Sometimes people are just plain stupid and stubborn. Had a debate with someone at the AD regarding Nero and the burning of Rome. Albeit the debate was a bit one-sided. This individual maintained that Nero burned Rome as he fiddled and refused to provide back up for his statement except using Hitler and the Jews as an example that saying that it's been done in history many times where he essentiall implied that the ruling party started things and blamed it on the lesser people they don't like. WTF kind of back up is that? I gave him dates, facts, theories etc...he gave me NOTHING!.
Things I pointed out to him are under the cut...with the except of the Egyptian prophecy because I forgot about it...
Some of the hypotheses below came from PBS documentary on Secrets of the Dead...and the Burning of Rome in 64 AD.
1) Nero was in Antium at the time Rome burned.
2) Nero rushed back as soon as he heard about the fire
3) Nero helped firefighters trying to put out the fires
4) Nero's palace and the Domus Aurea were destroyed (why would he start a fire that would destroy all he worked to build? A = he wouldn't others would though because they didn't like the Domus Aurea being so large and in city like that and hoped to see it burn to the ground. Not Nero!)
5) Hundreds of small fires happened in Rome on a daily basis...this particular fire which got out of hand started in the Christians quarter (hence started by the Christians)
6) Christians were predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes - the attitude of all those subjugated by Rome that 'Rome Must Burn '- and circulating texts in regards to these oracles. (see #5)
7) An ancient Egyptian prophecy well known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises. In 64 A.D., Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome began. Bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire -- or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel -- in hopes of realizing their prophecies.
8) Tacitus who was a teenager and wrote about the fire at the time claims that "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" was probably a metaphor for "Nero did nothing" (just my opinion peoples) and Tacitus also declared the only explanation for how the fire spread from hovels to the sturdy stone houses of the senators is arson but modern technology and re-creation proves otherwise...(also proves Tacitus is an idiot as well). Tacitus states that the fire was driven by a southeasterly wind. He describes the fire as moving both south up the Aventine Hill and north up the Palatine, implying that this apparently unnatural pattern was due to arson. Today we know that the larger a fire becomes, the more updraft it creates -- breezes that interfere with prevailing winds and allow the fire to spread out in search of oxygen, especially up a hill like the Palatine.
People like this guy who is Catholic btw and thinks the Christians do no wrong. I've had other conversations with him about religion that is like banging your head against a wall. He's just plain obtuse and annoying only because he didn't bother to back his theories up with facts...he's the kind who believes what he wants and there's no changing his mind. Thank the gods I had the common sense to walk away. I don't think he appreciated it... but srsly dude give me something anything that makes your hypothesis ring true.
Oh well...some people. lol