The Story of Gracchus: The 'Real' Truth about Gladiators

Gladiators and the events in the arena have for long been the subject of misinterpretation - so what is the truth ?

open images in a new tab to view full size

The Roman Gladiator

Surprising as it may seem, it is extraordinarily difficult to discover the real truth about the Roman Games, and the Gladiators, and other combatants who played such a major role in such activities.

So called 'specialists' - archaeologists, historians and classicists, are only too willing to expatiate (often as part of television documentaries or popular books), on the events that occurred in the Roman arena.

Rarely, however, do they actually reveal how scanty the evidence is for their seemingly definitive assertions and accounts.

Historians are usually very keen to quote what they describes as 'primary sources' - often 'contemporary accounts', written by individuals living at the time in question, of the particular subject that they are discussing - and often this is possible and useful.

People often record important and significant events, and this is not surprising.

They are less inclined to record everyday events, particularly such events that are part of the accepted way of everyday life.

In writing the 'Story of Gracchus', the author was surprised to discover that there are practically no accounts of the simple act of 'going for a shopping trip' in Rome.

Not only were such accounts not preserved, being viewed as inconsequential, but quite probably at the time no one thought of describing such a commonplace activity.

What, perhaps, is even more surprising is that in all of Classical Literature there is only one account of a complete gladiatorial combat - and that is by the Roman author Martial, during Games held by the Emperor Titus (a character who appears in the 'Story of Gracchus').

There are other brief snippets regarding other fights - but nothing in any detail - and many of the snippets are taken from different periods and different locations, and so cannot be brought together to produce an overall impression (synthesis) of activities in Amphitheatres, as the Games evolved significantly, in many respects, over a number of centuries.

more information about the weakness of contemporary evidence for the nature of events in amphitheatres may be found in Chapter XIV Spectacula

Pollice Verso (1872)
Jean-Léon Gérôme

When the media (at the beginning of the 20th Century) first became interested in making movies about ancient Rome, they usually felt obliged to include a sequence depicting gladiators - and often also 'christians' being fed to the lions.

Last Days of Pompeii 1935

These sequences were often derived from the works of academic artists of the period, who were often poorly informed and, in many aspects, historically inaccurate - basing their images on imagined reconstructions of the Colosseum, and the armour and accoutrements found during the excavations at Pompeii.
Interestingly the 'Colosseum', in Rome, appears in many movies (especially in the fifties) set in periods before the amphitheatre in question had even been built.

more information about the 'odd' nature of gladiatorial armour found at Pompeii see Chapter XIV Spectacula

ORIGINS

Etruscan Funeral Sacrifice

Samite Warriors

Adopted from the earlier Etruscans, perhaps by way of Campania, gladiatorial Games (Munera) originated in the rites of sacrifice due the spirits of the dead and the need to propitiate them with offerings of blood.
They were introduced to Rome in 264 BC, when the sons of Junius Brutus honoured their father by matching three pairs of gladiators.
Traditionally, Munera were the obligatory funerary offerings owed aristocratic men at their death, although the Games did not have to be presented at the actual time of death - see below.

Julius Caesar

Elected Aedile in 65 BC, Julius Caesar commemorated his father, who had died twenty years before, with a display of gladiators in silvered armour (Pliny, XXXIII.53: Plutarch, V.9).

An office of the Roman Republic. Based in Rome, the aediles were responsible for maintenance of public buildings (aedēs) and regulation of public festivals. They also had powers to enforce public order.

Still mindful of Spartacus' rebellion, a nervous Senate limited the number of gladiators allowed in Rome (Suetonius, X.2).
In 46 BC, after recent victories in Gaul and Egypt, Caesar again hosted elaborate games at the tomb of his daughter Julia, who had died in childbirth eight years earlier (together with stage plays and beast fights, they included the first appearance of a giraffe).
The display was criticized, however, for its extravagance and the number slain (Dio, XLIII.24).
During the Republic, Munera had been privately financed by the family, whose duty it was to present them.
Increasingly a display of aristocratic wealth and prestige, the ritual lost much of its religious significance, and became more overtly political.

