At the gladiatorial shows, there was a certain Fadius, a soldier of Pompey; he had been pressed into the gladiatorial school, and having twice defeated his opponent without being paid for it, he objected to binding himself over to be a gladiator, and had sought refuge among the people. So Balbus first let loose some Gallic horsemen among the crowd- for stones were thrown at him when Fadius was being dragged away- and then carried off Fadius, buried him up the the waist in the gladiator's school, and burned him alive while he, having lunched, strolled about barefooted with his tunic ungirdled and his hands behind his back, and when the poor wretch shrieked out, I am a born Roman citizen, he answered, Off with you at once; implore the protection of the people. - Cicero Letters to His Friends (pg 105) Violence has never been a rarity amongst the human race- not for all of its history. Outbursts of violence towards other humans comes as such a common trend that it is hardly even noteworthy. However, outbursts of violence in large quantities of people seem to gain a bit more attention by historians. Michael Grant, author of Roman Gladiators asserts: the two most quantitatively destructive institutions in history are Nazism and the Roman Gladiators (pg 104). DL? (note for you?) The difference, however, between Nazism and the Roman Gladiators is distinct. In Nazism, we witness a mass extermination of people. But, what happens when a quantified pattern of violence is carried out in the social culture of an entire civilization... and as a form of entertainment? (excellent questions) Does then the bloodshed become less than just a lack of value in human life, but more or less a mockery of human life? During the Ancient Roman Empire, acts of physical violence between men became popularized as a pillar in entertainment (culture?). The victims, the warriors of these ancient horror shows were the gladiators. What caused man to stoop so low as to showcase the killing of fellow human beings in association with pleasure and celebration? Why would the most powerful, wealthy and developed empire of the Golden Age subject themselves to such gory injustice? (fabulous question) Why is ancient Rome considered one of the extremely few epochs of human history to have achieved cruelty on a scale as numerically lavish? ( 8). if MLA no pg In order to learn what caused the age of the gladiators, one must take a step back to the so-called glorious days of the Roman Empire. One must take a look at the breath-taking Colosseum in Rome and remember that thousands of men
and beasts were slaughtered in that very arena: so much so that it needed to be regularly drained of pools of blood. Move up What are the factors that could have caused the popularization of gladiators as a form of entertainment? The answer is, a progression of different factors - which were directly linked with the expansion of the Roman Empire caused the growth of gladiatorial battles. The very start of the gladiator tradition stemmed from religious factors. (excellent point) The Etruscans had a faithful tradition of sacrificing prisoners of war to account for their own fallen warriors. This tradition carried on into the Roman Empire later on and the Romans picked up on those faithful rituals. Several conquered nations of the empire held similar values concerning human sacrifice. According to the magical wisdom of the Greco-Roman world, blood plays a fundamental role as mediator between the man and the gods ( Blood ). Historically, the Etruscans seem to have remained faithful to the custom of sacrificing prisoners of war to the shades of their own fallen warriors- the theme of Patroclus' funeral. Sometimes it is thought the sacrifices took place in effigy, the living victims being replaced by puppets. Yet there were grisly reversions to the real thing ( 10). There are several examples in the military history of the Etruscans where a murderous tradition distantly related to gladiatorial battles is evident. For example, in the sixth century BC, the people of Etruscan Caere stoned to death the Greek and Carthaginian prisoners they had captured in a sea-battle off Alalia. In 358 BC, three hundred and seven Roman prisoners of war were slaughtered as human sacrifices in the forum of Tarquinii... Not long afterwards Virgil... made the god-fearing Aeneas perform human sacrifice at the young Prince Pallas' funeral ( 10). The Etruscans saw a very significant religious value in honoring their dead warriors through rituals of human sacrifice; however, as wartime life continued in Etruria, the degree of violence and elaboration in the rituals evolved. Eventually, prisoners of war were forced to fight one another to the death in an arena as gladiators. These small-scale gladiatorial battles became a spiritual tradition for the Etruscans and were a significant part of their faith during their times of war. Finally, the Romans adopted this practice; they knew that like many other habits, traditions and ceremonies it came from Etruria- and it came in the
days when Rome itself, in the sixth century BC, had been under Etruscan rule ( 10). Of course, the Roman Empire is known to have picked up and adapted their own versions of traditions from the nations which they conquered and crossed geographical lines. Other than the geographical factors, there are hints within Rome's gladiatorial traditions which show that it was adopted from Etruria. For example, when a gladiator fell he was hauled out of the arena by a slave dressed as the Etruscan deathdemon Charun ( 10). It is very possible that the Romans recognized the battles of gladiatorsespecially at their introduction into Roman culture- as an Etruscan religious tradition. The involvement of the Etruscan death-demon carrying off the sacrificial prisoner shows a direct recognition of the Etruscan religion in the ceremony, even after it has been adopted by Rome. Also, combatants on the Etruscan paintings may be criminals thrown to the beasts, anticipating another diabolical Roman custom ( 11). If the Etruscans did indeed use wild animals to combat their prisoners, it shows further proof that the Romans attempted to adopt the same bloody spiritual traditions. But, is religion really to blame for the gladiators? (great question!) Were all gladiators meant to be some sort of mighty religious sacrifice? It sounds only somewhat more innocent to assert that all of the vile, tragic massacres that took place within the arena held some sort of higher, faithful meaning to the Romans. The gladiators' deaths would not necessarily be justified, but they would at least have the backing of a strong, religious meaning behind them. However, as the expansion of the Roman Empire continued, as the wars waged on and as the gladiatorial battles gained popularity, the original Etruscan faithful rituality was lost. (any speculation or explanation for this?) As for the gladiators themselves, an aura of religious sacrifice continued to hang about their combats... obviously most spectators just enjoyed the massacre without any such antiquarian reflections. But the more thoughtful ancient writers continued to be well aware that gladiators had originated from these holocausts in honour of the dead ( 11). While the idea of arranging prisoners to fight to the death originated from the Etruscan religious ceremony, religion did not drive the thriving popularity of the gladiators. Faith acted merely as the spark that ignited an ugly, ugly flame.
Move up Thucydides wrote: War is a teacher who educated through violence; and he makes men's characters fit their condition. Gladiatorial battles always held somewhat of a military significance. Of course, the original Etruscans sacrificed prisoners of war specifically in order to account for the deaths within their own armies. (a little repetitive here) From the very start, Rome's military enemies were the targets of the violence. However, as Rome continued to conquer and more prisoners continued to accumulate, the focus became more and more about the power the Roman armies could showcase. (excellent point) In 105 BC, for the first time, the two consuls of the year gave gladiatorial games officially. There was no doubt a religious undercurrent, but the purpose was also to promote toughness and military training and to counteract the soft Greek culture which was now abroad ( 13). Essentially, gladiatorial battles morphed from merely a form of sacrificing prisoners of war to a way for the Roman military to display their own brute strength. The doomed prisoners were a prize from the warriors to the Empire; and if the gladiators fought well, it was even more impressive. It had become customary for gladiatorial displays to be put on not only by victorious generals, as a feature of their Triumphs, but also by officials of every rank ( 26). The gladiators- even if they fought magnificently- were still losers to the mighty Roman army who had taken them prisoner. (Perhaps clarify that all gladiators were prisoners? Were any Roman?) The victorious military generals were essentially sending the message to the citizens that the Romans were the real fighters, the real heroes. The motif of the Roman Empire at that time was quite consciously one of wartime insecurity, wickedness and antagonism. There was an escalated amount of hatred and distaste towards the enemy, which lead to the Romans' need for flaunting its military's toughness. There was no word binding enough, nor oath terrible enough to reconcile enemies. Each man was strong only in the conviction that nothing was secure; he must look to his own safety, and could not afford to trust others ( 54). The battles became a manor in which military officials could show off the toughness of their troops and mock the enemy in front of an audience.
Move up Unfortunately, the rise of the bloodsport did not end with the military popularity. In order for gladiators to really become an enormous (integral/important) segment of Roman culture, the highest leaders needed to become invested. That they did. The many fierce leaders of Rome took a liking to gladiatorial battles as a form of ceremony and entertainment for the public. This was because gladiators' fights were not only popular; they were also lucrative for their promoters ( 27). The Roman leaders could not only gain popularity with the people for putting on an entertaining show for them, but they could flaunt their power as well.(good point!) The gladiatorial battles were intensively advertised. The size and adornment of the arenas themselves became more of a spectacle. Leaders began building ostentatious amphitheaters to host their duels. In early times gladiators duels took place in whatever public places a town might possess. But then, under the emperors, the characteristic place for such contests was the amphitheater. This was a round auditorium surrounded by rows of seats facing on to the arena, or sand, which, as in modern bull-rings, filled the elliptical central area, absorbing the blood of slaughtered men and beasts (pg 78). One of the most famous Roman amphitheaters is the Colosseum, which was started under Roman emperor Vespasian and was completed under Titus and was once capable of seating 50,000 spectators. In the magnificent arena's grand opening, Titus celebrated the completion of the Colosseum and his neighboring baths by gladiatorial contests on water as well as land... he staged a sea-fight... and used the basin for further gladiatorial contests and a wild-beast hunt. 5,000 beasts of different sorts dying in a single day (that is crazy!) ( 90). The building of such pretentious amphitheaters and the staging of such epic, bloody performances can only be done under an emperor as a manor of flashing the power and wealth of the empire for all to see and remember. The massacre of not only gladiators but wild animals was extremely popular in the days of the amphitheaters. Sea-battles were also coveted by the emperors, and basins would be filled with water to make artificial lakes so that large numbers of people were able to stage a battle inside the water. These battles were epic and filled with gore and involved real ships and
weapons. The sea-battle, or the naumachia, was considered one of the most extravagant forms of combat ( 88). The gladiators, especially prisoners of war, were trained to fight on board. The first sea-battle was organized by Julius Caesar in Rome ( 88). After Julius Caesar's death, Augustus Caesar held an enormous sea battle; he had a pit dug out beside the right-side bank of the Tiber river so that the incredible entertainment made popular by Caesar could continue. The pit measured 557 by 536 metres three times the size of the Colosseum- and was filled up with water broken by a man-made island and fringed by thickets and parks. (pg 88) Augustus, as part of the celebration which dedicated the temple of Mars the Avenger in Caesar's honor, organized a naval battle between the Athenians and Perisans: 6,000 gladiators took part. As the battles became more elaborate and hosted by the Roman emperor himself, the range of victims broadened. Not only did the ranks of the gladiators include thousands of prisoners of war, but condemned civilian criminals as well. The crimes which led to the arena were murder, treason, robbery and arson ( 29). Also, Christians and prisoners of the Jewish rebellions were thrown in and forced to fight wild beasts ( 29). Many Christians who were killed won fame as martyrs. The inclusion of civilian criminals further solidified the Roman emperor's power over his citizens; any man- Roman-born citizen or not- was at risk to be thrown into the arena. Even female gladiators existed. Domitian, who had a lethal sense of humor, enjoyed their shows, some of which he organized by torchlight ( 33). The female gladiators usually only fought with whips and sticks, but sometimes dueled privately for the emperor himself as a sort of personal fetish. In addition to criminals, slaves and prisoners, some free men became gladiators because they wanted to. (glory? Reasons to become a gladiator )The profession was a refuge for social outcasts... desperate and violent men would take to this career ( 30). It might be argued that adding the option for free men to take on the role off a gladiator changed the dynamic of the arena entirely into that which Rome is infamous for today. (don t simply allude to, tell us make the connection for us) Now, not only did the emperor feel the need to flaunt his power by hosting lavish ceremonies, but the citizens themselves were encouraged to be violent. (Progression of the sport? How it changed, then change dthe culture
and the people ) Rome's rulers would claim that the potentially unruly and dangerous city population should be amused (control of empire?)and kept quiet, by being given the entertainment that they wanted, however repulsive it might be ( 103-104). Basically, the emperor's excuse was that the people who were innately violent in nature and evil would be satisfied by the slaughtering of the gladiators. The majority of people in Rome, however, sought out the arena as a form of entertainment. So, seemingly all of Rome then was unruly and dangerous. The Roman citizens were all bloodthirsty and perverted, and Rome's leaders were willing to satisfy their want for violence with the lives of their fellow man. What once was strictly the sacrificial killing of war criminals had become a bloody, ravenous sport which kept the Roman people thoroughly entertained. Excellent point here! Move up Although gladiators sprung from an Etruscan religious ceremony, became a mark of military strength and then a showcase of the Roman emperors' power, the true reason that the tradition of gladiatorial battles lasted so long within the Roman Empire is the most disturbing of all: the people genuinely enjoyed it. Gladiators became such a large part of the Roman culture because the Romans embraced the grisly sport with welcoming arms. The concept of gladiators had been eased into the Roman lifestyle in such a way that the citizens themselves fully accepted the horrific violence as such cruelty were a cultural highlight. Not only had gladiatorial battles become a popular form of entertainment in Rome, but the underlying theme of blood and violence found itself in every aspect of the Roman lifestyle. Gladiators became so engrained in the Roman mind and soul that all manner of strange superstitions proliferated around them. It was believed that the warm blood of a slaughtered gladiator would cure epilepsy. And when newly married women, in accordance with custom, parted their hair with a spear, it brought good luck if this head spear? had belonged to a man mortally wounded in the arena ( 7). As gladiators gained importance culturally, the battles themselves became more of a large production. Privately-owned gladiatorial schools came into play. (due to popularity of gladiators in society/culture? Received cultural acceptance or simply based on greed?) Three
important imperial schools (in addition to one specializing in animal shows) were concentrated at Rome, and the largest of them, under a high-ranking official, was the Great School ( 39). Here, gladiators would be trained and brushed up to become more entertaining fighters and therefore put on a better show for the people. When the fights themselves were not commencing, the gladiators were being rounded up and trained inside the schools. The battles themselves became a huge production, lasting days at a time. The grisly magnificence and ceremonial began upon the day before the fights... the giver of the show donated a splendid feast to the contestants ( 64). Then, the proceedings of the murderous day itself began with a chariot drive and parade. Led and presented by the sponsor of the games, the duelists displayed themselves in uniforms topped by cloaks dyed purple and covered with gold embroidery ( 64). The gladiators themselves, especially those who belonged to the emperor's own troop, were often finely equipped ( 73). It is clear that the gladiators were not seen as people, but rather as disposable objects of lust and indulgence. Lavish adornments and triumphant parades showed how invested the public truly became in each ceremony, and the lengthy processions holds account to how dear and familiar a tradition the battles were. The traditions surrounding the gladiatorial battles not only demonstrate a lusty, indulgent nature within the ancient Roman people, but it also delves into their unapologetic love for cruelty. When the combatants arrived opposite the emperor's platform, they extended their right hands toward him and cried 'Hail, emperor, greetings from men about to die!'. the emperor calls back 'Or not' ( 73). The cruel humor within the convention of the arena is representative of the Roman emperor and his people at the time; Saying or not to the gladiators could be seen by a hopeful prisoner as an imperial pardon, but of course it was not. Sometimes, the crowd was warmed up with a bloodless fight called paegniarii. During a paegniarii, duelists fought with sticks and whips... Caligua thought it comic to mobilize as paeginarii respectable family men who happened to be crippled by some conspicuous body deformity ( 73-74). Following the non-fatal warm-up battles, the first fight was announced with a war trumpet. Most all fights were accompanied by a soundtrack of blasts upon trumpets... horns... and pipes and flutes ( 74). The use of a war
trumpet at the start of the fight insinuates an understanding of the gladiators' duel as a war-like battle. (there are a lot of comparisons to war in general the size and scope of the battles 6,000 like armies) However, the inclusion of the rest of the musical accompaniments make the battle out to be more of a show or a theater performance rather than a violent battle which would result in fatality. The Roman citizens were incredibly engaged in each battle. Crowds were eager and hungry for a great performance and became vocal as the fights escalated. When a gladiator fell, the fallen fighter, if he was in a state to move, laid down his shield, and raised one finger of his left hand as a plea for mercy. The decision whether his life should be spared rested with the provider of the games; but he generally found it politic to take account of the spectators' loudly expressed views. Thumbs up, and a waving of handkerchiefs, meant that the man should be spared, thumbs down that he should not ( 75). Not only were the spectators of the battles eager to see men slaughter one another, but they saw themselves fit to decide the fate of their pitiful fellow man with a wave of their hands. (interesting in terms of psychological aspects perhaps they (spectators) seized this control to elevate their status/role in Roman society for a moment they could be emperor!) Not only did the spectators frivolously nod off the life of fallen gladiators based on popularity, aimless personal preference and merely the random thirst for bloodshed, but they were extremely critical of any performance that did not come up to the mark ( 75). The Romans were extremely rowdy when it came to their craving for blood and were unforgiving when it came to unsatisfactory fighters. In fact, unsatisfactory fighters were fortunate to get off with a beating. For century after century tens of thousands of others, throughout the empire, did not leave the amphitheaters alive ( 75). The lucky, victorious survivors received palm branches as prizes; occasionally, the giver of the games awarded prize money to the winners ( 78). The gladiators would then return to the school and were not guaranteed freedom or immunity from being chosen for the newest round of victims intended for the next battle. In fact, a gladiator with multiple victories under his belt still had no rights and no say against his own fate. Citizens embraced this harsh reality and allowed it to become their chief form of entertainment. Perhaps some Romans kept hushed over
the issues in fear of being thrown into the arena themselves by the extraordinarily powerful emperors. Perhaps other Romans truly saw the deaths as blood sacrifices to the Gods. Certain Romans may have felt nationalism towards the republic upon witnessing the epic battles. However, the evidence shows that the majority of the ancient Romans simply found pleasure in being a part of the brutality of the arena. Move up It has seemingly been established the series of factors leading up to the popularity of gladiators. (awkward sentence) A religious tradition adopted from the Etruscans evolved into a military showcase due to the period of extensive warfare, which became more elaborate and widespread due to the thirst for power by the empire's leaders and finally the Roman citizens themselves- who became so absorbed in the violence and extravagance they became attracted to the blood and brutality of it all. So, is the savagery justified? The truth is, no amount of reasoning can mitigate the cruelty of the Romans during the time of the gladiators. The reality stands: the ancient Romans' enjoyment of the sport was horrifyingly brutal and perverted... we can note an embarrassingly keen interest in bloodshed ( 104). The age of the gladiators died only with the rise of Christianity and- thus- the respect for individual life once again. (Interesting moral compass switch) One could argue that the time of the gladiators brought on a few flickers of good, despite its supreme degree of evil. In a romantic sense, it brought forth countless acts of individual courage which are accounted and remembered to this day. It created one of the world's greatest architectural forms, the Colosseum. And the brutal and brutalizing atrocities gave added strength and urgency to the rise of Christianity which eventually ended gladiators altogether ( 8). When one thinks of the ancient Romans, one thinks power, military strength, great leadership and architectural marvels. However, the legacy of the Roman empire is- and should be- weighed down by the dreadful savagery they displayed. (good point! Include this in your opening) In classical Greek theory, Plato states: The highest good of man may be said to be the true development of man's personality as a rational and moral being, the right cultivation of his soul, the
general harmonious well-being of life. When a man's soul is in the state it ought to be in, then that man is happy ( 216).... pleasure is subordinate to the good, and... therefore, be judge of pleasures and admit them only in so far as they are consonant with health and harmony and order of the soul and body. It is thus not the intemperate man but the temperate man who is truly good and happy. (pg 222) Plato expressly rejects the maxim that one should do good to ones' friends and evil to ones' enemies. To do evil can never be good. In the first book Polemarchus puts forward the theory that 'it is just to do good to our friend if he is a good man, and to hurt our enemy if he is a bad man.' Socrates (understanding by 'to hurt' to do real harm, and not simply to punish- which he regarded as remedial) objects that to hurt is to make worse and, in respect of human excellence, that means less just, so that, according to Polemarchus, it pertains to the just man to make the unjust man worse. But this is obviously rather the work of the unjust man than of the just man. (pg 222)...history does not permit peoples to be judged by a simple good or bad mark. Least of all is this possible for the Romans, since their achievements were accompanied and counterbalanced by dreadful savageries, of which none was more horrible than gladiatorial combat. This setting of human beings to kill one another in public, for entertainment, is by far the nastiest blood-sport ever invented. (pg 8) Excellent work Kaitlyn Your opening needs more summary/overview look at p. 10 note History will help average reader see and understand how it became so popular through the changes and advances of opinion in popular culture. In addition, how it advanced technically in both size and scale Any idea of total number of deaths? Necessary to compare to Nazis? You mention this initially, but then never pick it back up; I would drop this from the introduction. Bring in more knowledge of the schools if you have it. Impress us with your learning! Great work!!!!