Are We Really Any Different From Them?

[pompeius magnus]

see any of my posts arguing with former member spartacus on this issue and you will find that I agree with you.

[Ursus]

I think there is some truth to what you say, Calledora, and that's why in another thread I said I think the Romans have as much to teach us as we could teach them.

[Jimbow]

I have to say I'm finding this thread rather disturbing. As a UK citizen (one without capital punishment, and may it remain so IMHO) I am VERY glad that bare-knuckle fighting is illegal here, and there would likely be many a demonstration to never allow its other form, UFC, to become legal here.

 

A comparison between modern Western democracies and the Ancient Roman Empire is pretty useless when it comes to ethics of blood sports. The gladiatorial games were originally started as funeral games in homage to the deceased. As for there being a comparison between a gameshow and the gladiatorial games, there is none. Watching people being put through trials of discomfort, where it is guaranteed no harm can come to them, which the audience is aware of, is lightyears away from real people being maimed, gutted and actually killed. Some may compare it to a gameshow, but the reality is it more like watching a snuff movie. I believe most people would find that completely unacceptable in society today, and anyone finding a snuff movie enjoyable should seek immediate psychiatric help.

 

Jim.

[Germanicus]

Ever played Grand Theft Auto Vice City Jimbow ?

The only difference between that and a snuff film is that you are the one doing the killing, and it's simulated, but very realistic. I wonder if they were given the technology - would Romans have simulated their games ?

 

I agree that a gameshow is nothing like gladatorial combat, but boxing certainly is, and it's way popular.

[Jimbow]

Ever played Grand Theft Auto Vice City Jimbow ?

 

 

I haven't actually, Germanicus. And one of the reasons is I find many of the elements also disturbing. Maybe it's age, but that's akin to maturity. After working in the videogames industry between 1987 and 1998 I think I can also be very proud that in all that time I never showed a person being killed once. I think such games as the one above are the result of bone-idle imagination, or lack of, and do nothing to help the industry gain credibility as a serious medium. Young teenagers are buying such games (even though they shouldn't be able to), and it will lead to strict regulation and enforcement. And, I have to say, I hope it will, as the games companies are obviously unable to police themselves. You wouldn't believe some of the sugggestions I had to lambast in order to make sure they didn't happen. Might not make financial sense (which was an argument against me), might make me a prude (which many who know me would laugh at), but some things are more important in my opinion.

 

I think it's a less-than-healthy common perception that a real killing is like the half-wit fantasy deaths we see in films and games, but the reality is very different, involving every emotional response possible, or simple numbness which is in itself telling. There is little of this in media. A disassociation from the death without consequences is the usual way for such actions to be represented. But, going back to the original subject, this could be said of the heroic and epic tales of ancient times, so not much change there I guess.

 

That aside, I don't believe games are completely realistic, as the emotional consequences, along with the actions, of shooting someone in a game are not the same as watching a real person die after shooting them in the real physicl world. I suppose psycopaths are the only ones who can really shoot someone point blank in reality and have no emotional or psychological response to their actions. But, I think it takes it a stage closer, which is more disturbing as technology progresses and it would be a first-person experience. Only 2 senses (sight and smell) are input into, without the touch, smell and (?) taste, along with the *real* response of a *real* person who has been shot. Currently, I think such games are more related to violent porno, but a snuff-like experience is not that far away, if someone wanted to really do it.

 

Wanting to see the gladiatorial games introduced for execution is another matter altogether. How watching people being tortured and killed for personal entertainment can be seen as okay is beyond me. A pause for thought is necessary there, and I'm sure it is the result of just an idea popping into somone's head. The games were not a civic duty to enact execution, strangulation and crucifixion were available (bad enough as any execution is imho), they were entertainment for the masses at a time when life was regarded as much cheaper than now. Or at least I hope so.

 

Jim.

[Germanicus]

Jim,

 

All good. It's heartening to know there are people who think the way you do. I hate to get negative though, but things I see happening in the world, the way I see people treated by large firms and governments, indeed, by fellow humans, does not lend credence to the idea that we are somehow "more enlightened". I'd like to think that we are, and when I was younger I did, but not anymore. Romans cared about wealth and social standing more than anything and for the vast majority of proffessional people I meet today, the same can be said.

[Jimbow]

Germanicus,

 

Romans cared about wealth and social standing more than anything and for the vast majority of proffessional people I meet today, the same can be said.

 

 

That's absolutely true, but also I think, in business, there is a notable difference, and that is the completely abstract concept of a 'corporation'. I'm pretty sure that if you tried to explain what a 'corporation' is (a legal entity that has rights usually only reserved for individuals) to a Roman they would find it initially difficult to grasp. "Where is he?" would probably be his first question, whereas in his day he would be able to actually confront the actual physical person who had done him wrong, instead of having to take action against a ghost, in a manner of speaking. A corporations duty is, quite simply, to make money for the shareholders, and its officers are there to guarantee that will happen. It is actually a legally binding duty (I know, I have my own business, and I'm rubbish at that ). When you look at it, it is actually madness, and one that only came into being by lawyers exploiting loopholes in the law. The excellent documentary 'The Coroporation' very successfully reveals the actions of one to be the same as a psycopath

 

There has been the odd debate about the Roman manner of conducting business, where it is said it is more like dealing with the Mafia. I agree with that, I have to say. In modern times it is far easier for individuals to hide themselves away when they need to be called to account for their actions. "I was only doing my job." unfortunately is probably pretty accurate when a firm screws someone. "I'll send da boys 'round" I find to be much more honest At least you don't have to deal with their lawyers.

 

Jim.

[Germanicus]

Yeah, I've seen that documentary, disturbing stuff...collective denial.

[Ursus]

There has been the odd debate about the Roman manner of conducting business, where it is said it is more like dealing with the Mafia.

 

 

 

Well, the client-patron arrangement was one of the centerpeices of Roman society. Every morning the "clients" would meet with their "patron." They would show him respect and offer services. In exchange, the patron would provide the clients with money, food, gifts, protection. It was a social status symbol for a patron to have many clients. These client-patron relationships were interlocking - someone could be a patron to those on the lower end of the social scale while at the same time being a client to those on the higher end of the social scale. It seems everyone in Imperial Rome except the emperor himself was a client to someone higher and a patron to someone lower, and these set of relationships formed a kind of stability in the Roman world.

 

It wasn't strictly a business relationship, though. It was also very social. It was political as well (we'll vote for you and in return we expect a few services when you're in office). It also formed the defining rational for traditional Roman religion (we honor you gods/spirits and in return we expect you to favor us).

 

So where Romans stood in this social hierarchy was very important to them -- who served them and in turn whom they served. I supose it could be likened to the mafia where one offers services to a "don" or "godfather" in exchange for money and protection. However, it wasn't an exclusively Roman concept. The Celts had something like it and apparently so did the Germanics. I think a better correlation would be found to the Medieval concept of social hierarchy. The peasants were indebted to their local lords, who were in turn indebted to the major overlords, who in turn were indebted to Kings and Popes. When central government in the Roman West collapsed, it seemed liked the client-patron understandings of these various cultures found new expression in the social reality of the Middle Ages.

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

Yeah something in the human mind just gives that thrill seeing people killed....because we are animals in the end and we all want to see the gallzel eaten. I usta to think that the Lion eating the Zebra was so cool!

 

Zeke

 

 

I always wanted the gazelle to get away!

[Sextus Roscius]

We crowed around boxing screaming at the top of our lungs to "kill em", a vocal version of the thumb down.

 

Actually, I beleive it was the reverse in Roman society, thumbs down meant to spare the man's life and vice versa.

 

But I do agree that we are a tad too violent, not to mention self contradictory, in america anyways. We say in school, violence is never the answer, then they teach us about the wars that solved all america's problems.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Actually, a lot of historians think the thumbs down were actually to suppose to mean the thumb pointing towards the throat, meaning kill the man. It actually can be anything. For example a closed thumb or fist.

Taken from Vroma

At this point the crowd would indicate with gestures whether they wished the defeated gladiator to be killed or spared. The popular belief (illustrated in this modern drawing) is that

[Tobias]

In Roman times, i can see the people's point of view. Apart from plays, musical recital or strenuous social lives, the only break from working constantly (or playing ) would have been to go to the games. It was THE form of entertainment; Roman time's equivalent of Australian Rugby League, Soccer, American NFL and (as above mentioned) boxing etc. The blood lust of course is an inbuilt hazard of participating in such things.

An interesting thing i was looking at the other day though is the suggestion (or rather confirmation) that the modern generation is very desensitized to such violence. As has been said, kids as young as 6-8 years of age are being subjected to games on things like X-Box and PS2 that are full of murder, thievery, destruction etc. Strictly speaking, it was suggested that the upcoming generation seems to be less caring, certainly more inclined to violence and destruction and capable of unseemly acts, as well as being less inclined to work (although that may be irrelevant )

So, today's growing up people, summing up, would probably be able to handle or not empathise with things like the gladiatorial games a lot better then they would say, even 50 to 100 years ago, simply because of the strong desensitization present.

[Pertinax]

There is a major work called "on Killing" I will search for the references-the gist of which is that video games are ideal desensitising tools for producing unthinking reflex killing.

 

Its by Colonel Dave Grossman and you can get it on Amazon. It has some very pertinent remarks about neurological reinforcment of reflex behaviour in combat.