Octavian Augustus

To limit this power, Octavian Augustus assigned the Games in Rome to the Praetors, and restricted the number of shows to two per year, and sixty pairs (Dio, LIV.2.4).

Praetors are Roman male citizens acting in one of two official capacities: the commander of an army (in the field or, less often, before the army had been mustered); or, an elected magistratus (magistrate), assigned various duties (which varied at different periods in Rome's history).

Eventually, the Games in Rome were assumed by the Emperors, themselves, as enactments of their own power.
After the slave revolt of Spartacus in 73 BC, the State assumed greater control of ‘public’ Games (Ludi) in Rome, and large numbers of gladiators were trained in imperial schools.
(Interestingly, ludus means "game" and "school," because both required imitation and repetition.)
Under the tutelage of a manager (Lanista), a group of gladiators could be sold or hired out, and many were retained privately by politicians and wealthy citizens as bodyguards, especially in times of civil unrest (Legally, Terentius was the Lanista of Marcus' gladiators, although he took no part in the organising of Ludi, or the training of gladiatori.)
Most gladiators were prisoners of war, slaves bought for the purpose, or criminals condemned to serve in the gladiatorial schools ('damnati ad ludos').
At a time when three of every five persons did not survive until their twentieth birthday, the odds of a professional gladiator being killed in any particular bout, at least during the first century AD, were perhaps one in seven.
But for those (noxii) who were to be publicly executed ('damnati ad mortem') there was no hope of survival.

Seneca

Seneca, as a result of one visit to the amphitheatre - we do not know where - protested at the slaughter of 'noxii' - common criminals - but then he was a 'philosopher' - and his response was not typically Roman.
"The men have no defensive armour. They are exposed to blows at all points, and no one ever strikes in vain....There is no helmet or shield to deflect the weapon. What is the need of defensive armour, or of skill? All these mean delaying death....The spectators demand that the slayer shall face the man who is to slay him in his turn; and they always reserve the latest conqueror for another butchering. The outcome of every fight is death, and the means are fire and sword." (Epistle VII).
Free men also occasionally volunteered to be gladiators (auctorati).
Usually they were social outcasts, freed slaves, discharged soldiers, or former gladiators who had been liberated on retirement, but chose to return for a period of service.
They signed on for a fee, and swore an oath of absolute submission to the 'Lanista' to be burned, flogged, beaten, or killed if so ordered (Petronius, Satyricon, CXVII; Seneca, Moral Epistles, XXXVII.1).
In spite of the opprobrium, Roman citizens, even nobility, very occasionally assumed the career of a gladiator, as did some, but very few, women (Amazones).
Often, they were compelled, but sometimes prompted, as "a number of Italian towns vied with one another in holding out financial inducements to undesirables among the younger generation" (Tacitus, Histories, II.62).
To celebrate his triumphal return to Rome in AD 46, Julius Caesar sponsored gladiatorial Games in which a former senator fought to the death (Suetonius, XXXIX.1 - but this may not be reliable). Another senator had wanted to fight in full armour but was denied permission (Dio, XLIII.23.5).

TYPES OF GLADIATORS

Originally, during the early expansion of the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Republic, captured soldiers had been made to fight with their own weapons and in their particular style of combat.
It was from these conscripted prisoners of war that some gladiators acquired their exotic appearance, a distinction being made between the weapons imagined to be used by defeated enemies, and those of their Roman conquerors.
The Samnites (a tribe from Campania which the Romans had fought in the fourth and third centuries BC) were the prototype for Rome's 'professional' gladiators, and it was their equipment that first was used and later adopted for the arena.

