4 ms·

By nature they are violent because they are fighting. I would not like these odds. > There have been works that estimate the actual percentage of deaths; the

By nature they are violent because they are fighting. I would not like these odds. > There have been works that estimate the actual percentage of deaths; the highest I've heard is 1/5 matches resulting in a death, quite often accidentally. That was Mary Beard's estimate. Many other authors have estimate somewhere between 1/5 and 1/8 matches resulting in deaths. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12k1r6/how_frequently_did_roman_gladiators_actually_die/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12k1r6/how_f...

trhway 2y ago
That about the odds to be killed in a year for a Russian volunteer signing up to go to Ukraine. They do it for just $3k/month - for many Russians it is a great money and thus they risk their lives. Giving the limited options, it may as well be that many gladiators were happy to fight in the arena instead of dying from hunger and exhaustion in say quarry.
- tumsfestival 2y ago
  Considering many people willingly became gladiators you're pretty on point, it was not only about money, but it was an easy way to gain access to housing, food and other amenities that gladiators were offered between fights and training, not to mention it could also be an alternative to slavery when one fell into debt they couldn't repay.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Most gladiators were slaves, fyi. Rarely you could make enough money to buy your freedom, but that was hardly unique to being a gladiator. Your other points still stand—it was more attractive than destitute poverty or death.
    - nothercastle 2y ago
      Also better death as a gladiator than death in the mines.
    - conartist6 2y ago
      The article says something quite odd that doesn't make much sense. > “Hymnis had this tomb made for Palumbos, in memory of her own husband” The image on the stela clearly depicts Palumbos as a murmillo. Although the relatively simple stela isn’t a sign of great wealth, it is evidence that Palumbos and his wife could afford a proper commemoration after his death and have it placed in a prominent location in the city. I don't see why that is obvious. If the translation "her own husband" is indeed correct it sounds like a woman and her husband (who was not Palumbos) owned slaves (of which Palumbos was one). Her husband died (off in a war maybe)? And when Palumbos also died (honorably in combat like her husband, one presumes) it sounds to me like the woman felt compelled to honor him as a transitory way of honoring her husband (which honor to her husband was also then worthy of inscription). That is a very different thing than watching your husband go do gladitorial battle in an arena, be killed, and then buy an expensive memorial with all the money he made fighting. Note: my assumption is that all other context is lost and these words are all we have to go on now. Other evidence I see for this interpretation: "husband" and Palumbos are mentioned separately, when it would have been easier to identify the single subject of the memorial once. "Own" implies a necessary distinction, and while a stela may not have been a sign of great wealth a prominent location for it suggests much more money than a mundane one.

trhway 2y ago

That about the odds to be killed in a year for a Russian volunteer signing up to go to Ukraine. They do it for just $3k/month - for many Russians it is a great money and thus they risk their lives. Giving the limited options, it may as well be that many gladiators were happy to fight in the arena instead of dying from hunger and exhaustion in say quarry.

tumsfestival 2y ago
Considering many people willingly became gladiators you're pretty on point, it was not only about money, but it was an easy way to gain access to housing, food and other amenities that gladiators were offered between fights and training, not to mention it could also be an alternative to slavery when one fell into debt they couldn't repay.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Most gladiators were slaves, fyi. Rarely you could make enough money to buy your freedom, but that was hardly unique to being a gladiator. Your other points still stand—it was more attractive than destitute poverty or death.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    Also better death as a gladiator than death in the mines.
  - conartist6 2y ago
    The article says something quite odd that doesn't make much sense. > “Hymnis had this tomb made for Palumbos, in memory of her own husband” The image on the stela clearly depicts Palumbos as a murmillo. Although the relatively simple stela isn’t a sign of great wealth, it is evidence that Palumbos and his wife could afford a proper commemoration after his death and have it placed in a prominent location in the city. I don't see why that is obvious. If the translation "her own husband" is indeed correct it sounds like a woman and her husband (who was not Palumbos) owned slaves (of which Palumbos was one). Her husband died (off in a war maybe)? And when Palumbos also died (honorably in combat like her husband, one presumes) it sounds to me like the woman felt compelled to honor him as a transitory way of honoring her husband (which honor to her husband was also then worthy of inscription). That is a very different thing than watching your husband go do gladitorial battle in an arena, be killed, and then buy an expensive memorial with all the money he made fighting. Note: my assumption is that all other context is lost and these words are all we have to go on now. Other evidence I see for this interpretation: "husband" and Palumbos are mentioned separately, when it would have been easier to identify the single subject of the memorial once. "Own" implies a necessary distinction, and while a stela may not have been a sign of great wealth a prominent location for it suggests much more money than a mundane one.