Hating gladiators less...

[caesar novus]

Just some naive thoughts: I wonder how many folks are attracted vs repelled to the Romans for their gladiator habits. I was pretty much repelled, and would hardly glance at coliseums of Rome or Pompeii. Mussolini could have put his archeology-destroying boulevard right thru the coliseum rather beside it for all I cared.

 

But that impression is changing if I can believe the video course I am following (won't give it any more plugs by name). Apparently it didn't focus primarily on gratuitious gore and death, but was loaded with etiquette (changing with the times). There were countless rules intended to spare lives of respectable or expensive fighters, sometimes built into what ethnic group was allowed to fight with which. Not only did emperors seek favor by sparing lives of popular losers, but listened to petitioners on other business during the spectacle, especially when democracy had otherwise shriveled. The gore was possibly secondary to some constructive social purposes, such as seeing how your (in the audience) station in life is respected by others.

 

Too many details to enumerate, but just thinking the Romans seem less barbaric if you follow certain academic descriptions in depth. To me their architecture/sculpture just shouts civilized refinement. If their history is sometimes stereotyped to be Nazi like, they why didn't their achitecture reflect that (like facist or Stalinist brutal architecture/sculpture)? If the modern trend is so comparatively genteel, why for example are we allowing increasing cruelty in meat processing http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/d...ory_id=14460095 . Bring back the Roman empire!

[sylla]

Just some naive thoughts: I wonder how many folks are attracted vs repelled to the Romans for their gladiator habits. I was pretty much repelled, and would hardly glance at coliseums of Rome or Pompeii. Mussolini could have put his archeology-destroying boulevard right thru the coliseum rather beside it for all I cared.

 

But that impression is changing if I can believe the video course I am following (won't give it any more plugs by name). Apparently it didn't focus primarily on gratuitious gore and death, but was loaded with etiquette (changing with the times). There were countless rules intended to spare lives of respectable or expensive fighters, sometimes built into what ethnic group was allowed to fight with which. Not only did emperors seek favor by sparing lives of popular losers, but listened to petitioners on other business during the spectacle, especially when democracy had otherwise shriveled. The gore was possibly secondary to some constructive social purposes, such as seeing how your (in the audience) station in life is respected by others.

 

Too many details to enumerate, but just thinking the Romans seem less barbaric if you follow certain academic descriptions in depth. To me their architecture/sculpture just shouts civilized refinement. If their history is sometimes stereotyped to be Nazi like, they why didn't their achitecture reflect that (like facist or Stalinist brutal architecture/sculpture)? If the modern trend is so comparatively genteel, why for example are we allowing increasing cruelty in meat processing http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/d...ory_id=14460095 . Bring back the Roman empire!

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Kosmo]

Not the violence of the gladiator shows repulses me but the fact that the romans were so honest about it. They had no moral problem enjoying violence, suffering and killing.

We fake violence in films, video games etc with special effects so we can enjoy it without guilt.

[Neoflash]

Not the violence of the gladiator shows repulses me but the fact that the romans were so honest about it. They had no moral problem enjoying violence, suffering and killing.

We fake violence in films, video games etc with special effects so we can enjoy it without guilt.

 

Good point. To me there is a huge difference between looking at real human suffering (Gladiator fights, modern extreme figthing sports, videos of hostages being decapitated etc...) for entertainment purposes or out of curiosity and watching a movie depicting acts of violence. Movies are a representation of real life, wether modern or ancient, and throughout history there has been a lot of violence. To leave such violence completly out of movies would make them very unrealistic. But if the Romans of antiquity had not enjoyed watching people butchering each other in the Colosseum, today's movies could focus on other aspects of their lives.

 

At the same time, do we really need to see every single drop of blood in slow motion from every possible angle, along with every single piece of severed flesh and limb. Atleast the romans were watching from a few dozen feet away. The fact is that, the way alot of modern movies depict violence today shows that many people enjoy watching extreme violence as much as the Romans did and, were such events legal, they probably would go see people hacking each other to bits at Maddison Square Gardens on Saturday nigths.

[DecimusCaesar]

I have a very odd attitude towards Gladiators in that I tend to push Roman blood sports to the back of my mind. When I think of Rome I think of the republic, army, roads and architecture but rarely do I consider the Gladiators. Ask most people on the street about Ancient Rome and it would be among the first things they think of. When you think about it the Gladiators are among the most interesting and repulsive aspects of Roman society - they intrigue and disgust in equal measure,sort of like Aztec human sacrifice. Because I tend to think about the positive aspects of Rome I tend to forget about them.

[sylla]

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

There were plenty of Romans who didn't like gladiatorial combat, despite the more violent and bloodthirsty mindset of the day, and arguably the increasing religious objection with regard to christian practises in conjunction with deliberately more bloody staged fights as gladiatorial combat reached it's final days would have polarised the audience largely into two camps - those who wanted it stopped on religious or humanitarian grounds, and those who wanted to see a good fight. That such combat survived a ban and lasted for more than a century in the distant provinces shows a cultural bias, and we can discount some of the dark age staged combats as the plaything of wealthy lords rather than a contiuance of a tradition. Since the cost of staging these games was rising, especially with an increasing shortage of suitable animals for hunts and beast-fights, the emphasis must have changed from large scale spectaculars and returned to private displays of a more modest kind, given the increasing disapproval of the public at large. It worth bearing in mind that chariot races remained more popular than gladiatorial combat throughout, and survived the end of such combat.

[sylla]

Easily available evidence overwhelmingly shows that gladiatorial games were immensely popular all across their long history.

[caldrail]

Never said they weren't. Unfortunately, they didn't just spring into being. That level of popularity had to develop and only with the Augustan Franchise did arena combat see empire wide acceptance as another facet of Roman culture to aspire to. Further, gladiatorial combat may have retained a level of audience interest in the late empire, but its popularity had faded since the Pax Imperium. It isn't reasonable to suggest that an emperor could simply ban a hugely popular entertainment and not receive a bad review from the bullish Roman populace. The games in Rome by the 4th century had changed. Whereas in previous styles the idea was a fast paced real sword fight ending in a clean kill (the reason gladiators fought with unprotected chests), the idea now was to accentuate the drama with weapons designed to wound rather than kill, and fights became slogging matches. Certainly some parts of the public would have enjoyed the spectacle anyway, but increasingly the arena combat was viwed, in Italy at least, as undesirable.

 

Chariot racing was always more popular. There is easily available evidence for that too.

[sylla]

I meant available evidence.

[caldrail]

So did I

[sylla]

No, you mean post-historic analysis .

 

Not a single piece of evidence has been shown yet .

 

But well, it's just evidence. Who cares?

Edited October 31, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

Chariot racing and gladiatorial games had very similar histories, and the evidence is just too fragmentary and unreliable to know how they caught fire. They both originated with the Etruscans -- long before Roman written history began. Evidence of exhibition of either type of sport is spotty throughout the monarchical and republican eras -- although we know about some spectacular and peculiar games, we really have no idea how often the Circus Maximus was used for chariot racing, how often gladiatorial games were held for funereal rites, let alone how popular either sport was for any given year (since we can't compare the gross receipts for the two types of sports). Yes, they were both exhibited more frequently than ever as Augustus revived and cultivated many ancient festivals, such as the Secular Games -- but that doesn't really tell us much about how popular either sport was either.