Gladiators. Significance of Gladiatorial Combat - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: GLADIATORS Significance of Gladiatorial Combat Significance of Gladiatorial Combats Introduction According to Roman tradition, the first gladiatorial combats in Rome took place at the funeral of D. Iunius Brutus in 264 BC when his sons Decimus Iunius Brutus and Marcus presented three pairs of gladiators in the Forum Boarium (Edmondson, 1996). Yet Roman tradition itself denied that gladiatorial combats were Roman in origin. The first century BC historian, Nicolaus of Damascus, claims that the Romans borrowed the custom of gladiatorial combat from the Etruscans, and Suetonius preserves a tradition which held that the Etruscan king, Tarquinius Priscus, was first to introduce the spectacle to Rome (Futrell, 1997). G Ville in ‘La gladiature’ has argued that gladiation was of Osco-Samnite origin and then was adopted by the Etruscans at the end of the fourth century or early third BC from whom the Romans imported the custom (cited in Futrell 1997). Futrell, however, has criticized Ville's thesis and tentatively renewed the argument in favor of an Etruscan origin, while other have suggested that the Greeks in Campania may have influenced the development of Italian funerary games, including armed combat. But it is unlikely that gladiation came to Rome from a single source (cited in Futrell 1997). Furthermore, once adopted in Rome, the institution underwent significant changes and evolution. Whatever its origin or origins, roman gladiatorial combat was not a desperate and chaotic spectacle of killing and dying. Body For the last two hundred years of the republic, gladiatorial combats were presented in association with the funerals of great men. Tertullian states that these funerary gladiatorial combats evolved from actual human sacrifices at the tomb. The grammarian and commentator Servius likewise suggests that gladiatorial combat was a form of commuted human sacrifice (cited in MacMullen 1997). Both of these sources, however, are decidedly imperfect. Servius wrote in the fourth century AD and Tertullian was a Christian apologist, hostile to those Roman institutions which he felt were a threat to the church (MacMullen 1997). That Servius and Tertullian are imperfect sources does not necessarily mean that they are inaccurate, rather that they must be read with great care. Indeed, that Tertullian perceived gladiatorial combats as a threat indicates their religious significance. But the origins and nature of g1adiation were debatable even in antiquity, and there is little reason to suppose that we can uncover them today. We have already seen that conflicting opinions placed the source of g1adiation in either Campania or Etruria; likewise in antiquity there seems to have existed a debate over whether or not gladiatorial combat was a form of human sacrifice. For example, a passage in the Historia Augusta provides the two sides of this debate: there were some who believed that gladiatorial combats given before a military campaign were a form of human sacrifice meant to appease Nemesis and ensure victory in the impending war, while others believed that the sight of combat, wounds, and death were primarily intended to desensitize the soldiers and prepare them for battle (Versnel, 1996; Futrell, 1997). Some scholars have renewed the argument for gladiatorial combats as a form of human sacrifice (Versnel, 1996; Futrell, 1997). The truth, however, probably lies somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, it is difficult to deny the religiosity of gladiatorial combats; during the republic, they were fought in connection with the funerals of great men, while during the empire they came to be associated with the imperial cult. In this connection, we may also consider the ritual significance of a gladiator's blood (Futrell, 1997). On the other hand, the bloody and often fatal nature of gladiatorial combat readily lent itself to interpretation-or reinterpretation-as human sacrifice, especially by those who would attack the institution, and this ought to rouse our suspicions. Rives has shown that the charge of human sacrifice was part of a larger Greek and Roman discourse on the nature of civilization and barbarism. He has convincingly argued that charges and counter­charges of the practice of human sacrifice between pagans and Christians are not historically reliable accounts, but rather attempts to assert cultural superiority and to isolate and malign their opponents (cited in Rives, 1995). Potter (1999) has pointed out that, while Greek and Roman antiquity did know and occasionally practice human sacrifice, the ceremony was performed either by binding the victim and cutting his throat or by burying him alive. Gladiatorial combat does not resemble established forms of ancient human sacrifice. If indeed an important funerary rite, why did not every Roman compel