Secrets of the Dead (2000–…): Season 16, Episode 6 - The Nero Files - full transcript
Take a closer look at the life and legend of Nero, the infamous Roman emperor, as a forensic profiler attempts to find out what history may have gotten wrong about his alleged tyranny.
♪♪
- History has portrayed
Roman Emperor Nero
as one of the great villains,
a cruel insane
despot responsible
for the Great Fire of Rome.
Nero's name is synonymous
with evil,
killer of his own mother
and wife,
poisoner of his stepbrother,
and persecutor of Christians.
He lived a debauched
and decadent life.
This is the judgment
passed by history.
- There was no form
of historical record
similar to our modern
understanding of history.
The writings were politically
motivated,
captivating literature.
- And yet, new discoveries
suggest history
may have gotten it wrong.
Now, a forensic profiler
considers new evidence
to discover the truth
about the controversial emperor.
- As the writers would appear
to be unreliable,
they would not be considered
objective witnesses
by modern standards.
♪♪
- "The Nero Files."
♪♪
This program was made
possible in part
by the Corporation
For Public Broadcasting
and by contributions
to your PBS station
from viewers like you.
Thank you.
- Rome, 64 AD,
the night of July 18th.
The city is in flames.
The fire will burn for 9 days,
large areas of Rome
completely destroyed.
The rumor that the narcissistic
tyrant Nero
started the blaze
has persisted for 2,000 years.
His alleged motivation?
Artistic inspiration.
The emperor is said to have
watched the disaster
from the roof of his palace
while making music,
or as legend has it,
he fiddled while Rome burned
and his subjects died.
But are these tales
of the mad tyrant true?
There are significant doubts.
♪♪
Forensic psychologist
Thomas Mueller
has studied numerous criminals
over the course of his career.
Now, he turns his attention
to Nero's legacy
using a cold-case approach,
establishing the facts
and examining the veracity
of the sources.
Can the accusations leveled
at Nero withstand
modern investigative methods?
- Is it possible that Nero
was also a victim
or even the victim?
- Rome, 54 AD.
16-year-old Nero and his mother,
Agrippina,
rush to the emperor's bedside.
♪♪
Emperor Claudius,
Agrippina's husband, is dying.
He is attended to by his
biological children
from a previous marriage...
His daughter, Octavia,
and his son, Britannicus.
Britannicus is the legitimate
heir to the throne,
but he is only 13 years old.
Nero is merely
the emperor's stepson,
but he is 3 years older.
If the emperor dies now,
Nero will become his successor.
Accounts suggest Claudius
was murdered,
possibly with poisoned food.
Doctors rush to save him...
but it is too late.
Agrippina has achieved her goal.
Nero's ambitious mother
only married Claudius
to ensure Nero, her son
from her first marriage,
would become emperor.
Does she kill Claudius before
Britannicus can come of age
so Nero can take the throne?
♪♪
- Murder and violent removal
of political opponents
were an everyday occurrence
in imperial Rome.
Assuming power was not done
by democratic means.
Power was achieved by violence,
aggression, and assassinations.
- Historians suspect Agrippina
is responsible
for the emperor's murder.
With Claudius' death, Nero now
becomes emperor at just 16,
even though he is
not the legitimate heir.
- One could say that Agrippina
was a woman
fully aware of her power
and that she knew
how to take advantage
of any opportunity
that presented itself.
We cannot say with any certainty
whether she did kill Claudius,
but people at the time
immediately accused
her of doing so.
- This suspicion casts a shadow
over Nero's reign
from its outset.
- The question is, "How is it
possible that an emperor of Rome
became the bastard of history?"
Who told us that he was
such a monster?
Where does our information
actually come from,
and can the witnesses
stand up to examination?
- Three Roman writers
are primarily responsible
for having recorded
the details of Nero's life,
even though they never met him.
Tacitus was 10 years old
when Nero died.
Suetonius
was born 2 years later,
and Cassius Dio wasn't born
until a century
after Nero's reign.
They created the image
of the mad tyrant,
and yet each writer's story
is different.
One questions whether
Nero had anything to do
with the Great Fire of Rome,
while another is convinced
he started the blaze,
and the third writer suggests
Nero fiddled
while his city burned.
Who can one trust?
- As a criminal psychologist,
I've experienced this over
and over again.
People see what
they want to see,
and sometimes
they will write or say
whatever it is
they want to convey.
The fact is, all three writers
lived after Nero's time.
They did not know him
personally,
and their knowledge
was based on stories.
Did they, perhaps, add elements
that were important to them?
- Just 13 when his father dies,
Britannicus,
the emperor's biological son,
is frail and possibly epileptic,
and yet he might pose
a threat to young Emperor Nero
should he lay claim
to the throne
when he reaches maturity.
♪♪
It is 55 AD,
and Nero has been emperor
for several months,
a feast in the palace.
The imperial family
has invited guests.
As is customary, Britannicus
selects his favorite dishes.
It is business as usual
in the palace.
♪♪
And yet, according to accounts,
before the meal is over,
Britannicus will
be assassinated.
The killer?
Nero.
The weapon?
A powerful poison.
Using poison to commit murder
is difficult in ancient Rome,
as the meals of the rich and
powerful are tasted in advance.
♪♪
In Tacitus' account,
Nero manages to avoid the taster
by slyly placing the poison
in Britannicus' drink
rather than his food.
♪♪
Drinks are also sampled by
the taster, but Nero is clever.
He has a harmless,
but very hot, drink served.
♪♪
Britannicus is unable
to drink it.
Cold, clear water
is added to cool the drink.
The water is poisoned
and is poured without
being sampled by the taster.
According to Tacitus, the poison
races through Britannicus' body,
making it impossible for him
to breathe or speak.
♪♪
And all three writers agree
he dies almost immediately.
A potential adversary
has been removed,
but there are doubts
about the poison plot
as the writers present it.
Mueller explains.
- In terms of criminal
psychology, using poison means
committing murder
without leaving scars.
However, murder by poison
is easier to describe
than to commit,
even in ancient Rome.
The descriptions
of Britannicus' death
suggests a rapidly acting poison
that was both colorless
and odorless.
Did such a poison even exist
in the age of Nero?
- In antiquity, the most
effective poisons
were plant toxins
from yew trees,
lily of the valley,
hemlock, and wolfsbane.
Today, scientists in
a modern forensic lab
are testing whether
any of these poisons
could have killed Britannicus
in the manner described.
The poison had to have been
both colorless and odorless.
Otherwise, it would have been
immediately
detectable in the water,
and it had to take effect
within seconds.
In order to put the poison
in the water,
the toxin would have had to be
extracted from the plant first.
One way to do this
was by boiling the plants.
♪♪
The more the water is reduced
during the boil,
the more concentrated
the poison will be,
but the color and aroma
also become more intense.
Even when strained to remove
impurities, the color remains.
Tacitus writes that the poison
is placed in a jug of water
that was used to cool
Britannicus' hot drink.
If that was the case,
the poison had to have been
very concentrated
in order to remain effective
after being watered down twice.
♪♪
- If one considers all the steps
that are required to create
an odorless and colorless poison
that is sufficiently
toxic enough to be effective,
then one must accept
that it was practically
impossible at the time,
considering the methods
that were available.
- Nor does the time line,
as described,
withstand close scrutiny.
- If a plant toxin
is ingested orally,
it takes time for the poison
to cross
from the digestive system
into the bloodstream.
Then, it must still be
transported to the part
of the body
where it takes effect.
It is, therefore,
fundamentally inconceivable
that death
could occur within seconds.
- The writers' claims of a
sudden death caused by poison
already appear
somewhat unreliable.
- According to the toxicologist's
conclusions,
there was no poison
that would have had
the effects
described by the writers.
So given the circumstances,
is it not possible
that an epileptic fit
was seen as attempted murder?
After all, people believed
Nero was capable of anything.
- Agrippina
has not made Nero emperor
out of a mother's love
for her son.
She sees herself as the true
ruler of the empire
and Nero as a mere puppet.
She is the power
behind the throne,
and she makes no effort
to conceal it,
as coins from the era reveal.
- When Nero ascends to the throne
in 54 AD,
something very unusual happens
to the Roman currency.
The first coins that are minted
show both the reigning emperor
and, at eye level
and the same size, his mother.
This hadn't happened before,
and it would not happen again.
Agrippina
publicly lays claim to power,
and the first conflicts between
mother and son soon follow.
The coins show
this very clearly.
Just a few months
after the first coins
find their way into circulation,
a second coin is released.
The new coin still includes
Agrippina,
but she has now moved
into the background.
She no longer holds
the same significance
she did at the beginning
of Nero's reign.
A few months later,
she has vanished
from the currency altogether.
