Cheap Secrets of the Dead: The Great Fire of Rome (Video) (Christopher Salt, Alexander Marengo, Henry Singer, Elizabeth Dobson, Mark Lewis (VII)) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Secrets of the Dead: The Great Fire of Rome

Revisionist History: Saint Nero, Christians Vile Villians!!!
This violates anyone watching the program intent on learning. This excuse of investigation amounts to whitewashing historical records which have been consistently-until these renegade "researchers" convoluted everything-scolding Nero as the firestarter. Devaluing this episode as something distant from merit, all the show's conclusions are theories. Empty theories so unstable, the show's circle of injuriously doubtful "experts"-regrettably chosen as the exclusive tyrants to judge-jump across the widest chasm for their idiotic judgments. It should be stressed unambiguously that half the program's distance includes violently wild theories not based on the minutest resemblance to fact. They're flung by the most circumstantial "experts" who implicate themselves along the lines of anti-Semitism, irreligion and romantic, grave love with the historical Nero's notion! There was only ONE authority whom they allowed to present an alternative-the correct view of Nero-viewpoint, revealing the blinding partiality that vomitous PBS plotted to craft this forgery with.

There's overabundance of signals that incriminate Nero to be, at least, suspected of setting Rome's Fire. Besides being a bona fide psychopath-upon suicide, he quipped how the world would lose its greatest artist (himself)-he was documented to have murdered his mother, kicked his pregnant wife dead and subjected all Christians; it was Rome's pagan gods that were tyrannized as legitimate. This serves as grounds to fit his looming genocide of torching the city, and the terrorizing plethora of evidence, hard or circumstantial, progresses into an M.O. and an unatonable tarnishing of Nero as the sole firestarter. Due to these nagging, grating facts about Nero, these charlatanistic "experts"' preposterous, jumping conclusions are so blasphemous.

The concrete arraignment of Nero's that he'd such megalomaniacal "ambitions"; he extorted to have 1/3 of Rome cleared for his narcissistic palaces, Neropolis. His hardest problem was space, Rome being so overcrowded. 2nd toughest problem, was his targeted section was under the Forum, the residence of the aristocratic Senate. Having histories of emperors battling the Senate in Rome, Senators wouldn't allow their homes used as the groundwork for Neropolis. They opposed Nero's scheme not only because it'd vanquish them, but because it was subtle plotting to overthrow the Senate's powers-the Senators would meet in their homes' atriums in the Forum exactly to discuss, then veto, Nero's plans, because those atriums were where the governorship was enacted. Nero's consequent burning of the Forum rid him of the power the Senate represented in stonewalling his ploys, also crippling real aristocratic power in Rome for years. The historian Tacitus documented in his work that, during the fire's burning, as the fire brigade tried to extinguish it, they were forbiddingly intimidated by Roman soldiers not to douse it, confessing they were "under orders" to dissuade anyone from doing so, further proving Nero's guiltiness.

This sinisterly arranged for Nero to terrorize his way through, fully exploiting the developments. Had he not gone through with his crushingly psychopathic nuance, there'd be reasonable doubt against his allegations. After his foiling of representational government, he built his Domus-Aurea on top of the rubble. With the Senate's houses in the way, he'd have no entrance way into Domus-Aurea. With their wasting, Nero had clear access from beneath, into the hills were the Forum used to sit, courtesy of a straightened Sacred Way, which had theretofore been winding through the hills, contributing to the blameworthiness of cindering Rome.

The reasons falsified to disestablish the warning of Nero's involvement get detestably idiotic. The fanatic Varner, who fabricated Nero wouldn't have started the fire because his OTHER palace, Domus-Transitoria, was also charred, YET that'd have served his will, since Nero was conniving to build new palaces, then JUSTIFIES the smoldering by citing Rome was rebuilt better afterwards! Extremist Hurst faked that Nero didn't set the fire because it burned the Poor's homes from whom Nero misappropriated support against the aristocratic Senate. PBS has the audacity to stage an undependable reproduction of fire spreading in an allegedly aristocratic-quality house. The argument for Nero's arson-setting was that the Senator's houses weren't penetrated by the original Fire (burned out, then restarted), because their households were constructed sturdier. PBS doctors the fire could've spread on its own through the Senator's houses, when their "experiment" has irremediable doubtfulness towards being controlled. Showing the discrimination PBS carries against religion and reason, this irresponsible wreck allows a fire investigator to ACTUALLY SPECULATE the motives of people from 2000 years ago!!!!

The last affront was PBS procuring an Austrian "expert" to condemn Christians. This impersonating "expert" supposed what occurred in Rome's Fire. His bias is so crippling, it's obvious he dislikes Jews, Christians, organized religion. He forged questionable means to do this, from fragile unreliability which he's conveniently forced. He scandalized early Christians as an apocalyptic movement, ludicrous since the suicidal sect around that time were the Essenes, outside of Rome! This unmasked-for-a-racist "expert" continued his offense by citing the Book of Revelation. The section about the prostitute with seven heads as representing Rome due to Rome's seven hills; a stretch. He argued that Christians would construe Rome as the seven-headed prostitute due to the very fact of Rome's iniquities, wickedness and lustful excesses. The Austrian invented that it was destitute Christians who burned Rome, basing it on the Christians comparing Rome to the prostitute, the embodiment of evil, something that had to be neutralized. Impossible, when considering the poor in Rome would be the worst disadvantaged-in gathering the resources necessary-to implement torching Rome. The Austrian stooped to racial bias in circumventing the Christians had another reason to be culprits. Allegedly, the star Sirius was to rise on the day of Rome's Fire, July 19th. According to Egyptian superstitions, this would symbolize a great power's falling. He then demeaned all Christians as familiar with this prophecy because most early Christians were Jews, from the East, only generally in Egypt's region.

Anti-religious atheists, history-whitewashing revisionists and unconformable hippies with inordinate laxities (all democratic liberals) are the only ones who should watch. The rest of the rational populace must avoid this!!!!

Thought Provoking
"The Great Fire of Rome" seeks to answer the question of just how the fire of 64 AD began. Was it just an accident, caused by the cramped living conditions in the "poor quarter" of ancient Rome? Was it the devious emperor Nero, who wanted to build glorious palaces and other buildings in the heart of Rome (but didn't have the room)? Or was it a mysterious new religious cult, called "Christians," who had recently sprung up in Rome and sometimes caused trouble?

The program seeks to answer this question, and there seems to be some evidence for each case. Some Roman historians blamed Nero, and wrote that he "fiddled" while Rome burned. But this is far from true, and Nero actually was active in trying to stop the spread of the fire. So if it wasn't Nero, was it an accident? It could have been, as there were plenty of flammable objects in the area, especially in the slums of Rome. But is it also possible that the Christians, seeking the beginning of the "end times," had something to do with the mysterious fire?

The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions, but the program is excellent nonetheless. Just the prospect of "Christians as arsonists" is intriguing enough!

Five stars.