Nero: Matricide, Music, and Murder in Imperial Rome

by Anthony Everitt

A striking, nuanced biography of Nero--the controversial populist ruler and last of the Caesars--and a fascinating, street-level portrait of ancient Rome itself, from an acclaimed biographer and historian.

The Roman emperor Nero has long been the very image of a bad ruler--cruel, vain, and incompetent. He committed incest with his mother, who had schemed and killed to place him on the throne, and later murdered her. He supposedly set fire to Rome and thrummed his lyre as it burned. Afterward he cleared the charred ruins of the city center and, in their place, built a vast palace. Historians of his day despised him, and it's their recollections that have been passed down through the ages.

But, in all of the horror, there is a mystery. For a long time after his deposition and suicide, anonymous hands laid flowers on his grave. The monster was loved. In this nuanced biography, Anthony Everitt, the celebrated biographer of classical Greece and Rome, reveals the contradictions inherent in the reign of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus and offers a reappraisal of his life. Everitt also brings ancient Rome to life, showing the crowded streets that made the city prone to fires, political intrigues that could turn deadly in an instant, and vast building projects that continuously remade the Roman landscape. In this teeming and politically unstable world, Nero did terrible things, but the larger empire was also well managed under his rule. He presided over a diplomatic triumph with the rival Parthian empire, and Everitt teams up with investigative journalist Roddy Ashworth to tell the epic story of Rome’s conquest of Britain and British queen Boudica’s doomed revolt against Nero’s legions. Nero was also a champion of arts and culture whose own great love was music, and he won the loyalty of the lower classes with great spectacles. In many ways he was ahead of his time, particularly in the way he looked to Greece and the eastern half of the empire as crucial to Rome's future. Nero had a vision for Rome, but, wracked by insecurity and guilt-ridden over assassinations he ordered, perhaps he never really had the stomach to rule it.

This is the bloodstained story of one of Rome's most notorious emperors. Nero's rule has become a byword for cruelty, decadence, and despotism, but in Everitt's hands, his life is a cautionary tale about the mettle it takes to rule.

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

448 pages, Hardcover

First published November 8, 2022

About the author

Anthony Everitt is a British academic. He studied English literature at the University of Cambridge. He publishes regularly in The Guardian and The Financial Times. He worked in literature and visual arts. He was Secretary-General of the Arts Council of Great Britain. He is a visiting professor in the performing and visual arts at Nottingham Trent University. Everitt is a companion of the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts and an Honorary Fellow of the Dartington College of Arts. Everitt has written books about Roman history, amongst which biographies of Augustus, Hadrian and Cicero and a book on The Rise of Rome. He lives in Wivenhoe near Colchester.

Reviews

[LIsa Noell "Rocking the chutzpah!" · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thanks to Random House, the authors and Netgalley.
I loved this book!
Truth is that I've always been a bit iffy on most writers take on Nero and this time in history.
It always seemed to be way over the top!
According to this book, it was over the top, just in a slightly different way.
I enjoyed this take.
Is any of it true? Well, how the hell would I know?
One thing is for sure, and that is the fact that I would never trust anyone from that time period to write anything trustworthy. I prefer a distant lens.
Hey, I'd have partied with the man!

[Sud666 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anthony Everitt does something interesting- he actually gives a balanced view of Nero.

The first several chapters actually cover the lives of Nero's Julio-Claudinian family such as his overbearing mother Agrippinia, and Tiberius and Claudius. This gives us the conflicted setting Nero grew up in. Everitt also seems to lay the blame for many of Nero's faults at the doorstep of his mother.

While this Nero is indeed a little "off", though hardly the madman oft portrayed. Everitt's Nero is an artist and poet who would have loved nothing more than to be a famous actor. This caused a great deal of antipathy from the nobles. Yet, the common people seemed to love Nero. He built great works and tried to provide for the common Romans.

Everitt does not deny Nero did some horrible things, though he does not deserve the blame for the Roman Fire and the story of him fiddling is a story foisted by the jealous nobles, when in fact-Nero , as a huge fan of poetry, had actually composed a piece for the burning of Rome, rather than the accepted version of Nero fiddling away as Rome burned.

But the most eye opening part of this book is the true fondness the common people of Rome had for Nero. A superb book that not only gives us a great look at Nero and the Julio-Claudinians but also provides a new perspective on how we view Nero.

