Gladiators who Rebel

[the5500th]

I'm wondering what would happen if when given the order to kill or not kill his defeated adversary a gladiator did the opposite. Would the reaction be different if the order had been given by a Aedile as opposed to an emporer and what kind of punishment could the gladiator expect. I am also interested in whether or not this ever actually happened.

 

Thanks

Edited May 24, 2010 by the5500th

[Centurion-Macro]

I do not believe this did happen, as in the arena you killed who you had to to win another day. And if he did refuse to do the emperors order, he would probably have to be killed, as he would have disgraced the emperor, and the emperor could not let that slip in front of a big crowd of people.

[caldrail]

Here's how it works (and this did happen at least once - a lament inscribed on a tombstone at Pompeii warns others not to spare opponents)

 

Strictly speaking, a gladiator is taking all the risks, and thus honourable behaviour allows him the right to spare his opponent if he chooses. Unfortunately, the gladiator is a slave, and thus the decision is made by his owner (or the games editor) as their right, and any gladiator so presumptuous to act without the consent of his betters is not going to receive mercy. If the gladiator refuses to finish his opponent, then typically he was ordered to fight again with a fresh opponent, and so on, until he learnt a very painful lesson.

 

Disobedience from armed men in the arena was not tolerated. It must be pointed out however that not all bouts ended in death. It was sword fight, and if both parties fought well, they might be granted missio, or a draw in which both fighters walk away. generally speaking the practice bouts of the morning weren't lethal. Other fights were known to have been to the first blood, or similar conditions. Fights to the death (sine missione, where one man must die) were becoming more frequent until Augustus banned them, though I understand they were re-instated at a later date.

 

Gladiators often bonded with each other in the barracks, and despite that, would fight their best friend if need be. It's been said of them that nothing pleased them more than to give pleasure to their owner. They were professional fighters. The risks were accepted. And for the succesful minority, very handsomely rewarded.

Edited May 25, 2010 by caldrail

[Medusa]

Gladiatorial bouts were supervised by two umpires, the summa rudis and the secunda rudis. Those two watched that the gladiators were sticking to the rules and if a fight was interrupted because one of the combattants surrendered the victor had to obey this otherwise he would not have had much of his victory but sent to "Hades" instead of the loser. Pictures of umpires stopping a fight are to be seen on reliefs or mosaics.

[caldrail]

That's right, and it can't be stressed enough that professional bouts were different from the 'spectacles' staged to wow the audiences, in which we see the larger scale slaughters going on. One on one fights were indeed rigidly controlled and taken very seriously by all concerned.

 

In some cases, gladiators were chained at the ankle to a large stone in the centre of the arena, possibly to another gladiator at the other end, in order to restrict the space they could move around in and add to the drama - one such stone is depicted on a mosiac in Britain and I believe one was actually unearthed not too long ago. I suspect lesser fighters were subject to this sort of match, and it might have been a bit hard to be disobedient while so constrained.

 

Gladiators who spoke the same languages were seperated in the ludum, the training school, to avert any attempt at organising break outs, and even before the escape of Spartacus it's clear that weapons were only made available immediately prior to the event, the gladiators being left with wooden practice weapons for most purposes, yet even with that restriction some researchers have stated they believe up to a third of trainees, whether volunteers or condemned men, were either killed or invalided out before their first bout.

 

Also, a newbie gladiator was often set against an experienced man. This veteran fighter was worth more, a source of profit for his owner, so in a sense the fight might be skewed in his favour both to keep this man alive to earn money, but also to please the crowd with another victory to his credit.

 

I don't know if newbies were aware of this. It certainly didn't stop them volunteering. At the height of gladiatorial combat in the Pax Romana, it's believed perhaps half the men fighting were volunteers, the era of the pampered professional star fighter, a big change since the days of Spartacus when fighters were expendable slaves and little else, not to mentioned treated very brutally. Professional training as an athlete (as opposed to merely a fighter) was something that came more or less with the empire.

 

There are stories of those being sent to fight who simply couldn't face going out on the sand. That shouldn't suprise us. Not everyone is a natural fighter. For these people, who did things like push their heads through the spokes of a moving wagon wheel and so break their necks, or the man who suffocated himself with a toilet sponge, their disobedience was a case of suicide rather than face combat with sharp swords. I don't think there were many cases of this, but I must add that men with spears were on hand to prod reluctant fighters back into the fray.

 

I recall the scene in an african town, where Russel Crowes Maximus loses patience with his lot and demands to know whether the audience were entertained by his slaughter of his hapless foes, then throwing the sword at the editor of the games in disgust. A great fighter or not, any gladiator who behaved in such a fashion was going to find the Romans had plenty of nasty ways to entertain a crowd.

 

That said, we don't read of gladiators behaving like that. Possibly because they didn't live long afterward. They took the business quite seriously, and a professional attitude is something our sources point at. I also note the games at which Caligula complained that the fight had been spectacularly bad and unimpressive. One man snatched a trident and slew his suprised opponents in quick order. He did this to please his emperor, the games editor, and strangely enough Calgula was disgusted at this action. He was after all the man who slew gladiators armed with practice swords at training sessions and danced about in victory.

[the5500th]

Thanks a lot guys. I thought knew a decent amount about gladiators but I learned quite a bit here. Does anybody know what the chances of a gladiator being freed were.

[Centurion-Macro]

Thanks a lot guys. I thought knew a decent amount about gladiators but I learned quite a bit here. Does anybody know what the chances of a gladiator being freed were.

If you could survive the arena, there was always a chance that you could be freed. Gladiators actually had a good life, and if you were a good fighter, and you did not die, there was a good chance you would be freed with the Rudis. But if you were an average gladiator, to be honest, you did not have a good chance. Only those with exceptional skill or luck were freed, and even some who were freed kept fighting, as it was all they knew, and it was a good career if you were good at it.

[caldrail]

The chances of being freed by the editor of the games were actually not good. Succesful fighters were a source of profit for their owner, and whilst the crowd might cheer the editor for his act of generosity, the owner would have to be paid compensation for his loss. This does not apply to contract fighters. Such men (or women) volunteered to serve as a slave in the arena for a fixed term, usually five to seven years. Since the statistics we have available suggest the average life expectantancy for a gladiator was four years, it was more likely he would meet a sticky end than walk away.

 

In terms of rebellion, it's also unlikely such people would become disobedient. They had after all volunteered for this life, either to earn money to pay off debt, or perhaps they simply wanted stardom - much like modern youths want to be rock stars today.