Conclusion

            In conclusion looking past the almost 2000 years of hatred, does Nero deserve to be seen in a kinder light? Despite his occasional acts of seeming generosity it would take a person of extreme optimism to define Nero as a decent human being. He was ruthless, arrogant, and often cruel. Neither does he fit the description as the root of all evil, but then what man does? I feel it would be impossible for anybody to have achieved all the crimes that are connected to Nero – especially once his associations with the anti-Christ began so this is hardly a point in his favour. In the very end of his life he showed his streak of insanity which seems to always have been present in times of crisis, this could point to some sort of mental illness though it is unfortunately impossible to know for sure. Aside from his character his rule claimed mixed successes. The quinquenium proved to be well named with the reasonable and intelligent decisions you would expect to be made by Seneca and Burrus. Even after this period the empire continued running smoothly until very late in Nero’s reign, not at all fitting the description of those authors who claim that, after killing his mother, Nero brought nothing but pain and debauchery to the Empire – I feel a lot of this was due to Nero’s ability to persuade those around him, he may have focused on singing, but he never neglected his rhetorical skills. Although Nero did bring some lasting historical benefits to the Empire, for example his fire-proofing of Rome, however all his construction projects tended to be too large to be completed in his reign – leaving Vespasian to declare them unviable and cancel them. 

            Despite his many personal failures and weaknesses, I would stand by my assertion that there was something to respect about Nero’s rule, no matter how repulsive you might find the man himself.