Rome Is Burning: Nero and the Fire That Ended a Dynasty

Turning Points in Ancient History

by Anthony A. Barrett

Drawing on new archaeological evidence, an authoritative history of Rome’s Great Fire―and how it inflicted lasting harm on the Roman Empire

According to legend, the Roman emperor Nero set fire to his majestic imperial capital on the night of July 19, AD 64 and fiddled while the city burned. It’s a story that has been told for more than two millennia―and it’s likely that almost none of it is true. In Rome Is Burning , distinguished Roman historian Anthony Barrett sets the record straight, providing a comprehensive and authoritative account of the Great Fire of Rome, its immediate aftermath, and its damaging longterm consequences for the Roman world. Drawing on remarkable new archaeological discoveries and sifting through all the literary evidence, he tells what is known about what actually happened―and argues that the disaster was a turning point in Roman history, one that ultimately led to the fall of Nero and the end of the dynasty that began with Julius Caesar.

Rome Is Burning tells how the fire destroyed much of the city and threw the population into panic. It describes how it also destroyed Nero’s golden image and provoked a financial crisis and currency devaluation that made a permanent impact on the Roman economy. Most importantly, the book surveys, and includes many photographs of, recent archaeological evidence that shows visible traces of the fire’s destruction. Finally, the book describes the fire’s continuing afterlife in literature, opera, ballet, and film.

A richly detailed and scrupulously factual narrative of an event that has always been shrouded in myth, Rome Is Burning promises to become the standard account of the Great Fire of Rome for our time.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Biography, Italy, Roman History, Audiobook

368 pages, Paperback

First published November 10, 2020

About the author

Anthony A. Barrett is Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and visiting professor at the University of Heidelberg.

Reviews

[Constantine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
Genre: Nonfiction

I have always heard about how corrupt Nero was. I really wanted to know more about him as an emperor of Rome and his role in the collapse of that empire. This book promised to provide a compelling narrative of Nero's reign and the catastrophic fire that caused the fall of Rome, so I decided to give it a try. While it provided some important information about the subject, there were certain aspects that didn't work for me and made me want more.

The author did a great job researching the subject, providing a comprehensive analysis of the political atmosphere, Nero's character, and the social effects of the fire. There are many references that you can get back to if you need to know more about something. I commend the author for his detailed and vivid descriptions of ancient Rome. This helped me easily imagine the atmosphere of that era.

While I found the storytelling captivating, I felt the analysis at times was shallow. I was hoping for a more complex examination of Nero's personality and motives. In my opinion, that side of the book was too oversimplified for my taste. Additionally, the focus on the fire itself rather than the person responsible for it was disappointing. I found the writing to be somewhat dry.

Overall, this read was just OK, and somewhat disappointing. If you were looking to learn more about Nero, a historical biography would likely provide a more comprehensive understanding of his life and reign as an emperor.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The great fire of Rome in 64 CE is one of those events that remains embedded in the Western cultural memory. Yet the irony that Anthony Barrett describes in this book is that the things we remember about it, such as Nero fiddling while his capital went up in flames, are false, while we overlook its true — and truly enormous — historical significance.

As Barrett explains, the burning of Rome was an event of lasting historical importance. Over the course of nine days, the blaze devastated the core of Rome itself, killing thousands and gutting numerous homes and public buildings. In its aftermath, Nero (who was not even in Rome when the fire started) began a massive rebuilding campaign that was still underway when he died four years later. Barrett details how it was the legacy of the fire that contributed to his demise, as the enormous expense of the effort led to the stripping of the provinces of the wealth and the devaluing of the currency. Faced with rebellion at his policies, Nero was killed by one of his secretaries on his orders; as Nero died without any surviving children, his demise brought an end to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and inaugurated a new era in Roman history.

As a longtime scholar of of the Julio-Claudian era, Barrett draws upon his familiarity with both the literary and archaeological record to provide his readers with a comprehensive history of the fire and its aftermath. Its coverage is impressive, ranging from his examination of the ancient city's longstanding experiences with fire to the modern-day representations of the event and what they reveal about its perpetuation. Generously illustrated with both photographs and drawings, it makes for an outstanding history of the Great Fire of Rome, one that should be on the reading list of anyone with even a passing interest in Roman history or the history of the great city for which the empire was named.