cheap slaves to fight and die at family funerals as a human sacrifice to their departed relative? The association with the death of great men, may hold the key to a partial understanding of the significance of gladiatorial combats in Roman society. Especially during the early republic, the loss of such important men-the civic and military leaders-was felt not by the family of the deceased alone, but by the entire community (Flower, 1996). Polybius, in comparing Carthaginian and Roman capabilities, describes a Roman funeral as an institution which inculcated in the Roman youth the proper ethics and ambitions and as a result fostered Roman strength (cited in Flower, 1996). On the death of a great man, his son or another relative praised not only the deceased, but also his illustrious ancestors whose images were present in their death masks and the insignia of the curule offices, such as consul, censor, triumphator, which they had held. For Polybius, there was no more ennobling spectacle to inspire the youth than images of great Romans from the past assembled in their glory as if living and breathing. The spectacle of past leaders was a dramatic embodiment of what it meant to be a Roman (Flower, 1996). Polybius then claims that their institutions, such as the funeral, motivated Romans to extreme acts of bravery in defense of their homeland and supports his belief by saying that many Romans willingly risked their own lives in single combat to decide a battle or to save the lives of their fellow citizens. Polybius cites the bravery of Horatius Cocles who died holding a bridge across the Tiber and concludes his discussion of the Roman funeral saying. The funeral of a great man in Rome provided a spectacle which went beyond the commemoration of the deceased and was instead a means for the whole community to admire and recreate itself at a time of potential crisis (Flower, 1996). In a society perennially at war, militarism was a central feature of the Roman value system, especially skill at and courage in hand-to-hand combat (Woolf, 1993). Indeed, in Polybius' discussion of the Roman funeral, the fact that the young men were eager to demonstrate their bravery in battle and risk their lives clearly implies that the traditional values especially extolled at a funeral were military. For Rome, success in war ultimately depended on the individual courage and abilities of each Roman legionnaire especially in hand-to-hand combat, for the legion was a loose and flexible formation designed to allow each soldier space enough to fight with his sword and defend himself with his own shield. It was standard Roman strategy to keep a force in reserve which would enter the battle as soon as the enemy formation had begun to dissolve (Plass, 1995). Combat, especially that experienced by and expected of a Roman soldier, thus demanded extreme courage and skill with arms in hand-to-hand combat. A battle was not conceived as mass formation against mass formation, but the sum of multiple combats fought and experienced individually (Plass, 1995). In addition to the personal nature of combat as experienced by the Roman legionary, however, soldiers, typically from elite families, often engaged in ostentatious single combat before the assembled armies (Wiedemann, 1996; Oakley, 1985). All examples of such single combat appear in the sources as a prelude to battle, fought before the assembled armies and, since in every known instance the Roman was victorious, the demonstration of courage and skill served to inspire the soldiers who watched and who soon were themselves engaged in battle (Oakley, 1985). The concept, indeed the reality, of single combat was thus familiar to every Roman soldier, not only as individually experienced in combat, but also as a relatively common ostentatious display by two men before the assembled armies (Oakley, 1985). Livy describes a number of instances in which soldiers engaged in single combat, and seems to have conceived and presented the episode as a sort of gladiatorial spectacle. For example, the consul Valerius led a charge against the Samnites and by the sight of his success in single combat his troops were inspired to advance (Cited in Leigh, 1997). Even the memorable combat of Titus Manlius with the enormous Gaul is described by Livy as a sort of gladiatorial spectacle (Leigh, 1997). Other episodes involving single combat are likewise presented as a spectaculum in which the soldiers watch the combat as spectators and, inspired by the example of skill and courage, themselves engage more eagerly in battle following the example presented to them (Leigh, 1997). The legendary spolia opima were the spoils dedicated by a Roman commander who had slain an enemy commander in single combat. The right to spolia opima was among the highest military honors awarded a Roman commander. Standards of proper Roman behavior illustrating central values and mores were demonstrated