How Bloody Was The Arena?

[caldrail]

In the case of animals, it still wasn't the blood that mattered. What did matter was that the public saw these animals in the way they expected. Elephants showing feats of strength, ferocious bears, lethal big cats etc. As for the poor sap that got torn limb from limb, well, he was condemned after all, right? With beast hunters, it was the same as gladiators in that a good fight was paramount.

 

Don't forget that meat was handed out to the poor during games - it came from butchered animals that lost their lives in the arena. Also the roman equivalent of hot dog stands were common, so the poor might have had a mainly bread diet but meat was there to be had.

[Guest Cimmerian]

I'm assuming, like someone previously quoted that the Arena wasn't as bloody as it was made out to be in history. I agree with the '1 out of 8' factor.

 

I believe that some matches were held to please the Emperor, some were held for the commonfolk, nobles, and some were held just for atheletic competition...and some for the Gods.

 

I try and put myself into a Gladiator's standpoint. If I was in an Arena, especially not by choice, and there was a thunderous crowd that wanted me dead, or alive. Doesn't matter, you're condemned, right? I would rely on the one thing that could quite possibly save me (provided this was from the slave aspect). I would look to the Gods. And doing so, things might quite possibly get bloody.

 

But much like modern day athletics, I'm sure there was a code of honour they followed. Gladiator-to-Gladiator. You know, like, "don't kick someone while they're done." But their values and principles were held in total contempt. Someone else was in charge if they lived or died, ultimately. And I'm assuming that happens '1 out of 8' times. Even if they were vollunteer, or slave.

 

I havn't personally read any good books on the topic, so excuse me if I sound overly obvious. Or naive.

[caldrail]

Not quite. Gladiators were of varying standard. A criminal sent out was going to die, and I suspect the crowd wanted to see how much he suffered. In that respect, the arena could be '8 out of 8'. Prisoners of war were often used for fake battles since they had plenty to get rid of, but I can't really see how umpires controlled the fight, so that too was bloody by neccessity. Professional gladiators on the other hand were highly trained from the start. The real obstacle for them was surviving their first fight, giving them useful experience and improving their survival chances a lot. These fights were rigidly controlled. Romans wanted a fair fight, an interesting fight, an exciting fight. It should be noted that most gladiators armour was arranged so that a fatal wound would cause the most spectacular blood loss. This was for entertainment. No 'scratches above the eyebrows' to stop the fight. For their own part, gladiators were very proud of the entertainment they provided - it brought them fame, fortune, and in some cases some very desirable perks for a slave. So although the audience might have persuaded the games editor (or emperor) to spare 90% of losers they did so because the man involved had literally fought for his life. Had he been a wuss, then a kill was demanded. He was not worthy to be spared. Blood was less important than the excitment of two men going toe-to-toe, but it served to dramatise the defeat of the loser. There were even fights without mercy, where a losing gladiator was automatically executed. Imagine the curiosity of watching two women fight as gladiators. They may have been the fairer sex in a mans world, but they were called upon to fight to the death too for the crowd.

 

With animals, the audience wanted to see nature from a safe distance. They wanted big cats leaping at their victims, bears tearing their victims apart, elephants throwing victims like rag dolls, or rhino's and bulls smashing victims aside. They wanted speed, agility, ferocity, sheer danger. With bestiarii (animal fighters) in the ring, then we return somewhat to the gladiator, since now the audience has someone to cheer, and see how bravely he faces a creature that can kill him instantly. So many of these animals were slain to demonstrate the power of Rome over nature that blood was indeed very visible, but again, it wasn't an end in itself, rather a advertisment that this creature had died.

 

Having said that, entertainment was paramount. Not all the acts were fatal. We see one-on-one fights to the first blood, or practice bouts with wooden swords. We see clowns pretending to fight badly, or displays of animals doing things rather like the circus of recent times.

 

The arena was indeed sometimes a bloody place, but only when blood was called for.

[Kosmo]

It's very convicing what you say about not throwing the money spent on the training of a gladiator on the window, buit it's sure that they killed huge numbers of animals brought from the four corners of the world. I don't know for sure if an elephant or a giraffe was cheaper then a slave, but I bet it was not.

[caldrail]

The ecologies of europe and north africa were damaged by the romans - and this was one of the reasons for the demise of the arena - it became too expensive to find animals, and the local zoo's simply weren't able to breed enough animals for the fights. There was a species of pygmy elephant in north africa rendered extinct by roman games.

 

Prices? Ah thats a good one. Good animals fetched good prices. Novelty was always at a premium, rarity and rumour added to the price even further. The supply of animals relied on specialised hunters, often serving soldiers, and required manpower, cages, food, water, shipping - it was no small endeavour! Many animals didn't survive the journey so the investment was risky. By comparison, a slave was n't worth anything as much if his fate was to die in the arena. Skillful or educated slaves fetched higher prices and wouldn't have been the first choice to die ad gladius or ad bestias.

