Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

It Was Sheer Murder Out There


caldrail

Recommended Posts

How many of us, I womder, would wander into an amphitheatre and watch two men fight with swords, quite possibly to the death? Although our modern civilised minds are repulsed by the idea, god forbid the sight of it, there remains nonetheless a fascination buried deep within us. After all, at their height, gladiatorial games were extremely popular in Rome, with leading competitors treated like star athletes.

 

Now bear with me, because I do intend to discuss an element of human behaviour with respect to Roman gladiatorial combat. The thing is we do watch combat of this kind, almost on a daily basis. Film and television present us with a sanitised and not entirely real version of fighting. If you care to admit it, you'll notice that there's a part of you that enjoys the struggle and the villains final moment. We even trivialise the final blow with comic gags to highlight the bad guys demise.

 

There are those who will tell you that watching such programs inevitably induces a sense of familiarity with violence. That by watching television in particular, we tend to assume violent atitudes ourselves. Statistics start to appear and we learn that children watch thousands of virtual killings in our own homes, and so forth. It seems then to the casual observer that we are brutalising our own society and making violence an enjoyable, and in some ways desirable, pursuit.

 

By chance I caught a documentary on Russia Today, in which a certain Dr Gerbner was discussing the effect of violent television. With some interest I note that he says the link between violent television programs and violent behaviour in those who watch is unproven. Ever since the invention of television, no-one has made any convinging case that this assertion is true, despite a few publicised cases of where misguided individuals claim that to be the case. A handful of admissions out of the billions of people who watch television today? Hardly a huge problem, is it?

 

Instead, Dr Gerbner informs us that psychologically human beings become more fearful of actual violence having been exposed to prolongued television and the protrayal of violent acts. On the one hand, our mental state and communication skill suffers from withdrawal from socialising, but also, we see these acts and whilst it can be enjoyable to see the vilain get his comeuppance in a bloody fashion, deep within us the idea that something like that could happen to us in the outside world begins to inhibit our ability to confront it. We begin to choose alternative survival strategies than simply swinging our fists.

 

Cicero once claimed that the arena was good for a Roman citizen. After all, if a mere slave can show courage like that, what can a Roman do? Besides, it prepares a society for battle. Or so he claimed. However, now I start to wonder. Assuming Dr Gerbner is correct, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, then we might see some implications of the arena in terms of changes to Roman society as the imperial period progressed.

 

In the same way that television has eroded peoples fortitude against violence in the modern day, did the arena do the same thing for the Romans over the course of those final few centuries? Notice that the arena grew increasingly bloody toward the latter half of it's popularity, with more accent on the theatre of it as opposed to an honorable display of one-on-one duelling it once was..

 

Obviously this was not an instant phenomenon, but a slow degeneration of peoples ideas about fighting. Rome had always been a society that encouraged martial values. Whilst under potential threats, the emerging superpower of the ancient world was understabdably reliant on the hard-nosed psyche of it's citizenry. But what happens when a society is successful? When the threat is now longer apparent, and danger becomes part of entertainment rather than a fact of daily life?

 

You might then speculate that part of the reason Christianity grew in public acceptance among the Romans during the late empire was not only the promulgation of christian belief and values, but also a sympathy with the anti-violent rules by a public who experienced violence less than in previous centuries, and instead enjoyed in in the arena.

 

It's easy to criticise that idea, claiming that if it were true, why did the effect not appear earlier in a more widespread manner? In answer to that, note the analogy with television. In the days before television was widespread, the public willingness to confront violence was much increased. I read of how an armed youth was brought down by a gang of outraged citizens acting at the spur of the moment back in the 1900's. Would that happen today? More likely the room would empty very quickly. Of course we don't instantly turn into frightened mice when we switch on the television, but instead, perhaps we might see an erosive effect taking place over generations as certain behavioural traits begin to make themselves felt.

 

My idea then is that the Romans suffered the same pheneomenon, the same trend in public behaviour, that we experience and barely notice among ourselves. Notice how christianity and it's non-violent message is increasingly accepted. Notice how the Roman legions, as Vegetius tells us, lost their strength and spirit. Perhaps the Romans evolved toward a less stern mindset not only because of the weakening effects of prolongued success and the relative absence of hardship, not only because of the christian embargo on violence, but also because they chose to use violence as entertainment and thus eroded their own martial values in the process.

 

In short, was Cicero wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of fighting vigour among late Roman recruits might have been down to poor training and lack of enthusiasm. Ammianus Marcellinus notes several times that soldiers in the late Roman army had severe problems with discipline, with many recruits refusing to wear helmets and armour because of their weight, while newer recruits had to be locked up to stop them from escaping. Whether this was a failure of the army, or a sign of deeper socail problems is hard to say. Interestingly enough, the English military historian, Richard Holmes, mentions that many people today believe that modern soldiers (on campaign in Afghanistan) are soft and weak compared to their ancestors, mostly due to having lived such cushy, peaceful lives - lives he notes spent watching films (probably violent) and playing violent video games. After having spent time with these men, Holmes notes that this view is nonsense, and that modern soldiers are every bit as tough and resourceful as their predocessors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was noted by more than one source that young men were often keen to get stuck in. Sebastianus knew that and chose his elite advance corps from those who showed that sort of enthusiasm deliberately. That's a human trait of course. Young males are often competitive and aggressive, something that armed forces throughout history have relied upon. As far as training is concerned, I have no argument. Vegetius confirms the poor state of affairs, but the fact he moans about that state of affairs is significant.