Her declining influence
and the looming conflict
with her son are clearly visible
on the faces of Rome's coins.
♪♪
- Nero grows up,
maturing into an adult.
♪♪
He is now 21 years old.
He has reigned successfully
for 5 years,
something even the writers
are prepared to admit.
Nero is an ambitious emperor
with progressive ideas,
building public baths
and markets for his subjects.
They, in turn,
revere their ruler.
He is interested in the arts,
sports, and science.
He has grand architectural
plans for Rome,
but his relationship
with his mother has suffered.
Nero is at the Baiae resort
on the Gulf of Pozzuoli,
north of Naples,
where ancient Rome's rich
and famous
go to escape the city.
He has supposedly invited
his mother to Baiae
so they can share a meal
and resolve their differences.
♪♪
But according to the writers,
the invitation is merely a ruse
to lure her to her death.
♪♪
Tacitus writes that Nero
accompanies Agrippina
as she leaves
his palace in Baiae.
His last glimpse
of his condemned
mother touches his cold heart.
♪♪
He has ordered her death
for that very night.
♪♪
Nero returns to his villa
while the murder plot unfolds
on the high seas.
Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio
provide detailed accounts
of the fateful night.
According to their descriptions,
Nero has a trusted assistant
prepare Agrippina's yacht
with a trapdoor
that will open
and sweep her out to sea.
Cassius Dio writes the mechanism
would then close,
and the boat
would continue sailing
as though nothing had happened.
Nero could easily have
disguised a crime on the ship.
As Tacitus wrote, "Nothing
allowed of accidents
so much as the sea."
- When investigating disasters
at sea or at higher elevations,
specialists and experts
for the relevant structures,
wind and weather conditions,
and water currents
play an important role.
Let us follow the evidence
to determine
whether the story told
by the writers
would stand up in court.
- An experiment
in a ship model basin
will hopefully reveal the truth.
According to Tacitus,
Agrippina's yacht was a trireme,
a galley with three banks
of oars on either side.
The mother of the Emperor
would have had a luxurious cabin
at the stern of the ship.
Agrippina's yacht
is reconstructed
at a scale of 1 to 9
in the ship model basin.
The aim of the experiment
is to determine
what kind of modifications
would have been necessary
to create an opening in the ship
that someone could fall through.
The experts are certain
that trapdoors would have been
the only possibility,
and they install two flaps
at the stern of the model.
One opens inward, while the
other opens out into the water.
♪♪
On dry land,
both trapdoors work perfectly.
In the water, though,
things are very different.
Now it's time to test
the trapdoor theory.
The depth of the hull
is reconstructed exactly.
The flaps are now underwater.
The door opening into the ship
would have let the water flow
in immediately,
stopping anyone from falling out
and also quickly
sinking the ship.
Given these results,
the trapdoor must have opened
outwards, and yet it can't.
The water pressure
keeps the flap closed,
and the ship sails on as normal.
Perhaps more force is required.
Weights are placed
on the trapdoor.
So much weight is needed
to force the flap open,
the ship begins to sink.
Approximately 2 tons would have
been required
to force the door open,
but that would have
sunk the ship
before it ever left the harbor.
Additionally, once the door
opened out,
there wouldn't have been
a way to close it.
Water would have flooded
in and sunk the ship.
The writers' descriptions just
aren't reliable as evidence.
- Telling the truth didn't mean
providing descriptions
or reconstructions of events
that were 100 percent accurate.
Rather, the story
had to be told well
and had to be built
around a sweet center
that increased the appetite and
the attention of the readers.
- Efforts to tell a good story
have made it difficult
for modern-day experts
to determine the truth.
- There was no form
of historical record
similar to our modern
understanding of history.
The writings were
politically motivated,
captivating literature,
and that is an important point.
It is literature rather than a
scientific approach to history.
Its primary purpose
was to be exciting.
At the time, this was
the pinnacle of writing,
stylistically sophisticated,
excitingly told,
and attractively presented.
- According to the writers,
the attempted murder fails,
and Agrippina manages
to reach land.
Nero panics and,
fearing his mother's revenge,
sends armed men to
her villa to kill her.
Cassius Dio claims that Nero has
his mother's dead body uncovered
so he can examine it himself,
while Tacitus questions
whether this is really true.
- There were no witnesses.
We know that Agrippina
was killed,
but it is impossible to recreate
the details of her death,
which is why, in antiquity,
this story was invented
and passed on to create
a particularly dramatic tale
of how a son killed his mother.
♪♪
- But the fact remains.
Whether Nero gave the order
to kill his mother
or she died
by other means, her death
and the rumors surrounding
it were a burden Nero carried
for the rest of his life
and beyond.
The writers' horrifying stories
about Agrippina's death
continue to shape perceptions
of Nero to this day.
What really happened that night,
however, will remain a mystery.
- As the writers would appear
to be unreliable,
they would not be considered
objective witnesses
by modern standards.
In summary, there are reports
that Nero had
his mother murdered,
but there's
no material evidence,
and there are
no convincing leads.
- Rome, the summer of 64 AD.
The city is in flames, again.
Fire was a constant danger,
but this time, it's different.
The blaze spreads faster
and farther than any before it.
Suetonius and Cassius Dio
accuse Nero
of starting the fire and suggest
two possible motives.
Either he wanted to create
space for the Domus Aurea,
his new golden palace,
or alternatively,
he wanted Rome to burn
to serve as inspiration
for his artistic endeavors,
so he could serenade the flames.
Tacitus, the third writer,
doesn't offer a theory.
- So did Nero have a motive
to set fire to Rome?
We have been forced to accept
that the writers were prepared
to write down
their own versions of the truth,
for whatever reasons.
But what really happened
in the days and nights
while Rome burned?
- At this moment in history,
Rome is a bustling metropolis.
Its streets are filled
with people.
In fact, the capital
is bursting at the seams.
People elbow their way
through the hot, narrow alleys
that make up most of the city.
Land is extremely valuable,
and urban planning and fire
safety are of little concern.
Buildings are made of
substandard quality,
and many are made of wood
and built close together.
On this fateful day,
this construction method
seals the fate of much
of the eternal city.
The fire starts late in the
evening near the Circus Maximus,
a popular nighttime haunt
in ancient Rome.
The inferno rages for 9 days.
Excavations have confirmed
the blaze affected
two-thirds of the city.
The rapid spread of the fire
and the scale of destruction
immediately give rise
to rumors of arson.
- How did the fire spread
so rapidly?
Was it the work of arsonists who
set fires in various locations,
or was a spark enough
to cause the blaze?
- On this July day, the city
is in the grip of a heat wave.
There has been no rain for days,
even weeks.
The summer sun has left Rome's
wooden buildings
as dry as kindling.
As evening falls,
Romans light thousands
of torches and oil lamps.
An experiment demonstrates
how the fire might have started
and then spread so quickly.
A small mishap,
like an overturned oil lamp,
would have been enough to start
a fire that moved quickly,
the flames igniting the wooden
walls and furnishings.
A hot, dry wind is blowing
on this particular evening,
helping the fire spread.
Once the fire burns the length
of the Circus,
it moves into an area of densely
built apartment blocks.
In this lower part of the city,
there aren't any
large structures like temples
or open spaces that could
have slowed the fire's pace.
Once it starts in earnest,
the fire is essentially
unstoppable.
♪♪
- If one objectively evaluates
all the individual elements,
then a single spark
in challenging conditions
would have been enough
to reduce the metropolis
to ash and cinders,
whether the spark was caused
intentionally or by accident.
The center of the city is soon
in ashes,
as are the imperial palaces
located close
to where the fire starts.
Nero's palace is among
those destroyed,
making it impossible for him
to have stood on the roof,
serenading the blaze.
♪♪
- I think that the story of Nero
rushing back to Rome to serenade
the burning city
from the roof of his palace
can safely be classified
as nothing more than myth.
His palace had been consumed
by the flames.
So Nero couldn't have performed
music on its roof.
- The claim that Nero had
the fire started to make room
for his new palace doesn't
stand up to examination either.
- If Nero really had wanted
to find space
to build his new palace,
he would have had any number
of other possibilities.
He could have simply
confiscated properties
and had buildings torn down.
- And Nero's beloved
art collection
is destroyed by the flames.
- If one takes all
the circumstances into account,
the historical records,
the architecture,
and the resulting scenarios,
there would have been
no clear motive for Nero
to set fire to Rome.
It is more likely that the fire
started by accident.
- This is a very different
portrait of Nero
than we are familiar with.
- He oversees
the firefighting efforts.
He proves himself a ruler
concerned for his people.
He has the parks opened
for the homeless.
He ensures there is
sufficient grain.
