How Bloody Was The Arena?

[phil25]

I'll air a topic that has long fascinated me.

 

Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose.

 

Gladiators have long been an interest of mine - I have spent quite a lot of time in Naples Museum looking at the superb collection of gear there; and in walking around the two gladiatorial schools in Pompeii (well looking through the gate at one!!); and at the remains of the Ludus Magnus in Rome.

 

It made me think...

 

We know the Romans loved betting

We know the Romans put a lot into training gladiators (at places like Capua)

We know that gladiatorial TROUPES toured the cities

We know - from inscriptions and graffiti that certain gladiators became well-known (Celadus and Crescens at Pompeii)

 

But how long would horse-racing last if all but the three first past the post in any race were slaughtered immediately after the race?

How good a standard would any professional sport reach if after any game the loosing team were killed?

 

How would people know how to bet if they were constantly faced with newcomers, new names and untried contestants/players?

 

So I have come to the conclusion that, while there were important exceptions when fights were to the death, in the main Roman gladiatorial contests (perhaps in 80% of cases) both fighters survived.

 

As in modern boxing where a "knockout" can be literal, but also a technical term (ie the fighter does not get up before the end of a count, but remains conscious - perhaps in Roman times, "death" in the arena could be a technical term (and Romans knew the difference).

 

Figures such as Charon with his hammer appeared in the arena - could a "tap" to the head of a defeated gladiator have equated to a technical "death", as distinct from the term "missus" (let go)?

 

All this is pure speculation - and we know that some Roman writers hated the games because they were bloody and cruel. But I do think that logic and commonsense argue for a different approach.

 

I have more i can say on this, but I'd welcome feedback on what I have said so far, and any views, supportive or alternative, from the informed users of this site.

 

Thanks for reading what may just be my ramblings (and my apologies if this has been raised before - I couldn't find a similar thread),

 

Phil

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Yeah I know, it is such a great misconception that most gladiators died, which in fact, they lived most of the time. And if the emperor thought the gladiators fought well, he would usually let both of live because the crowd most of the time would actually want the good fighting gladiators to live.

By the way, have you ever watched the discovery channel documentary/actual movie about how a gladiator lives his life from the start of his career. Its very accurate and good details like a real movie.Link to buy the documentary Seriously this is a good one if you are interested. Its called A gladiator's story. Exerpt :

 

A compelling story based on actual events, high-end drama and cutting-edge computer modeling combine to deliver a history lesson like no other. Travel back to the height of ancient Rome and meet Verus – a slave who literally fights his way out of his shackles. Selected for his charisma and fighting potential, Verus is whisked away from his life of slavery and given a chance to win his freedom in the arena as a gladiator. Follow Verus as he trains in one of Rome's most demanding gladiator schools, learning every thrust, parry and dodge maneuver he'll need to survive in the ring.

 

Watch as the recent graduate takes his first, tentative steps into the mighty Colosseum. Every detail, down to the Emperor's private box seat, is recreated in full, digital glory. But the beauty of the scene is soon eclipsed by the brutality of the moment, as Verus is abruptly thrown into armed combat. If he prevails, he'll win his freedom; if he fails, he'll lose everything. Either way, the patrons of the Colosseum will get what they came for – their daily entertainment.

Edited January 21, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Lost_Warrior]

Yes, I think the figure was 10% of gladiators actually died. The rest lived. Of course, there were many who died who weren't real specialized gladiators, they were pretty much thrown in the arena to die...execution fights...at least that is what I've read correct me if I'm wrong.

[Princeps]

I have also heard the 10% figure (did you not see that BBC gladiator thing a while ago Phil25? I believe it was last christmas, 2004).

 

Basically due to the reason you gave , expense.

[Sextus Roscius]

The reason most gladiators weren't killed: so money could be made of (and we have the same things in boxing and wrestling) grudge matches and rematches. The things like "Bob beats John in Boxing Match" two months later "John takes Bob on in a rematch for the Belt" or something of that sort, I'm sure Romans were smart enough to capitalize off that.

 

Then again.....there were other more conventional reasons too.....

[frankq]

Interesting to note two items on this, one factual, one fictional but, since it comes from BBC writers adapting Graves, perhaps not too wildly improbable.

 

First, Tiberius disliked the games. He thought they were gross and silly, and his attitude might well have been similar in a way to those of us today who react to the antics of pro-wrestling.