 

Please not that, irrespective of Mr Holmes opinions, the modern armies are much more concious of the need to 'break in' recruits in a way that would not be considered necessary a couple of generations ago. The potential is still there, but that it takes longer to reach it. One point we must accept is that as we reach the late empire, the willingness of Romans to seek a military career evaporates. Romans are drafted rather than asked to volunteer. Identifiably, the martial values of the Roman people were in decline.

 

However, the point is not entirely concerned with those choosing a violent career. It also concerns the audience, those that did no more than watch from the sidelines, which according to Dr Gerbners model of human behaviour would introduce passive behaviour in those that no longer need to be aggressive themselves. This behaviour would eventually spread throughout a population and onto future generations by natural processes of learning as well as experience.

 

It would seem to be an insidious efffect on society. I wouldn't of thought of it, but as I sat down to watch the program Dr Gerbner was waxing lyrical about how media moguls demand that programs show simple plots and violence, because that sells. It's that part of us that wants to watch others being hurt that is being exploited commercially. Then Gerbner stated this was unprecedented. That at no time in the past had this happened before. My immediate reaction was "Oh come on, Gerbner, what about the Romans? Their arena games were an entire industry...". Ping! The light bulb went on.

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment this was the only reason for Roman decline, but rather a contributory factor that appears to be borne out by modern experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience (which is somewhat more extensive that I might wish) viewing violence is very different from being an active participant.

 

As a general rule, when dishing out serious amounts of GBH to others, there is generally a severe risk of getting the same in return. A mixture of adrenaline and acute concentration can make you unaware of issues which cause bystanders serious concern. You are genuinely too excited and busy to contemplate injury. Likewise, when you are in a situation where you are a spectator and real nastiness has happened or is happening, it can seem more unreal than something on the TV.

 

Therefore I'd agree there is a point to Dr Gerber's thesis. Theatrical violence allows you to view bloodshed more vividly than the real thing, and allows the spectator to imagine this violence happening to him in a manner that is very different but in some ways even scarier than the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than that. There seems to be a tendency for those spending time observing life rather than living it to become passive, almost in an instinctual way. I do note that those who live violently tend to enjoy it, and whilst I've no doubt that adrenaline can make a difference, experienced fighters are inevitably calm about their business. For them, there's nothing to be frightened of because they're fully aware of what violence is and know by practice how to deal with it.

 

I knew a chap in workplace who was once jailed for soccer violence. He was a jovial sort, friendly up to a point, and a self confessed 'reformed' personality. Yeah right. I ended up having almost daily sparring sessions with him. As someone less used to fighting than he was, I was struck by how detached and cool-headed he was, never mind how quick and accurate his movements were. For him, fighting was incredibly easy, and inevitably I lost almost every exchange of pulled punches. The thing is, he enjoyed that activity without any need for adrenaline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder to what degree Roman military vitality, or the desirability of military service, simply boils down to the republic/early empire's "offensive" posture, vs. the later empire's "defensive" posture.

 

Up until the empire stopped expanding, fighting successful wars of expansion led to great booty and wealth that the soldiers shared in to some degree. It was about profit. The later defensive wars were just about fending off invasions. I know there were some spoils in successful defensive wars, but not in nearly the same degree. I imagine that conquering a Hellenistic kingdom in the East during the late Republic brought in way more spoils than repelling the Allemani in the fourth century.

 

Perhaps the citizenry were softened by years of prosperity and other social factors, but perhaps military service also became a "why bother?" proposition, if all you got for it was your regular salary, and an unpleasant, dangerous lifestyle. Was the risk simply not worth what it was in previous generations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that legionaries weren't as law abiding as might be expected. We have one account of legionaries in the late empire raiding germanic settlements for profit, swimming across rivers covertly using shields as flotation devices. Also, the defensive posture of the late empire was circumstantial, since the Roman legions of the time were less capable, widely spread, and although in greater numbers than ever before, comprised of people increasingly drafted rather volunteered.

 

If you notice, the centurionate, a fundamental source of tradition and discipline, had declined after Constantine. The whole rationale of the legion as a strong fighting force has atrophied. Also, we need to realise that the legions were taking in volunteers in the earlier periods, and sifting out those they considered weak at the very start. By the late empire, anyone would do, even if they had hacked off their thumbs in an effort to make themselves unenlistable, a practice that was going on throughout imperial times.

 

Although your point about booty from conquest is valid, bear in mind that soldiers in the early empire were never guaranteed such reward. It was always dependent on warfare taking place, and legionaries could their entire term without having fought a single battle. In fact, since they were paid three times a year, often along with donatives and bribes, serving in the legions was not entirely unrewarded anyhow. Add to that the availability of free medical care of some expertise, the added bonus of being able to requisition from civilians if the mood took you without any overt fear of official sanction (though I suspect if you went too far the officers would take steps to stop you), it seems less onerous. Many soldiers obtained cash from their colleagues by one means or another, as often happens in military sub-cultures.

 

In any case, my point is not entirely aimed at the military. The fact remains however that swords in the legion and the arena both became shorter over time until the soldiers eventually threw them away in favour of the longer spatha, and that the organisers of the arena contests introduced new weaponry designed for visual appeal and reduced killing potential, apparently desiring to stage longer, withering, and bloodier contests than the fast do-or-die duel of old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...