Essentially, he fulfills all
the expectations
the Roman populace
has in this situation,
which absolutely
does not conform to the image
of an insane,
power-hungry tyrant.
Indeed, he sounds more like
a reasonable, responsible ruler.
♪♪
- Even Tacitus, the only one of
the three writers alive
during the disaster,
credits Nero with effective
crisis management.
The emperor remains in Rome
while the city burns
and helps coordinate
the rescue efforts,
visiting those affected.
In order to save sections
of the Roman capital,
Nero has firebreaks
cut through the streets.
Unfortunately, this only leads
to accusations
he's responsible for
further destruction of the city,
and still the fire
continues to tear through
the wooden labyrinth
of narrow alleys.
Of Rome's 14 districts,
only four are unaffected.
As the rebuilding begins,
Nero insists on new procedures
to prevent future fires.
- After the fire,
Nero proves himself to be
a forward-thinking statesman.
He orders the implementation
of construction regulations
designed to prevent a repeat
of the catastrophe Rome
has just experienced.
For example, he mandates
that fire-resistant materials
be used during reconstruction
and that there must
be sufficient space
between the buildings.
♪♪
- The Rome that rises from
the ruins has far wider streets,
and Nero's fire
safety regulations
remain in place
into late antiquity.
But immediately after the blaze,
rumors surface
that the fire
was caused by arson
and that the emperor
may be responsible.
- In order to quell
the accusations leveled at him,
Nero had to find someone
to hold responsible
for the Great Fire of Rome.
Some in his inner circle
suggested
that the Christians
would make ideal scapegoats.
- Nero is often portrayed
as the Antichrist.
He is said to have had hundreds
of innocent Christians
brutally put to death,
the first persecution
of Christians in history.
This is the beginning
of a legend, Nero the Insane,
the sadist,
the personification of evil.
The roots of this myth
lie in the ashes
of the Great Fire of Rome.
Given the extent
of the destruction,
Romans refuse to believe
the fire started accidentally.
Nero is under increasing
public pressure
to find someone to blame.
Eventually, the emperor settles
on a new religious sect
that is widely disliked
and seems to have a motive.
- There has never been a disaster
which didn't immediately cause
a psychological quest
to find a guilty party.
The same applies
to the Great Fire of Rome.
But why were the Christians
targeted?
What was their significance
in ancient Rome?
What were their goals?
- The Romans view this new
Christian religion
with suspicion.
They have strange rituals,
burying their dead in catacombs,
belief in a single god,
refusing to believe in the
divine nature of the emperor,
all of which are counter
to Roman custom.
Christian religious history
has often censored,
exaggerated, or falsified facts.
The same applies to Nero's
alleged persecution
of Christians.
In addition to their
unfamiliar practices,
early Christians
might have hoped
for a disaster
like the Great Fire.
♪♪
- In this early period,
the Christians yearned
for the end of the world,
and yet it refused to arrive.
The first Christians died,
and there was still
no indication
of an approaching Armageddon.
It is, therefore,
easy to imagine
that the early Christians
celebrated an event
such as the Great Fire of Rome
as a signal that the end
of the world was finally near.
♪♪
- This new religion holds that
the world will end in flames.
Is the fire
the long-awaited moment?
Tacitus even states,
"The Christians
admit to starting the fire."
♪♪
- Jesus told his apostles
to follow him,
and it was widely understood
that he also meant in death
and in the manner of death.
Jesus Christ was executed
by the Romans.
Accordingly, the early
Christians would have considered
their execution at the hands of
the Romans an honorable death.
In this context, it made sense
to claim responsibility
for the fire,
accept blame, and be executed
in order to get into Heaven.
- Whether or not the Christians
set the fire,
their claims of responsibility
bring them sudden notoriety.
The previously unknown sect
is now infamous
throughout the city.
♪♪
The people want a scapegoat,
and Nero offers one up.
He punishes the Christians
in accordance
with the law at the time.
Arsonists are publicly burned
at the stake.
It is a cruel method
of execution,
a spectacle, theater
for the people of Rome,
and it serves
to strengthen Nero's authority.
For Nero,
the matter is finished.
And there's no evidence he
ever targeted Christians again.
- People get the culture
and the laws they deserve,
and this also applied
during the time of Nero.
As emperor, he had to deal
with a major catastrophe...
The Great Fire of Rome.
According to the historians,
he found the guilty parties
and had them publicly punished
in accordance
with the laws of the time
so that his people's
sense of pain and loss
could be drowned
in the thrill of revenge.
One could almost say
that he acted in the only way
he could to preserve his reign.
♪♪
- Remnants
of the Roman Forum today.
Nero's greatest treasure,
the Domus Aurea,
or golden house,
lies buried below these ruins
surrounding the Colosseum.
His great palace would
ultimately earn the emperor
a reputation as a megalomaniac.
Nero's grand estate
was eventually
submerged below
other structures.
No trace remains,
at least at ground level.
The building were only
discovered by accident in 1480,
when someone fell through a hole
in the remains
of the Baths of Trajan.
Below the baths were the high
rooms of the Domus Aurea.
Many frescoes and wall
decorations were still intact.
Nothing like it
had been seen before.
Only now, after many years
of extensive research,
is it possible to reconstruct
the palace compound
at its full scale
and artistic beauty.
♪♪
- With the Domus Aurea,
Nero fulfills his dream
of creating a life
shaped by the arts.
The emperor has artists
brought in from all
over the Roman Empire
to decorate his golden house.
Nero wants to make a statement
with the palace.
Here is what art and technology
can achieve.
The frescoes on the walls
and domes cover an area
of 300,000 square feet.
But Nero's dream
is enormously expensive,
and he demands tribute
from Rome's nobility
in order to pay for it.
The Domus Aurea marks the start
of his conflict
with the aristocracy
and the beginning of Nero's end.
- One of the main reasons
Nero became so unpopular
with the governing
political class
was that he started this massive
construction project in Rome
to build his golden house,
the likes of which had never
been seen in the city before.
- The palace complex,
located in the heart of Rome,
consists of several buildings
surrounded by extensive gardens,
lakes, and pools
to cool the air.
Nero even has some of
the roofs covered in gold,
which gives rise to the name
the Golden House.
Many rulers engage
in ostentatious behavior,
but Nero
seemingly eclipses them all.
This massive palace, built over
the remains of parts of the city
decimated by fire,
soon causes controversy.
It is enormously expensive
to maintain.
Behind the scenes,
an army of servants
is at the emperor's beck
and call day and night.
Rose petals fall from
the ceiling of some rooms
when Nero is present.
In fact, the great halls
of the palace
may represent
the zenith of Nero's power.
He successfully waged war
against Armenia and Britain,
finally ending conflicts
that simmered for years,
but Domus Aurea
earns him political enemies.
Nero is accused of being
a megalomaniac and wasteful.
According to Suetonius,
Nero claims
he's finally inhabiting
a home fit for a human being.
♪♪
- Mmm.
After considering all the
psychological details
of Nero's behavior,
one question is unavoidable.
What was Nero's mental state?
Was he insane, a megalomaniac?
Was he, in fact, not responsible
for his actions due to insanity?
- Nero has a statue of himself
built at the heart
of the Domus Aurea.
The statue is nearly 100 feet
high and visible across Rome.
Many, including Rome's elites,
as well as later historians,
feel that he has lost touch
with reality.
♪♪
- Nero was not an insane ruler.
The writers subsequently painted
this picture of the emperor,
but he was certainly
not psychologically ill.
He simply behaved in a manner
that did not suit
the politics of the day.
- Increasingly, Nero concentrates
on his own interests
and longs for a family
to inhabit his majestic home.
♪♪
Intent on settling down,
he falls in love with a woman
named Poppaea Sabina,
stunningly beautiful, educated,
intelligent and flirtatious.
They marry, and in 65 AD,
she becomes pregnant.
According to Tacitus,
Poppaea is the victim of Nero's
most brutal crime,
one he carries out himself.
- Once again, in the case
of Poppaea's death,
there are alleged
witness statements,
but there's
no material evidence.
- Recent research might shed
some light
on this dark episode
in Nero's history.
In the late 19th century,
British archaeologists
discovered hundreds of papyri
during excavations in the
Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus.
During the Roman Empire,
Oxyrhynchus had a population
of approximately 10,000 people.
♪♪
The archaeologists put the
pieces of papyrus back together
as though completing a puzzle
and revealed a piece of writing.
Unfortunately, they were
unable to read it,
and the content of the papyrus
remained a mystery
for more than a century.
A few years ago, a team
of experts devoted itself
to figuring out
what the text said.
- I didn't have
the slightest idea
what this papyrus
was going to be.
I started working on the text,
deciphering the text
from a very badly
preserved piece of papyrus.
- The document was written
in classical Greek
nearly 200 years
after Nero's death.
