Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gladiatorial games were actually not nearly as deadly as is widely perceived. According to research, a man had about a 90% chance of not being killed in a contest. Gladiators were very expensive. It cost a lot of money to keep them. Good food, lodging, training, clothing, weapons and armor, and the best medical care available had to be provided. Because of this, the owner did not want them to perish, but to survive and fight again some other day.
The games were put on as spectacles of showmanship, not as just butchery. Two men hacking away at each other in a bare sandy arena until one of them was dead was only an occasional scenario. The whole idea was to put on a good show, not just killing, and the Romans were pretty creative according to early records. In the modern sense, think pro wrestling mixed with a rock concert. The gladiators were actually the rock stars of that era. As such, they were very popular and desirable to women. A succesful, popular, attractive gladiator often had his choice of women, and even a high born Roman woman might have a gladiator as her lover.
Time travel would be any historian's wet dream and the time traveling historian would be interested in seeing everything, good, bad or mundane. Witnessing gladiator games would not constitute an endorsement of the practice any more than witnessing slavery would mean the observer approves of that.
What constitutes acceptable morality gets radically altered over the ages, any travel into the past would involve arriving in a world where things which are moral outrages today, were viewed as perfectly acceptable back then.
The historian should deserve no condemnation for wanting to witness the gladiators in action than he or she would merit for wanting to read about them.
Gladiatorial games were actually not nearly as deadly as is widely perceived. According to research, a man had about a 90% chance of not being killed in a contest. Gladiators were very expensive. It cost a lot of money to keep them. Good food, lodging, training, clothing, weapons and armor, and the best medical care available had to be provided. Because of this, the owner did not want them to perish, but to survive and fight again some other day.
The games were put on as spectacles of showmanship, not as just butchery. Two men hacking away at each other in a bare sandy arena until one of them was dead was only an occasional scenario. The whole idea was to put on a good show, not just killing, and the Romans were pretty creative according to early records. In the modern sense, think pro wrestling mixed with a rock concert. The gladiators were actually the rock stars of that era. As such, they were very popular and desirable to women. A succesful, popular, attractive gladiator often had his choice of women, and even a high born Roman woman might have a gladiator as her lover.
This is correct, it would rarely end in death. If the crowd wanted death then it most often was ordered, but it was only ordered if the loser yielded without fighting or trying. Rudis (freedom) was awarded to gladiators that fought hard, and often times did not involve bloodshed.
The events would also hold public executions.
The gladiators were often slaves, forced into the life. Their diets, interestingly, were vegetarian. Some believe it was to make them overweight in order o protect vital organs from wounds. They received the best medical care and regular massaging. They were obviously very expensive.
You mean, that's how you would waste a Time Machine?
Can't I just watch them on Pay Per View, for about $60?
Yeah, there's that - given all the fascinating things to see, the sport of death and dismemberment seems rather pedestrian (beyond the question of why one would enjoy witnessing such horror).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
Gladiatorial games were actually not nearly as deadly as is widely perceived. According to research, a man had about a 90% chance of not being killed in a contest. Gladiators were very expensive. It cost a lot of money to keep them. Good food, lodging, training, clothing, weapons and armor, and the best medical care available had to be provided. Because of this, the owner did not want them to perish, but to survive and fight again some other day.
If that is even true, it would hardly mitigate the notion of enjoying the spectacle of death-- or, sorry... bloody injury and just maybe death...
Is it true? We don't know. I've seen the 10% fatality rate cited. I've also seen rates of 50% cited, as well as numbers in between those two figures. The fact that less prominent gladiators typically received no record (and probably died at a higher rate than prominent ones - winning matches is the main way a gladiator became worthy of someone writing down their exploits) means that a higher fatality rate existed than direct evidence, when even that can be found, suggests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Time travel would be any historian's wet dream and the time traveling historian would be interested in seeing everything, good, bad or mundane. Witnessing gladiator games would not constitute an endorsement of the practice any more than witnessing slavery would mean the observer approves of that.
What constitutes acceptable morality gets radically altered over the ages, any travel into the past would involve arriving in a world where things which are moral outrages today, were viewed as perfectly acceptable back then.
The historian should deserve no condemnation for wanting to witness the gladiators in action than he or she would merit for wanting to read about them.
I didn't not condemn the historical interest of a historian. I questioned the sensibility of someone who wants to hop into Bill & Ted's phone booth in order to see gladiatorial combat because, and I quote... "".
I didn't not condemn the historical interest of a historian. I questioned the sensibility of someone who wants to hop into Bill & Ted's phone booth in order to see gladiatorial combat because, and I quote... "".
You know from what I've read about gladiators in the arena it's highly probable that one would be taken in with the spectacle and violence of the combat. The emperor in charge I'd
say would make sure he , through the actions of the gladiators , is having them put on a spectacular show for the great crowds coming into the amphitheaters. It's a given that they'd be treated to enjoy the violence and cruelty they would see. I believe Rome ran on this. As one historian has noted, 'Rome was soaked with violence.'
And if I perhaps found myself to be a gladiator I would hope the scribes who recorded the results of combat in the arena after my fight would write in 'V' 'vicit' ..'He has won' as opposed to 'P' for 'peritt'... 'He has perished'. Having my throat cut would be distasteful among all those people yelling and staring and seeing me death a cruel death....;-)
I recall reading a bit where a 3rd century Christian was dragooned to gladiatorial match in Rome by a non-Christian friend and at first he was horrified at the violence and covered his eyes. As the matches progressed his interest was aroused and by the end he was cheering alongside the crowds and revelling in the blood which flowed....It is in the Time-Life book on the Colosseum
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
".