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

In AD 64, Rome went up in flames. The fire started near Rome's great racing stadium (the Circus Maximus), and aided by a strong and erratic wind, lasted nine days, destroyed vast swaths of Rome and left half the population homeless. Barrett considers this a "turning point in ancient history". Although the Roman Emperor Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned (the fiddle was only invented in the 11th century), the Great Fire ended Nero's golden years and turned the elite against him permanently. Some blamed Nero for setting the fire (especially after he used land cleared by the fire to build his Golden Palace and its surrounding pleasure gardens). Nero blamed the Christians (possibly), and looking for a scapegoat, persecuted them. This didn't save Nero. Four years after the Great Fire, Nero was forced out of office and committed suicide, resulting in the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty founded by Caesar Augustus. This made it possible for subsequent emperors to be appointed on merit, or by war, rather than blood-relations. It also frequently lead to political instability and civil war. The Great Fire also initiated the rebuilding of Rome and a revolution in architecture (including Rome's first dome, the use of concrete in vaults, and regulations to minimize fire damage). However, Nero's great building programme required large sums of money, leading to inflation, the debasement of the currency and ruinous taxation and looting of the provinces. All of these cumulative factors had consequences stretching in the distant future.

Barrett has written what I suspect is a definitive overview of everything (and sundry) related to the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. It wasn't the first fire and wasn't the last large scale fire (a major fire occurred in Rome in AD 80), but it did have far-reaching effects. In his overview, Barret makes use of archaeological and textual evidence to determine exactly what happened. I found the nitpicking of the textual evidence fascinating. The principal sources for the Great Fire AD 64 were written by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio - all born after the Great Fire and all having personal biases on display in their writings.

Barret starts off by by providing a background to Nero and the physical aspects of the city of Rome. Then the author analyses the known record of ancient Roman fires to place the Great Fire of AD 64 in context, and considers the measures the Romans adopted to deal with fires. This is followed by a chapter that deals with the events of the Great Fire - where it started, how it spread, where it spread, damaged caused etc. Barret also includes a very interesting chapter analysing the case against Nero's involvement in starting the fire. Subsequent chapters focus on the immediate aftermath of the Great Fire - the targeting of the Christians as convenient scapegoats, and on the architectural transformation of the devastated city. The last chapter assesses the significance of the fire for the subsequent course of Roman history. This chapter includes several pages on the debasement of the currency and fiscal issues related to Nero's renovation project. I would have like a whole chapter dedicated to financial problems that resulted from the Great Fire, inflation and debasement of the currency, since I think this had a greater detrimental effect to the Roman Empire in the long run, than any architectural transformations. The epilogue I found a bit strange in a book like this - it considers Nero and the Great Fire as a persistent cultural phenomena, so all the plays, novels and musicals etc written that involve Nero.

Barrett states that the book is meant to appeal to the specialist, as well as the general readership. I think for the most part, he has managed this. The general readership might find the fine details to be a bit much, but in the end, seeing how the author analyses the available evidence to produce a picture of the events, not to mention a more nuanced picture of Nero (he was apparently on the streets helping to fight the fire - no other history book I've read mentioned this), is a fascinating experience (at least for me). In the end, this is a fascinating analysis of the Great Fire of Rome AD 64 and the man who is usually blamed for causing it.

Note: This wonderful book includes a very helpful timeline, a large number of illustrations, and a translation of the accounts of the fire by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio, a glossary, and bibliography.