Greaves - Ocrea

Galea - Samnite Helmet

The Samnite wore an elaborate helmet (galea), a wide leather belt (balteus) reinforced with bands of metal, a large oblong shield (scutum), a sword (gladius, so called, says Isidore of Seville, XVIII.6, because it "divides the throat," 'gulam dividere'), and probably a greaves (ocrea). Two other gladiatorial categories also took their name from defeated tribes, the Galli (Gauls) and Thraeces (Thracians).
By the time of Octavian Augustus, the Samnites were allies of Rome, and the name disappeared, to be replaced by the 'Secutor' (pursuer).
Other classes of gladiator were the 'Thraex', who carried a scimitar (sica) and a small square shield, and the Hoplomachus, who fought with a small round shield, and carried a lance and short straight sword.
Because of the smaller shields, both wore long greaves.
Often, protective leather straps (fasciae) were wrapped around the arms and legs, as well.
There were even more exotic types: the 'Sagittarius', who fought with bow and arrow; the 'Dimachaerus', who held sword in each hand; the ominously named 'Scissor' ('carver') who fought with knives, and others still about which little is known.
It was important that these different types of gladiators be appropriately paired, the advantage of one being compensated for by the strength of the other.
There could be no supposed 'virtue' in defeating a weaker opponent.
Gladiators were to be evenly matched but not identically so, although many matches were 'fixed' in order to produce a spectacular, and usually bloody result.
Each type had its own particular weapons, strategies, and skills, and only by comparison could they be demonstrated.

VENUES

Gladiatorial Games originally had taken place in the Forum Romanum, where temporary wooden stands were erected.

Temporary Wooden Amphitheatre

According to Cassius Dio, Julius Caesar, "built a kind of hunting-theatre of wood, which was called an amphitheatre from the fact that it had seats all around without any stage" (XLIII.22.3).
Occasionally, such structures, being made of wood, collapsed, killing hundreds, even thousands, of those who had come to witness the death of others.
During the reign of Tiberius, a wooden amphitheatre gave way and buried either twenty thousand (Suetonius) or fifty thousand (Tacitus) spectators.
The first permanent amphitheatre in Rome dates to the consulship of Octavian Augustus, in 30 BC.

Ludus Magnus - Rome

Holding as many as fifty thousand spectators, the largest and most magnificent of the amphitheatres was the 'Amphitheatrum Flavium', or 'Colosseum', which was begun by Vespasian and inaugurated by Titus in AD 80 with games that lasted one-hundred days.
Domitian (AD 81-96) completed the elaborate substructure of ramps and pulley-drawn cages which allowed animals to be introduced through trapdoors into the arena (from harena, the sand used to absorb the spilled blood).
Domitian established also four nearby schools,
The largest of these, the Ludus Magnus, was connected to the amphitheatre by an underground passage.
Each had its own oval arena and seating so one could watch the gladiators train.

OVERVIEW

The sponsorship of the Games was prestigious, and an expected part of what Juvenal calls 'bread and circuses' (panem et circenses).
Eventually nearly a million people inhabited the city of Rome, a sizeable portion of them, because of slavery, unemployed.
For their amusement, there were baths, theatres, and circuses, including the Circus Maximus.
After Domitian, sponsorship of the Games in Rome was jealously retained by the Emperor, who alone could present such spectacles in the city.
Fighters usually confronted one another in single combat, but there were also occasional massed duels, sometimes between hundreds of pairs.

'Advertisement ' for a Ludi

Public Games were presented perhaps ten or twelve days each year and often coincided with the celebration of the Saturnalia, and because the Games usually honoured the gods, they occurred much less frequently than theatre or circus performances.)
In Rome, no more than one hundred twenty pairs usually fought in any one Munus, which were advertised by professional sign painters ('scriptores'), and proclaimed by heralds.

Pompa - Games for Vespasian

Programs were made available; there was betting (strictly illegal).
On the day of the Games, the gladiators were ceremoniously led into the amphitheatre, and paraded around the arena (Pompa) before presenting themselves at the Pulvinar (Imperial Box).
Before the games as such could commence, appropriate sacrifices were made to the presiding God, or Gods, and the auspices were taken.
Preliminary events included bloodless, sometimes farcical, duels between 'paegniarii', who fought with wooden weapons and whips.

