Midterm Post

Part One:

I would first like to start by defining my issue in the ancient world. I have been looking at blood sport within the ancient world. The main subject of looking into blood sport is the gladiatorial games practiced by the Roman Empire. In looking at the games I have looked into the status and treatment of gladiators, as well as the lust or repulsiveness of the spectators in the crowd. These ideas shape the images of what gladiators were and what it was like to be consumed within the games, whether it is as a participant or a spectator. As I said I want to look at two parts of blood sports how the participant was treated and how spectators reacted to the violence of the games.

            One of the main reasons behind looking into this topic is the tendency of modern culture to romanticize thing from the past, especially the Roman Empire. Coming into researching gladiators I pictured them as the superstars of their day, kings of the arena, who were equals of those around them. Many of the websites that I first looked at portrayed this idea of the romanticized warrior. As I did further research I discovered that this was not entirely true. It was not as honorable and noble of a profession as I first thought though some of my preconceived notions had truth to them they were not as valid as first thought.

             In the book, “The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster,” by Carlin A. Barton, Professor Barton talks about the “The ‘Inverse Exaltation’ of the Roman Gladiator.” He talks of how the Romans had conflicting opinions about their opinions on gladiators. He uses a quote from Tertullian to discuss how the Romans could simultaneously exalt and degrade the gladiator.

Men give them their souls, women their bodies too…On one and the same account, they glorify them and degrade and diminish them—indeed, they openly condemn them to ignominy and the loss of civil rights, excluding them from the senate house and rostrum, the senatorial and equestrian orders, and all other honors or distinctions of any type. The perversity of it! Yet, they love whom they punish; they belittle whom they esteem, the art they glorify the artist they debase. What judgment is this: on account of that for which he is vilified, he is deem worthy of merit! (Tertullian, De spectaculis 22)

                This fact shows that my first idea of them being an idolized group of people has some truth to it. But Barton shows using Tertullian’s quote that despite this glorification they were still without civil liberties and were not citizens of the state of Rome. In this book Barton also talks about the sacramentum gladiatorium, the oath the gladiators took. The author comments how this truly was an awful oath, making the gladiator even less of an equal citizen then they already were. They swore to endure being burned, bound, beaten, and slain by the sword (“uni, vinciri, verberari, ferroque necari patior.”) In addition they forswore anything that would help their condition as well as life itself. This also helps to show how gladiator’s images were conflicting among citizens. The recited this awful oath to being killed but they gained respect from the Roman people for having reciting the oath and making themselves accepting of death. “The gladiator’s oath expresses the highest ideal and commitment of the virtuous man (the philosopher/soldier), a man sever and without hope or illusion; a man who escapes from the humiliations of being under compulsion through enthusiastic complicity.”

                I also used the book, “Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome,” as a great secondary source. In this book author Donald G. Kyle talks of how the games themselves were a spectacle. Where people would come to watch the games and have a love affair with the death of associated with the arena.

                My third secondary source that I have been reading has been “The Roman Games” by Alison Futruell. This book was mainly a compleation of many ancient sources. The author Alison Futruell uses these primary ancient sources to highlight the games themselves.

Part Two:

In addition to my secondary sources I have also looked into primary sources as well that help to showcase how gladiators were treated and how spectators viewed the games themselves. My first source comes from Seneca’s Epistles Volume I chapter VII, “On Crowds”

      I happened to go to one of these shows at the time of the lunch-hour interlude, expectiong there to be some light and wity entertainment then, some respite for the purpose of affording people’s eyes a rest from human blood. Far from it. All the earlier contests were charity in comparison. The nonsense is dispensed with now: what we have now is murder pure and simple. The combabtants have nothing to protect them; their whole bodies were exposed to the blows; every thrust they launch gets home…There are no helmets and no shields repelling the weapons. What is the point of armor? Or of skill? All that sort of thing just makes the death slower in coming…The spectators insist that each on killing his man shall be thrown against another to be killed in his turn; and the eventual victor is reserved by them from some other form of butchery; the only exit for the contestants is death. Fire and steel keep the slaughter going. And all this happens while the area is virtually empty.