by great Romans often of the past and held up as models to be admired and imitated (Edmondson, 1996). Examples of noble deeds provided the best form of inculcation in Roman values and cultural priorities, for the Romans thought it best to learn by observing great examples rather than simply follow abstract precepts. The best deeds to follow were those of Rome's idealized ancestors who, by demonstrating their values through their words and deeds, provided the best examples for later Romans to emulate (Edmondson, 1996). Gladiatorial combat offered similar examples, especially of martial excellence. Gladiators displayed skill with weapons in hand-to-hand combat, extreme and ostentatious bravery in the face of serious pain and mortal injury, and the discipline and self-restraint needed to accept death resolutely should they die or be required to, all of which were examples of perfect military virtues, and identical to the virtues essential to a Roman soldier. The spectaculum of single combat, whether a prelude to battle or a gladiatorial match, thus served as a sort of exemplum, a demonstration of the proper military virtues expected from a Roman soldier and an inspiration to those virtues (Hopkins, 1983). Kyle (1998) has argued that the "symbolic dynamics" of gladiatorial combat in Roman society emerged in the wake of the Roman disaster at Cannae in 216 BC. This momentous disaster and the resultant insecurity helped to cement the ideology of military values in Roman society as a whole. Even slave volunteers were preferable to free born soldiers who had failed their oath and surrendered to the enemy in order to preserve their life, and indeed the senate, although Rome was now facing a shortage of manpower, refused to ransom those soldiers who had been taken prisoner by Hannibal preferring instead to arm slave volunteers (Kyle, 1998). Through virtue and fidelity to their oaths even the lowliest of men could serve Rome by fighting and by inspiring free young recruits (Kyle, 1998). These spectacles were not presented strictly to soldiers, but to the citizens of Rome. The military significance of g1adiation does not mean that all Romans were expected to train or to fight in hand-to-hand combat, but rather that the virtues essential to the Roman soldier were also fundamental to Roman identity. Yet the values demonstrated and praised were the same as those which also made the institution so relevant to the soldier. The spectacle of gladiatorial combat could serve as an exemplum to demonstrate courage, to instill the desire for glory, and to inspire these traits in all Roman spectators (Wiedemann, 1992). Indeed, this idea of gladiatorial combat as exemplum was also taken up by Seneca, but specifically as a metaphor for stoicism. The gladiator ideally demonstrated the Courage, and indifference to death, which were basic tenants of the stoic philosophy; although an outcast from society, the gladiator could nevertheless win glory through his courage, training, discipline, and his disdain for death. The gladiator personified the stoic maxim, and provided a model for Romans to emulate. The concept of gladiatorial single combat was a common theme developed in many literary works, such as the Bellum Civile of Lucan, the history of Livy, and even the Aeneid of Vergil (Barton, 1993). The exempla presented in a gladiatorial munus demonstrated and symbolized several of the key values in Roman society. That these exempla were presented in association with the funeral of a great man suggests that gladiatorial combat was an edifying celebration meant more for the living than the dead, a demonstration of the values that had made Romans great and that would see them through the present crisis to prosper in the future (Futrell, 1997). Indeed, this reading of the institution explains its gradual dissociation from its funerary context during the late republic and especially early empire. The munus had its own significance apart from death. It was an entertaining and popular means of celebrating traditional Roman values. During the late republic, the presentation of gladiatorial combats became increasingly politicized as ambitious politicians in Rome during the late republic often waited to present a munus until a politically more opportune time, typically when in office as aedile. For example, in 65 BC as aedile, Caesar presented a munus in memory of his father who had died 20 years earlier, and in 52 BC with Pompey in ascendency, Caesar again announced a munus, this time in memory of his daughter Julia who had died two years earlier. Aware of the popularity such spectacles engendered, Augustus took steps to control their presentation (Wiedemann 1992). In 22 BC, he transferred responsibility for the production and presentation of the official ludi from the aediles and consuls to the praetors and stipulated that they were to be given a subvention from the state to cover partial