[Read By Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really good! I think Nero is usually put with Caligula and Commodus as a crazy Roman Emperor and while he did do some crazy things, he was a way more nuanced character. For starters, the people loved him. What is going on here?

The answer is a mix of genuine atrocity, curious decisions, and post-hoc political disparaging. I thought Everritt did a great job showcasing Nero's entire life and all the political stuff that lead to his end. The stuff with his mother, Agrippina, was particularly good. Highly recommend as a biography for this well-known, but somehow little understood, Emperor.

[Marshall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great look at the last of the Julio-Claudians.

[Francisco Nunes · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked this book. It gives us a well balanced approach to Nero’s figure and doesn’t fall on common but historically mistaken falsehoods about him.

I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this unusual emperor.

[Anne Morgan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't know much about Nero beyond the slanders that everyone knows, so I was looking forward to learning more about the person and his reign instead of the bogeyman everyone thinks they know. And the authors do give us some of that- the policies of Nero's reign, the probable truths behind things like the famous fire, etc. But I had so many problems with this book, I don't know how much of what the authors claim as fact I could actually believe, and this left me frustrated throughout the entire book.

It wasn't just that the writing wasn't good- though I didn't like the writing. Awkward subject changes jerked the reader around and made it hard to follow things, especially in the beginning. For the first half to 3/4ths of the book the authors seem to take the ancient sources at nearly face value, question almost nothing they tell, their biases and agendas (let alone when they were writing), etc. They tell us how great a performer Nero was; how awful his mother Agrippina was and how yes, maybe there could have been incest between them (really guys?); all kinds of things that I question the sources on about Boudicea's revolt in Britain; how Nero responded to the different conspiracies against him, and more. Then in the last third or so of the book the sources start getting analyzed a little, and brief archaeological evidence pops up to support (or not) theories. It's like the book is not only written by two authors, but by two authors who didn't consult with each other or bother with an editor before publishing this book. In the beginning we hear how wonderful Nero is as a performer. In the end we're told we don't know, but he was popular with the masses (as a ruler at least, and who's going to tell the emperor he's a terrible performer?). By the time one of the Roman names is "Englished" to something more familiar (like Ovid, Lucan, etc) this book has pretty much lost all credibility with me and the only reason I was finishing it was because I had promised NetGalley a review.

Unfortunately, not a book I would recommend

I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

[Kara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you Netgalley for an advanced copy!

This books reads as easily as any excellent drama - probably because Nero was so over the top dramatic in every aspect of his life from beginning to end. Also, Everitt makes the subject matter fresh and suspenseful, giving the feeling of events playing out now rather than being 2,000 years old.

While covering the life of Nero, Everitt also does a very good job at assessing when to pause on Nero's life and give background on events to put his life in context. Therefore, we also get a history of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the busy life of Agrippina, the Romans in Britain, the rise and fall of Boadicea, and more.

Some might feel its too many sidetracks, but I loved seeing the big picture of the Roman Empire even as we follow the life of Nero.

Also, Everitt does a great job taking a hard look at the primary sources and call out the sexist bs when Roman writers would conveniently use sex as an excuse to pull women down. Example, he makes a good case that Empress Melissiana wasn't a nymphomaniac, but that version played better to a Roman audience than 'well, this woman nearly succeeded in a coup d'etate and could have taken us all down'.

An excellent biography of Nero and history of the Julio-Claudin Roman Empire.

[William Schrecengost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting. Everitt attempts to show Nero in a more favorable light, arguing that most of our textual sources about him should be suspect because they are written by his enemies, senators and Christians, while there is evidence to suggest the general populace loved him. He tries to show that Nero really wasn’t that much worse in his personal sins than any of the other Caesars. The really shocking stories of him (eating people alive, tarring people and using as human torches) are admitted to be rumors by their authors (namely Tacitus) and should be read with suspicion. His main arguments for this is that the authors were Senatorial and specifically trying to show the wickedness of the caesars and that Christian writings (specifically Eusebius) don’t mention such atrocities, which is especially strange since out of all the authors you’d expect the Christians to show most clearly the wickedness purposed against them (especially Eusebius who was not ashamed to tell of some incredible atrocities under Diocletian).
I personally found his arguments rather convincing. I don’t think this changes much for the Christians however. The Romans still failed to protect the Christians from their Jewish persecutors and instead took part in the same persecution. Nero was certainly one of the first anti-Christian caesars and even if he wasn’t as explicitly wicked or demonically adversarial towards the Christians, he still fell from his place as Gentile protector and joined in the judgment that fell upon them. And honestly, it’s not hard to believe that a pagan king that hates Christ would be loved by his pagan Christ hating populace.

