Mel Gibson

[DavidS]

Chambers biographical dictionary states that it is unlikely that Nero started the fire himself which is often alleged, but stops short of actually blaming the Christians.

[WillieBo]

Thanks DavidS. But I did get a bit excited there ; new evidence to shine light on one of history's great 'whodunnits' would be sensational, to say the least. Shame.

But it in no way detracts from your excellent pieces on this thread. We are reasonably confident about some things in this episode :

On the 19th June 64 ad (Julian calendar) a fire broke out in the warren of shops and houses near the Circus Maximus. It spread north through the Palatine and huge area around the House of Augustus (much of which had to be rebuilt). It lasted nine days and only four of Romes suburbs (regiones) remained unscathed.

Growing disquiet among the propertied and senatorial classes led to the suspicion that Nero started the fire himself. Whilst plucking his cithara, of course, singing 'O lambent flame' (sorry that was Peter Ustinov). He wasn't even in Rome at the time.

What Nero did do was lay the blame onto the Christian cult, by now no longer automatically associated with Judaism. And so he burned a few of them. He also took the opportunity to build the Domus Aurea (Golden House) between the Palatine and the Oppian. In modern Rome, this would start around the entrance to the Amphitheatrum Flavium (the Colosseum) and up to the site of the Baths of Trajan.

Although he provided emergency food and shelter and rebuilt much of Rome's social housing, the rumours never went away.

There are quite a few decent books on Nero. The only generally reliable and roughly contemporary sources remain Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. Not much to do with St. Mel of Hollywood, but at least some historical truths.

[Pervert]

To think, having had the wonderful Peter Ustinov play the mad plucker in movies, who did the Beeb get for I, Claudius?

Christopher Biggins!

[DavidS]

Thank you magoo for those thoughtful comments. People being branded holocaust deniers is becoming a problem, as it prevents serious historical examination of the events. I do not like the term holocaust anyway. Before the American tv series of that name, the events in Europe which resulted in the extermination of a proportion of the Jewish population was known as the 'final solution'. I can understand some people objecting to that, as it gives the impression that the Jews were a problem to be solved. Its origin is clear. Before the Wansee conference, Hermann Goering said to Reinhard Heydrich, " I hereby direct you to find a solution, a final solution, to the Jewish question in those parts of Europe which fall under German influence".

Holocaust denial prevents any serious study of the actual numbers of Jews murdered by the Germans during the last war. The figure of six million is usually quoted, but that is merely the figure that appeared on the indictment of Obersturmbahnfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann at his trial in Israel in 1960. There is no real evidence that that is the correct number. The actual figure probably does exist as the Nazis did keep accurate records. To query the six million is not to deny that there was a bona fide attempt to rid Europe of its Jewish population. Hitler's original plan was to buy Madagascar off the French and resettle the Jews there. The term resettlement at that time probably meant exactly that, not the term for murder it later became.

[diplodocus]

I was surprisingly pleased by the way I was taught religion, it was taken purely as a historical text and evidence from people such as the Roman writer Plato for example was used in support/against the writings.

This was so much better than other shite i was taught by religious nuts such as if you are still born you are going to hell cos you havn't been baptised! arseholes

i much prefered the historical side that the religious side

[DavidS]

I agree with you that this is the best way to teach religion. Trouble was, nothing was taught well in the school I went to.

[Pervert]

One thing the TV miniseries Holocaust did cover was the Nazi regime's caring policy towards the mentally ill. Wouldn't want to tarnish the Aryan image with some brain-damaged types now, would we. It also, if I recall correctly, touched upon the antipathy towards the Catholic church. Quiet ironic, then, that the Pope at the time didn't voice any opposition to them.

A simple examination of central and eastern European newspapers and media sites would reveal just how much of a winner exterminating gypsies would beamong certain nationalities. Sadly for them, though, the Nazis deemed the Slavic people as almost the lowest of the low. If the USSR hadn't held firm at Stalingrad and Leningrad, there'd have been no Bosnian or Croatian crises in the 1990s, because the Third Reich would have wiped the Slav people off the face of the planet.

[diplodocus]

yeah, i don't think many very religious people can be too objective in teaching, i had a pal who went to a school where they were taught by nuns. Every morning some poor sod had to stand up and pledge someone who the days prayer was dedicated to, So when it was his turn he began
'let us pray for all the people with aids'
and was promptly sent to the head with the nuns shouting
'THEY DESERVE ALL THEY GET, SINNERS AND PERVERTS THE LOT OF 'EM' after him. funny now but quite depressing then