[Gerry Connolly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Professor Anthony Barrett gives turgid prose a bad name in Rome is Burning. In an extraordinary academic feat he manages to make Nero and the Great fire of Rome in 64 A.D. dull as dishwater. He prattles on for over 100 pages about where buildings might have been and whether they succumbed to the flames and what architectural style they might be. Or not. Sources (Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassio Dio) cannot be relied on for accuracy. At least we learn Nero didn’t fiddle, was not an arsonist and didn’t scapegoat the Christians. But ultimately the fire did him in, debasing the currency and ending the Julio-Claudian imperial reign. Tedious, painstaking and lacking cogent narrative skill.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wonderful work of history which is written to be enjoyed by anyone interested in the Rome of the emperors and particularly the Julio-Claudian ones. This is a work aimed at both amateur historians and academics and it is strictly grounded in the literary sources and the archeological record and is both readable and fully backed by the requisite apparatus of footnotes, references, etc. But if you are only a reader of the sort of history which dispenses with references and introduces guesswork and supposition as established facts then this is not the book for you. There is a difference between well written readable history grounded in academic form and so much of the 'history lite' that begins with a proposition which will 'overturn' everything you thought you knew about a subject. I emphasising this because I have read sufficient reviews complaining of the author's 'stogy' or 'leaden' prose to feel that it should emphasised that this is serious history written well.

What the author does best is to introduce the reader to the complexities of understanding and interpreting the ancient literary sources; to provide a summary of the archeological evidence produced by Italian archeologists over the past half century most of whose reports are not available in English; and to provide an introduction to historical questions and controversies most of lay men are unaware exist such as whether Nero actually persecuted any Christians - it appears he probably didn't.

At this point I am tempted to start relaying bits of the amazing information Professor Barrett's provides in such thought provoking abundance but once started I wouldn't know we're to stop. If you are interested in Roman history then a strongly urge you to read this book. Not only will it be fruitful in terms of understanding the fire but also a greater understanding of the complexities of ancient literary sources but of archeology as well. It may provide you with an understanding of why Nero was so popular with ordinary Romans that were several very successful imposters in the years after his death.

A really excellent book.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear, well-written and well-researched work.

Barrett does a good job explaining the archaeological evidence regarding the fire, and at sifting through the various versions of the story (difficult, since the main sources on Nero’s reign wrote about it later, and all were hostile to him) Nero still comes off as uncaring and indifferent, though.

Barrett doesn’t pretend to have discovered the true cause of the fire, and doubts the stories that Nero fiddled as it happened (Romans didn’t have fiddles at the time) He also explains how the fire ruined Rome’s economy and Nero’s stature. He doubts Nero’s responsibility for the fire, noting how hard it would have been to pull off, as well as how irrational it would have been. Barrett also points out that the stories claiming that Nero blamed Christians for the fire and persecuted them comes from a single (and brief) passage written by Tacitus, and notes several problems with Tacitus’ account (Christians weren’t widely known in the empire at the time, it is unclear how many were in Rome, and early Christian writers didn’t mention such a wave of persecution, something they probably would have been interested in)

The narrative moves along at a brisk pace and provides a vivid and lively picture of the era. The maps are good. An informative and thorough work overall.

[Susan Paxton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is great stuff and often fun reading, although I'd warn casual readers that it's pretty specialized and can seem dry. Barrett provides us with a close and thorough analysis of the 64 AD fire that devastated Rome during the reign of Nero, taking into account the history of Roman fires (including a very interesting discussion of the development of Roman fire services), the source material and its lacks and prejudices (with a great segment on the probable later interpolation of "Christians" into Tacitus), the actual archaeology (a surprising amount of physical evidence has been found in Rome over the centuries), rebuilding - including a discussion of Nero's always-controversial Domus Aurea, the aftereffects (the fire probably led to Nero's downfall), and even the cultural reception over the centuries (Nero ballets, anyone? There have been several). Barrett finishes by reprinting the relevant sections of the three major source documents for the fire (Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Byzantine epitome of Cassius Dio) and a glossary which readers new to Roman history will find helpful. The book is illustrated with diagrams and photos printed in the body of the text.

Anyone strongly curious about the history of Imperial Rome will really enjoy this: I burned through it (ha!).

[G · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as substantive for Roman history as I expected, but a good start. Makes me curious to read more Roman history.