 

RE the fictional connection. In ''I,Claudius'' Livia (Graves' Livia, true) tells some gladiators she's hired for a show that she wants realism, and that ''I know all your usual tricks and your bags of hidden cow blood,'' etc.

 

Well room for thought. What's amusing is that Hollywood assumes that the Empire had an unlimited supply of trained gladiators produced on an assembly line and ready to die each day.

[phil25]

It's why, when you get into the logistics of it all, that you start to question the conventional wisdom of the "popular" books about gladiators - even Michael Grant!!

 

Why have magnificent schools like the Ludus Magnus (immediately adjacent and linked to the Colosseum) with a practice ring and what Americans would call bleachers, if the majority of fighters were tyros (newcomers) or untrained? Why spend vast amounts training specialist fighters if most will die on their first appearance?

 

To my mind it is clear that people paid to see their favorite and famous fighters practice before the games, assessing fitness and judging their readiness for a fight. That is the usual and best basis for betting, after all - form and current state.

 

I think we must dismiss the fictional evidence as witty but unproven. But on the |tiberius quote, I might agree - was it not Marcus Aurelius who offended some of his people by working during fights?

 

I suspect a mathematician could work out, given frewquency of fights, number of arenas and numbers of fighters, what vast recruitment would have been needed to prepetuate the games. But i don't think we need that.

 

To me the troupes of gladiators noted on the walls of Pompeii, indicate that like a visiting circus or travelling theatre group, people must have had some idea of the personnel involved, the stars, the attractions - otherwise advance publicity would never have worked, would it?

 

Phil

[Princeps]

Just to be clear, the fictionalised account I mentioned was based on actual known (or strongly supported) fact, it was the drama and personalities of the main protagonists that was fiction.

[eggers]

Depends where your looking. I'm not sure about the games that were actually held in Rome (i read conflicting reports occasionally), but in other arenas around the empire most of the Gladiators lived. Gladiators were not only slaves. They were usually the best, and strongest slaves avaible, and rich 20-somethings who wanted to make a name for themselves in the ring. They (the slave gladiators anyway) were sold for a high price, so their owners didn't like using them for normal slave activities like mining etc. so they sold them to the gladiators school for a fair profit. The Gladiator schools then had to train and feed them well, all which cost money. Then to stick them in the ring and have them killed off was a waste of money. Therefore is was more of a fight to batter the other gladiator into submission, but with swords and shields. Occasionally there were deaths, more by accident then anything. If a Gladiator died in the ring, the organizer of the game had to compensate the gladiator's (the gladiator who died i mean) school with money.

Gladiators who won a fight usually were actually paid some of the winnings, often more in one fight then a roman solider made a year! They also had considerable freedom compared to other slaves and could leave the school at will during the day and do things like shopping! (when not competing in the arena or training obviously). I believe they were locked in their cells at night though. Even so, if they were successful gladiators they could often afford to buy bigger and more luxiourious cells which were fully furnished.

Like i say, however, im not sure what the rules were in rome, i have heard that the arena in Rome itself was alot more bloody, and the gladiators used there were not particularly any good. They were used to appease the mob, and the thumbs up or thumbs down is a load of rubbish. When the Emperor used thumbs down, it didn't mean kill the other gladiator, it actually means drop all weapons. To kill the other gladiator, the a finger was slide across the neck, similar to today.

Anyone who wants to correct me about the arena in Rome, please do, i don't know much about what happened in the 300 days of games etc.

[Northern Neil]

[quote name='phil25'

Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose.

 

Absolutely, Phil. Even as a child I used to watch movies such as Spartacus and Quo Vadis and think 'How could they afford to train and pay for gladiators if they got killed off at such a rate?' The recent film 'Gladiator' does nothing to dispell this; indeed, after weeks of training, the first fight out, and only Maximus, his German mate and the African guy survive out of a gladiator troop of about twenty.

 

Unfortunately, novels and hollywood have had a great impact on not only this, but many aspects of our period. And not just among the public, which is what the Python film 'Life of Brian' was getting at. In 2004 when I visited the Colloseum and saw the Christian shrine, celebrating the martyrs who had according to theodosius and later emperors been thrown to the lions in their thousands, I felt very much like saying to the Catholic priests who were present '...but it didn't actually happen like that...'

Edited January 29, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Valerius]

I have read that there are over two hundred references and descriptions of gladitorial combat from ancient authors but only 19 record that one of the gladiators died. The famous chariot race in the film Ben-Hur seems to have been lifted wholesale from the "Memoirs of Diocles" and real charioteer said to have been the first man to win 1,000 races. Death does seem to have been more frequent at the circus.

 

P.S.

 

I have a great book on the subject - probably the best ever written - called "Those About to Die" by Daniel P.Mannix. Originally published in 1960, it was reprinted by Panther Books in 1970 and, as far as I know, has not been reprinted since. I saw it recently for sale on ebay at

[caldrail]

Part of the problem in this matter is that gladiators were different in status and purpose from each other. There's a whole world of difference from a doomed prisoner-of-war pushed into the arena with soiled underpants as opposed to an experienced professional contract fighter. Yes, blood was involved. We all know that and that was part of the religious side of things. Romans wanted a good fight. They wanted to see skill & courage. But they usually dictated whether these men could live or die if defeated. It was a catharsis for the common people who were otherwise powerless; now they could condemn a man to death for cowardice, clumsiness, or simply because he had cost them too many denarii in bets. However, as someone said earlier, perhaps as little as 10% of one-on-one contestants died. Therefore blood was less important than enjoying a good fight (not to mention the cost of replacing a dead gladiator)

 

I think blood became more frequent as time wore on. As fights became mundane, something had to raise the excitement level. I seem to remember that Augustus banned fights without mercy, but didn't these come back later on?

[Lucius Calpurnius Capitolinus]

There was a decent show on the Discovery channel regarding the Gladiatorial graveyard discovered at Ephesus. Over 70 Gladiator bodies were exhumed and studied. Among the things that evidence helped them to conclude were:

 

1) Gladiators did not wear shoes in the arena

 

2) Gladiators ate mostly barley and beans

 

3) 1 out of 8 Gladiators were killed in the arena

 

4) Not all gladiators were slaves, some were citizens who simply found that they could earn a good living fighting

 

It was a really good little show. I believe it was called "True Gladiators."

[Centurion Legioneer]

Well I believe that the bloodiness of the fights would depend on a number of variables. Such as the number of gladiators, the animals (Tigers, Lions), and if they decided if they live..or die.

[Skarr]

Well, as someone here pointed out, our vision of what the arena was like is heavily influenced by Hollywood, at least for the layperson who is not familiar with Rome or its culture.

 

Gladiators were like athletes and some of them were like the baseball heroes of our time and typically, most of them were skilled in their art and put on a good display of fighting, when called for. The typical gladiator may have fought two or three times a year, maybe more. I think the better you were, the fewer the fights.

 

Like the typical Roman soldier, gladiators lived on a mostly vegetarian diet and I guess meat (pork for the most part) was a luxury, probably served on special occasions.

 

Condemned slaves were often used in the arena as 'fodder' for skilled gladiators to despatch, as they would be poorly armed compared to the gladiators they would face. This was a form of execution and if anyone survived, it was up to the public to spare his life.

 

I'm familiar with the games during the Republic, when it was practically unheard of to witness combats to the death. For most owners of gladiatorial schools, it was a sheer waste of money, effort and years of training to have a gladiator fight to the death. Of course, injuries could happen and death could result from a serious wound, despite prompt treatment. This would be more of an accident than anything else.

 

Gladiators earned money on each fight, with the lion's share going to the owner / lanista. However, they would get to keep any personal gifts / tips from their fan base. I guess some of the tips were also in kind as there are accounts of Roman matrons seeking the company of gladiators - who knows, maybe they just wanted to see them up close. These are more in the category of rumors than actual fact. I'm sure there were affairs going on but again, we have no hard evidence in the form of an actual anecdote that has been corroborated by several sources.

 

Some of the gladiators were, of course, civilians and not slaves. I seriously doubt that there were any of the nobility though, as gladiators were bound to the school and although some of them may have had visiting privileges (if their families were in the city), the majority of them would have been confined to the premises of the school and would have been subject to a rigorous daily routine - wake up, eat, train, eat, train, sleep. There may have been a free period in the afternoon when they would be allowed to hang out in the courtyard or play dice or do nothing. The lanista would always be around and for all practical purposes, they were like prisoners of the school and were bound by its rules.

 

On the bloody aspect, I doubt we would have seen much blood, except for a few nicks and cuts as a result of the fights. Again, in later periods, things may have been different as there are accounts of mass combat and slaughter during spectacles hosted by Nero / Commodus. However, I doubt they would have used highly trained gladiators (think racehorses - would you put your prize stallion to death after one race ?. Prisoners and condemned slaves (in the case of Nero, Christians maybe ?) would have been used.