The Great Fire of Rome

Rome Burns

Emperor Nero 

           On a summer night in July of 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant area of Rome. The fire spread quickly stoked by summer winds, and fueled by the dry, wooden structures of the ancient city. The fire quickly raged out of control burning for six days and seven nights, leaving seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins. Many Romans died in the fire and thousands more were displaced out into the countryside to helplessly watch the city burn. In the aftermath rumors would spread just as quickly as the fire had, and Nero the Emperor at the time looked to distance himself from any blame.

            With the city smoldering many Romans began to blame the Emperor Nero. Only the widespread leveling of the remaining structures had managed to stop the flames. Rumors accusing Nero of ordering the torching of the city spread throughout what was left at Rome. Even further some accounts arose that place at the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre as flames devoured the world around him. However other accounts place Nero away from the city at the outbreak of the fire, and credit him with organizing measures to contain the flames and provide relief for refugees. However the rumors continued, and Nero sought to place the blame on the city’s Christians. Christians, at that time were still a small minority following in the city.

Citizens watch Rome burn

            The most reliable source of information concerning the fire comes from Tacitus a Roman senator and historian. He describes the fire as beginning in shops where flammable goods were often stored. From there the flames rapidly spread along the full length of the Circus neighboring the Caelian and Palatine hills of Rome. In this lower area of Rome there were no large stone buildings or walls, such as temples, or open areas of ground, to stop the flames. It then spread along the Palatine and Caelian slopes. The city’s citizens first fled to areas unaffected by the fire. When the flames followed them they left the city for the open fields and rural roads of the countryside.

            

       Tacitus is one source that places Nero outside of Rome, in Antium, when the fire broke out. Upon hearing news of the fire he returned to the city and took measures to bring in food supplies and open gardens and public buildings to accommodate refugees. After six days the organized clearing of built-up areas brought the wall of flames to a halt before it reached the Esquiline Hill. Of Rome's 14 districts three were completely devastated and only four completely escaped damage.

       Many accuse Nero of starting the fire for personal gain, specifically to build a new palace known as the Domus Aurea. However the outbreak of the fire started almost a mile away from where it would be built. If it was Nero’s intention to burn the entire city to rebuild Rome from scratch he was successful. From the destruction of the fire came a more spectacular Rome. A modernized city made of marble and stone with wide streets. Debris from destroyed buildings was used to fill the marshes at the city’s edges allowing the city to expand beyond its original footprint. However this modernization came at the cost of dozens of Christians lives, and an enduring cultural stigma.

Further Reading

Ball, Larry F. "Who Burned Rome?." Archaeology 55, no. 6 (November 2002): 60.

Dando-Collins, Stephen. The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City.

            Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2010.

Ramsay, G. G. "The Fire of Rome and the Christians." The Athenaeum, no. 4083 (Jan 27, 1906):

            108, 

Tacitus, Cornelius, and A. J. Woodman. The annals. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2004.

Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?

Heinrich Schliemann was a German businessman and a pioneer in the field of archaeology. His belief in the historical reality of the works of Homer caused him to lead an archaeological expedition to find proof. Schliemann’s discoveries at the excavation of Hissarlik, provided some of the best evidence ever found for the existence of a physical Troy. However his excavation techniques and historical methods created controversies inside of academic circles an lead to much criticism of his work. In his article "Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?” author D.F. Easton analyzes the criticism that Schliemann faced in the decades after his discoveries at Hissarlik, and argues that despite his flaws there is still merit to be found in his work.

Ruins at Hissarlik

            Easton, a self-described “Schliemannologist” and somewhat of a Schliemann apologist, approaches the Schliemann’s work with a balanced analysis of the man’s strengths and weaknesses. Realizing that as a human Schliemann was prone to error Easton sets out to engage the criticism of Schliemann in three main areas. Did he falsify his discoveries, how good was he as an archaeologist, and lastly did he discover Troy. By breaking down the arguments against Schliemann’s ethics and findings Easton is able to counter some of the most common criticisms that he faced.

Mask of Agememnon

            The first question Easton addresses is whether or not Schliemann falsified his discoveries; specifically did he plant artifacts or relocate artifacts to make certain finds seem more important than they were. Some modern critics of Schliemann claim that he was a pathological liar and as a result any discrepancy in his discoveries should be viewed through that lens. Easton takes a detailed look at the evidence available and while he concedes that Schliemann was often less than honest he argues that Schliemann’s discoveries are consistent with what has been found by his predecessors, and that his detailed recordings of artifacts seem to disprove claims of dishonesty.

            He then goes on to address Schliemann’s skill as an archaeologist. Easton argues that Schliemann as an individual was not a great archaeologist by any means. However he remained open to suggestion, and surrounded himself with experts who were able to vastly improve his archaeological methods and historical reporting. Although Schliemann had a genuine historical interest in his work he suffered from an inability to disengage himself from the belief that he was digging at Priams Troy and as a result he often disregarded the other periods found at Hissarlik.

Mound at Hissarlik

Finally Easton sets out to answer if Schliemann found Troy. His answer like much of his analysis is mixed. While it is not yet possible to prove with certainty that Hissarlik is Homers Troy he argues that Schliemann undoubtedly changed many views on the historicity of the Trojan Wars. Easton concludes his piece by attempting to answer the question of whether Schliemann was a hero or a fraud. Throughout his writing Easton’s attempt at neutrality, brings to life the humanity of Schliemann. Prone to the shortcomings that we all face Schliemann was not a perfect archaeologist by any means. However he dedicated himself to his work and as a result was able to open up new doors of discovery in archaeology.  

Bibliography

Easton, D. F.  "Heinrich Schliemann: Hero or Fraud?". The Classical World, Vol. 91, No. 5, The

World of Troy (May - Jun., 1998), 335-343.

Further Reading

Payne, Robert. The Gold of Troy; The Story of Heinrich Schliemann and the Buried Cities of

Ancient Greece. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1959.

Schliemann, Heinrich, and Philip Smith. Troy and Its Remains; A Narrative of Researches and

Discoveries Made on the Site of Ilium, and in the Trojan Plain. New York: B. Blom, 1968.

Schuchardt, Karl. Schliemann's Excavations. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1974.

Traill, David A. Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.