If I had my way I would let all these religious nut cases just fight it all out amongst themselves. Sorry forgot, that's what they're doing already.
Unable to talk would mean to me that your brain has been bludgeoned with the violence. The supposed uplifting ending is The Resurrection as a call to arms.
Recent historical findings strongly suggest the Nero did not have Rome burned but a sect of Christians who had threatened to to it for years in print were the culprits. I guess killing innocent people and destroying property is also okay if it is done by Christians. Not the Nero wasn't an awful ruler -- too many of them were, including Christian rulers. Constantine, BTW, finally allowed the religion to flourish at the eve of the end of Rome as an Empire but never converted himself.
Where did you find this? I would have to disagree. Most of the recent research I have read suggests that the fire was an accident, and that instead of attempting to contain it, Nero and the various factions under the emporor fought amongst themselves for too long to initiate any helpful action.
It was a special on PBS about the burning of Rome and it's based on several new historical accounts. The research is very new. It may have started accidentally but those who wanted the Sin City of the day destroyed took the opportunity to start fires far from where the accidental fire may have taken place. Of course, Rome was surrounded by wooden constructed slums which were like tinderboxes.
Ahhh...always take tv doccies with a grain of salt. PBS is certainly not as guilty of distortion as the History Channel (or the historical fiction channel, as I call it), but they are pretty selective in what they present.
Caveat: I'm a medievalist, not an antiquitist.
A link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_rome/
The reasoning is quite convincing.
I saw the film, and I've read the works referenced, but I've also read other opinions that I find more convincing.
BTW, La Boheme was wonderful! Setting it during WWI was masterful!
And a quote from the article which prompted me to examine the texts it was based on:
Quote:
Certainly, it's hard to know whether to trust the allegations in the writings of Tacitus. Yet, what about the explanation offered by Nero, that the Christians were to blame? At least one scholar believes Nero was on the mark. Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has spent fifteen years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. His studies have shown that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would to reduce the city to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome."
Moreover, the Book of Revelations, written a mere 30 years later, seems to equate evil with Rome. The Whore of Babylon, the source of this evil according to Revelations, is described as having seven heads. "The seven heads are seven mountains," Revelations says. Rome, of course, is famously known as the city of seven hills. What's more, an ancient Egyptian prophesy that would have been well-known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises. In 64 AD, Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome began. Baudy believes that, bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire -- or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel to the larger conflagration -- in hopes of realizing their prophesies.
Regardless, over two hundred years would pass before the Christians escaped the kind of persecution they endured under Nero. In the meantime, Nero's reign soon crumbled. Four years after the fire, as the senate and the army turned against him, Nero was forced to flee Rome. Aided by a secretary, he stabbed himself to death with an iron blade.
Glad you loved the Luhrman "La Boheme." I an anxious to see it again.
I can see where you would not be able to come to the conclusion with the opposing evidence. It is what one is convinced to be the logical truth. Nero did have little to gain by burning down Rome.
And by the first century CE the city was a disaster waiting to happen! Sort of like Cleveland in Latin!
History repeated itself in London and then Chicago!
I do agree they should change their name to The Military History Channel. I think 80% of their programming is militant.
I call it the "Hitler Channel."
Yes, they are fixated with Hitler -- Everything You Wanted to Know About Der Feuhrer But Were Afraid to Ask
The "Secrets of the Dead" series on PBS is one I faithfully recorded -- the best investigative historical series ever.
Anyway, of course I was overstating the case and it was bait. This is what Mel is doing with his artistic license to overkill. I even figure that the 50 years old woman who had a heart attack could be coincidental (although the odds are not supporting that).
History repeated itself in London and then Chicago!
Missed this LW. What are you referring to?
hobitbob wrote:Great fires.
Sort of sounds like pyromaniacs greatest hits, or the top 10 conflagrations of all times.
Cities burn for a number of reasons but in accidental fires (as apposed to warfare) there seems to be two universals, poor construction and official disorganization. I really doubt that any of them can be attributed to conspiracies.
The Chicago fire wasn't started by Mrs. O'Leary's cow, either. Of all the mythology in our culture, it would be Mel who starred in the recent revisionist historical film "The Patriot" to try and turn the Bible into a history book. Complete with a shape shifting Satan.
