How Bloody Was The Arena?

[Neos Dionysos]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but, did not the 1872 French Painting Pollice Verso give Hollywood and many people the sterotype that a thumbs up meant live, and a thumbs down meant die? Not sure where, but I could have sworn it was, a thumbs down meant live, (the sword was thrown in the ground), and the thumbs up was a thumbs up to the throat which meant kill.

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

[caldrail]

No-one actually knows, and don't believe anyone who says they do. Traditionally the thumbs down meant death, and this is something Gerome included in his painting, reinforced by early silent hollywood epics. Some historians believe the opposite is true. Possibly, but to me that seems an odd and artificial gesture. There are other variations, for instance one where the thumb is hidden inside the fist to suggest a sheathed blade.

 

I take a more natural view - in that the roman audience would have 'stabbed' with the thumb to demand death. What would have meant life? A raised thumb? A hidden thumb?

[quo-vadis50]

Hi, all--

 

I've come of late to a sudden, all consuming interest in Ancient Rome. I had four years of Latin when I was in high school (back in the mists of antiquity!), and all I can remember is a proverb: "A live dog is better than a dead lion!" Go figure. I've always had a fondness for that era, but lately it's like an obsession. And I don't know why; I don't know what triggered it, but it's FUN!

 

Anyway, I'm trying to read and absorb all that I can about the topic, and sites like this one are great! I've been writing Roman fiction on some other websites (I teach college-level English-- Composition I & II; Technical Writing I & II; and Creative Writing). I strive to be as authentic and accurate as I can.

 

That being said, my first post is on a weighty topic-- were the gladiators of Rome like today's professional wrestlers of the WWE and other such organizations? Hollywood has given us this misconception that only one man was left standing at the end, and the rest of the poor schmucks lay butchered in the sand. The little bit of research I've done indicates that, even though many of them were slaves, they were treated a lot like today's sports stars. The lanista had a lot of money invested in his charges, and couldn't afford to have most of them slaughtered at a match. I wonder, even if the crowd called for death, if they didn't drag the loser under the grandstands and pretend to deliver the coup de grace? Was there a little bit of showmanship and fakery involved?

 

Anybody have some background on this?

[quo-vadis50]

Whoa--looks like I'm going over well-plowed ground! Sorry--I just got here.

[caldrail]

Regarding showmanship, yes, but to a limited degree. Remember these men were professional fighters who had either been forced by court, circumstance, or ambition to take to the arena. They had suffered strenuous training. Death was a very likely outcome of this path. It was far more likely that a gladiator would die in his first professional bout than at any other time.

 

So, although these men either chose or had no choice but to accept the risks, they were proud of the entertainment they gave the crowd. The crowd cheered them when they did well. For a short time, they were heroes in public. We also note that gladiators formed strong friendships amongst themselves even when they knew one day they must fight each other to the death.

 

Remember too that most fights were governed with strict rules enforced by referees. (Free-for-alls were usually large scale slaughters designed both to re-enact a historical event and to rid rome of hundreds of prisoners of war they couldn't sell)

 

My conclusion is that gladiatorial combat involved a lot of pomp and ceremony. The gladiators could be viewed training for the event. They could be seen partying the night before. Dressed in their finery they march to the arena through the admiring crowd. But what about the arena?

 

Two men enter. Their names are announced and I would expect them to acknowledge the crowds response much as the same way a modern fighter might. No roman referee is going to let a gladiator run riot - his behaviour must fall within acceptable parameters. He is a slave after all no matter how famous. Worse still, an armed slave, trained to use his weapon to deadly effect. On the other hand, this is entertainment, something the referee understands. So he might allow a little pre-match hype if the games editor requires it.

 

Once the fight begins however the action is very serious. These men are using real weapons and to lose invites a possible death. There would be no horseplay at all.

 

Faking the fight is something that probably went on, particularly in the provinces. However, we do know that in the colosseum (and probably at other venues too ) 'dead' gladiators would have their throats cut to ensure they were really dead.

[quo-vadis50]

Regarding showmanship, yes, but to a limited degree. Remember these men were professional fighters who had either been forced by court, circumstance, or ambition to take to the arena. They had suffered strenuous training. Death was a very likely outcome of this path. It was far more likely that a gladiator would die in his first professional bout than at any other time.