               As Seneca states the thirst for blood of the Roman spectators was unmatched. He went to view the show at lunch time in order to see as less violent show as he figured people need a break from seeing their fellow human beings slain. But what he goes and finds is and even more graphic show, one with no shields or helmets. The fans make sure that everyone dies, making the winner of the one fight get right back up and continue to fight another opponent, their thirst for blood never quenched. 

               Another primary source I have been using to discover the ideas of the ancient gladiator was from Seneca’s essay, De Providentia (On Providence). I took a section of the essay that relates to the gladiators search for glory within death. 

Valor is avid for danger…since even what it must suffer is a part of glory. Warriors glory in their wounds and jubilantly display their flowing blood…The raw recruit turns pale at the thought of a wound, but the veteran looks undaunted upon his own gore

               The gladiators were men who showed no pain even when inflicted with wounds. Seneca tells of how the gladiator takes pride in their wounds, and “jubilantly” displays them to the crowd. The man who is new to being a gladiator shows his fear and becomes sick when even thinking about a wound but the veteran is not fazed.  This section of the essay also connects back to, “The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans,” Barton talks of, “how the gladiators love of death and enthusiastic cooperation in his own death,” redeems his honor with the crowd (Sorrows of the Ancient Romans, 24). By being unfazed by the sight of his own blood and wounds he again raises himself up to be idolized by the Roman citizens despite the fact that he is not even their equal.

This image is of a bronze candlestick with the image of a gladiator as its base. The artifact shows how despite not being citizens the gladiator still was a part of Roman society and even depicted in its art work.



These Roman Greaves, are ornatly decorated with images of a warrior. A gladiator would wear these into their fights in the arena.

This video just gives a brief overview of what it would be like inside the arena. The beginning of the video even quotes the oath the gladiators take when first entering the profession of gladiators. to endure being burned, bound, beaten, and slain by the sword (“uni, vinciri, verberari, ferroque necari patior.”)

Past and Present

Blood sport has a connection to modern day as well. The modern day example varies slightly from the ancients. The main difference is that today blood sport mainly deals with animals not humans. The best example I could use to protray gladiators in modern society is the sport of cock fighting. Cock fighting is the fighting between two male roosters, the fight is till one of the roosters gives up or one of the roosters is killed. The sport is outlawed in the United States but it is extremely popular in many Central and South American countries as well as the Carribiean.

The roosters have the same level of dignity as the gladiators of the ancient world. They are slaves of their masters, made to fight to the death for the ammusement of others and the monatary gain of their owners. They are seens as lowly animals, but just like the gladiators they have a degree of respect for the fact the fight with no regard for themselves accept for the pleasure of pleasing their owners.

Another key point about cock fighting that is similar to the ancient gladiatorial fights is the spectators that watch the games. In the ancient their were people who loved the games and people who thought the games were terrible. Many pagan Roman citizens loved the games, seeing them as a reflection of Romans physical and military power. They had a blood lust for the sport but also saw a little of the violence within them in the gladiators. The games were also a part of a culture that they loved. The opposing group were Christians in ancient Rome who saw the games as a terrible thing. Men killing men and animals just for the sake of killing was wasting life and going against the 10 comandments.

Present day has this very similar devide between groups of people. In Latin American countires like Mexico and the Dominican Republic, cock fighting is a huge event. Roosters are breed strictly for fighting. Large festivals include cock fights for the masses to see, with families attending the events. It is something that is apart of their culture and is very important to the people of this country. Many people in the United States see cock fighting as a terrible event. Innocent animals being slaughtered for the amusement of others, who have no say in how they are treated. This is very similar to the Pagans and Christians of ancient Rome.