CrazyAnglican wrote:InkL0sed wrote:prismsaber wrote:Nero - The Roman emperors were so bad that one could arguably make a type 5 most evil list containing only these guys. In my opinion Nero was the worst of the bunch.
Very true.
What not Caligula? Commodus?
At least Nero had an urban renewal plan.
Caligula is certainly right up there and a legitimate case can be made for him.
This is why I chose Nero:
-He had intercourse with his mother and had her clubbed to death when he turned 21.
-Roamed Rome in disguise with many companions and terrorized the streets and attacked random people. Those who tried to defend themselves were put to death for disrespecting the emperor.
-Set fire to much of Rome.
-When his popularity waned because of the fire, he needed to find people he could cast the blame on. That group of people was the Christians who at this time were unpopular because they refused to worship the emperor. Nero exposed the Christians to wild animals and set them ablaze to illuminate the night. He also executed the top two Christian leaders, Peter and Paul via crucifixion and beheading respectively.
-With all the extra space in Rome he built himself extravagant palaces while the population suffered.
-Nero thought highly of himself in music, chariot racing, etc. and had to always win the competitions. Anyone who did not respond to his performances with the proper enthusiasm was executed.
-When a conspiracy to eliminate Nero was uncovered, he put to death a large number of the senatorial order.
The only good thing he did during his reign besides committing suicide was to impose strict building laws for the rebuilding of Rome (wider streets, better building materials, etc.) Then again, he’s the one who set fire to the city in the first place so that more than cancels out any good he did.
