Fire of Rome

Fire of Rome 64 d.C.

L’fire of Rome 64 d.C. It was one of the most tragic events in the history of the city

The damage was very heavy and the number of victims awesome.

on the incident, over the centuries, They were poured rivers of ink, but some aspects are still uncertain.

First of all, Nero was really to make the burn’city?

And why?

historians Tacit, Svetonio, Cassius Dio e Orosius openly accused the Emperor, which according to them it was so crazy to want to be remembered as the new founder of the city.

But it can Nerone, while bizarre and sometimes psychotic, arriving in time?

In practice it appears unlikely.

Furthermore, Although Tacitus was the most objective, All the authors cited were fiercely antineroniani.

While the burning of Rome blazed investing people and things, the Emperor stood at Anzio, but he returned immediately and tried to do everything possible to limit the damage.

The Nero's measures were effective and saved what could be saved.

you would not say the typical behavior of the head of a catastrophe, but according to some it was intended precisely to deflect suspicion.

For his part, Nero wasted no time in’accuse Christians, who persecuted indiscriminately and ruthlessly.

But they were innocent or guilty?

According to some historians the most risky, the burning of Rome may have been started by extremists of the new Creed, but it does not seem plausible.

therefore, who was so foolish as to cause such a tragedy?

Almost certainly none.

Currently, most scholars believe that the fire of Rome 64 d. C. was completely accidental.

The kitchens of homes, especially in poorer neighborhoods, They were made of wood caught fire and quite often.

On that occasion, also aided by the scorching heat (was the 18 July), He escaped the situation in hand and much of the city ended in ashes (see also: (Photo gives: