7 ms·

Murderous Games: Gladiatorial Contests in Ancient Rome

55 points by diodorus 10y ago

sosuke 10y ago
This is a fascinating post but I couldn't find a bibliography on the page is it hidden somewhere? Would love to read more about this history. Nevermind I found a scan of the article that had it (1983!) http://i.imgur.com/Fs4KjO3.png http://i.imgur.com/Fs4KjO3.png
pjlegato 10y ago
The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. Roman gladiatorial combat was perfectly legal at the time.
- pcunite 10y ago
  Weren't some persons there against their will?
  - L_226 10y ago
    Doesn't mean that that was against the law. Romans had legal slavery.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    Of course, in the same sense that most people condemned to die (or merely to go to prison) are also there against their will.
- solipsism 10y ago
  The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. That's the legal definition. Not the only definition.
- inimino 10y ago
  Why are we obligated to honor the Roman law in our use of this word?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Because Roman law had jurisdiction?
    - inimino 10y ago
      That's not the point. By calling something "murder" even though it may have been legal, we are passing moral judgment on the act as well as the law and society that tolerated it. To act as though someone using this term is simply unaware that it was legal, and needs a lesson on Roman law, is simply to be obtuse.
- arunix 10y ago
  The article includes the following words of Seneca: "All the previous fighting had been merciful by comparison. Now finesse is set aside, and we have pure unadulterated murder..."
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    Seneca was, therefore, wrong in his assessment (assuming that the English translation is entirely accurate.)
bambax 10y ago
> AI) 79 Was this scanned? This looks like an OCR error.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Given the 1983 date on the piece, probably. It was the only one I noticed, too. The phrase is about Pompeii, so A.D. 79, obviously.
- Kiro 10y ago
  Yup, can't explain that in any other way.
woodruffw 10y ago
Our contemporary fascination with the gladiatorial games does not reflect that of the Romans - to them, the races were the peak of entertainment. The Circus Maximus was built over 400 years before the Coliseum, and could hold over twice as many people by conservative estimates. It was only in the very late Republic to early Empire that gladiatorial combat gained widespread attention in Rome itself, having previously been limited to smaller arenas in towns throughout the empire (and a funeral ritual prior to that).
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  > a funeral ritual prior to that Aspiring candidates would 'save' the death of a parent for a while, so they could give the funeral games at election time. P.S. actually, I believe that was the case with Caesar, mentioned in the text as one of the givers of ostentatious games.
pmoriarty 10y ago
I'm kind of surprised this sort of spectacle no longer exists. Considering the enormous popularity of depictions of violence in mass media, sports, and video games, real gladitorial games would probably be pretty popular. You'd think at least some third world country without much concern for pesky thinks like morals, ethics, or human rights, or animal welfare would have them.
- restalis 10y ago
  For the same reason the said games fell out of favor in the public perception. Christianity gained power. Not to say that torture and murder were not taken place under christian priests' sight if not command, but in the later the cause was always punitive in regard to or attempts to gain cooperation from victims, whereas the former were for show and entertainment alone.
backtoyoujim 10y ago
"wild-beast killings until the sixth century" I guess 21st century bull-fighting fits in here somehow.
hackuser 10y ago
> It is worth stressing that we are dealing here not with individual sadistic psycho-pathology, but with a deep cultural difference. Roman commitment to cruelty presents us with a cultural gap which it is difficult to cross. I'm not sure that's true. Remember that Germany and Austria were centers of Western civilization, culture, arts and learning before WWII, yet look at the bloodthirsty practices they embraced. Other European countries did similar things in their overseas colonies. We are not immune; human nature hasn't changed. We are made of the same stuff as Romans, Nazis, ISIL members, Serb ultranationalists and Rwandan Hutu nationalists. Currently it seems there's a public movement to embrace hatred as a norm, and violence, including war internationally and firearms domestically, as an acceptable solution to problems. If those become norms I worry about the next steps.
- vacri 10y ago
  Not all of us are embracing firearms; that's a particularly US-centered trait. Curiously, the other nations that are really gung-ho about civilians carrying firearms tend to be the ones that the US looks down on as being backwards and uncivilised.
  - tomcam 10y ago
    Like Switzerland and Israel?
    - vacri 10y ago
      The Swiss don't carry firearms. They have a government-issued firearm in their homes and government-issued ammunition. They're required to practice, but they don't carry the firearms around bragging about how many virtual crimes they've stopped by doing so, nor pose for selfies in those fake weekend-warrior poses - they're not "really gung-ho". Comparing the Swiss and the American experience of civilian firearms really only works on the absolutely shallowest level. Israel has a little more open to civilians carrying weapons, but it's still a lot more restricted than in the US. But fine, have Israel, even though the culture there still doesn't really match up (and there's a strong strain of anti-Israel sentiment in the US anyway). I'll just point out that I said 'tend'.
Animats 10y ago
Today, we have the NFL.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Which also takes its toll of many thousands of young men trashed. Besides movies and games, of course.
aaron695 10y ago
> New species were gradually introduced to Roman spectators (tigers, crocodiles, giraffes, lynxes, rhinoceros, ostriches, hippopotami) and killed for their pleasure. We still kill billions of animals each year for pleasure (Eating when the calories aren't needed)
B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
(1983). Which partially explains the high quality of the piece. I wasn't expecting it and was surprised. Harder to find nowadays. It's not a simple minded rant, and has a good lot of factual historical details, accurate as far as I can tell as someone way less expert than the author. The perspective on the facts is also reasonable, if not fashionable (nowadays it goes more "yuck, not us.")

55 points by diodorus 10y ago

This is a fascinating post but I couldn't find a bibliography on the page is it hidden somewhere? Would love to read more about this history. Nevermind I found a scan of the article that had it (1983!) http://i.imgur.com/Fs4KjO3.png http://i.imgur.com/Fs4KjO3.png

pjlegato 10y ago

The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. Roman gladiatorial combat was perfectly legal at the time.

pcunite 10y ago
Weren't some persons there against their will?
- L_226 10y ago
  Doesn't mean that that was against the law. Romans had legal slavery.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  Of course, in the same sense that most people condemned to die (or merely to go to prison) are also there against their will.
solipsism 10y ago
The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. That's the legal definition. Not the only definition.
inimino 10y ago
Why are we obligated to honor the Roman law in our use of this word?
- gozur88 10y ago
  Because Roman law had jurisdiction?
  - inimino 10y ago
    That's not the point. By calling something "murder" even though it may have been legal, we are passing moral judgment on the act as well as the law and society that tolerated it. To act as though someone using this term is simply unaware that it was legal, and needs a lesson on Roman law, is simply to be obtuse.
arunix 10y ago
The article includes the following words of Seneca: "All the previous fighting had been merciful by comparison. Now finesse is set aside, and we have pure unadulterated murder..."
- pjlegato 10y ago
  Seneca was, therefore, wrong in his assessment (assuming that the English translation is entirely accurate.)

bambax 10y ago

> AI) 79 Was this scanned? This looks like an OCR error.

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
Given the 1983 date on the piece, probably. It was the only one I noticed, too. The phrase is about Pompeii, so A.D. 79, obviously.
Kiro 10y ago
Yup, can't explain that in any other way.

woodruffw 10y ago

Our contemporary fascination with the gladiatorial games does not reflect that of the Romans - to them, the races were the peak of entertainment. The Circus Maximus was built over 400 years before the Coliseum, and could hold over twice as many people by conservative estimates. It was only in the very late Republic to early Empire that gladiatorial combat gained widespread attention in Rome itself, having previously been limited to smaller arenas in towns throughout the empire (and a funeral ritual prior to that).

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
> a funeral ritual prior to that Aspiring candidates would 'save' the death of a parent for a while, so they could give the funeral games at election time. P.S. actually, I believe that was the case with Caesar, mentioned in the text as one of the givers of ostentatious games.

pmoriarty 10y ago

I'm kind of surprised this sort of spectacle no longer exists. Considering the enormous popularity of depictions of violence in mass media, sports, and video games, real gladitorial games would probably be pretty popular. You'd think at least some third world country without much concern for pesky thinks like morals, ethics, or human rights, or animal welfare would have them.

restalis 10y ago
For the same reason the said games fell out of favor in the public perception. Christianity gained power. Not to say that torture and murder were not taken place under christian priests' sight if not command, but in the later the cause was always punitive in regard to or attempts to gain cooperation from victims, whereas the former were for show and entertainment alone.

backtoyoujim 10y ago

"wild-beast killings until the sixth century" I guess 21st century bull-fighting fits in here somehow.

hackuser 10y ago

> It is worth stressing that we are dealing here not with individual sadistic psycho-pathology, but with a deep cultural difference. Roman commitment to cruelty presents us with a cultural gap which it is difficult to cross. I'm not sure that's true. Remember that Germany and Austria were centers of Western civilization, culture, arts and learning before WWII, yet look at the bloodthirsty practices they embraced. Other European countries did similar things in their overseas colonies. We are not immune; human nature hasn't changed. We are made of the same stuff as Romans, Nazis, ISIL members, Serb ultranationalists and Rwandan Hutu nationalists. Currently it seems there's a public movement to embrace hatred as a norm, and violence, including war internationally and firearms domestically, as an acceptable solution to problems. If those become norms I worry about the next steps.

vacri 10y ago
Not all of us are embracing firearms; that's a particularly US-centered trait. Curiously, the other nations that are really gung-ho about civilians carrying firearms tend to be the ones that the US looks down on as being backwards and uncivilised.
- tomcam 10y ago
  Like Switzerland and Israel?
  - vacri 10y ago
    The Swiss don't carry firearms. They have a government-issued firearm in their homes and government-issued ammunition. They're required to practice, but they don't carry the firearms around bragging about how many virtual crimes they've stopped by doing so, nor pose for selfies in those fake weekend-warrior poses - they're not "really gung-ho". Comparing the Swiss and the American experience of civilian firearms really only works on the absolutely shallowest level. Israel has a little more open to civilians carrying weapons, but it's still a lot more restricted than in the US. But fine, have Israel, even though the culture there still doesn't really match up (and there's a strong strain of anti-Israel sentiment in the US anyway). I'll just point out that I said 'tend'.

Animats 10y ago

Today, we have the NFL.

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
Which also takes its toll of many thousands of young men trashed. Besides movies and games, of course.

aaron695 10y ago

> New species were gradually introduced to Roman spectators (tigers, crocodiles, giraffes, lynxes, rhinoceros, ostriches, hippopotami) and killed for their pleasure. We still kill billions of animals each year for pleasure (Eating when the calories aren't needed)

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago

(1983). Which partially explains the high quality of the piece. I wasn't expecting it and was surprised. Harder to find nowadays. It's not a simple minded rant, and has a good lot of factual historical details, accurate as far as I can tell as someone way less expert than the author. The perspective on the facts is also reasonable, if not fashionable (nowadays it goes more "yuck, not us.")