costs of the games, the balance being their own responsibility. Perhaps at this same time he also required two of the praetors, drawn by lot, to provide an annual munus, though again they were given a sum from the state treasury. He did not ban private munera, but seems to have limited their size and frequency and required those presenting to seek senatorial approval. Furthermore, by the early principate, gladiatorial combats had come to be presented primarily in association with venationes and executions (Wiedemann 1992). Wiedemann has understood these supplementary spectacles to add to the overall significance of the arena: The arena was the place where civilisation confronted nature, in the shape of beasts which represented a danger to humanity; and where social justice confronted wrongdoing, in the shape of the criminals who were to be executed there; and where the Roman empire confronted its enemies, in the persons of the captured prisoners of war who were killed or were forced to kill one another in the arena (Wiedemann 1992: 46). Both the might and the civilizing mission of Rome were affirmed in the spectacles associated with gladiatorial combat. Wallace-Hadrill has noted that the only Roman theory for the chaos of the late republic was a moral one: the corruption of traditional Roman mores (Wallace-Hadrill, 1997). The Augustan solution was not strictly political, but rather aimed at the correction of Roman mores. Part of this programme may have been in the institutionalization of gladiatorial combat, repository of traditional Roman military virtus. Indeed, criminals were executed, often in unusual and spectacular ways, and gladiators were occasionally killed in fighting or by the order of the munerarius and assembled crowd. But the gladiators were there to present the spectators with examples of perfect martial ability; the very real risk of death was necessary for the demonstration of bravery. Conclusion In conclusion, while undoubtedly an exciting, engaging, and emotionally charged spectacle, gladiatorial combat probably had a variety of different meanings for different people. Roman gladiatorial combat was not a desperate and chaotic spectacle of killing and dying. While certainly dangerous and very possibly fatal, gladiatorial combats were fought by well-trained, professionals in a display (ideally) of perfect martial virtues: skill with arms, unflinching courage, and strict discipline. The spectacle was not meant for the dead but for the living. The ever-present danger only served to underline the seriousness of the spectacle. The spectacle of these martial values served as exempla of the values at the heart of what it meant to be a Roman. References Barton, C. (1993). The Sorrows the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brown, S. (1992). Death As Decoration: Scenes of the Arena on Roman Domestic Mosaics in A Richlin (ed.) Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford University Press. Edmondson. J.C. (1996). Dynamic Arenas: Gladiatorial Presentations in the City of Rome and the Construction of Roman Society during the Early Empire in W.J. Slater (ed.) Roman Theater and Society, Ann Arbor. 69-112. Flower, H.I. (1996). Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Futrell, A. (1997). Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power, Austin. Gunderson, E. (1996). The Ideology of the Arena. Classical Antiquity 15(1): 113-151. Hopkins, K. (1983). Murderous Games, in Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Cambridge University Press. Kyle, D.G. (1998). Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome, London, New York. Leigh. M. (1997). Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement, Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacMullen, R. (1997). Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, New Haven and London. Oakley, S.P. (1985). Single Combat in the Roman Republic. The Classical Quarterly 35 (02) 392-410. Plass, P. (1995). The Game of Death in Ancient Rome, University of Wisconsin Press. Potter, D. & Mattingly, D. (1999) Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, 1st edition. University of Michigan Press. Rives, J. (1995). Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians. The Journal of Roman Studies 85: 65-85. Versnel (1996) Energeia: Studies on Ancient History and Epigraphy Presented to H. W: Pleket, J C Gieben Publishers. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1997). Mutatio Morum: The Idea of a Cultural Revolution in T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (eds.) The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambride. Wiedemann, T. (1992). Emperors and Gladiators, London. Wiedemann, T. (1996). Single Combat and Being Roman. Ancient Society 27: 91-103. Woolf, G. 1993. Roman Peace in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds.) War and Society in the Roman World New York, 171-194. Read More