Fight to the death?

[floofthegoof]

It seems to be common knowledge that Romans liked to watch people die in the arena. I've heard this practice goes back to the Etruscans.

Ok, I've read a whole bunch of ancient sources, Livy, Polybius, Appian etc. regarding Roman republican times and, while there's much talk about 'the games', I have not yet seen a single indication that these games were pre-determined to involve deadly combat. It is remarkable to me that I have seen nothing after all that reading and looking for it. I suppose that it may have seemed so normal to the ancients as to be deemed not worthy of recording. We have old pictures of guys fighting and falling down, but are those swords made of wood by chance?

When do we first see *proof* in the sources that men went into the arena with the purpose of killing other men or to die trying? I haven't read much about the empire just yet. I'm getting the impression that death in the arena is an imperial thing.

[Martin Moser]

You may want to read the "Did the Gladiators fight to the death?" thread further down in this forum ->

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=3448

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

It was believed for quite a long time that the origin of the gladiator games were Etruscan because there were frescoes showing a blindfolded person which is attacked by a dog. When comparing such a thing to the Roman outcome of spectacles this would refer more to the damnatio ad bestias of noxii. Nowadays it's believed that the origins lie more in Campania (the region around Naples) where the first gladiator schools (ludi) were founded.

The gladiatorial combats were never part of the Public and Imperial games (also called ludi) which included the circus races and theater shows. The first gladiators appeared at funerals of wealthy people and were called bustuarii because they fought next to the funeral pyre which was called bustum. These were fights to the death because the blood spilled was believed to becalm the spirits of the deceased.

The first recorded gladiator games in Rome were in the year 264 BCE when Decimus Junius Brutus honored his late father. Of course these weren't the first ones, but the first recorded ones.

According to Susanna Shadrake in her book The World of the Gladiator there were more fights to the death in the Republic than in the first century CE while in the later Empire there were again more fights sine missione.

There were several ways about the outcome of a gladiatorial fight: The first was that one of the opponents was killed in the fight, the second that he got wounded and made a sign that he surrenders. Then it was up to the editor of the games (in most cases the Emperor) to decide if the gladiator could leave (missio), though he acted a bit upon the opinion of the audience. - BTW thumbs up or thumbs down is a modern Hollywood interpretation based on the picture "pollice verso" by Jean-Léon Gérôme. What the actual sign for "iugula" (kill him) was is not totally clear. - If a defeated gladiator left the arena he still could die of his severe wounds though. A very rare occasion was stante missio where both parties fought so well and equal that there was no decision but a draw and that both could leave the arena living. This counted as much as a victory if not more.

I hope to have answered your questions. For further reading I could highly recommend the following books:

Susanna Shadrake "The World of the Gladiator"
Thomas Wiedemann "Emperors and Gladiators"
Köhne, Ewigleben "Caesars and Gladiators"
Marcus Junkelmann "Das Spiel mit dem Tod - So kämpften Roms Gladiatoren" (unfortunately only in German)

[floofthegoof]

Thanks for the replies. It seems that there is some healthy skepticism regarding the nature of death in the arena.

The reason the lack of literary evidence makes me wonder about this, is that often on TV documentaries much is made regarding the huge difference between modern moral sensibilities and ancient ones, and the idea that people lusted for blood in the arena is always used as a prime example of this difference. However, from my readings, I get a strong sense that Roman morals were much more like our own than is often claimed. They valued strength and justice, and despised cruelty for it's own sake. Even though they handed down swift and severe punishments, it was for the good of all, and not a matter of entertainment.

When two men go at it with metal swords and shields, someone is going to die. If you replace those swords with wooden ones, survival is more likely but serious injuries and even death is still possible. I bet they used blunted weapons. I think I have heard that when a gladiator won his freedom, he received a wooden sword. Was that a symbol that he would not have to use sharp ones anymore or perhaps the wooden sword was just a momento of his fighting days?

[tlclark]

There is some evidence that once a gladiator reached a certain level of fame, a lot of the battles were likely to be staged/choreographed for the best effect. No one wanted to kill a valuable commodity.

That hardly diminished the level of bloodshed in the arena. Public venatia/hunts, spectacles, mass executions were very common and just as popular.

Travis

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

The reason the lack of literary evidence makes me wonder about this, is that often on TV documentaries much is made regarding the huge difference between modern moral sensibilities and ancient ones, and the idea that people lusted for blood in the arena is always used as a prime example of this difference. However, from my readings, I get a strong sense that Roman morals were much more like our own than is often claimed. They valued strength and justice, and despised cruelty for it's own sake. Even though they handed down swift and severe punishments, it was for the good of all, and not a matter of entertainment.

The Romans lived in a totally different environment than we do, death was more common, due to high mortality rates. Death punishments for capital offences were also quite common, still in the Medieval times people gathered around the gallows pole. The noxii condemned ad bestias or ad gladium were not Roman citizens but prisoners of war, foreigners or slaves. Romans who'd a capital offence were executed quickly by the sword or sent to exile outside the Imperium Romanum.

The cruelty shown against animals in the venationes were a sign that Rome conquered the world, and not just the people but also nature. Leftovers of the venationes are the corridas in Spain. I - with my 21st century morals - of course object strongly venationes and the displays of the noxii because there neither the animal nor the noxii didn't had any chance to survive while the gladiator in his fight could take his life in his own hand.

When two men go at it with metal swords and shields, someone is going to die.

Not necessarily as I'd explained above. There was a chance that even both combatants could survive.

If you replace those swords with wooden ones, survival is more likely but serious injuries and even death is still possible. I bet they used blunted weapons.

Wooden weapons and blunt weapons were used only in the prolusio where all gladiators entered the arena and showed their fighting skills. Then there were the paegniarii who did mock battles with wooden weapons and they would appear at intervals between the "slaughter" of the noxii and the appearance of the gladiators.

I think I have heard that when a gladiator won his freedom, he received a wooden sword. Was that a symbol that he would not have to use sharp ones anymore or perhaps the wooden sword was just a momento of his fighting days?

The rudis with an inscription was a symbol for the freed gladiator. He received it from the editor after his last fight. Of course it resembles the wooden excersise sword with which he trained during his career.[/i]

[tlclark]

Seneca particularly deplored the diabolical executions and punishments.

Some were condemned to "die like hercules" which we suspect means that they were put in clothes soaked in oil and set on fire.