrong thing and to be able to stop. Nero was also a bad emperor because when the senate had realized that Nero was going insane they decided to secretly assassinate him. When Nero found out about this he got very upset so he sent out his Pretorian guards to go and kill the 30 or so senators, even Seneca. After this...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document