Translating the ancient language
wasn't the problem.
Rather, only a few fragments
survived the millennia.
- All of a sudden, I stumbled
upon the name of Nero,
and I couldn't believe my eyes.
What was he doing there?
And I kept reading, and there
came another occurrence of Nero
somewhere else in the text,
and then another time,
and a fourth time.
There was Nero in four places
in what was actually a poem.
- The experts found references
to a woman who was dying,
Nero's wife, Poppaea.
But there was no mention
of her murder,
let alone at the hand of Nero.
- This is quite a surprise
in our papyrus.
This woman doesn't die
from a violent death.
On the contrary, the story
as you find it on this papyrus
tells you about the love between
Poppaea and her husband, Nero.
And this is really not the story
that we find in other sources,
where, allegedly, Nero kicked
his wife in her belly
while she was pregnant
and killed her.
This story of the kick in the
belly is simply not credible.
- Profiler Mueller cautions
against taking any reports
about Nero at face value.
- We should not give into
the temptation
to condemn the writers'
works as untrustworthy
and then be willing
to unconditionally believe
reports that provide a more
positive impression of Nero.
The same applies to both.
They are stories
that mainly reflect
the intentions of the writers.
- But the Oxyrhynchus text does
confirm
that there are sources
besides the three main writers.
♪♪
Nobody knows
what really happened.
Historians suspect Poppaea died
as a result of complications
during pregnancy.
Was the story of the kick
to the stomach ever believable?
It seems the writers recycled
an often-used literary device.
- What is particularly
interesting about this story
is that it reappears
again and again
with different protagonists
in different eras.
This shows that the writers knew
they would never discover
the truth about Poppaea's death,
but that they intended
to represent Nero as evil.
The easiest way to do this
was to repeat the story
that had been around
for centuries
that tyrants
kill pregnant women.
♪♪
- The most interesting aspect
is that an important writer
like Tacitus
was willing to adopt this story
and then present it as fact.
This shows just what the writers
considered historical truth...
Not the facts as they occurred,
but their own personal version
of the truth.
And their version of the truth
was to find a story
that plausibly
painted Nero as a tyrant.
- The Roman city of Pompeii
was buried beneath lava and ash
after Mount Vesuvius
erupted in 79 AD,
buried, but not destroyed.
Today, its excavation is an
important source of information
about ancient Roman life.
In Pompeii, there are, in fact,
indications that Nero
was beloved by his subjects...
inscriptions on the walls,
graffiti that reveals
the attitudes of the populace.
- What really surprised me when
I started doing my field work
was how small
these inscriptions are.
So we, modern 21st century
people, think of graffiti,
and we think of spray paint,
or we think of big,
big statements.
But in the ancient world,
you get very small writing.
- Most of the graffiti was found
in the ruins of the houses
in the Via dell'Abbondanza,
which suffered further damage
during World War Il,
although photos still remain.
- So we have 80 graffiti written
by the man on the street,
the general population
in Pompeii,
and we find them
throughout the town.
We find them in people's houses.
We find them
in people's kitchens.
These are inscriptions that are
writing the emperor's name.
They weren't removing them.
Not a single one has a negative
aspect or characteristic to it.
So these graffiti are really
showing us how popular Nero was.
- This bit of graffiti
was found in the house
of Paquius Proculus.
It was written
by the slave Cucuta,
who proudly left his name
next to that of Nero's.
Another example, gladiators
who went through the imperial
training school
called themselves Neroiani,
after their emperor,
and their graffiti suggests
why he was so popular.
- In Pompeii, we think that Nero
probably canceled a ban
on gladiatorial games
that had been put into play.
The city of Pompeii
wasn't allowed to hold
gladiatorial spectacles
for a period of 10 years.
The people were pretty unhappy.
Nero comes in and says,
"All right. You can go ahead
and go back to holding games,"
and the people loved him.
- Bread and circuses, a strategy
used by many Roman emperors
to ensure their own popularity.
But in ancient Rome,
popularity is not the same thing
is political power.
The aristocracy, and therefore
the Senate,
feel Nero is no longer
serving its interests.
As Mueller explains,
Nero's popularity
with the citizens of Rome
angers
the empire's political class.
- Nero was popular because
he obviously knew how to satisfy
the demands of his subjects
in order to distract
from his own
occasionally excessive needs.
However, Rome's elites wanted to
establish their own popularity
with the people
with a set of values
that were very different
from Nero's.
This had to lead
to an escalation.
- The political elite also
disapprove of what they see
as Nero's extravagant lifestyle.
Suetonius describes a wanton
lazy existence.
The emperor is considered
decadent and depraved.
But perhaps the real problem
is that Nero never wanted
to be emperor.
At heart, he is an artist.
His ambitious mother, Agrippina,
may have trained him
in the ways of a statesman,
but he has no passion for it.
Nero is particularly attracted
to acting,
frequently engaging
in challenging voice exercises.
- He is, quite simply,
a free spirit,
but emperors, statesmen,
and politicians
are expected
to follow a moral code
and meet their
political responsibilities.
Any artistic pursuit goes
against the Roman values
of aggression, bravery
and a defiance of death.
But Nero is unable to let go
of his artistic dreams.
He continues to study acting,
using lead weights to strengthen
his respiratory muscles
and learning
how to control his breath.
His goal is to one day
perform on stage.
♪♪
In 66 AD, the emperor takes
a large entourage
on an extended journey
around Greece
that lasts more than a year.
Above all, Nero hopes to visit
the games in Olympia
and attend the large
theater performances.
His intention is to participate
as an athlete and an actor.
♪♪
Nero neglects his duties
as a political leader
and ignores his role
as a representative
of Roman values.
Primarily
interested in other pursuits,
Nero pays less and less
attention to affairs of state
or to what is going
on behind the scenes.
Nero becomes a huge admirer
of Greece.
During his journey, he give
the inhabitants of the Achea
province in the Peloponnese
region their freedom,
which means that they no longer
have to pay taxes to Rome,
a generous and expensive gesture
that angers the Roman Senate.
But it's his passion
for the arts
that ultimately does Nero in.
- Actors, singers, musicians,
these were jobs with terrible
status in Roman antiquity.
Performers were at the very
bottom of the social hierarchy,
and had an extremely
questionable reputation.
It was simply unthinkable
that an emperor
could move in these circles,
let alone perform himself.
- From today's point of view,
the idea of a ruler
simultaneously being an artist
doesn't sound so terrible.
However, Nero crossed a line.
Over the years, he allowed
his artistic endeavors
to assume so much significance
that he was essentially
no longer able to fulfill his
responsibilities as an emperor.
He became more an artist
than a ruler
in the public consciousness,
and this unquestionably went too
far for many of Rome's elites.
- The Senate has had enough
of Nero,
as have parts of the military.
Revolts break out
in the provinces,
and the empire is
in danger of collapse.
The Senate declares the emperor
an enemy of the state,
stripping him
of his imperial role
and sentencing him to death.
- When we look back now,
Rome's emperors always
appear omnipotent.
However, they were
only all-powerful
when they had the support
of the Praetorian Guard,
the army, and most
of the Senate.
In fact, much of the time,
they were exceedingly
vulnerable.
If they lost the support of just
one of these groups,
they quickly became powerless.
♪♪
- Abandoned by his followers,
Nero flees to a small estate
near Rome.
He knows what fate awaits him.
Roman law dictates
he be stripped naked
and his neck painfully pinned
to a forked stick
before being led out of jail.
After severe
corporal punishment,
he will be thrown off a cliff.
♪♪
The only way Nero can escape
punishment is to commit suicide.
Suetonius is the only writer
to describe Nero's final hours.
He paints a particularly
humiliating picture
of the emperor's death.
According to Suetonius,
Nero finally decides
to take his own life
as Roman guards
come to arrest him.
He hesitates,
and a loyal servant steps
in to offer encouragement.
But how could Suetonius know
these intimate details?
He wasn't in the room.
Another reason to question
his dark biography of Nero.
♪♪
Almost before Nero
is even buried,
the defamation and character
assassination begin,
and while his infamy grows
as a result of
the three writers' accounts,
there's little
historical evidence
to support the crimes
he's accused of.
- If each of these events
is investigated
using modern
criminalistic methods,
and if experts in different
fields are called in to assist,
it soon becomes clear
that objectivity
rapidly took a backseat
to speculations,
conjecture,
and subjective representations.
It is questionable whether Nero
could even be put on trial
in a modern legal system.
Without a doubt, he would
never be convicted
of all the crimes
he's accused of.
- The images we have of Nero
are the ones placed
in our consciousness
by those who emerged
from history victorious.
Forced to take his own life,
Nero was a victim of history,
perhaps in more ways than one.