Paegniarii

The weapons to be used by the gladiators were demonstrated to be sharp and lethal, lots were drawn, and the war trumpet sounded.
Then the Games as such began.
Together with the sound of flutes, horns and a water organ, there were shouts of encouragement from the lanista.

Hydraulis - Water Organ

When a man went down, if able, the wounded gladiator would lay down his shield and raise his index finger, usually of the left hand, to plea for mercy, from his opponent.
The spectators in many cases would signify their approval or otherwise.
As patron of the Games and the most conspicuous member there, it was the Editor or Emperor who made the final decision.
Even if defeated, a gladiator might be granted a reprieve (missus) if he fought well or, if neither fighter prevailed, both could be reprieved 'stans missus'.
But a gladiator also could be forced to fight again the same day, although that was considered 'bad form', and there were contests in which no reprieve was granted the loser ('ad morte' or 'sine missione').

Dead Gladiator in the Spoliarium

Victors were often awarded crowns or a palm branch, and were given nominal prize money, as well as any money awarded by the crowd, which was collected on a silver tray.
The dead fighters were taken away through the 'Porta Libitinensis' to the 'Spoliarium', where they were stripped of their armour, weapons and clothing, which were returned to the gladiatorial Ludus.
Victors exited through another gate, the 'Porta Sanavivaria'.
If a gladiator repeatedly survived the arena and lived long enough to retire, a symbolic wooden sword (rudis) was awarded as a token of discharge from service.

CONCLUSIONS

The Roman Gladiator

Not surprisingly, the Roman Gladiator held a morbid fascination for the Roman people.
Their blood was considered a remedy against impotence, and the bride whose hair had been parted by the spear of a defeated gladiator was thought to enjoy a fertile married life.
Although their lives were brutal and short, gladiators quite often were admired for their bravery, and endurance.

Gladiator Oil Lamp

In forfeiting their lives in the arena, the gladiator was thought to honour the Gods, and glory was what it could offer in return.
They were depicted in mosaics, on lamps and funerary monuments, and were the object of graffiti.
But, even in victory, gladiators remained 'infamis'.
They were legally outcasts of society, and were regarded no differently than criminals or members of other shameful professions (cf. Tacitus, Annals, I.76, commenting on Drusus, who took pleasure in the shedding of blood "however vile").
Certainly, Rome was cruel.
Defeated enemies and criminals forfeited any right to a place within society, although they still might be saved ('servare') from the death they deserved, and be made slaves ('servi').
Because the life of the slave was forfeit, there was no question but that it could be claimed at any time.
The 'paterfamilias' of the family had absolute control over the lives of his slaves (and little less over those of his wife and children).
In the army, 'decimation' (executing every tenth man) was the consequence of cowardice.

Public Execution

The plague was ever present, as was the capricious whim of an Emperor.
Beyond the city walls, and the 'pomerium' (a religious demarcation of the city's boundary), nature threatened.
The gladiatorial shows were part of this culture of war, discipline, and death.
The public execution of those who did not submit to Rome, betrayed their country, or were convicted of various crimes vividly demonstrated the consequences of those actions.
In a society that was deeply stratified (including seating in the Amphitheatre), the usurpation of undeserved rights could be rectified only by public degradation and death.
Having rejected civilized society, the criminal no longer could claim its protection from the forces of nature, and so is given up to them: to the wild beast (ad bestias), to consuming fire (ad flammas), or to bloody violence.

'Lacerated Limbs - Dripping Gore'

As Martial writes, "His lacerated limbs lived on, dripping gore, and in all his body, body there was none.
Finally he met with the punishment he deserved; the guilty wretch had plunged a sword into his father's throat or his master's, or in his madness had robbed a temple of its secret gold, or laid a cruel torch to Rome" (De Spectaculus, IX).
In publicly witnessing such punishment, citizens were reassured that the proper social order has been restored and they, themselves, deterred from such actions.
In this display, the Games reaffirmed the moral and political order of things, by the death of criminals, the real and symbolic re-establishment of a society under threat.
In the arena, civilization triumphed over the wild and untamed - over the outlaw, the barbarian, and the enemy.
The gladiator demonstrated the power to overcome death, and hopefully instilled in those who witnessed it the Roman virtues of courage and discipline.
He who did not fight and die bravely dishonoured the society that sought to redeem him.