[Craig Chapman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting read into the great fire of Rome. And giving us a view of Nero the man not the myth

[Shane Perry · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book, Anthony Barrett does a fantastic job with explaining the major key themes building up to and after the great fire that destroyed Rome in AD 64. Barrett’s background and deep understanding of the classic Roman historians really shows in this work as he is constantly going back and forth to compare and contrast various sources while trying to reveal the “closest to the truth” about the great fire of AD 64. That being said, Barrett’s writing style does come off very wordy, and confusing at times as he is very redundant on key information, I understand that it is placed to help drive the point home, but close to 50 pages could have been cut and the point still would have been made. This was a great read for those interested in learning more about the great fire of AD 64 and Nero’s influence on it, the Christians, and the advancement of Rome.

[T.R. Preston · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was quite excited about this one. Alas, it turned out to be one of the most boring history books I've read. I was hoping this would almost exclusively cover the influence of Nero, Nero's life, and how the great fire affected him personally. And I was hoping for some detective level analysis of the fire itself, pinpointing the real culprit.

Granted, I got a little of that. But most of this book was talking about pretty much everyone BUT Nero. It can be summarized as "Many say that Nero burned Rome and schemed while his people died. Is it really true? Well, this happened thousands of years ago, so who can really say for sure. Anyway, here are some fascinating archeological facts about how traces of the fire can still be seen to this day."

That's the book.

[Shrike58 · Rating 4 out of 5]

How you respond to this book will depend on how you split the difference between what the cover seems to promise, and what the author actually gives you.

While you might think that you're going to be getting a narrative history of the Rome's greatest fire of of 64 C.E., what you're really getting is a deep dive into what we know about the causes of the fire, how Nero responded, and the long-term impact of the event. The more general reader will probably be frustrated over how Barrett is mostly here to lower expectations of what we can really know on the basis of the evidence, as even archaeological work is not especially helpful.

Interwoven in the physical details of the event is Barrett's estimation of Nero's real place in all this, and this might take some readers aback. Being a student of the first dynasty of Imperial Rome, Barrett suggests that you have to start with the working assumption that Nero was actually rather more popular than the period historians would suggest, as they all had axes to grind. This is not to say that the Nero didn't become a menace over time, but he started out well, and his actual conduct during the fire itself was probably up to the best standards of imperial hands-on participation in confronting the crisis.

The real problem came with the clean-up, as between Nero's vision of urban redevelopment, and the costs of implementing that vision, this is what really tore apart the relationship between Rome's social and economic elite, and Nero, ultimately leading to Nero's premature end and a new-model Imperium where the reigning emperor was probably the most successful warlord.

In the final analysis, I found this book well-worth reading, assuming you're approaching it with a reasonable level of previously gained understanding of the period.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd be tempted to lower this to 3.5 stars if I could...thanks to the many digressions that the author takes into too-much-information/deep minutiae territory. These sections are incredibly detailed...and bring the smooth flow of reading to a stop. But I'll live with the 4 star rating, as the rest of the book takes the ancient sources at the heart of the story behind Nero and the Great Fire of Rome and (with enormous skill) sifts the probable and possible from the unlikely and fictitious.

[Leena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eye-opening reading on a subject that is known to most people. Great critique on the classics that wrote at the time of the fire and those after. And also enjoyed the depth of information given on what the effects of the fire had on Rome post-incident and how those ripples continued right to the end of Rome.
My only annoyance was the parentheses littered throughout stating "see below", and "see above".

[Ariel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The narrator was fantastic, the subject matter was interesting, I had a little bit of trouble following. Overall, enjoyed.

[Jordan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Exceedingly well-researched and insightful, yet it gets bogged down in minutiae and digressions.

[Joseph Adelizzi, Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anthony A. Barrett, in Rome is Burning, contends, in a thoroughly researched, sometimes dry, mostly eye-opening manner, that Emperor Nero had nothing to do with the fire that burned a debatably sized chunk of Rome in 64 AD. Nor did he fiddle or recite The Fall of Troy during the conflagration. In fact, with very convincing arguments and historical references, Barrett postulates that Nero actually took wise, justified, even empathetic steps to fight the flames and, subsequently, helped Rome and the people rebound from the catastrophe.

One interesting facet of the attempts to limit the scope of the fire in 64 AD that caught my attention for its parallels to misinterpretations prevalent in our current political climate was Barrett’s claim of the misinterpretation of the fire brigade’s (the Vigiles) well-intentioned actions during the fire. Seems the Vigiles were trying to create a fire line by conducting controlled burns of nearby buildings, similar to what we do today to contain the spread of wildfires, but their actions were subsequently interpreted by some as being part of Nero’s devious plan to burn down the entire city.

