The same sources say he blamed the fire on the Christians and that after the fire he began a merciless persecution of the early Christian Church. Are there any truth to these claims or are they just stories that have become popularized by frequent repetition?
Nero ruled over the Roman Empire from 54AD to 68AD as the fifth Roman emperor. His reign included wars and insurrections abroad along with improvements to homefront. Most sources agree that Nero had a great desire to be popular among the people and that he therefore spent much of his own money on great building projects. Many of the sources record that he was, in fact, quite popular with the people.
Nero came to the throne in 54AD when his mother murdered his uncle Claudius. Since Nero was only sixteen at the time, his mother had a significant influence on the early years of his rule. When she felt her influence on Nero was waning, however, she began looking for younger emperor to replace him. Before she could do that, however, Nero had her killed. Perhaps this murder is indicative of how ruthless Nero really was.
The historical accounts disagree about how ruthless Nero was, however. Probably the most famous event during his reign was the Great Fire of Rome which probably started in some of the shops near the Circus Maximus. Tacitus says that the fire burned for five days and destroyed large sections of Rome. The historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio say that the fire was arson and that Emperor Nero was the arsonist. Tacitus, on the other hand, says that Christians confessed to the crime but he admits that that confession may have been obtained from torture.
Suetonius and Cassius Dio go so far as to say that Nero sang about the sacking of Troy while wearing stage costume. Tacitus, on the other hand, says that Nero was away from the city at the time of the fire and that he rushed back to Rome and paid for a relief effort with his own money as soon as he heard about it. He also addressees the rumor that Nero may have played a lyre while the city burns and says it was just a rumor. Whether or not the story was a rumor, Nero certainly did not play a fiddle because the fiddle was not invented for 1000 years after his death. It also seems unlikely that someone so concerned about pleasing the public would behave to callously when he had an opportunity to show the public how benevolent he was.
While we cannot be sure if Nero set the fire, we do know who he blamed for it. He blamed the Christians. Tacitus, how believed that Nero had nothing to do with it, reported that the rumors circulating about how Nero might have sang while the city burned and the publics demand for someone to blame made him target the Christians as scapegoats. So began the first of many persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire when Christians were fed to animals, crucified, and burned. Whether or not he set the fire, his reaction to it has stained Nero's reputation in the history books.