Mastering the Moment of Death

There was no sympathy, therefore, for the gladiator who valued his life too highly and flinched at the point of the sword.
If not to have triumphed over his opponent, the defeated gladiator was expected, at least, to attempt to master the moment of his death.
Not to do so, as often happened, reduced the gladiator to a pathetic 'victim'.
In witnessing how men faced the necessity of dying, in viewing the fate they feared, themselves, Romans confronted their own mortality and in a way triumphed.
In attempting to fight courageously and skilfully, the gladiator might just demonstrate sufficient valour to win salvation.
For the gladiator, the measure of his valour was a measure of the desperation of the circumstances in which it was acquired, and, paradoxically, if he could fight in contempt of life and glory, there was the possibility that he could regain them both.
At the time, only Seneca protested the carnage of the arena; most other Roman authors were silent or approving.

A NEW THEORY OF THE ROMAN LUDI

Epic Gladiator Films

Academics are not always very well paid

One way to dramatically increase their income is to either make documentaries for TV or DVD companies – and another way is to publish a ‘startling new theory' – overturning previously accepted paradigms.

The route to documentary making is the one favoured by many academics in the field of Classical studies, particularly as a result of the new interest in ‘epic’ and 'gladiator' films.

The other route - the 'startling new theory' - is often less lucrative, but more easily open to those who are not so naturally ‘photogenic’.

A ‘startling new theory’ regarding 'Ludi' (Games) and gladiators, has been recently put forward.

It suggests that fights to the death between enslaved gladiators never happened, (and should we ever say ‘never’).

Professional Wrestlers:

American Footballer

The 'theory' suggests that the fighters in the arena would have far more in common with the overblown histrionics of modern-day 'premier league footballers', or 'professional wrestlers': highly trained, overpaid and pampered professionals with throngs of groupies - and an interest in not getting too badly injured.

The 'new theory' suggests that gladiatorial combat should not be seen as related to killing and the shedding of blood, but rather that it was viewed by the Romans as an entertaining ‘martial art’, that was spectator-oriented.

The 'theory' focuses on fighting methods used by pairs of gladiators in one-to-one combat, as opposed to mass battles or staged events, and examined a number of images that show combat, such as a gladiator pinning his opponent, his shield and sword on the ground.

Oil Lamp Depicting Gladiators

Such gladiatorial art adorns many kinds of Roman artefacts, from lamps, gems and pottery to large-scale wall paintings, mosaics and marble reliefs.

Two uses of the Letter Theta - Roman Mosaic

Interestingly, (and contrary to this 'new theory') there are many images, both in the form of mosaics, wall-paintings and graffiti that appear to provide incontrovertible evidence that gladiators were killed in the arena.

The Romans used the Greek alphabetical character 'theta', (theta is the first letter of the Greek word θάνατος - thanatos - translated as death), as an abbreviation for the word 'death', 'dead' or 'killed'.

Theta

It is believed that Romans marked their 'Games programs' with this sign, keeping a track of which combatants were killed - possibly in relation to their (officially illegal) betting activities.

On contemporary Roman images, (usually mosaics) this sign often appears, in many cases accompanied by the name of the combatant concerned - and here is evidence, if such were needed, that combatants were often killed in the arena, and that such contests were not 'staged', 'phoney' encounters, so beloved of present day 'pro-wrestling' organisations.

Now it has also been suggested that only 'noxii' were killed in the arena.

Two uses of the Letter Theta - Roman Mosaic

While it is true that 'noxii' were executed in the arena, they were not given elaborate gladiatorial clothing and equipment, as is shown in images such as those presented here - so the images in question, irrefutably showing dead gladiators, and do not in most cases represent 'noxii'.

We would suggest (as illustrated in the 'Story of Gracchus') that the activities staged in the arena were 'deadly serious', in both senses of the word, with profound political, cultural and particularly religious implications - and any 'entertainment value' was simply a 'by product', unplanned and unsought for.