[Nathan B. Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is unusual to read a biography of a figure who is wholly unsympathetic. Even in his artistic expression, Nero was manipulative, vindictive, and ruthless. But, I am grateful for a window into the world of 1st century Rome because it is a world in the past, and not in the present.

Stories of Nero's casual expenditure of human life for entertainment, and dehumanization of slave boys and women through rape horrified me. Nero might not have been as bad as later stories would tell and certain claims about persecution may have been apocryphal, but the behavior of this megalomaniacal tyrant can't be excused or ignored due to his middling attempt at expressing himself through art. As I was reading, I couldn't help but to think of one of Nero's contemporaries, writing to the city that he called home, who captured so well the culture of that time, listing the very vices on display in Nero's life describing them as things that 'ought not to be done' (Romans 1:28). The brutality, violence, and perversion of the ancient Roman world - expressed through Nero - must be remembered as such.

However, if anything, this book deserves to be read if only to show us that the Christian ethic - which we take for granted today - truly 're-made' the world as Tom Holland has argued in 'Dominion.' If the Christian revolution would have been crushed by Nero, we would be living in a wholly different world. So, we can be thankful that the world of Rome will one day give way to the world of Romans - when those final vestiges of evil are finally destroyed - and it can be said that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” (Romans 8:18)

[Caleb Fogler · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this biography Everitt and Ashworth acknowledge the crimes of the last of the Julio-Claudian’s dynasty; but they also challenge the popular reputation that many general readers, including myself, hold against Nero as a blood thirsty autocrat with mommy issues.

The authors share the full story of Nero, including his relationship with his mother, and point out his flaws as well as historical biases against him. They make the argument that Nero was actually a populist and was beloved by the citizens of Rome and the Greeks. That he was a successful politician for both domestic and foreign affairs, but his feud with the aristocracy and lack of an heir contributed to his downfall.

To be clear, Nero is a little messed up when judged by today’s society and values. But after reading this, I view him similar to children celebrities who are often used for the benefits of their parents or guardians. Nero just wanted to be a musician and actor, but was forced to take up the role as ruler of the Roman Empire from a young age and it appears he never fully emotionally matured because of it.

[Tasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

many words but I’ll keep it short. Its a very dense book with many characters and requires a lot of attention to details.
But its drama filled and can become quite interesting and intense.
A battle that i finally won

[Nate · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little disorganized but still engaging. Nero’s flight from Rome and eventual suicide is such a sordid episode!

[Annabelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

The beginning chapters of the book easily captivated me, as it gave concise backgrounders, a refresher course of sorts, on Nero's forebears and the circumstances and machinations of his ascension to the purple; in these early chapters I felt the writers make a strong case for this young, impressionable, magnanimous emperor, inclined to clemency and progress. Thanks to imperial advisers Seneca and Burrus, things looked very promising for Rome.

But I plodded through most of the middle pages, despite the somewhat tragicomedies involving Agrippina, a chunk of the Senate, and Nero's family and friends. (To be an accomplished patrician in Nero's age was to have a limited shelf life. More so if you were related to an emperor, current or past.)

The pace picked up in the last one or two chapters, when assassination plots against Nero gained momentum. Of particular relish were the ridiculous preludes leading to his death, as were the numerous hypotheses of the masterminds, the instigators, and the supporting cast of colorful characters.

My main takeaways: Nero was in disfavor, but not despised by the Romans. He was a cultural hero, and a reluctant emperor. He was a middling talent, but would have fared better as a cithara player, eking a living through his poetry and song. He should've listened to Seneca.

Two and a half stars.

[Kay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading about the rapid turnover and apparent assassinations of Roman emperors and their families makes Game of Thrones look dull. This book takes a thorough look at Nero, including background on his family which would set anyone up for problems. Topics of interest to me include Nero's mother who played a pivotal and ultimately overbearing role, Boudica's uprising and fight against Rome, and that this was a period involving early Christians such as Paul, who is not directly included in all of the going ons but still is pivotal in Roman and world history. This book shows Nero in far more depth than an emperor who would 'fiddle while Rome burns' and he likely did not do that. Fires in Rome were not unusual. Nero had a love for the arts and pursued his own passion for performing despite that being considered beneath an emperor. I found this fascinating and well researched. My rating is 5 stars.

