Who Burnt Rome?

I just watched part of a program recently on the History Channel, called "Who Burnt Rome"?

It was talking about how more scholars are now rejecting the idea that Nero was responsible for the arson of Rome that started around 19th July 64AD and burnt for a week, destroying 10 out of 14 districts.

The common perception was that Nero burnt the city, so he could rebuild his Golden House. And certainly, after the city was rebuilt, he did build a palace, like one gigantic country house with sprawling parks in the middle of the city.

But he also initiated new fire planning laws that made Rome more like it is today with large boulevards and spaced houses out so fire wouldn't spread so easily. And he was smart enough to turn some of the old districts of the nobles into markets, shopping malls, for the citizens to use and to boost the economy.

However, one thing doesn't make sense. Nero's old Palace was one of the buildings that went up in flames and it was a grand palace too. I don't see him torching his own house, and the rest of Rome, just so he could build a bigger palace. For one, the plan had a huge risk of backfiring.

The new fire-prevention laws he enacted certainly show that he knew how well the fire could have spread. He surely would have known there was a high risk of alienating the masses and causing a revolt. He may have been slightly crazy, but no one in history is THAT crazy.

Why would he torch Rome and his own palace, just so he could build his Golden House?

One particular German scholar is suggesting that it may really have been the Christians that torched Rome. Certainly, they have the motive. They're disgruntled, their homeland conquered by Rome, their people persecuted, they live in the slums of the city and they've been circulating all these materials similar to Revelation that talk of the Evil City (Rome) being burnt in holy fire.

The date of the fire even coincided with the rise of the dog star, Sirius, which was culturally important.

If it really was the Christians and they weren't just scapegoats, I can't say I can blame them. Their act, if they did do it, certainly mirrors what disaffected Muslims are doing now. And Nero certainly wasn't the nicest person around.

Still, I can't help but wonder whether accusations of Nero burning Rome are exaggerations or slander that was put in place by his enemies.