The recent theory that gladiators were not killed in the arena also goes on to suggest that gladiators must have represented a massive capital outlay for their owners - (a suggestion that can be easily disputed – see below).

If this were true, then the theory suggests that it would make no sense at all for the gladiators, at such cost, to be killed in combat, because it would be like 'throwing money away', (which, of course,

Marcus Octavianus Gracchus

Naked Gladiators - Roman Mosaic

Roman aristocrats were often quite happy to do – as many of them were fabulously wealthy - like Marcus Octavianus Gracchus, the 'hero' of the 'Story of Gracchus').

Gladiators, the 'theory' suggests were meant (by whom ?) to be ‘recognised’ (to what purpose ?), in a similar way to the famous sports-people of today, and they had great status, comparable to the highest levels of present day professional athletes.
The main reason, of course, for the high profile of many professional athletes in the modern world is that there is a vast industry providing books, magazines, DVDs, movies, TV programs, clothes and sporting equipment - all of which rely on the fame and status of such individuals.
In Rome - while there were a few oil lamps, clay figurines and such like - there was no massive industry providing the gladiators, or their owners with such a 'rake-off'.
In addition, gladiators, and other performers in the arena while being in some cases admired by plebs, (briefly), were considered to be of the lowest strata in society.

It should be noted here that in ancient Roman culture, there was a class of individuals known as 'infamia' (in-, 'not,' and fama, 'reputation' - 'people of no reputation').

These individuals were defined as suffering a loss of legal or social standing.

As a technical term of Roman law, 'infamia' was an official exclusion from the legal protections enjoyed by a Roman citizen, as imposed by a censor or praetor.

More generally, especially during the Republic and Principate, 'infamia' was informal damage to one's esteem or reputation.

A person who suffered 'infamia' was an 'infamis' (plural 'infames').

'Infamia' was an 'inescapable consequence' for certain professionals, including prostitutes and pimps, entertainers such as actors and dancers, and 'gladiators' (who, according to this 'new theory' had 'great status').
(All the performers in Gracchus' amphitheatre, in 'the Story of Gracchus', were, by definition, 'infames'.)

'Infames' could not, for instance, provide testimony in a court of law.

They were liable to corporal punishment, which was usually reserved for slaves (and they often were slaves).

A passive homosexual who was 'outed' might also be subject to social 'infamia', though if he was a citizen he might retain his legal standing.

The reason for these groups to be singled out and despised as 'infames' was related to Roman views mainly regarding aspects of sexuality and autonomy.

Mime - Using the Body in Performances - Unclothed

All the 'professions' listed above (with the exception possibly of pimps - although they were 'facilitators') practised their 'art' by using their body in public - and in most cases all or part of that body was exposed.

This was completely contrary to the Roman sense of decency and decorum - as related to freeborn citizens.

While it was acceptable for slaves to behave in such ways, it was not permitted for citizens.

(Adult Roman citizens would not even dance in private - let alone in public - hence the problem with the emperor Nero performing in various ways).

Even actors and 'mimes' were included, because, apart from the fact that they may appear partly or even completely unclothed, they would also allow themselves to speak and act as persons other than themselves, and this also was considered to be reprehensible, and a denial of ones autonomy.

So much, therefore, for the claim that gladiators had 'great status'.

This 'new theory' also suggests that gladiators, and other combatants, were a financial liability if, at any time that they stepped into the arena, they could be killed.

This obsession (within this 'new theory') that gladiators, (or any other type of combatants in the arena) were an exceptionally valuable investment reveals a lack of understanding of the basic economic facts of the ancient world.

It is true that gladiators were, by and large, 'privately owned', and so the vast majority were, by definition, slaves.

The first significant point arising from this fact is that those who appeared in the arena were not paid - either during their training or when they were 'performing' – (slaves were not paid - and any money or gifts that they did receive as a result of their (successful) performances technically and legally belonged to their master) - so such performers might, on winning a contest, have been paid a small sum of ‘prize money’ (small to the owner - but seemingly large to a slave).