[Tanner · Rating 2 out of 5]

The authors claim to be modernizing Nero—revisiting historiography to depict him as a quirky pop star and reluctant ruler, not as the despot which history remembers. That didn't happen. In fact, I spent the entire book corroborating their retelling and was disappointed with their feeble attempts at shining new light on Nero. So, you want a "modernization," here it is:

Newly-crowned Emperor Nero is a 17 year old brat whose helicopter mom stands behind him whispering in his ear. No one trusts her; she's a woman after all. (So really not much has changed in 2,000 years.) His friends are perverts. His councilmen are bootlickers. And worse—Nero's a theater kid. He forces his court to watch him perform but never rule. Everyone in his life schemes against him. He violently acts out when he doesn't get his way, executing teachers, relatives, and politicians alike. His greatest accomplishments are completed by much-more competent men. (And like any despot, executes them once they've succeeded.) The only good thing he does is provide humanitarian aid to the city after a great fire; even then, people claim he fiddled while it burned. He had a reputation after all. Twenty years of twirling around in a single spotlight meant he saw enemies in the dark stage corners. Overtime, paranoia poisoned his mind (like he poisoned his mom). Once he'd realized the audience had stopped clapping, he took his own life. Dramatic to the end.

Nero was not a kinky bisexual poet remembered for his vices and not his virtues. He was a deeply-insecure, perverted, and lackluster ruler who tabloids today would lambast in the same way as ancient writers did long ago. You have to hand it to him though: few people could truly match Nero's freak.

[pennpenn · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

Me? Audiobooking a biography and enjoying it? It’s more likely than you think. Help I think I’m turning into my dad lmao

I’m pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this book! This in-depth biography of Nero does not excuse his terrible crimes, but paints a more nuanced portrait of both Nero as a person and the social/political/historical context of the Imperial era. As someone who is interested in writing a story set during Nero’s reign, it was interesting to learn that the common people were overall fond of Nero. I also recently read a bunch of Seneca’s letters from his Epistulae Morales for a class, so it was interesting to learn more about his role in Nero’s reign.

I really appreciate Everitt and Ashworth’s sensitivity towards the brutal exploitation of enslaved people, as well as how Everitt+Ashworth sharply criticize the misogynistic historical accounts of women during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. However, I also would’ve liked Everitt+Ashworth to unpack Roman homophobia and masculinty more—both played complex roles in how contempories and historians demonized Nero.

Finally, the audiobook reader, Greg Patmore, was wonderful! His narration made my reading experience more engaging and enjoyable!

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoroughly researched account of Nero’s life and imperial Rome.

Nero is among the most colorful of Roman emperors, if not exactly among the most likable. He’s a character, and even though Everitt doesn’t give much attention to the most outlandish and likely apocryphal material, he still gives us an entertaining portrait of one of Rome’s most colorful megalomaniacs.

The first half of the book is more intriguing than the second, though this is no fault of the author. Nero’s early years are among the most intriguing in his personal history, and the latter parts of the book spend a lot of time of things like the governing of the provinces, essential to know for a complete portrait of Rome at the time but not exactly thrilling stuff.

If you’ve read a lot on Rome in this era, most of the information here won’t be new to you, though there are some nuggets of good info that aren’t commonly mentioned and it’s nice to have it all wrapped up in one book when you’re looking for a refresher on a specific emperor or time period during the empire.

*I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.*

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus—the 5th and final of the Caesar emperors—was thoroughly despised, debauched, ruthless, tyrannical, self-indulgent…and the list goes on. In this brand new bio from celebrated biographer Anthony Everitt and investigative journalist Roddy Ashworth, readers get a nuanced view of an insecure young man who probably never should have been invested with power and authority. Adopted at the age of 13 by Emperor Claudius, he succeeded him at the tender age of 16 as a result of his mother, Agrippina the younger, who schemed to murder to put him on the throne, committed incest with him, then he later murdered her. Insecure, he was loved by his Praetorian Guard but despised by the Roman aristocracy. He burned Rome’s center down (while supposedly playing a lyre at the time), then built a palace upon clearing the ashes. He loved the arts and music, and advanced these during his reign. Yet, his cruelty knew no boundaries. His conquests included Britain and Queen Boudica who revolted against the Empire, but ultimately, his shortcomings and insecurities led to numerous arrests and murders which consumed him, made him paranoid, and eventually made a public enemy by the Roman Senate. And thus, in AD 68 at the age of 30, he committed suicide in lieu of being captured, tortured and killed. Fascinating history of Ancient Rome is wrapped around this fascinating biography!