Rome is Burning is about more than the fire that burned Rome; it’s about how the social stratification burned Nero’s reputation for years, even centuries on end. Not saying Nero was a saint; far from it. In fact, I had a good laugh when Barrett said Nero’s executions, if we ignore his killing his mother and killing or exiling all relatives with the remotest possible claims to the “throne,” were minimal. All in all, however, I welcomed the new perspective.

[Ptera Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Writers have adapted the story of Rome's great fire into everything from plays and operas to punk and paintings. For all the finger-pointing at Nero, one of Rome's least popular leaders, we still don't know how the fire started. We know how rapidly political rumors spread today, and the ancients were just as prone to blaming as we are.

I Rome is Burning, Anthony Barrett explores the rumors of Nero's involvement as well as the other, more likely scenarios. (He was out of town when it happened, and there are no other cases where a leader burned down his own capital city.) Barrett investigates the nature of the "Golden House" and whether it was a private residence or a public complex, and why Nero would not have needed a fire to construct it. (If he wanted the land, he could have just purchased or taken it for a public works project.)

The material extends beyond the fire to its future vilification of Nero and the fire's impact on Rome and the development of Western culture. It ties the costs of the tragedy to the devaluation of the currency and the fall of the Julio-Claudians. It looks at how it sparked the persecution of a new and secretive sect, the "Christiani," as the scapegoats for the fire, and how in the 17th century, the story of Nero and the fire became popularized and developed the reputation it has today.

It's not a poolside read, but if you're interested in Roman history and want to know more about this culturally significant point in history that has influenced everything from opera to Dr. Who, it's worth the time.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this at B&N on my birthday 9/10/21, and just finished it on 9/23/21. A very readable yet scholarly analysis of the Great Fire of Rome under Nero and its consequences, which the author argues ultimately helped bring down Nero (hence the subtitle, "Nero and the Fire That Ended a Dynasty." This feels very complete, with everything from the archaeology of the Domus Aurea and the silver content of Roman coins (debased soon after the fire as Nero's government scrambled to pay for the damages) to the latest research and theories about references to the Christians being blamed by Nero for the fire - in passages long suspected to be spurious (Barrett seems to agree that these passages are not genuine, but does not go as far as other authors on the subject like Dando-Collins as to speculate what might have been behind the interpolations).

[Rohan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The name of the series is Turning points in History.

Here, the author focuses on proving how Nero had nothing to do with the great fire and that the Roman elite just incited a coup because he imposed taxes and engaged in a rebuilding spree which hurt them financially, and he does this well. I am convinced with his detailed arguments and will never again use the phrase "Fiddling while Rome burns".

What he fails at is
1. Describing Nero, as one of the principal accused we would have expected there would be a greater history or explanation of his actions, Other than Paranoia.
2. Following the aftermath of the fire to it's logical conclusion , Nero's suicide and collapse of his dynasty and showing how it was a turning point in history.

TL;DR : Book is good but doesn't focus on other issues which would also be crucial in gaining a fuller understanding of the solution.

[Matt Layden · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is, in a meta sense, a monograph on the difficulties of Roman sources. The book examines how little we can definitively prove about one of the most famous episodes in Roman Imperial history, and how to work around that limitation. As a result, I thought the most compelling parts of the book were the examination of sources and evidence, like the theory that the reference to Christians in Tacitus was a later interpolation. I was less moved by his section on the exoneration of Nero, which, while probably correct, is essentially pure speculation. I was also disappointed two of the boldest claims made in the introduction, that the fire contributed to the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (probably) and the fire marked a turning point in the beginning of the debasement of Roman coinage, were relegated to the last 30 or so pages of the book.