♪♪
This program was made possible
in part
by the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting
and by contributions
to your PBS station
from viewers like you.
Thank you.
- History has portrayed
Roman Emperor Nero
as one of the great villains,
a cruel insane
despot responsible
for the Great Fire of Rome.
Nero's name is synonymous
with evil,
killer of his own mother
and wife,
poisoner of his stepbrother,
and persecutor of Christians.
He lived a debauched
and decadent life.
This is the judgment
passed by history.
- There was no form
of historical record
similar to our modern
understanding of history.
The writings were politically
motivated,
captivating literature.
- And yet, new discoveries
suggest history
may have gotten it wrong.
Now, a forensic profiler
considers new evidence
to discover the truth
about the controversial emperor.
- As the writers would appear
to be unreliable,
they would not be considered
objective witnesses
by modern standards.
♪♪
- "The Nero Files."
♪♪
This program was made
possible in part
by the Corporation
For Public Broadcasting
and by contributions
to your PBS station
from viewers like you.
Thank you.
- Rome, 64 AD,
the night of July 18th.
The city is in flames.
The fire will burn for 9 days,
large areas of Rome
completely destroyed.
The rumor that the narcissistic
tyrant Nero
started the blaze
has persisted for 2,000 years.
His alleged motivation?
Artistic inspiration.
The emperor is said to have
watched the disaster
from the roof of his palace
while making music,
or as legend has it,
he fiddled while Rome burned
and his subjects died.
But are these tales
of the mad tyrant true?
There are significant doubts.
♪♪
Forensic psychologist
Thomas Mueller
has studied numerous criminals
over the course of his career.
Now, he turns his attention
to Nero's legacy
using a cold-case approach,
establishing the facts
and examining the veracity
of the sources.
Can the accusations leveled
at Nero withstand
modern investigative methods?
- Is it possible that Nero
was also a victim
or even the victim?
- Rome, 54 AD.
16-year-old Nero and his mother,
Agrippina,
rush to the emperor's bedside.
♪♪
Emperor Claudius,
Agrippina's husband, is dying.
He is attended to by his
biological children
from a previous marriage...
His daughter, Octavia,
and his son, Britannicus.
Britannicus is the legitimate
heir to the throne,
but he is only 13 years old.
Nero is merely
the emperor's stepson,
but he is 3 years older.
If the emperor dies now,
Nero will become his successor.
Accounts suggest Claudius
was murdered,
possibly with poisoned food.
Doctors rush to save him...
but it is too late.
Agrippina has achieved her goal.
Nero's ambitious mother
only married Claudius
to ensure Nero, her son
from her first marriage,
would become emperor.
Does she kill Claudius before
Britannicus can come of age
so Nero can take the throne?
♪♪
- Murder and violent removal
of political opponents
were an everyday occurrence
in imperial Rome.
Assuming power was not done
by democratic means.
Power was achieved by violence,
aggression, and assassinations.
- Historians suspect Agrippina
is responsible
for the emperor's murder.
With Claudius' death, Nero now
becomes emperor at just 16,
even though he is
not the legitimate heir.
- One could say that Agrippina
was a woman
fully aware of her power
and that she knew
how to take advantage
of any opportunity
that presented itself.
We cannot say with any certainty
whether she did kill Claudius,
but people at the time
immediately accused
her of doing so.
- This suspicion casts a shadow
over Nero's reign
from its outset.
- The question is, "How is it
possible that an emperor of Rome
became the bastard of history?"
Who told us that he was
such a monster?
Where does our information
actually come from,
and can the witnesses
stand up to examination?
- Three Roman writers
are primarily responsible
for having recorded
the details of Nero's life,
even though they never met him.
Tacitus was 10 years old
when Nero died.
Suetonius
was born 2 years later,
and Cassius Dio wasn't born
until a century
after Nero's reign.
They created the image
of the mad tyrant,
and yet each writer's story
is different.
One questions whether
Nero had anything to do
with the Great Fire of Rome,
while another is convinced
he started the blaze,
and the third writer suggests
Nero fiddled
while his city burned.
Who can one trust?
- As a criminal psychologist,
I've experienced this over
and over again.
People see what
they want to see,
and sometimes
they will write or say
whatever it is
they want to convey.
The fact is, all three writers
lived after Nero's time.
They did not know him
personally,
and their knowledge
was based on stories.
Did they, perhaps, add elements
that were important to them?
- Just 13 when his father dies,
Britannicus,
the emperor's biological son,
is frail and possibly epileptic,
and yet he might pose
a threat to young Emperor Nero
should he lay claim
to the throne
when he reaches maturity.
♪♪
It is 55 AD,
and Nero has been emperor
for several months,
a feast in the palace.
The imperial family
has invited guests.
As is customary, Britannicus
selects his favorite dishes.
It is business as usual
in the palace.
♪♪
And yet, according to accounts,
before the meal is over,
Britannicus will
be assassinated.
The killer?
Nero.
The weapon?
A powerful poison.
Using poison to commit murder
is difficult in ancient Rome,
as the meals of the rich and
powerful are tasted in advance.
♪♪
In Tacitus' account,
Nero manages to avoid the taster
by slyly placing the poison
in Britannicus' drink
rather than his food.
♪♪
Drinks are also sampled by
the taster, but Nero is clever.
He has a harmless,
but very hot, drink served.
♪♪
Britannicus is unable
to drink it.
Cold, clear water
is added to cool the drink.
The water is poisoned
and is poured without
being sampled by the taster.
According to Tacitus, the poison
races through Britannicus' body,
making it impossible for him
to breathe or speak.
♪♪
And all three writers agree
he dies almost immediately.
A potential adversary
has been removed,
but there are doubts
about the poison plot
as the writers present it.
Mueller explains.
- In terms of criminal
psychology, using poison means
committing murder
without leaving scars.
However, murder by poison
is easier to describe
than to commit,
even in ancient Rome.
The descriptions
of Britannicus' death
suggests a rapidly acting poison
that was both colorless
and odorless.
Did such a poison even exist
in the age of Nero?
- In antiquity, the most
effective poisons
were plant toxins
from yew trees,
lily of the valley,
hemlock, and wolfsbane.
Today, scientists in
a modern forensic lab
are testing whether
any of these poisons
could have killed Britannicus
in the manner described.
The poison had to have been
both colorless and odorless.
Otherwise, it would have been
immediately
detectable in the water,
and it had to take effect
within seconds.
In order to put the poison
in the water,
the toxin would have had to be
extracted from the plant first.
One way to do this
was by boiling the plants.
♪♪
The more the water is reduced
during the boil,
the more concentrated
the poison will be,
but the color and aroma
also become more intense.
Even when strained to remove
impurities, the color remains.
Tacitus writes that the poison
is placed in a jug of water
that was used to cool
Britannicus' hot drink.
If that was the case,
the poison had to have been
very concentrated
in order to remain effective
after being watered down twice.
♪♪
- If one considers all the steps
that are required to create
an odorless and colorless poison
that is sufficiently
toxic enough to be effective,
then one must accept
that it was practically
impossible at the time,
considering the methods
that were available.
- Nor does the time line,
as described,
withstand close scrutiny.
- If a plant toxin
is ingested orally,
it takes time for the poison
to cross
from the digestive system
into the bloodstream.
Then, it must still be
transported to the part
of the body
where it takes effect.
It is, therefore,
fundamentally inconceivable
that death
could occur within seconds.
- The writers' claims of a
sudden death caused by poison
already appear
somewhat unreliable.
- According to the toxicologist's
conclusions,
there was no poison
that would have had
the effects
described by the writers.
So given the circumstances,
is it not possible
that an epileptic fit
was seen as attempted murder?
After all, people believed
Nero was capable of anything.
- Agrippina
has not made Nero emperor
out of a mother's love
for her son.
She sees herself as the true
ruler of the empire
and Nero as a mere puppet.
She is the power
behind the throne,
and she makes no effort
to conceal it,
as coins from the era reveal.
- When Nero ascends to the throne
in 54 AD,
something very unusual happens
to the Roman currency.
The first coins that are minted
show both the reigning emperor
and, at eye level
and the same size, his mother.
This hadn't happened before,
and it would not happen again.
Agrippina
publicly lays claim to power,
and the first conflicts between
mother and son soon follow.
The coins show
this very clearly.
Just a few months
after the first coins
find their way into circulation,
a second coin is released.
The new coin still includes
Agrippina,
but she has now moved
into the background.
She no longer holds
the same significance
she did at the beginning
of Nero's reign.
A few months later,
she has vanished
from the currency altogether.
Her declining influence
and the looming conflict
with her son are clearly visible
on the faces of Rome's coins.
♪♪
- Nero grows up,
maturing into an adult.