 

Lets not forget also that 'safe' animals were also herded into the arena. Zebra's, antelopes, gazelles, and ostriches in particular entertained the crowd. The venators (hunters) showed their skill by bringing them down with spears or bows.

 

You are spot on. Except that a particular slave might also happen to be a famous gladiator, victor in umpteen fights, hero to the crowd, idol of the ladies, and actually well connected socially, if you follow what I mean. Now that slave might be a bit more expensive than a few beasts, and his owner would not be keen to sacrifice his life needlessly.

[Guest eine]

Have any of you ever been to a Bull Fight either in Mexico or Spain? I believe that the Arena was like that: More of a "Performance Art" where the outcome is a given, than a real "fight" per se. The Mexican familly that took me to my first Corrida told me that it was directly decended from the Roman Beastirii (or however it's spelled), and this I can well believe as some of the ritual devices used are very "Roman" in feel. Especially the final act or faena, where the Matador asks permission to dispatch the bull and dedicates the the kill to someone special or to the crowd in general.

I believe even the exicution of criminals may have been similar: More about the Style of the Exicutioner and the performance of the victim, rather than the bloodiness of the of the kill. In a bull fight, a sloppy kill at the end is about the worst thing that can happen to a Matador and is generally accompanied by boos and jeers and throwing of things by the audience. I can imagine the same thing happening back then. Why else go through all the time and expense if you're just going to hack someone up? Very boring! Also, aren't the Games really an evolution of "Trial by Combat" practiced by most primative cultures? In a bull fight the deck is stacked heavilly against the bull, but an excellent performance by the bull can get the creature a oneway ticket to Bovine Paradise rather than heading off to the taco stands by popular acclaim of the spectators. Wouldn't the same be true of an exceptional performance by a condemed criminal in the Arena?

 

 

PS This is an awsome forum! I've been lurking for a week or so now and have never posted as my questions or comments are usually answered or pre-empted before I can gather my thoughts! Excellent work!

[Favonius Cornelius]

It was about this bloody:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...view=getnewpost

 

[Kosmo]

Before becaming an expansive sportsmen he hed to kill lots of other beginners. I think that the arena was a place of blood and death govered by strict rules.

[caldrail]

One on one fights had referees and you'd better darn obey them. There were rest periods in longer fights, and sometimes a gladiator would be treated for a minor wound before continuuing, much like modern boxing matches. Some fights even had limited areas to fight in - a rectangle you may not leave. Set piece fights were harder to control. Things like one gladiator defending a platform against multiple opponents might be awkward to stop. Fake battles? Once unleashed it would be carnage and I doubt anyone would want to stop it!

 

As for the post about the similarity with bull fghting - You know, there is some truth to it, and thats already what I've mentioned. The entertainment is paramount. Simply butchering an animal - well its not really all that much fun is it? For most people anyway.

 

However, whilst death was part and parcel of munera it wasn't always so. Comedy and spectacle was also important. Generosity too - when the handout of gifts took place I dare say the audience would fight amongst themselves much to the amusement of the games editor!

[Pertinax]

A small aside from the commentary disc on the film "Gladiator" , Russell Crowe opines ,not unreasonably I suggest, that the life of an accomplished gladiator might be of a similar brutality to that of a heavyweight boxer. Death is of course possible, (but more remote than in the arena) but degradation and brutality are pre-eminent, (not just in the bout -which can be awe inspiring) -but in the life of the participant. The desire for public spectacle combined with the desire of the plebians (now and then) to mythologise and idolise an individual as a sporting hero are perhaps undiminished. I have suggested previously that if death in the arena were available as a public entertainment contemporary society might be more vicious and vacuous than any Roman games.

The spectacle at that time was the "brand " of Rome along with Baths and the Forum , as the very marks of Romanisation.I am inclined to follow the slaves and criminals for bloody spectacle, gladiators for careful ( in terms of skill levels ) if sometimes deadly combat.What of the role of gambling? we know it was commonplace, the fixing/coreography of bouts to sucker the punter seems an eminently feasible activity-why shed well trained blood if bouts can bring in cash? I dont argue for non-fatal encounters but perhaps modern habits were not so modern.

[caldrail]

As far as I understand crowd behaviour of that time, betting among plebs would have been much like that you see in SE Asia - fast, hectic, money changing hands quickly with raised voices. Wealthier people would have been a little less excitable usually - especially since the sums involved were inevitably higher! Like you I can see touts setting odds and taking bets. I don't think it was as well organised as we might see today at, say, a horse race, but certainly it went on. Why else would bad luck tokens be sold in such numbers? People haven't really changed much in 2000 years, so yes, I agree, modern habits like gambling are rooted much earlier in our history.

[phil25]

How interesting to return to this discussion after several months. I have found the contributions both informative and helpful. Not that that should surprise me - the standards here are high.

 

It is interesting to see that there seems to be a concensus that gladiatorial fights (in the main) were not as bloody as sometimes thought or depicted in modern cinema or novels. I personally agree with the poster who implied that the circus games (ie chariot racing) was probably a riskier "sport"!!

 

I think we can take as exceptional events such as Titus' opening of the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) and such similar events and accept that there may have been more fights to the literal death then that at other times.

 

My original purpose was to discuss how bloody gladiatorial combat was. I have always accepted that animal fights involving the "bestiarii" were likely to have been sickening by our standards. But the bestiarii are a separate class to the gladiators who fought "mano a mano" with human opponents (I am thinking here to the retiarii, Thracians (Thraex?); murmilliones, secutoes, hoplomachii etc - the specialists in such fighting). It is these specialists whom I believe, at least in the early empire, died less frequently than usually portrayed. I would even speculate - no more, there is no evidence - that the 1:8 ratio may be too high.

 

That the combats were carefully referreed and fought to well delineated rules is clear from the wall paintings that show fighters moving within a ring drawn in the sand, and from the presence of a referee armed with a long staff. The figure dressed as "Charon" may also have had a role in indicating the loser (ie the one subject to a "technical "death"?).

 

But such things may have been only one "type" of combat. There are drawings/graffiti which show a sort of "king of the castle" type fight in which one man seems to try to stop others crossing a "bridge" or displacing him from a tower. maybe the referreed fight was simply one sort of combat. We cannot know whether over the long expanses of time covered by the Roman period certain classes of gladiator went in or out of fashion; were replaced by new ones; or whether types of combat had phases of popularity.

 

I have tried hard to envisage the gladiatorial school at Pompeii as it may have been in its two phases - one probably before the earthquake of 62 or even before the riot in 59, when gladiators were accommodated in a house near the Nolan Gate, and later when they lived in the more expansive quadriporticus behind the theatre. We know the names of some of the fighters, Crescens and Celadus for instance, for whom the girls sighed. These seem to me to represent a troupe who were around for a while, gained reputations and were well-known over a period of time. I think one can also extrapolate practically about the lifestyles of the men involved and dispell some of the myths (the woman with a lot of jewellery once thought to have died in flagrante with a gladiatorduring the eruption, was probably in all likelihood just a refugee sheltering under cover while trying to reach the harbour).

 

On a final point, I had a copy of mannix's book in p/back in the 60s and that sparked my interest in the Games too. I think I still have a more recent copy stashed away somewhere. (The original was confiscated by a schoolmaster when i was found reading it in class!!)

 

Thanks to all who have responded in this thread.

 

Phil

[Leguleius]

I was going to start a thread questioning how the Romans could abhor human sacrifice for religious purposes, but be happy to watch a gladiator die in the cause of entertainment - but this discussion explains a lot! Less contradictory than I at first thought.

 

If the arena saw relatively few fights to the death (and if many of those that ended in death were due to inadvertently mortal wounds, or were really 'executions') then the Roman attitude to human sacrifice by barbarians (e.g. the British on Anglesey) is more explicable:

 

"The next step was to install a garrison among the conquered population and to demolish the groves consecrated to their savage cults: for they considered it a pious duty to slake the altars with captive blood and to consult their deities by means of human entrails." -- Tacitus (Annals XIV.xxix-xxx)

 

Clearly this sort of thing was beyond the pail for Tacitus.

 

Tom

[caldrail]

The need for death in the arena is based on the funeral rites of the Etruscans, the origin of gladitorial combat, in which blood is shed to honour the dead. At some point in the games, someone has to cop it. Eventually it was expanded from the original one-on-one (or hooded man vs angry dog) to make the funeral more impressive. It became entertaining. Eventually it included mock battles fought to the death between hundreds of combatants at any one time. Although many fights were bloodless (or the competitors acquitted themselves honourably to the crowd), the audience would demand the death of a gladiator who failed to impress. As time wore on this sense of power over a mans fate meant that the crowd would demand more deaths - it became more and more bloody. Christianity did take some of this bloodlust away, but only to a point. In 392ad a monk rushed into the arena demanding the fight be stopped. An impatient gladiator ran him through with a sword there and then, the last recorded death of a christian in the arena. The bloodletting had peaked and now faded, persisting in the provinces for some time. Animals were becoming rare and expensive to obtain, people less thrilled by men hacking each other to death. The roman character was changing and the games faded with it.

[caldrail]

Reading 'An Empire Divided' by John Moorehouse I've come across a reference to the usage of gladiators by the Burgundian king in the early 8th century to see off the 'romans'. How interesting...