[Ginny · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned something. The author was interested in teaching history and that is a real plus. The author could have done with a better editor, though. It was a little annoying how at times the author repeated topics, as if I hadn’t read it just 10 pages before. Maybe this is a peeve unique to me, but the author used “Neronian” a lot. The word would make sense as an adjective, such as Neronian architecture. But, the author also used it as a noun, to describe Nero himself, such as Neronian thought (describing what Nero thought). Also, the author repeatedly called the 64 AD fire “the Neronian fire.” (This is despite one of the premises of the book being at Nero did not set the fire or participate in its being set.) The ridiculous overuse of the word became very annoying. It was like a toddler first learning a word and then repeating it nonstop.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very learned book...and correspondingly really boring, to be honest. I persevered, and the problem is certainly not the author's lack of expertise. I did learn some about the great fire of AD 64: it was probably not set by Nero (Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius all had it out for the emperor and took it out on him in the historical record), he probably didn't systematically blame the Christians (though Christians probably got blamed), and it was a significant turning point in Roman history (though we can't say exactly why). I'm being slightly tongue in cheek, but there is something about extensive training in academic historiography that makes one steadily lose the ability to actually tell a story. To paraphrase the psalmist, "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let us go to the end of the book.'"

[Samuel Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. It is clear that the author did a significant amount of research into this, which is thoroughly appreciated. There is a clear passion for getting information correct here.

That has a downside as well, where the quick and interesting narrative is arrested by lengthy architectural descriptions which serve little purpose.

It does not presuppose a wealth of knowledge in Roman history, which is nice, but for folks who are not full blown academics but have some appreciation of Rome, it gets to be too much.

That being said, there is a lot of good history in here that is presented in an engaging way. I would recommend it to someone who is interested in more technical histories.

[Rosie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting read for those interested in Ancient Rome and the Neronian era. The writing style is engaging, but also does require a genuine interest in the subject matter.

The author balances contemporary resources incredibly well, and expertly poses questions about the conclusions long-ago attributed to Rome's great fire during the reign of Nero. The inconsistencies he points out, paired with additional facts we now know about the era, really shed great light on long standing biases about the Emperor -- and how those biases may have led to the wholesale acceptance of an incomplete history.

[Olivia Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

4⭐️

Barrett’s Rome is Burning provides an in depth historical analysis on the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD. Barrett provides context on the fire and how this fire falls on the grand scale of fires in Rome. Barrett goes on to present the suspected culprits of the fire and lays out Nero’s role he may or may not have played in the fire. What makes Barrett’s Rome is Burning a strong historical account is his critique of each ancient source used in the context of bias and contrasting writings and archeological evidence. I highly recommend this book for those wanting to read an unbiased account of the 64AD Great Fire of Rome.

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Exapnse Tour Of The Great Fire

Anthony Barrett gives us a broad and expansive view of the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. He's unwillingness to commit to the conclusions of historians on subjects such as whether Nero started the fire or persecuted Christians for causing it is annoying in the beginning. It serves him well later as he stacks the evidence that this may not be so. One wishes he may have delved deeper into what effect the fire had on Nero's downfall and Rome as a whole. Still a well thought out and fascinating look at a pivotal moment in Roman History.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very dry read and this is coming from a history major who is used to dry reads. Very repetitive in spots as well. There is some good info in the book but probably could have been 50-100 pages shorter and done a better job with it. Maybe better if you just read chapters that interest you instead of the entire book. Not bad, just not great.

[Charles Wynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't help but wonder why this book has been relegated to three stars. This book, which is titled Rome is burning, is aptly about the great fire of Rome. One shouldn't read a book about the great fire expecting a biography of Nero, in my opinion, they should read a biography of Nero. Secondly, the idea that the analysis is lacking to me is inaccurate. That's not to say there aren't points where the analysis is lacking, but, all in all the analysis in my opinion is rich, detailed, and thorough. It isn't the fault of Barrett that the sources can be unreliable, he didn't write them, and does a wonderful job elucidating fact versus fiction. Overall, I thought this was highly enjoyable and well researched.

[Mark Matheson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rome is Burning is far more academic than I anticipated. It’s fascinating to see Barrett talk about Rome’s Great Fire through comparison of primary sources and previous scholarship, but—as someone with only a layman’s understanding of Rome—it felt dry, burgeoning on inaccessible, to me. This isn’t a fault of the book, but of myself as a reader.