Gladiator Trainer
Note the Slave Collar

Surprisingly (perhaps), the gladiator's training cost their master next to nothing, as their trainers were also slaves (who were not paid).

The doctors, and masseurs who attended the trainees and performers were slaves – (and were therefore not paid).

The dieticians, cooks cleaners, guards, armourers accountants and whatever, at the gladiatorial schools were slaves, (and were not paid).

This of course was the economic motivation behind the entire institution of slavery.

Food, wine, oil for lamps, clothing and weapons and armour all had to be paid for (unless the master produced the items from his own estates, using slave labour) – but for most of these items costs were minimal – and by and large, the owners were fabulously wealthy, and these costs meant next to nothing to them.

Beautiful (Educated) Boys

The only real cost was the initial purchase of the slaves.

The most expensive slaves to buy in Roman society were beautiful, (and often well educated), boys, (in some cases literally worth their weight in gold).

Attractive teenage girls, (mainly used for high class, private sex), came next on the list.

After that came well educated Greek male slaves – artists, sculptors, architects, engineers, doctors, teachers, - even chefs and hairdressers, and those who could be trained to manage businesses.

Further down the list would come suave male slaves, and well trained female slaves, to act as household and personal slaves.

Coming quite near the bottom of the price list would be strong, healthy young male slaves who could be used for security, as bodyguards – also manual workers – and possibly also as gladiators, wrestlers or boxers.

The fact that must be borne in mind, however, is that after the purchase, (and that would not involve a large outlay for purchasing a boy who could be 'trained up' as a performer in the arena), the further costs were minimal – and the returns for the owner could be considerable.

follow the link below for more information about slaves in ancient Rome:

SLAVERY IN ANCIENT ROME

(THE ROMAN PRINCIPATE)

The 'new theory' also suggests that gladiators were entertainers, ‘sports stars’, and they were the 'privately owned, pampered 'stars' of their day.

Presumably 'privately owned', means that such 'stars' were in fact 'slaves', as only slaves could be owned - and slaves were at the bottom of the social pile (see above) - so they were hardly 'stars', but rather just chattels.)

It has also been suggested, as part of this 'new theory', that they did not go into the arena to die, because they cost far too much for that to happen on anything like a regular basis - and that Senators, wealthy businessmen and emperors were hardly going to have their best sporting stars butchered in the arena to appease the masses.

It has also been suggested that the only people that, died were those who were sent into the arena to be executed, and that they were prisoners, convicts, criminals, and those captured in wars and skirmishes.

Noxii - Executed in a Mythological Tableaux - 'Prometheus'

What, of course, is being described here are, once again, ‘noxii’ - and to a certain extent this is correct – but those captured in war and skirmishes became – in most cases – slaves, and were therefore a prime source for the gladiatorial schools.

The problem with the theory that gladiators rarely died in the arena, however, is in imagining that the modern concept of the ‘sports stars’ could be a concept relevant to, or even understood in Roman society.

There is literary evidence (particularly grafitti) that some Romans (male and female, patricians and plebs), did become infatuated and obsessed with some arena performers - but such attitudes were generally considered pathetic and unacceptable, as any form of adulation of a slave - an 'infamia' was considered ridiculous and demeaning.

As can be seen, this bears no relationship to the present day admiration for usually exceptionally wealthy and influential modern 'sports-stars'.

As an aside - as part of this ‘startling new theory', it is suggested that Ancient literature, indicates that attending gladiator fights was considered a more ‘intellectual’(?) pastime than going to the theatre, with fights promoting principles of bravery and honour, while drama was just 'entertainment'.

This, however, is a gross (and common) misunderstanding of the original literary sources.

Killing During Etruscan Funeral Games

The excuse that gladiatorial combat, etc. promoted principles of bravery and honour was a common excuse given by the Roman upper classes for the maintaining of the tradition of the Ludi – and their attendance at such displays.

However, this further suggestion 'torpedoes' the initial, and essential contention of the 'new theory', namely that the combats were not 'ad mortem' (to the death) - but just 'entertainment'.

