Nero and Stalin have long been regarded two of history’s most despicable dictators. Both created an environment of hostility and fear during their regime, forcing their citizens to submit to their rule. Although both Stalin and Nero shared similar barbaric methods of control in their empires, there are aspects of their rule that differ greatly, such as Nero’s five-year period of relative peace at the start of his regime, compared to Stalin’s ever-changing policies which he used as an excuse to expel his enemies from the party. Through the detailed comparison of both rulers; using Roman writers such as Tacitus and Suetonius who explore Nero’s rule, as well as secondary historians who examine the cause of the purges; we can see the roles that mental health and corruption played in both of their rule, as well as how Stalin admired the Roman Empire and looked onto Rome as a model of a great imperialistic state on which to base the USSR.
To understand the psyche of both Nero and Stalin and how their paranoia and corruption provoked their infamous reigns of terror, their troubled background and childhood must first be explored. Stalin’s deep-rooted paranoia seems to have been triggered by the abuse he suffered as a young child. His father was an alcoholic and was frequently abusive to both Stalin and his mother. This led him to develop severe anxiety as well as an inferiority complex. Stalin was forced to withdraw into himself and soon created an idealised image of himself in his head, as a powerful warrior. As the real Stalin would often not live up to this idealised form, this drove his paranoia as he was determined to destroy anyone who saw past this illusion, especially old members of the Bolshevik party. This provoked the purges which claimed close to 10 million lives. Historian Robert Tucker argues that “his wretched childhood…evidently generated in young Stalin the basic anxiety that can lead a child to develop a neurotic personality.” This demonstrates how influential Stalin’s dysfunctional family and his difficult childhood was in pushing him to use terror as a method of control in his regime. Nero similarly had a disruptive childhood, as his father died when he was only three years old which forced him to have to leave his mother at a very young age and to go and live with his aunt for the remainder of his childhood. Although Nero was seen to be very intelligent from a young age, he was also very spoilt and undisciplined. His father, Gnaeus Ahenobarbus, was reported to have been incredibly cruel and abusive, especially towards Nero’s mother Agrippina, going as far to comment, upon hearing about Agrippina’s pregnancy, that “nothing but what was detestable could come from him and Agrippina”. This demonstrates that even as a young child, Nero experienced a lot of difficult change, and even that he had a ‘naturally cruel heart’ as suggested by Suetonius. The idea that Nero was inherently corrupt is continued as Suetonius remarks that although Nero’s ancestors were well-known for their brutality and corruption, Nero “made a ghastly caricature of his ancestor’s vices.” Nero’s natural cruelty and brutality was clearly exacerbated by his mother’s marriage to her uncle Claudius. Claudius already had a biological son, and Nero was forced to feel like even more of an outsider, even within his own family. It was this isolation from the people around him as well as his disruptive family life that provoked Nero’s inherent brutality and his tendency to rely on fear and terror to control the people in his empire.
Although Nero rose to power in 54 AD, his reign of terror didn’t begin into well into his rule. Initially, Nero was kept in check by his two tutors, Seneca and Burrus, who managed to protect the Roman empire from Nero’s erratic behaviour as well as from the presence of his overbearing and controlling mother. Agrippina was renowned for being able to manipulate Nero into obeying her every word, which presented a real threat to the empire. However, with his tutor’s calm and measured approach to ruling, Nero was kept in check and as a result the empire flourished. Suetonius even praises Nero here, commenting that “he lowered…some of the heavier taxes” which demonstrates that Nero did effect some positive change in Rome at the start of his reign. Historian Miriam Griffin also sees Nero as having a period of calm before his reign of terror: “a period of good rule preceded Nero’s descent into tyranny.” This demonstrates that despite Nero’s tendency towards tyranny and cruelty, under the careful eye of his tutors, he ruled fairly for several years. However, Agrippina was still a dominant force throughout this period, even taking over some of the ruling of the empire, as Suetonius writes that Nero “turned over all his private and public affairs to Agrippina’s management.” Although there is always a possibility of bias and exaggeration when looking at ancient Roman sources, this is clear evidence that Agrippina played a central role in Nero’s early reign demonstrating that her influence was a factor in the lead up to his reign of terror. Contrastingly, Stalin’s early rule was marred with controversy, although it was significantly less corrupt than his later rule. Stalin rose to power after Lenin’s death in 1924, and the purges didn’t begin until 1928, his early rule was still harsh. Historian Robert Service sees Stalin’s personality as key to the purges as he writes “Stalin’s personality was a dangerously damaged one and it was this personality that supplied the high octane fuel for the journey to the great terror.” This demonstrates how important Stalin’s paranoia was in provoking the purges and how it was his disturbed personality that led to him using terror as a means of control, just as Nero did. When Stalin first came to power, he first adopted the policy of the right side of the party, NEP, as a method to get rid of his enemies on the left, before adopting the left’s policy of collectivisation in order to rid himself of any enemies on the right. Although Stalin used the policy of collectivisation to gain control of the party, it was these hard-line policies as well as the break-neck speed of industrialisation that provoked a severe famine in Russia, leading to a loss of thousands of lives and wide spread cannibalism. This demonstrates that even before the purges, Stalin was a very cruel and totalitarian leader, only interested in gaining power rather than protecting the interests of his people, showing his natural brutality and how this provoked him to use fear as a method of control.
Despite Nero’s reign beginning well, with Nero appearing to be a fair and just ruler, this soon changed drastically. Nero soon managed to shake off the calming influence of his tutors as well as the overbearing control of his mother and began to rule as a very brutal dictator. Suetonius describes the change in Nero’s rule, writing “Gradually Nero’s vices gained the upper hand: he no longer tried to laugh them off or hide or deny them, but turned quite brazen.” After his mother’s death in 59 AD, Nero felt that he was no longer controlled by anyone, leaving his tutors Seneca and Burrus “only able to effect compromises” over his decisions. Nero’s previous indiscretions soon snowballed into political corruption and serious crime. Historian Miriam Griffin writes that “The Claudian style of government, though at first repudiated under the influence of his first advisers, was eventually to surface again.”
INSERT MENTAL HEALTH HERE
Nero’s often turbulent relationships with the women in his life further exposes his deranged and abusive personality. Although Nero married Claudius’ daughter Octavia, he often cheated on her and was reported to have had multiple mistresses. Eventually, he divorced her and went on to marry his mistress Poppea. Nero was very abusive towards Poppea, even going as far as to kick “her to death while she was pregnant and feeling very ill” simply because she dared to ask him why he had returned home so late. This closely mirrors Stalin’s similarly abusive relationship with his second wife Nadya, demonstrating how both ruler’s brutal traits were clear early on in their reigns. Nero’s multiple indiscretions are exposed by Suetonius who accuses him of having “raped the Vestal Virgin Rubria” as well as sharing that “once he was beaten almost to death by a senator whose wife he had molested.” These awful crimes demonstrate how ruthless and out of control Nero was, even in his early reign, as he would act impulsively and very destructively. Nero also had a very dysfunctional relationship with his mother, as he resented her manipulative influence over his life but at the same time felt unable to rid himself of her, refusing to ever question “the plans she laid or the methods she devised” to keep control over the empire; even going as far as to “give evidence against his aunt” in order to please her. Historian Miriam Griffin writes that “The over-watchful, over-critical eye that Agrippina kept on whatever Nero said or did proved more than he could stand.” suggesting that it was his inability to put up with her control over him anymore that led him to try to have her killed. Nero’s ruthless and blood-thirsty nature is evident here as he had no qualms with having his mother killed or even murdering his own wife, despite being very close to her, demonstrating how it was his brutality that led to him using fear and terror to control his people. Stalin also had very turbulent and abusive relationships with the women in his life. He was very abusive towards his second wife Nadya, constantly cheating on her, usually just to hurt her, demonstrating his vindictive streak. Eventually Nadya killed herself, no longer able to put up with the torrent of abuse she was facing. Stalin was completely destroyed by her death, spending hours at her grave and even coming close to ending his life. It was her death that forced him to withdraw even further into himself, increasing his paranoia and provoking the purges, as Stalin now firmly believed that everyone was an enemy who wanted to overthrow him.
Although a comparison can be drawn between Nero and Stalin as they were both infamous dictators, similarities can also be seen between Rome and Russia. Rome has always been held up as a strong model of an imperialistic empire with a lot of influence over the western world, but it is only more recently that it has been discovered that it’s influence reached as far as Russia. Stalin seems to have admired Rome’s imperialistic structure and sought to model the USSR on Rome. The myth that Moscow was the ‘Third Rome’, which is the idea that Russia is the next natural successor to the Roman empire and therefore is meant to dominate the world, was one constantly perpetuated in Russia in the late nineteenth century. Russian philosophers and writers began to trace their history back to Rome’s, seeing the expansion of the Russian empire as part of its destiny to follow in the footsteps of Rome, and even to became a Christian empire just as Rome did. Stalin used this popular image of the “Third Rome” to his advantage, promoting it as a symbol of the power of Russia and it’s need to be free from the imperialistic influences of the western world that would try to control Russia. This encouraged nationalism across Russia, and the idea of “The Third Rome” became even more widely accepted as a part of national history. Overall, we can see that Stalin saw Rome as the perfect model of an imperialistic empire, a structure which he sought for Russia, as well as how he used the myth of Moscow as the Third Rome to increase nationalism in Russia and to increase support for his rule.