[eggsalads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering what I knew of him prior to reading the book, Nero was surprisingly likable and not at all as insane as I’d imagined. It was hilarious that his main thing was wanting to be the ancient equivalent of a rockstar/race car driver.

The book was good! You could feel that the author/s tried very hard to eliminate personal bias from the historical sources and I appreciated their speculation on why certain anecdotes were created and/or persisted.

I enjoyed it until Chapter 8 or 9 I think. Unfortunately, it does get to be quite dry and in the pursuit of providing context, they do talk about things that have barely anything to do about Nero. Chapter 10 was still exciting because of the talk of druids and Boudica but everything after turns into a bit of a slog to get through.

Also, if you’re a casual fan of history, it does get a bit difficult to keep track of the names of the semi-important men who pop up from time to time. I’d have loved it if they had reminded us who certain individuals were when they show up again several chapters later.

[Melia]

I skimmed and skipped over enough of this that I don't feel comfortable giving it a good faith rating, but I will say that this spins an excellent narrative for being, as much as something can be, true.
It also shows how myopic history can be when it focuses exclusively on men, claiming that women just didn't have a big role is society, when women are essential players in this story. Agrippina had more agency than Nero at times.

For the man himself, two excerpts stand out to me, from the beginning and the end:
"His life was wasted. We remember him as a failed despot and as an entertainer. Had he lived today he might have scraped a living as a mediocre rock musician - and been happy."
"Nero's most admirable quality was the purity of his commitment to art. Unfortunately, performances vanish as soon as they conclude, and none of his poetry has survived in written form.
So we know next to nothing about what he most cared for."
"The monster was loved."

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good enough biography that doesn’t rehabilitate Nero but shows him to not exactly be the decadent monster of Roman history (seems like it’s true of Caligula though). The big beef I had is smack in the middle of the book, the English writers predictably but annoyingly get away from Nero’s story and go long on the submission of Britain that just so happened during Nero’s reign. While it was fascinating to learn about Queen Boudica, it didn’t explain why the writers gave the short shrift to Nero murdering his pregnant wife or castrating a prepubescent slave to make the slave his lover because the slave looked like his mom. It’s just like…man, that happened. Sucks doesn’t it? Anyway.

Other than that, it was good.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 Hadn't read much about nero before (honestly kindof thought he was in power for a shorter time ≈15 years). Became emperor at 16 and seemed to be more interested in the arts then being emperor (played the cithara, sang, and rode chariots even performed as emperor, but he certainly enjoyed the power of being emperor and used his power for debauchery). Was quite popular with the average citizens of Rome even towards the end, but did have his mother killed (who smoothed the way for him to take power as a probable extension of her) and regardless of intention killed his wife and unborn child. Was an interesting if at times slowish read, but did like learning more about life in ancient rome

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was interesting, but those ancient Romans sure were unpleasant to each other huh. I mean it says murder twice in the title so I’m not sure what I expected, maybe that’s on me.

[Madeline · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to the Audiobook.
Greg Patmore was an excellent narrator.

Well written from both a historical standpoint and an entertaining narrative.

I do want to look into his druid sources.

[Evan Cerna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This Nero dude was one crazyyyyyyyyyyy guy.

[Austin Hunter Somers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed the balance regarding Nero’s character and competency.

[Kels · Rating 4 out of 5]

“nero’s most admirable quality was the purity of his commitment to art. unfortunately, performances vanish as soon as they conclude, and none of his poetry has survived in written form. so we know next to nothing about what he most cared for.”

rip nero you would’ve loved william shakespeare

[Daniel Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anthony Everitt is a great popular historian and biographer, and this volume on Nero does not disappoint. I have previously read his biographies of Cicero, Augustus, and the Rise of Rome. Everitt does a fantastic job of taking Classical sources and making them approachable. His style is easy to read, and he does not assume that the reader is familiar with other Classical sources or history. However, as a classicist myself, I find that he offers a refreshing perspective on Classical history. He does not dismiss things offhand, but treats them seriously, although without a scholarly propensity to over-explain or resort to ideology in his explanations.