If no one was in danger of being killed, where was the bravery and honour on the part of those competing ?

The one important and essential fact, however, that this 'new theory' ignores is in the matter of the origins of the Ludi (Games), and the gladiatorial contests.

As has been stated before in this article and in previous articles in this blog, 'gladiatorial' contests probably had their origins in either Eturia or Samnium (or both areas), taking the form of 'munera' - which were a form of 'funeral games' - probably derived from Greek practices.

follow the link below for more information:

THE ETRUSCANS

For the Romans, the purpose of the Funeral Games was to provide a 'blood sacrifice' to placate the infernal spirits - a blood sacrifice that was the result of the deaths of at least one of the combatants - 'swordsman' (in Latin, a gladiator - from 'gladius' - a sword).

'Di Manes'

The 'di inferi' or 'dii inferi' - ('the gods below') were a shadowy collective of ancient Roman deities associated with death and the underworld.

The epithet 'inferi' is also given to the mysterious 'Manes'.

The 'Manes' or 'Di Manes' are chthonic deities thought to represent souls of deceased loved ones.
They were associated with the Lares, Lemures, Genii, and Di Penates, as deities that pertained to domestic, local, and personal cults.

Freshly Shed Human Blood

The 'munera' was a 'service' given to these deities in the form of freshly shed human blood - the blood of captives or slaves (often much the same).

So, at the very core of the Roman Games (ludi) were the deaths of gladiators - the contests 'ad mortem' - to the death.

Such contests were sanctioned and demanded by the 'mos maiorum' - the unwritten tradition of the ancestors.

According to Suetonius: "All new that is done contrary to the usage and the customs of our ancestors, seems not to be right."

However, because the 'mos maiorum' was a matter of custom, not written law, the complex norms that it embodied evolved over time - and the 'Munera' (Funeral Games) evolved into the 'Ludi'.

The ability to preserve a strongly-centralised sense of identity while it adapted to changing circumstances permitted the expansionism that took Rome from city-state to world power.

The preservation of the 'mos maiorum' depended on consensus and moderation among the ruling elite.

Gladiators - Roman Relief

An essential part of the 'mos maiorum' was the tradition of the 'Munera' and the 'Ludi' - and the combats 'ad mortem' - (to the death).

The 'new theory' discussed here is - it seems - just another example of projecting our preconceptions and assumptions onto an era that - as has been stated previously - was radically different - in almost every way - to the present day.

Repeatedly events in the past are misrepresented - and sometimes deliberately.

Roman historians, such as Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, and Publius (or Gaius) Tacitus, (to name but two),writing long after the times of the subjects that the were defaming, endlessly twisted 'facts' in order to satisfy their aristocratic and republican prejudices.

Religion Superstition, Blood
and Death.

Or, in another context, read an account of the Napoleonic period by a French author, and then an English author, and you would be forgiven for thinking that the 'Napoleon' that they were writing about were two completely different individuals.

Equally, even the recent history of the Second World War has been appallingly distorted by the 'victorious' powers.

Equally, in our own time, the Romans were depicted (particularly in the fifties and sixties) as 'freedom trampling' precursors of National Socialism or Communism, persecuting both Jews and Christians (and all 'freedom loving peoples').

Now, with the rise of 'political correctness', the Romans are being presented, in this 'new theory', as benevolent 'common sense entrepreneurs', providing healthy, 'star-studded' entertainment for the 'fun-loving' Roman populace.

The error is - as always, in projecting our prejudices onto the past - and projecting images of previous cultures back to ourselves that we will find acceptable to our current mores, and sense of 'political correctness'.

To reiterate - the Romans were not just 'guys like us' - dressed in togas.

They lived in a totally different world, materially, psychologically and spiritually, and the Ludi are a prime example of this 'other world' of alien religion, superstition, blood and death.

for a more detailed explanation regarding the origin of gladiatorial combat

and the relationship between deaths in the arena and the Roman concepts of munera, ritual and sacrifice go to: