since by the time he lived emperors were revered as deities, no i believe he wasn't.

probably. people seemed willing to insinuate he started the fire that he blamed on Christians, for example

>>18431104
>people
you mean tacitus, which was clearly writing propaganda against him since he batted for the other team, the flavii dynasty. nero was confirmed to have been in anzio when the fire started, so it clearly wasn't his fault.

>>18431084
Whats the joke

>>18431117
that is a person yes

>>18431084
A lot of the narrative of Nero’s cruelty was just propaganda by those that opposed his ruling (though the extreme christian persecutions have been confirmed to be still true but Nero didn’t torment Romans). The general consensus was that Nero was loved by the average citizen but hated by all politicians and big figures of the time for not focusing on their political duties and just going on in his public performances. More of an incompetent ruler that got too much of an ego.
>>18431104
He wasn’t even in Rome at the time of the fire and housed the victims of the fire in his own palace. He was a champion for the common people and hated by the nobility and senate and made the most reforms for the poor.

>>18431084
By the average roman? No way.
Plebs had nowhere near enough access to be aware of the emperor's character beyond very public acts, and most of his bullshit was private while he actually had some notable "populist" interactions like opening his private residence to shelter the people of Rome during the great fire
By the upper classes? Likely yes, because aside from republican propaganda he acted a lot against their interest while never acting in ways that romans considered personally laudable, like seeking military glory, so there was hostility not tempered by respect. Then again he was also violently repressive, so that might have shifted him from joke to menace

>>18431117
>nero was confirmed to have been in anzio when the fire started, so it clearly wasn't his fault.

Couldn't he have ordered others to start the fire?

>>18431084
There were people willing to die for him in the revolts that sprang up after his death when lookalikes claimed to be him.

>>18431117
You reckon people think Nero personally walked around Rome setting the fire himself?

>>18431198
>He wasn’t even in Rome at the time of the fire
Oh well that settles it then, he wasnt there to throw the match himself. Surely an emperor did not have servants and agents to do things on his behalf while he was somewhere else.