♪♪
He is now 21 years old.
He has reigned successfully
for 5 years,
something even the writers
are prepared to admit.
Nero is an ambitious emperor
with progressive ideas,
building public baths
and markets for his subjects.
They, in turn,
revere their ruler.
He is interested in the arts,
sports, and science.
He has grand architectural
plans for Rome,
but his relationship
with his mother has suffered.
Nero is at the Baiae resort
on the Gulf of Pozzuoli,
north of Naples,
where ancient Rome's rich
and famous
go to escape the city.
He has supposedly invited
his mother to Baiae
so they can share a meal
and resolve their differences.
♪♪
But according to the writers,
the invitation is merely a ruse
to lure her to her death.
♪♪
Tacitus writes that Nero
accompanies Agrippina
as she leaves
his palace in Baiae.
His last glimpse
of his condemned
mother touches his cold heart.
♪♪
He has ordered her death
for that very night.
♪♪
Nero returns to his villa
while the murder plot unfolds
on the high seas.
Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio
provide detailed accounts
of the fateful night.
According to their descriptions,
Nero has a trusted assistant
prepare Agrippina's yacht
with a trapdoor
that will open
and sweep her out to sea.
Cassius Dio writes the mechanism
would then close,
and the boat
would continue sailing
as though nothing had happened.
Nero could easily have
disguised a crime on the ship.
As Tacitus wrote, "Nothing
allowed of accidents
so much as the sea."
- When investigating disasters
at sea or at higher elevations,
specialists and experts
for the relevant structures,
wind and weather conditions,
and water currents
play an important role.
Let us follow the evidence
to determine
whether the story told
by the writers
would stand up in court.
- An experiment
in a ship model basin
will hopefully reveal the truth.
According to Tacitus,
Agrippina's yacht was a trireme,
a galley with three banks
of oars on either side.
The mother of the Emperor
would have had a luxurious cabin
at the stern of the ship.
Agrippina's yacht
is reconstructed
at a scale of 1 to 9
in the ship model basin.
The aim of the experiment
is to determine
what kind of modifications
would have been necessary
to create an opening in the ship
that someone could fall through.
The experts are certain
that trapdoors would have been
the only possibility,
and they install two flaps
at the stern of the model.
One opens inward, while the
other opens out into the water.
♪♪
On dry land,
both trapdoors work perfectly.
In the water, though,
things are very different.
Now it's time to test
the trapdoor theory.
The depth of the hull
is reconstructed exactly.
The flaps are now underwater.
The door opening into the ship
would have let the water flow
in immediately,
stopping anyone from falling out
and also quickly
sinking the ship.
Given these results,
the trapdoor must have opened
outwards, and yet it can't.
The water pressure
keeps the flap closed,
and the ship sails on as normal.
Perhaps more force is required.
Weights are placed
on the trapdoor.
So much weight is needed
to force the flap open,
the ship begins to sink.
Approximately 2 tons would have
been required
to force the door open,
but that would have
sunk the ship
before it ever left the harbor.
Additionally, once the door
opened out,
there wouldn't have been
a way to close it.
Water would have flooded
in and sunk the ship.
The writers' descriptions just
aren't reliable as evidence.
- Telling the truth didn't mean
providing descriptions
or reconstructions of events
that were 100 percent accurate.
Rather, the story
had to be told well
and had to be built
around a sweet center
that increased the appetite and
the attention of the readers.
- Efforts to tell a good story
have made it difficult
for modern-day experts
to determine the truth.
- There was no form
of historical record
similar to our modern
understanding of history.
The writings were
politically motivated,
captivating literature,
and that is an important point.
It is literature rather than a
scientific approach to history.
Its primary purpose
was to be exciting.
At the time, this was
the pinnacle of writing,
stylistically sophisticated,
excitingly told,
and attractively presented.
- According to the writers,
the attempted murder fails,
and Agrippina manages
to reach land.
Nero panics and,
fearing his mother's revenge,
sends armed men to
her villa to kill her.
Cassius Dio claims that Nero has
his mother's dead body uncovered
so he can examine it himself,
while Tacitus questions
whether this is really true.
- There were no witnesses.
We know that Agrippina
was killed,
but it is impossible to recreate
the details of her death,
which is why, in antiquity,
this story was invented
and passed on to create
a particularly dramatic tale
of how a son killed his mother.
♪♪
- But the fact remains.
Whether Nero gave the order
to kill his mother
or she died
by other means, her death
and the rumors surrounding
it were a burden Nero carried
for the rest of his life
and beyond.
The writers' horrifying stories
about Agrippina's death
continue to shape perceptions
of Nero to this day.
What really happened that night,
however, will remain a mystery.
- As the writers would appear
to be unreliable,
they would not be considered
objective witnesses
by modern standards.
In summary, there are reports
that Nero had
his mother murdered,
but there's
no material evidence,
and there are
no convincing leads.
- Rome, the summer of 64 AD.
The city is in flames, again.
Fire was a constant danger,
but this time, it's different.
The blaze spreads faster
and farther than any before it.
Suetonius and Cassius Dio
accuse Nero
of starting the fire and suggest
two possible motives.
Either he wanted to create
space for the Domus Aurea,
his new golden palace,
or alternatively,
he wanted Rome to burn
to serve as inspiration
for his artistic endeavors,
so he could serenade the flames.
Tacitus, the third writer,
doesn't offer a theory.
- So did Nero have a motive
to set fire to Rome?
We have been forced to accept
that the writers were prepared
to write down
their own versions of the truth,
for whatever reasons.
But what really happened
in the days and nights
while Rome burned?
- At this moment in history,
Rome is a bustling metropolis.
Its streets are filled
with people.
In fact, the capital
is bursting at the seams.
People elbow their way
through the hot, narrow alleys
that make up most of the city.
Land is extremely valuable,
and urban planning and fire
safety are of little concern.
Buildings are made of
substandard quality,
and many are made of wood
and built close together.
On this fateful day,
this construction method
seals the fate of much
of the eternal city.
The fire starts late in the
evening near the Circus Maximus,
a popular nighttime haunt
in ancient Rome.
The inferno rages for 9 days.
Excavations have confirmed
the blaze affected
two-thirds of the city.
The rapid spread of the fire
and the scale of destruction
immediately give rise
to rumors of arson.
- How did the fire spread
so rapidly?
Was it the work of arsonists who
set fires in various locations,
or was a spark enough
to cause the blaze?
- On this July day, the city
is in the grip of a heat wave.
There has been no rain for days,
even weeks.
The summer sun has left Rome's
wooden buildings
as dry as kindling.
As evening falls,
Romans light thousands
of torches and oil lamps.
An experiment demonstrates
how the fire might have started
and then spread so quickly.
A small mishap,
like an overturned oil lamp,
would have been enough to start
a fire that moved quickly,
the flames igniting the wooden
walls and furnishings.
A hot, dry wind is blowing
on this particular evening,
helping the fire spread.
Once the fire burns the length
of the Circus,
it moves into an area of densely
built apartment blocks.
In this lower part of the city,
there aren't any
large structures like temples
or open spaces that could
have slowed the fire's pace.
Once it starts in earnest,
the fire is essentially
unstoppable.
♪♪
- If one objectively evaluates
all the individual elements,
then a single spark
in challenging conditions
would have been enough
to reduce the metropolis
to ash and cinders,
whether the spark was caused
intentionally or by accident.
The center of the city is soon
in ashes,
as are the imperial palaces
located close
to where the fire starts.
Nero's palace is among
those destroyed,
making it impossible for him
to have stood on the roof,
serenading the blaze.
♪♪
- I think that the story of Nero
rushing back to Rome to serenade
the burning city
from the roof of his palace
can safely be classified
as nothing more than myth.
His palace had been consumed
by the flames.
So Nero couldn't have performed
music on its roof.
- The claim that Nero had
the fire started to make room
for his new palace doesn't
stand up to examination either.
- If Nero really had wanted
to find space
to build his new palace,
he would have had any number
of other possibilities.
He could have simply
confiscated properties
and had buildings torn down.
- And Nero's beloved
art collection
is destroyed by the flames.
- If one takes all
the circumstances into account,
the historical records,
the architecture,
and the resulting scenarios,
there would have been
no clear motive for Nero
to set fire to Rome.
It is more likely that the fire
started by accident.
- This is a very different
portrait of Nero
than we are familiar with.
- He oversees
the firefighting efforts.
He proves himself a ruler
concerned for his people.
He has the parks opened
for the homeless.
He ensures there is
sufficient grain.
Essentially, he fulfills all
the expectations
the Roman populace
has in this situation,
which absolutely
does not conform to the image
of an insane,
power-hungry tyrant.
Indeed, he sounds more like
a reasonable, responsible ruler.