 

So, although these men either chose or had no choice but to accept the risks, they were proud of the entertainment they gave the crowd. The crowd cheered them when they did well. For a short time, they were heroes in public. We also note that gladiators formed strong friendships amongst themselves even when they knew one day they must fight each other to the death.

 

Remember too that most fights were governed with strict rules enforced by referees. (Free-for-alls were usually large scale slaughters designed both to re-enact a historical event and to rid rome of hundreds of prisoners of war they couldn't sell)

 

My conclusion is that gladiatorial combat involved a lot of pomp and ceremony. The gladiators could be viewed training for the event. They could be seen partying the night before. Dressed in their finery they march to the arena through the admiring crowd. But what about the arena?

 

Two men enter. Their names are announced and I would expect them to acknowledge the crowds response much as the same way a modern fighter might. No roman referee is going to let a gladiator run riot - his behaviour must fall within acceptable parameters. He is a slave after all no matter how famous. Worse still, an armed slave, trained to use his weapon to deadly effect. On the other hand, this is entertainment, something the referee understands. So he might allow a little pre-match hype if the games editor requires it.

 

Once the fight begins however the action is very serious. These men are using real weapons and to lose invites a possible death. There would be no horseplay at all.

 

Faking the fight is something that probably went on, particularly in the provinces. However, we do know that in the colosseum (and probably at other venues too ) 'dead' gladiators would have their throats cut to ensure they were really dead.

 

 

Thanks--that's very helpful.

[stevehartman]

I am trying to find an English Translation of the Memoirs of Diocles. Can you help me?

 

Steve sahartman@sbcglobal.net

 

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

 

 

I am trying to find an English translation or the Memoirs of Diocles. Can you help me?

 

Steve sahartman@sbcglobal.net

 

Regarding showmanship, yes, but to a limited degree. Remember these men were professional fighters who had either been forced by court, circumstance, or ambition to take to the arena. They had suffered strenuous training. Death was a very likely outcome of this path. It was far more likely that a gladiator would die in his first professional bout than at any other time.

 

So, although these men either chose or had no choice but to accept the risks, they were proud of the entertainment they gave the crowd. The crowd cheered them when they did well. For a short time, they were heroes in public. We also note that gladiators formed strong friendships amongst themselves even when they knew one day they must fight each other to the death.

 

Remember too that most fights were governed with strict rules enforced by referees. (Free-for-alls were usually large scale slaughters designed both to re-enact a historical event and to rid rome of hundreds of prisoners of war they couldn't sell)

 

My conclusion is that gladiatorial combat involved a lot of pomp and ceremony. The gladiators could be viewed training for the event. They could be seen partying the night before. Dressed in their finery they march to the arena through the admiring crowd. But what about the arena?

 

Two men enter. Their names are announced and I would expect them to acknowledge the crowds response much as the same way a modern fighter might. No roman referee is going to let a gladiator run riot - his behaviour must fall within acceptable parameters. He is a slave after all no matter how famous. Worse still, an armed slave, trained to use his weapon to deadly effect. On the other hand, this is entertainment, something the referee understands. So he might allow a little pre-match hype if the games editor requires it.

 

Once the fight begins however the action is very serious. These men are using real weapons and to lose invites a possible death. There would be no horseplay at all.

 

Faking the fight is something that probably went on, particularly in the provinces. However, we do know that in the colosseum (and probably at other venues too ) 'dead' gladiators would have their throats cut to ensure they were really dead.

[caldrail]

According to the Daily Mail, Saturday 17th Feb, a stone block has been unearthed at the site of an amphitheatre at Chester. Apparently this is the first time a block like this has been found in britain which puts paid to the theory that provincial games were mere displays - this block was used in the arena to chain animals and/or victims for the kill. There have been some discoveries of the victims remains on the site.

 

The Amphitheatre of Deva Victrix (Chester), the largest remaining in britain, seated an audience in two storeys, with evidence of ornate stonework on columns.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I came across a fantastic essay titled Violence and the Romans: The Arena Spectacles, it covers many of the theories discussed in this thread and many more.

 

Here's a paragraph that I particularly liked

 

In Pliny's panegyric to Trajan (Panegyric xxxi.1) in which he praised the emperor who first satisfied the practical needs of the citizens and the allies, and then gave them a public entertainment, nothing lax or dissolute to weaken and destroy the manly spirit of his subjects, but one to inspire them to face honourable wounds and look scornfully upon death, by demonstrating a love of glory and a desire for victory even in the persons of criminals and slaves.In other words, Pliny viewed the gladiatorial show as an educational experience of morality and virtue. The fact that the performers were outcasts strengthened this educational element by the implicit idea that if even such people could provide examples of bravery, determination to win glory and victory despite impending death, and even more so, contempt for death itself, then so could real men

 

And another

 

 

 

The spectacles also appealed to the crowd by their implicit sexual nature. The Romans appeared to be aware of this aspect of the spectacles by the fact that gladiators were classified with prostitutes in Roman legislation, and that literary texts associated the Latin word for the gladiator's trainer (lanistes) with that for a pimp (leno) [17]. Indeed, the sexuality associated with gladiators is portrayed by Prudentius in his description of the Vestal virgin at the games:

What a spirit she has! She leaps up at each stroke, and every time that the victorious gladiator plunges his sword into his opponents neck, she calls him her sweetheart, and turning her thumb downwards this modest maiden orders the breast of the prone gladiator to be torn open so that no part of his soul should be hidden, while the secutor looms above him, panting as he presses in his weapon (ii.1095-1101) [18]

 

Have

a read of the full esssay.

http://janusquirinus.org/essays/Arena.html

 

 

 

 

[The Augusta]

I came across a fantastic essay titled Violence and the Romans: The Arena Spectacles, it covers many of the theories discussed in this thread and many more.

 

Here's a paragraph that I particularly liked

 

In Pliny's panegyric to Trajan (Panegyric xxxi.1) in which he praised the emperor who first satisfied the practical needs of the citizens and the allies, and then gave them a public entertainment, nothing lax or dissolute to weaken and destroy the manly spirit of his subjects, but one to inspire them to face honourable wounds and look scornfully upon death, by demonstrating a love of glory and a desire for victory even in the persons of criminals and slaves.In other words, Pliny viewed the gladiatorial show as an educational experience of morality and virtue. The fact that the performers were outcasts strengthened this educational element by the implicit idea that if even such people could provide examples of bravery, determination to win glory and victory despite impending death, and even more so, contempt for death itself, then so could real men

 

And another

 

 

 

The spectacles also appealed to the crowd by their implicit sexual nature. The Romans appeared to be aware of this aspect of the spectacles by the fact that gladiators were classified with prostitutes in Roman legislation, and that literary texts associated the Latin word for the gladiator's trainer (lanistes) with that for a pimp (leno) [17]. Indeed, the sexuality associated with gladiators is portrayed by Prudentius in his description of the Vestal virgin at the games:

What a spirit she has! She leaps up at each stroke, and every time that the victorious gladiator plunges his sword into his opponents neck, she calls him her sweetheart, and turning her thumb downwards this modest maiden orders the breast of the prone gladiator to be torn open so that no part of his soul should be hidden, while the secutor looms above him, panting as he presses in his weapon (ii.1095-1101) [18]

 

Have

a read of the full esssay.

http://janusquirinus.org/essays/Arena.html

 

 

 

 

That Vestal sounds like me in the Matthew Hrding Lower stand at Stamford Bridge! Nothing changes, then!

 

On a more serious note, GPM, this raises a good question about Roman society and that fundamental in-built desire for victory and glory, and as I read through your quotes I actually thought of Homeric Greeks who seemed to hold a similar set of values - Achilles' famous epitaph of wishing for a short life of glory and honour rather than a long, undistinguished one. Pliny seems to be saying that this very ethos carries over to the arena, so that even slaves and criminals can redeem themselves. The violence, I think, was just the norm for the times; I believe it was the competive striving for physical excellence that drove people at the Games, whether competitors or spectators.

[CiceroD]

Does anyone know how and when Munera became Ludii?

 

I mean how exactly did a human sacrifice ritual lose its original meaning?

Additionally before the construction of permanent amphitheaters did the Romans set up temporary wooden structures as they did to put on plays?

 

Much has been made of Bread and Circuses as an negative institution. Part of the loss of their societal vigor has been blamed on the increasing number of game days. But did Romans have any alternatives? What caused the snowballing number of Games?

[caldrail]

Does anyone know how and when Munera became Ludii?

 

I mean how exactly did a human sacrifice ritual lose its original meaning?

Additionally before the construction of permanent amphitheaters did the Romans set up temporary wooden structures as they did to put on plays?

 

Much has been made of Bread and Circuses as an negative institution. Part of the loss of their societal vigor has been blamed on the increasing number of game days. But did Romans have any alternatives? What caused the snowballing number of Games?

 

Munera are the gladiatorial games which evolved from funeral rites in the two hundred years before the empire. Ludii are the training schools for contestants, and although I don't know which was the first, I believe Julius Caesar set one up?

 

In the original human sacrifices, it was considered a good thing to honour the dead with the spilling of blood. Thats a typical funeral rite for meditteranean cultures. Now because no-one wanted to be a murderer, the answer was to get two social undesirables to fight each other to death. Later, some people wanted wanted their deceased relative to get a more impressive send-off, so perhaps two pairs. Three? Then people began celebrating their deaths much later, usually when they were running for public office and in order to impress, staged bigger and more varied rites. Sooner or later the funeral rite wasn't necessary, and these events were staged purely to impress.

 

Before the empire displays were often ad hoc, set up in forums or other public spaces. Indeed they did make amphitheatres of wood. Famously one shoddy effort collapsed during Tiberius's reign at Fidenae with thousands of casualties, the promoter finding himself exiled for cutting costs. There is a story about a convertible arena made of wood. Usually one half was used as an ordinary theatre then when an arena was required, the other half was wheeled around. There's some dispute as to whether this building ever existed.

 

There were alternatives but remember the roman public enjoyed these games. They were exciting in much the same way as a top-level boxing match, or perhaps more so, given the mortal drama of it. The increasing number of days devoted to games was simply to keep people happy. An unknown citizen once called out to caligula 'How about a days games, Caesar?', to which Caligula duly obliged. Also bear in mind the second purpose of games was to impress evryone with the promoters status and generosity. Titus for instance was remembered as a great ruler because his inaugral games at the colosseum were a success.

 

Regarding the sexual aspect of gladiatorial combat, this is part of human psychology. Females do tend to respond to a strong warrior type, both as protector and provider, so a display of violence and the glory attached was almost certain to give the participants sex appeal. It did. Wealthy women were sometimes prone to having affairs with gladiators despite their lowly status in society, and even the wife of the emperor Marcus Aurelius was rumoured to do so. In rome a typical woman of means might have lots of free time and no career aspirations. The excitement of dating a bold warrior illicitly was substantial. It might be noted also that at such displays the women were seated right up at the back, furthest away. There's an element of frustration here I think because society is almost keeping them at arms length from these men, hence the curiosity value of getting close.

 

I would like to add a footnote about women gladiators as sex-objects. Now whilst some men may have considered scantily clad females hacking each other to death as something titillating or amusing, I sense a disquiet about women fighters too. These women were rarer than male fighters (obviously) and in all likeliehood their lanista was more protective. A pregnant gladiatrix cannot be hired out for profit. Men are more predatory sexually and easier targets exist. It probably occurred on very rare occaisions but I doubt most men found it appealing to bed a woman scarred in combat who was quite capable of seperating them from their testicles without blinking. It would certainly make me think twice!

Edited March 3, 2007 by caldrail

[stevehartman]

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.

 

 

Sorry, but I have another question I need help with.

 

Does anyone know where I can get an English Translation of the Memoires of Diocles? Ap(p)uleius Diocles was a charioteer in 2nd century Rome.

 

Lte me know if you can help; sahartman@sbcglobal.net

 

Thanks

 

Steve

 

 

 

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.

[caldrail]

Does anyone know where I can get an English Translation of the Memoires of Diocles? Ap(p)uleius Diocles was a charioteer in 2nd century Rome.

No sorry I don't, but Im fascinated that such memoirs would exist from someone of that profession. If you find them, please let us know.

 

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.

Not always true, it depended on demand, and how much money a lanista could earn by renting out his top men. Of course, they were valuable assets and not easily replaced, hence the reluctance of lanistas to risk them overly. The two or three fights a year applied to contract volunteer gladiators. Those condemned ad ludus stood a similar chance of surviving their sentence, usually five to seven years just like volunteers, but those condemned ad gladius - their task was to die for the crowd.

 

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.

Barley and beans. Its not a wonderful meal and modern research shows there's a variety of responses from those who have to eat it, but it did tend to fatten gladiators and help build muscle. Desirable for strength and also protection against minor sword cuts. Meat was indeed reserved for special occaisions, which was the pre-fight feast the night before, a condemned mans last meal in many cases. The meal was provided by the lanista as a mark of respect and often a chance for ordinary people to meet these men and for some women it meant a risque dalliance.

 

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.

This is another example of roman ambivalence, because the audience did not want to see an unfair fight. They wanted thrills and spills. If the fight had lasted as long as Russel Crowes efforts in the film 'Gladiator' I think the event promoter would staining his sublagaria

 

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.

No, not true. The whole point of a munera is to spill blood. The funeral rites demanded that blood is spilled to honour the dead. Now because the average mourner doesn't want to be a murderer, it was felt better to have slaves fight each other, at least that way they'd have a sporting chance. We also see etruscan rites (from which roman games evolved) where a man with a hood over his head must fight an angry dog with a club. Even at mundane displays, at some point, a man must die to satisfy the crowd. later of course the funeral and religious side of things gave way to public entertainment. Nonetheless, it is true that a wounded gladiator that survived the fight would receive the best medical care available.

 

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.

For a woman of good birth to seek the company of a gladiator is something considered scandalous - and that was part of the attraction. There is a story written in roman times of a wealthy daughter who runs away with a gladiator despite his facial injuries, forever throwing away her life of ease and luxury to be with this man of violence she has fallen in love with. Its the only example of a tragic romance that I've heard of in roman times. It has been speculated that Commodus was the son of a gladiator. he certainly bore little resemblance to his father Marcus Aurelius and his mother, the somewhat loosely moraled Faustina, was rumoured to visit ludii.

 

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.

Volunteer gladiators were slaves just like those condemned, except that they could retain their wives and families and would be allowed out of the ludus for rest and relaxation. It was well known that men of noble birth volunteered, either because they wanted stardom or because they were desperate for cash. Augustus made rulings to restrict the number of gentlemen entering the arena. For gladiators bought as slaves the ludus was little more than a prison. Indeed, it was a vigorous life. Studies of gladiatorial skeletons show heavy muscular development and signs that they lived barefoot. I should mention that the way a particular ludus was run depended on the character of the lanista. Lentilus Batiatus might have been a hard tasker but its likely he was also careless, hence the escape of Spartacus even after the plot was discovered.

 

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.

It depends. The morning event began with practice bouts with thr rudis, the wooden sword. This was designed to wet the appetite of the audience and allow them to place bets on the perceived skill of their favourites. Some fights were to the first blood, and the first obvious wound would have the referee stop the fight and announce the winner. Some fights were sine miisione, or 'without remission'. In those fights one man had to die, and no call for mercy to the crowd was heeded. Augustus banned those but I believe they returned later. usually a prize gladiator was given a lesser opponent for the reasons of survival and continued profit, but remember that this person was famous and in demand. Many of them died, so survival was never a sure thing. Those who had been freed by the editor or the emperor, or those who had bought their freedom from their winnings, sometimes returned to the arena later. Either because they couldn't make a life for themselves outside, or because they simply preferred the life they had left behind. behind the scenes were the financial deals done with lanistas. Mostly these were to increase the spectacle, to increase the blood spilled, and the lanista was getting some compensation for risking his best men. I wouldn't be suprised if on rare occaisions a lanista allowed a good man to be killed if sufficiently renumerated - it was only business.

Edited March 10, 2007 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

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.

 

I thought that legionaries had at least one meat meal a day.