You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: While Nero did persecute Christians at this time, he is only noted as having done so in the city of Rome itself, and on (almost certainly false) charges of arson rather than for their beliefs, specifically. Christianity is not recorded as having been banned or outlawed at that time. Christianity would not specifically be outlawed until ~300 AD, and then only for a few years.
Other Roman Emperors sometimes persecuted Christians intermittently, but generally on matters of practice rather than belief (the constant sticking point being swearing loyalty oaths to the Res Publica by Roman gods, or, related, making sacrifices to the gods on behalf of the Emperor), and ad hoc rather than systemically outlawing the sect.
But did he play the fiddle all the while?
According to some contemporary stories, yes!
But more likely, and acknowledged as more likely by even strongly anti-Nero sources, is that he actually genuinely gave something of a damn about the disaster, and released funds to help rebuild the city, as well as endorsing new building codes to make another fire of that magnitude less likely in the future.
Nero was a dumbass rich kid who murdered people on a whim, but seeing one’s own city burn down and thousands dying with it is a hell of a thing even for an arrogant autocrat to endure.
I thought the myth was about lyre
The myth is around him playing the lyre, but the modern English saying is “Fiddling while Rome burns”.
After 300 years of murdering Christians, Romans be like “lemme win this battle and we’ll willy nilly be Christian, yo…”
Previously murdered Christians:
Clearly he didn’t ban it hard enough.
Looking at Christianity, we could use another ban.
That will only open the doors for black market religion. What we need are safe spaces for religion and easily-accessible avenues of recovery!
Actually well said.
Christianity has historically expanded during persecution.
Yeah black market religion not good.
