Rethinking Nero

Nero was dubbed tyrant because the media at the time - that is, senators who could write and publish disliked him. The dislike is understandable for his execution of Seneca; one of them. Tacitus hated him to guts and later Christian history dubbed him as the worst tyrant. The infamous Damnatio Memoriae(the worst possible punishment to a public figure at the time; erasing all evidence of the person's accomplishments) was held against him as well.

But if you think about it, He never really messed up as a role of Princeps. In short, Augustus' princeps were given two responsibilities: national security(as an Emperotor) and food supply(As a 'Caesar Augustus' and 'Princeps'). Food supply was pretty much guaranteed in his tenure, apart for one turbulent season.

For national security, many give Corbulo the credit to resolve the conflict with Patria(i.e., letting Patrian prince take throne of Armellian, but have Roman authority give ceremony). While it was a drastic change in Roman politics, Nero was the one to give the final say. He was unstable, but he wasn't stupid.

All northern defence lines were peaceful(i.e., didn't have a major breach) and conquest for Caledonia(Britain) was ongoing. When Judea revolt came about, he sent possibly the best card against that(Vespianus, who later wins the civil war after Nero's demise).

His demise was a complex one; he lost respect from populus due to his murder of Octavia and his mother(authority), and support from senators(justification to power), and finally, from the armies(military power) all at the same time.

Compared to mediaval then later post-Renaissance divine rights, Roman emperors' powers were far more justified, and consequently, liable to be checked.

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" - Napolean