♪♪
- Even Tacitus, the only one of
the three writers alive
during the disaster,
credits Nero with effective
crisis management.
The emperor remains in Rome
while the city burns
and helps coordinate
the rescue efforts,
visiting those affected.
In order to save sections
of the Roman capital,
Nero has firebreaks
cut through the streets.
Unfortunately, this only leads
to accusations
he's responsible for
further destruction of the city,
and still the fire
continues to tear through
the wooden labyrinth
of narrow alleys.
Of Rome's 14 districts,
only four are unaffected.
As the rebuilding begins,
Nero insists on new procedures
to prevent future fires.
- After the fire,
Nero proves himself to be
a forward-thinking statesman.
He orders the implementation
of construction regulations
designed to prevent a repeat
of the catastrophe Rome
has just experienced.
For example, he mandates
that fire-resistant materials
be used during reconstruction
and that there must
be sufficient space
between the buildings.
♪♪
- The Rome that rises from
the ruins has far wider streets,
and Nero's fire
safety regulations
remain in place
into late antiquity.
But immediately after the blaze,
rumors surface
that the fire
was caused by arson
and that the emperor
may be responsible.
- In order to quell
the accusations leveled at him,
Nero had to find someone
to hold responsible
for the Great Fire of Rome.
Some in his inner circle
suggested
that the Christians
would make ideal scapegoats.
- Nero is often portrayed
as the Antichrist.
He is said to have had hundreds
of innocent Christians
brutally put to death,
the first persecution
of Christians in history.
This is the beginning
of a legend, Nero the Insane,
the sadist,
the personification of evil.
The roots of this myth
lie in the ashes
of the Great Fire of Rome.
Given the extent
of the destruction,
Romans refuse to believe
the fire started accidentally.
Nero is under increasing
public pressure
to find someone to blame.
Eventually, the emperor settles
on a new religious sect
that is widely disliked
and seems to have a motive.
- There has never been a disaster
which didn't immediately cause
a psychological quest
to find a guilty party.
The same applies
to the Great Fire of Rome.
But why were the Christians
targeted?
What was their significance
in ancient Rome?
What were their goals?
- The Romans view this new
Christian religion
with suspicion.
They have strange rituals,
burying their dead in catacombs,
belief in a single god,
refusing to believe in the
divine nature of the emperor,
all of which are counter
to Roman custom.
Christian religious history
has often censored,
exaggerated, or falsified facts.
The same applies to Nero's
alleged persecution
of Christians.
In addition to their
unfamiliar practices,
early Christians
might have hoped
for a disaster
like the Great Fire.
♪♪
- In this early period,
the Christians yearned
for the end of the world,
and yet it refused to arrive.
The first Christians died,
and there was still
no indication
of an approaching Armageddon.
It is, therefore,
easy to imagine
that the early Christians
celebrated an event
such as the Great Fire of Rome
as a signal that the end
of the world was finally near.
♪♪
- This new religion holds that
the world will end in flames.
Is the fire
the long-awaited moment?
Tacitus even states,
"The Christians
admit to starting the fire."
♪♪
- Jesus told his apostles
to follow him,
and it was widely understood
that he also meant in death
and in the manner of death.
Jesus Christ was executed
by the Romans.
Accordingly, the early
Christians would have considered
their execution at the hands of
the Romans an honorable death.
In this context, it made sense
to claim responsibility
for the fire,
accept blame, and be executed
in order to get into Heaven.
- Whether or not the Christians
set the fire,
their claims of responsibility
bring them sudden notoriety.
The previously unknown sect
is now infamous
throughout the city.
♪♪
The people want a scapegoat,
and Nero offers one up.
He punishes the Christians
in accordance
with the law at the time.
Arsonists are publicly burned
at the stake.
It is a cruel method
of execution,
a spectacle, theater
for the people of Rome,
and it serves
to strengthen Nero's authority.
For Nero,
the matter is finished.
And there's no evidence he
ever targeted Christians again.
- People get the culture
and the laws they deserve,
and this also applied
during the time of Nero.
As emperor, he had to deal
with a major catastrophe...
The Great Fire of Rome.
According to the historians,
he found the guilty parties
and had them publicly punished
in accordance
with the laws of the time
so that his people's
sense of pain and loss
could be drowned
in the thrill of revenge.
One could almost say
that he acted in the only way
he could to preserve his reign.
♪♪
- Remnants
of the Roman Forum today.
Nero's greatest treasure,
the Domus Aurea,
or golden house,
lies buried below these ruins
surrounding the Colosseum.
His great palace would
ultimately earn the emperor
a reputation as a megalomaniac.
Nero's grand estate
was eventually
submerged below
other structures.
No trace remains,
at least at ground level.
The building were only
discovered by accident in 1480,
when someone fell through a hole
in the remains
of the Baths of Trajan.
Below the baths were the high
rooms of the Domus Aurea.
Many frescoes and wall
decorations were still intact.
Nothing like it
had been seen before.
Only now, after many years
of extensive research,
is it possible to reconstruct
the palace compound
at its full scale
and artistic beauty.
♪♪
- With the Domus Aurea,
Nero fulfills his dream
of creating a life
shaped by the arts.
The emperor has artists
brought in from all
over the Roman Empire
to decorate his golden house.
Nero wants to make a statement
with the palace.
Here is what art and technology
can achieve.
The frescoes on the walls
and domes cover an area
of 300,000 square feet.
But Nero's dream
is enormously expensive,
and he demands tribute
from Rome's nobility
in order to pay for it.
The Domus Aurea marks the start
of his conflict
with the aristocracy
and the beginning of Nero's end.
- One of the main reasons
Nero became so unpopular
with the governing
political class
was that he started this massive
construction project in Rome
to build his golden house,
the likes of which had never
been seen in the city before.
- The palace complex,
located in the heart of Rome,
consists of several buildings
surrounded by extensive gardens,
lakes, and pools
to cool the air.
Nero even has some of
the roofs covered in gold,
which gives rise to the name
the Golden House.
Many rulers engage
in ostentatious behavior,
but Nero
seemingly eclipses them all.
This massive palace, built over
the remains of parts of the city
decimated by fire,
soon causes controversy.
It is enormously expensive
to maintain.
Behind the scenes,
an army of servants
is at the emperor's beck
and call day and night.
Rose petals fall from
the ceiling of some rooms
when Nero is present.
In fact, the great halls
of the palace
may represent
the zenith of Nero's power.
He successfully waged war
against Armenia and Britain,
finally ending conflicts
that simmered for years,
but Domus Aurea
earns him political enemies.
Nero is accused of being
a megalomaniac and wasteful.
According to Suetonius,
Nero claims
he's finally inhabiting
a home fit for a human being.
♪♪
- Mmm.
After considering all the
psychological details
of Nero's behavior,
one question is unavoidable.
What was Nero's mental state?
Was he insane, a megalomaniac?
Was he, in fact, not responsible
for his actions due to insanity?
- Nero has a statue of himself
built at the heart
of the Domus Aurea.
The statue is nearly 100 feet
high and visible across Rome.
Many, including Rome's elites,
as well as later historians,
feel that he has lost touch
with reality.
♪♪
- Nero was not an insane ruler.
The writers subsequently painted
this picture of the emperor,
but he was certainly
not psychologically ill.
He simply behaved in a manner
that did not suit
the politics of the day.
- Increasingly, Nero concentrates
on his own interests
and longs for a family
to inhabit his majestic home.
♪♪
Intent on settling down,
he falls in love with a woman
named Poppaea Sabina,
stunningly beautiful, educated,
intelligent and flirtatious.
They marry, and in 65 AD,
she becomes pregnant.
According to Tacitus,
Poppaea is the victim of Nero's
most brutal crime,
one he carries out himself.
- Once again, in the case
of Poppaea's death,
there are alleged
witness statements,
but there's
no material evidence.
- Recent research might shed
some light
on this dark episode
in Nero's history.
In the late 19th century,
British archaeologists
discovered hundreds of papyri
during excavations in the
Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus.
During the Roman Empire,
Oxyrhynchus had a population
of approximately 10,000 people.
♪♪
The archaeologists put the
pieces of papyrus back together
as though completing a puzzle
and revealed a piece of writing.
Unfortunately, they were
unable to read it,
and the content of the papyrus
remained a mystery
for more than a century.
A few years ago, a team
of experts devoted itself
to figuring out
what the text said.
- I didn't have
the slightest idea
what this papyrus
was going to be.
I started working on the text,
deciphering the text
from a very badly
preserved piece of papyrus.
- The document was written
in classical Greek
nearly 200 years
after Nero's death.
Translating the ancient language
wasn't the problem.
Rather, only a few fragments
survived the millennia.