The primary source for Everitt's biography is Tacitus' Annals, which he quotes frequently. He sometimes quotes entire paragraphs for context, and treats Tacitus as the main dialogue partner throughout the biography. However, Everitt knows well enough to question Tacitus at key points, which is done well and thoughtfully. He sidelines Suetonius' biography of Nero, except where he differs from Tacitus. Everitt also brings in Seneca where appropriate, although without going too deep into his writing, which is wise if Everitt wants to keep the view on Nero exclusively. (Seneca is one of the most oft-studied Romans, so there are other works to read about his life and writings. See Miriam Griffin's Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics or James Romm's Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero.) Everitt also mentions a tragedy of (Pseudo-)Seneca, called the Octavia, as a source for the murder of Agrippina, since it points to the cruelty of that act, alongside Nero's other murders.

There is one particular passage of historiography which may be problematic for some. Everitt's treatment of the oft-quoted passage about Christian persecution after the Great Fire of Rome in Annals 15.44 may cause consternation, since his conclusion is that it is inauthentic. His argument is reasonably sound, since 1.) No other author refers to the event at the time, 2.)Nothing else on the matter of these persecutions appears before the 5th Century, and 3.) The style and historical precision is not to Tacitus' standards (and therefore may not be Tacitus' own writing), since he refers to Pontius Pilate as "procurator" instead of "prefect." According to him, it was added by a Christian copyist around the 5th Century. Everitt acknowledges that this interpretation may not be amenable to those who worship the martyrs of this period. His argument also hinges on his own portrait of Nero, who in this presentation is misguided and guilt-ridden, rather than rapacious and bloodthirsty.

Everitt's overall interpretation of Nero is lenient. The biography begins with the question of whether Nero was really as violent as his reputation portrays, and the ultimate answer that the book reaches is complex (yes, but). Everitt acknowledges that on the one hand, Nero did really order the murder of several close family members. On the other hand, he was loved by the common people of Rome for various reasons, and later pretend Neros appeared to claim his throne after his death. There is thorough treatment given to other major events in Nero's life, like after the Great Fire, where Everitt acknowledges that the Golden House was opulent, but not a greedy land-grab like his detractors accuse him of doing.

Everitt's vision of Nero is immoderate in most things, but is misunderstood as an individual. Everitt tries to get a fair picture of the emperor, but Nero's actions speak for themselves. Despite Everitt's view that Nero did not torch Christians after the fire, that Nero had little to nothing to do with the Boudican revolt, and that his opulence can be excused as the expenditures of an extravagant show-off, Nero still murdered his family and other potential threats to his rule. He became more unhinged as the book proceeded. His benevolence was mainly directed toward strangers and parties likely to benefit him directly (although not unusual for aristocratic Roman men). While I agree that Nero cuts an intriguing figure, he is far from sympathetic. Everitt attempts to be an impartial historian, but there is a point at which we must press observations about Nero's amoral behavior. The domestic violence he committed against his empress Poppaea, for example, is especially heinous and disgusting. Nero was clearly not just misunderstood- he was an abuser and murderer, whatever his motivations may have been.

In the final analysis, Everitt's book was quite good. I recommend it to anyone interested in Nero and his reign, although I would caution them at certain points, as discussed above. This is an exciting period of Roman history, and worth the study.

[Janalyn, the blind reviewer · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this biography of Nero it has all your typical biography aspects his relative his childhood but this is more detailed and written in a way that isn’t at all academic I love nonfiction and it is rare to get a book that you don’t want to put down and with Nero‘s biography I thought it would be a easy read but one I could dismiss when needed well I was totally wrong with his relationship with his mother all the backstabbing politics he’s sociopathic declarations this book reads like a Shakespearean play with his politics and his tendency in love of violence makes this a very interesting book and a five star read. I love this book and highly recommend it I’ve received it from NetGalley and the publisher but I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.

[Vince · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors did a remarkable job in research with the difficulty of historical documents. I wanted to give this a 4-star rating, but could not advance past the sometimes inconsistences of characters and tangent stories. As one comment mentioned, it seemed to be written by separate authors. I do not regurgitate the book as others have to impress readers. I read the book and liked it. I love the Roman history. This is a very good book on Nero. Many myths and rumors were explained. Given the authors had to work with unsubstantiated materials, it was very good.