On a hot summer night in July AD 64, a great fire broke out and swept across the city of Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire. For over six days, the raging inferno consumed everything in its path. When the fire finally ran its course, it left seventy percent of the city a smoldering ruin. It did not take long for rumors to spread, with people accusing the reigning emperor Nero of starting the fire.
According to those rumors, Nero observed the calamity from his palace at the summit of the Palatine, while playing his lyre as flames devoured the great city. This tempting image outlived both the notorious emperor and the Roman Empire. Yet, for all its notoriety, the story is untrue. So why was Nero blamed for the calamity?
The Nightmare of July AD 64: A City Built to Burn
The Great Fire of Rome (Magnum Incendium Romae) broke out on the night of July 18, AD 64. Our best source for the calamity, the historian Tacitus, mentions the rapid spread of fire, which ravaged the Roman Empire’s capital for six days and seven nights. Only four of the fourteen districts of Rome remained untouched by the terrible conflagration. Seven were burned to near destruction, and three were utterly ruined.
According to Tacitus, an eye-witness of the unfolding catastrophe, the fire started in the eleventh district, in the area that hosted the Circus Maximus, the great arena for chariot racing. The first flames appeared in merchant shops near the grand structure, selling, in the words of Tacitus, “flammable goods.” Thus, the shops provided the fuel to ignite the initial spark. Soon, the fire swept the whole length of the Circus, destroying the building and advancing further.
In addition, the city’s haphazard urban planning facilitated the rapid spread of the fire. Half a century earlier, the first Roman emperor Augustus had quipped that he found Rome a city of bricks and left it one of marble. A catchy phrase, but not quite true. During Nero’s reign, much of the imperial capital still consisted of ramshackle wooden buildings packed into narrow winding lanes. It was the worst possible place for a fire to break out.
In fact, the Great Fire of Rome was not the first time the city went up in flames. Fires in ancient Rome were a common occurrence. No less than six fires were recorded in just the first half of the first century. Yet, the Fire of AD 64 was an unprecedented disaster. This was partly due to the hot and dry weather and a strong summer wind coming off the river Tiber, which quickly carried the fire through the city. In a matter of hours, much of lower Rome was ablaze.
Alibi and Action: Where Was Nero Really?
The fire killed hundreds, left thousands more homeless, and devastated two-thirds of Rome. Some of the city’s greatest architecture was lost in the inferno, including the Temple of Jupiter Stator, near the Roman Forum, and the House of the Vestal Virgins, one of the most sacred sites in the whole Empire. It also destroyed the imperial Palace, the Domus Transitoria, located on the Palatine Hill. To make matters worse, the firefighting efforts were hampered by armed gangs and looters, plus arsonists who started their own fires, fueling the blaze. According to some sources, those men acted under orders, presumably given by the emperor Nero.
According to the ancient sources, rumors circulated immediately that Nero was responsible for the fire. While the ancient city burned, the emperor reportedly observed the unfolding calamity from his Palace, and played the lyre, and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing the present misfortune with the calamities of antiquity.
This scandalous story, although tempting, is untrue. There are several reasons to debunk the myth. To start with, due to its proximity to the origin of the fire, the royal palace on the Palatine was also one of the first to go up in flames.
Our main sources for Nero’s guilt, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, wrote decades after the disaster. Moreover, both were senators who exhibit consistent hostility toward Nero, and worked for later emperors who may have had a vested interest in vilifying the last Julio-Claudian emperor.
Our most reliable source, Tacitus, was only a child during the conflagration, but he collected several eyewitness accounts. While he reports that rumors of Nero’s involvement were widespread, he is not sure whether to believe them. Moreover, besides the valuable intel on the fire’s origin, Tacitus tells us about Nero’s actual location and actions, revealing a different story.
According to Tacitus, when the fire started, Nero was not in Rome. The 26-year-old emperor was relaxing at his seaside villa in Antium (modern-day Anzio), 50 km (31 miles) away. As soon as the emperor heard about the fire, he immediately returned to the capital. Once there, Nero personally led the rescue efforts.
He threw open to them [the homeless] the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude…Supplies of food were brought up from (the port of) Ostia and the neighboring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck.
Tacitus, Annals 15.39
While Nero could have orchestrated the fire from a distance, Tacitus’ account suggests that Nero went above and beyond to help the survivors of the calamity. After the blazing inferno was finally contained, the emperor offered cash incentives to ensure the city’s rapid recovery. He also passed and enforced new regulations to prevent recurring disasters. Nevertheless, many Romans believed that Nero was to blame for their misfortune.
The Golden House: Did Nero Profit From the Flames?
While stories of Nero’s involvement emerged immediately after the fire, the rumor mill went into overdrive when Nero began his ambitious building program. Nero had a new palace built on the ashes of the burned-down buildings. He covered large sections of Rome’s Palatine, Caelian, and Esquiline Hills with his Domus Aurea (Golden House), the most lavish palace Rome had ever seen.
It was a huge palatial complex containing many buildings, landscaped gardens, orchards, vineyards, and even an artificial lake. The rooms were covered in gold and decorated with precious stones and gems, ivory ceilings, and special devices that diffused perfumes. The highlight was a circular rotating dining room, a masterpiece of ancient engineering.
While Nero encountered harsh criticism from the outraged senatorial elite, the emperor was just following the pattern established by his predecessors. Except for the first emperor Augustus, who was known for his moderate lifestyle, each successive ruler, from Caligula to Claudius, wanted to outdo his predecessor in luxury. However, the role of the Domus Aurea was not only to be the emperor’s pleasure palace. Recent archaeological excavations suggest that the massive complex was not intended to be a private residence but a public building: a home for the people of Rome alongside their supreme protector and venerated artist, the emperor.
Several public buildings constructed in Rome during Nero’s reign further confirm such an idea. The emperor commissioned a grand covered market and magnificent public baths. Before Nero, the baths were a luxury to be enjoyed only by the rich. Nero shattered this division. From Nero onwards, these facilities became places for all citizens. The emperor also erected a wooden amphitheater to satisfy the need for public entertainment. No wonder Nero enjoyed popularity among the people to such an extent that following his death, several men appeared, claiming that they were Nero.
The First Scapegoats: The Persecution of Early Christians
To quell the rumors and prevent an outbreak of violence among the populace, Nero had to find scapegoats. The emperor found the culprits in a rising sect founded by a carpenter from Palestine a few decades earlier. Yes, we are talking about the Christians, who were already considered troublemakers due to their unwillingness to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Christians were an easy target.
According to Tacitus, the Roman authorities began rounding up members of the sect and punishing them in the cruelest ways possible. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were apart torn by wild dogs or were nailed to crosses. The most “innovative” method of torture was to tie the Christians to poles and burn them, turning them into human torches that illuminated the night. In scapegoating this group, Nero may have sparked the first major state-sanctioned persecution of Christianity, feeding early Christian beliefs about martyrdom.
While Nero is traditionally considered the first persecutor of the Christians, a small group of scholars question this. They cite that Tacitus’ account is a bit dubious, as the term “Christian” was not widely used in the 1st century AD. The writing style of the passage that mentions the persecution also differs from the rest of Tacitus’ work. Therefore, this part may be a later addition from the period, added by copiers, making an already deeply controversial emperor into the very image of the Antichrist.
However, it is worth noting that Suetonius, writing only a few decades later, also mentions the persecutions. He “praises” Nero for punishing Christians to maintain public order, though he does not connect this with the fire. Tertullian, writing in the 2nd century AD, also states that Nero was the first to prosecute Christians. Unlike the accusation of arson, it seems very likely that Nero sanctioned the persecution of Christians following the fire.