- All of a sudden, I stumbled
upon the name of Nero,
and I couldn't believe my eyes.
What was he doing there?
And I kept reading, and there
came another occurrence of Nero
somewhere else in the text,
and then another time,
and a fourth time.
There was Nero in four places
in what was actually a poem.
- The experts found references
to a woman who was dying,
Nero's wife, Poppaea.
But there was no mention
of her murder,
let alone at the hand of Nero.
- This is quite a surprise
in our papyrus.
This woman doesn't die
from a violent death.
On the contrary, the story
as you find it on this papyrus
tells you about the love between
Poppaea and her husband, Nero.
And this is really not the story
that we find in other sources,
where, allegedly, Nero kicked
his wife in her belly
while she was pregnant
and killed her.
This story of the kick in the
belly is simply not credible.
- Profiler Mueller cautions
against taking any reports
about Nero at face value.
- We should not give into
the temptation
to condemn the writers'
works as untrustworthy
and then be willing
to unconditionally believe
reports that provide a more
positive impression of Nero.
The same applies to both.
They are stories
that mainly reflect
the intentions of the writers.
- But the Oxyrhynchus text does
confirm
that there are sources
besides the three main writers.
♪♪
Nobody knows
what really happened.
Historians suspect Poppaea died
as a result of complications
during pregnancy.
Was the story of the kick
to the stomach ever believable?
It seems the writers recycled
an often-used literary device.
- What is particularly
interesting about this story
is that it reappears
again and again
with different protagonists
in different eras.
This shows that the writers knew
they would never discover
the truth about Poppaea's death,
but that they intended
to represent Nero as evil.
The easiest way to do this
was to repeat the story
that had been around
for centuries
that tyrants
kill pregnant women.
♪♪
- The most interesting aspect
is that an important writer
like Tacitus
was willing to adopt this story
and then present it as fact.
This shows just what the writers
considered historical truth...
Not the facts as they occurred,
but their own personal version
of the truth.
And their version of the truth
was to find a story
that plausibly
painted Nero as a tyrant.
- The Roman city of Pompeii
was buried beneath lava and ash
after Mount Vesuvius
erupted in 79 AD,
buried, but not destroyed.
Today, its excavation is an
important source of information
about ancient Roman life.
In Pompeii, there are, in fact,
indications that Nero
was beloved by his subjects...
inscriptions on the walls,
graffiti that reveals
the attitudes of the populace.
- What really surprised me when
I started doing my field work
was how small
these inscriptions are.
So we, modern 21st century
people, think of graffiti,
and we think of spray paint,
or we think of big,
big statements.
But in the ancient world,
you get very small writing.
- Most of the graffiti was found
in the ruins of the houses
in the Via dell'Abbondanza,
which suffered further damage
during World War Il,
although photos still remain.
- So we have 80 graffiti written
by the man on the street,
the general population
in Pompeii,
and we find them
throughout the town.
We find them in people's houses.
We find them
in people's kitchens.
These are inscriptions that are
writing the emperor's name.
They weren't removing them.
Not a single one has a negative
aspect or characteristic to it.
So these graffiti are really
showing us how popular Nero was.
- This bit of graffiti
was found in the house
of Paquius Proculus.
It was written
by the slave Cucuta,
who proudly left his name
next to that of Nero's.
Another example, gladiators
who went through the imperial
training school
called themselves Neroiani,
after their emperor,
and their graffiti suggests
why he was so popular.
- In Pompeii, we think that Nero
probably canceled a ban
on gladiatorial games
that had been put into play.
The city of Pompeii
wasn't allowed to hold
gladiatorial spectacles
for a period of 10 years.
The people were pretty unhappy.
Nero comes in and says,
"All right. You can go ahead
and go back to holding games,"
and the people loved him.
- Bread and circuses, a strategy
used by many Roman emperors
to ensure their own popularity.
But in ancient Rome,
popularity is not the same thing
is political power.
The aristocracy, and therefore
the Senate,
feel Nero is no longer
serving its interests.
As Mueller explains,
Nero's popularity
with the citizens of Rome
angers
the empire's political class.
- Nero was popular because
he obviously knew how to satisfy
the demands of his subjects
in order to distract
from his own
occasionally excessive needs.
However, Rome's elites wanted to
establish their own popularity
with the people
with a set of values
that were very different
from Nero's.
This had to lead
to an escalation.
- The political elite also
disapprove of what they see
as Nero's extravagant lifestyle.
Suetonius describes a wanton
lazy existence.
The emperor is considered
decadent and depraved.
But perhaps the real problem
is that Nero never wanted
to be emperor.
At heart, he is an artist.
His ambitious mother, Agrippina,
may have trained him
in the ways of a statesman,
but he has no passion for it.
Nero is particularly attracted
to acting,
frequently engaging
in challenging voice exercises.
- He is, quite simply,
a free spirit,
but emperors, statesmen,
and politicians
are expected
to follow a moral code
and meet their
political responsibilities.
Any artistic pursuit goes
against the Roman values
of aggression, bravery
and a defiance of death.
But Nero is unable to let go
of his artistic dreams.
He continues to study acting,
using lead weights to strengthen
his respiratory muscles
and learning
how to control his breath.
His goal is to one day
perform on stage.
♪♪
In 66 AD, the emperor takes
a large entourage
on an extended journey
around Greece
that lasts more than a year.
Above all, Nero hopes to visit
the games in Olympia
and attend the large
theater performances.
His intention is to participate
as an athlete and an actor.
♪♪
Nero neglects his duties
as a political leader
and ignores his role
as a representative
of Roman values.
Primarily
interested in other pursuits,
Nero pays less and less
attention to affairs of state
or to what is going
on behind the scenes.
Nero becomes a huge admirer
of Greece.
During his journey, he give
the inhabitants of the Achea
province in the Peloponnese
region their freedom,
which means that they no longer
have to pay taxes to Rome,
a generous and expensive gesture
that angers the Roman Senate.
But it's his passion
for the arts
that ultimately does Nero in.
- Actors, singers, musicians,
these were jobs with terrible
status in Roman antiquity.
Performers were at the very
bottom of the social hierarchy,
and had an extremely
questionable reputation.
It was simply unthinkable
that an emperor
could move in these circles,
let alone perform himself.
- From today's point of view,
the idea of a ruler
simultaneously being an artist
doesn't sound so terrible.
However, Nero crossed a line.
Over the years, he allowed
his artistic endeavors
to assume so much significance
that he was essentially
no longer able to fulfill his
responsibilities as an emperor.
He became more an artist
than a ruler
in the public consciousness,
and this unquestionably went too
far for many of Rome's elites.
- The Senate has had enough
of Nero,
as have parts of the military.
Revolts break out
in the provinces,
and the empire is
in danger of collapse.
The Senate declares the emperor
an enemy of the state,
stripping him
of his imperial role
and sentencing him to death.
- When we look back now,
Rome's emperors always
appear omnipotent.
However, they were
only all-powerful
when they had the support
of the Praetorian Guard,
the army, and most
of the Senate.
In fact, much of the time,
they were exceedingly
vulnerable.
If they lost the support of just
one of these groups,
they quickly became powerless.
♪♪
- Abandoned by his followers,
Nero flees to a small estate
near Rome.
He knows what fate awaits him.
Roman law dictates
he be stripped naked
and his neck painfully pinned
to a forked stick
before being led out of jail.
After severe
corporal punishment,
he will be thrown off a cliff.
♪♪
The only way Nero can escape
punishment is to commit suicide.
Suetonius is the only writer
to describe Nero's final hours.
He paints a particularly
humiliating picture
of the emperor's death.
According to Suetonius,
Nero finally decides
to take his own life
as Roman guards
come to arrest him.
He hesitates,
and a loyal servant steps
in to offer encouragement.
But how could Suetonius know
these intimate details?
He wasn't in the room.
Another reason to question
his dark biography of Nero.
♪♪
Almost before Nero
is even buried,
the defamation and character
assassination begin,
and while his infamy grows
as a result of
the three writers' accounts,
there's little
historical evidence
to support the crimes
he's accused of.
- If each of these events
is investigated
using modern
criminalistic methods,
and if experts in different
fields are called in to assist,
it soon becomes clear
that objectivity
rapidly took a backseat
to speculations,
conjecture,
and subjective representations.
It is questionable whether Nero
could even be put on trial
in a modern legal system.
Without a doubt, he would
never be convicted
of all the crimes
he's accused of.
- The images we have of Nero
are the ones placed
in our consciousness
by those who emerged
from history victorious.
Forced to take his own life,
Nero was a victim of history,
perhaps in more ways than one.
♪♪
This program was made possible
in part
by the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting
and by contributions
to your PBS station
from viewers like you.
Thank you.