Latest / Nero: Mad Tyrant or Misunderstood Emperor? — Fexingo History / Nero and the Senate: The Struggle for Power
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we have talked a lot about Nero — the fire, the Golden House, his artistic obsessions. But I think we have missed a really key actor in his story, one that actually explains a lot about how he ruled and why it all fell apart. Luna: The Senate? Lucas: Exactly. The Senate. It is easy to think of the Roman emperor as an absolute monarch, but in reality, the emperor shared power — or at least had to negotiate — with the Senate. That relationship was always tense, but under Nero, it became a tragedy. Luna: And I imagine this is a good moment to mention that this show is entirely listener-supported. If you have been coming with us through these conversations about the Mediterranean world and beyond, and you value an ad-free deep dive, you can help keep it going at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a nod to those who find value in this. Lucas: Absolutely. Every little bit helps us keep digging into these stories. So, back to the Senate. When Nero first became emperor in 54 AD, at age sixteen, the Senate had high hopes. They remembered the chaos of Caligula and the strictness of Claudius. Nero, guided by Seneca and Burrus, seemed like a return to Augustan moderation. Luna: He even promised to restore senatorial authority, didn't he? Lucas: Yes. In his first speech to the Senate, drafted by Seneca, he vowed to rule as Augustus had — respecting the Senate's traditional role. And for the first five years, the so-called 'Quinquennium Neronis,' there was a kind of golden age. The Senate felt respected, there was no purge, legislation flowed. Luna: But it didn't last. Lucas: No. As Nero grew into his power, and as his mother Agrippina and then his advisors Seneca and Burrus were pushed aside, the Senate began to feel sidelined. Nero started making decisions on his own, or through favorites like Tigellinus. The real turning point was the Pisonian Conspiracy of 65 AD. Luna: That was the plot led by Gaius Calpurnius Piso, right? We did an episode on it. Lucas: We did. But I think we can look at it now from the Senate's perspective. The conspiracy involved senators, equestrians, even Praetorian officers. It was a broad coalition of the elite who felt Nero had become dangerous and unpredictable. After the conspiracy was crushed, Nero turned on the Senate with a vengeance. Luna: He used it as a pretext to eliminate his enemies. Lucas: Exactly. The executions that followed were devastating. Seneca was forced to commit suicide. The poet Lucan. The praetorian prefect Faenius Rufus. But perhaps the most symbolic target was Thrasea Paetus, a senator and Stoic philosopher. Luna: Thrasea Paetus — he was known for his principled opposition, right? He walked out of the Senate when Nero's honors were being debated. Lucas: Exactly. Thrasea represented the old Republican ideal — a senator who spoke freely and refused to flatter. Nero saw that as a threat. In 66 AD, Thrasea was accused of treason, essentially for his silence and non-participation. He was condemned by the Senate itself, under pressure from Nero, and forced to commit suicide. Tacitus gives a moving account: Thrasea sat with his friends discussing the nature of the soul while his veins were opened. Luna: That's a powerful image of resistance. Lucas: It is. And it shows how Nero's relationship with the Senate had completely broken down. He no longer saw them as partners but as a nest of vipers. After the conspiracy, he purged many more senators, often on flimsy charges. Cassius Dio says that Nero even planned to massacre the entire Senate and replace them with freedmen and knights, though that may be exaggerated. Luna: But if the Senate was so hostile, why didn't they depose him earlier? Lucas: Fear, partly. And inertia. The Senate had lost its military power. Emperors controlled the legions. But also, many senators still hoped for reform. They tried to work within the system. It was only when Nero alienated the provinces and the army that the end came. In 68 AD, when the Gallic and Spanish legions revolted, the Senate finally declared Nero a public enemy. Luna: And even then, they didn't act until they knew it was safe. Lucas: Right. The Senate's response to Nero's fall was swift and pragmatic. They recognized Galba as emperor, and they condemned Nero's memory — a damnatio memoriae. But the damage was done. The Senate never regained its authority. The civil wars of 69 AD, the Year of the Four Emperors, showed that emperors were now made by the army, not the Senate. Luna: So in a way, Nero's conflict with the Senate accelerated the shift toward military autocracy. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why understanding Nero and the Senate is crucial. It's not just about one mad emperor; it's about how the Principate evolved. Nero's reign exposed the fundamental weakness of the Augustan settlement — that the Senate had power only at the emperor's pleasure. After Nero, emperors like Vespasian would be more respectful, but the Senate was never again a co-ruler. Luna: It makes you wonder: if Nero had kept the Senate on his side, could he have survived? Lucas: Maybe. But he chose suspicion over cooperation. He saw the Senate as a threat, and in doing so, he made them one. That's the irony — his repression created the opposition that destroyed him. Luna: So the mad tyrant image — how much of that comes from senatorial sources? Lucas: A huge amount. The historians we rely on — Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio — were all senators or equestrians with a bias against Nero. They emphasize his cruelty, his artistic pursuits, his disregard for tradition. But they also preserve the senatorial perspective. When Tacitus describes Nero's speeches as 'demagogic' or calls him a 'showman,' that's the voice of the Senate speaking. Luna: So the myth of the mad emperor is partly a senatorial revenge. Lucas: Partly, yes. But not entirely. Nero did kill senators, he did confiscate property, he did behave in ways that seemed un-Roman. But the narrative of pure insanity obscures the political logic. Nero's attacks on the Senate were calculated, if brutal. He was trying to centralize power, and the Senate was the obstacle. Luna: So where does that leave us? Was he a tyrant or a reformer? Lucas: I think he was an autocrat who didn't know how to manage the delicate balance Augustus had created. Augustus had disguised his monarchy as a restored republic. Nero dropped the disguise. And the Senate, which had grown accustomed to the fiction, could not forgive him for that. Luna: That's a much more nuanced picture than the usual one. Lucas: It is. And it's important because it shows how political institutions shape our historical memory. The Senate wrote the story, and they wrote Nero as a villain. But behind that villain is a real struggle for power — one that defined the Roman Empire for centuries to come. Luna: Thanks for that deep dive, Lucas. It really reframes everything. Lucas: Glad to. Next time, we might look at how Nero's successors — the Flavians — dealt with the Senate. But for now, if you want to explore more, check our episode on the Pisonian Conspiracy for the full details. And as always, thanks for listening.