There 80 arches on the ground floor, four of which served as main entrances. The columns here were Doric in style, those on the second floor were ionic and the ones on the upper floor were Corinthian. The attic was divided into panels by Corinthian columns, with a rectangular window every second panel. A series of bronze shields was affixed all around the attic on the panels without the windows. The other arches were numbered for easy access to seats. For support and strength, the columns lines up with each over on each story. The architecture of the Colosseum would have been amazing for the Roman spectator.
Which aspects of the Roman games are the most difficult for someone living in the twenty-first century to understand? How far can the aspects you have chosen be explained in terms of Roman values?
For someone living in the twenty-first century, the most difficult things to accept would have been the casual way in which people’s lives were destroyed, the disregard for people from other religions and cultures, the sadistic viewing of ritual murder for entertainment, and the inhumane way in which animals were treated.
By modern standards, gladiator combats are cruel and violent. However, we cannot simply condemn the norms of Roman society without trying to understand them. Romans were a race of conquerors so honour, pride and ultimate victory against the enemy were important. From an early age, boys were trained in the art of combat, strength and endurance and love of honour. During peace times, gladiatorial games or combat became the way in which men showed their strength and military values. This coincides with the way in which modern day armies perform military maneuvers or mock battles.
Another issue which we in the 21st century would find difficult to comprehend would be the concept of upper classes using their slaves in games. Slavery in modern day is hard enough to comprehend. For the Romans it was not an issue of who had the most expensive car or designer clothes, it was whose slaves won the victory in gladiatorial fights. When captives were pitted against each other with the prize being their life, it is fully understandable why one would fight to the death. The Roman leaders saw this as a way to entertain as well as punish slaves, captives and locals for their crimes. For them it was a judiciary event as well as entertainment.
The fights also served the purpose of reiterating the power of the Romans over their captured enemies. Pliny’s Panegyric xxxi states that the emperor gave the citizens ‘public entertainment, nothing lax or dissolute to weaken and destroy the manly spirits 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’. This means that the shows/ games were to be viewed as being educational for the Roman population.
According to Weiderman ‘the fact that the performers were outcasts strengthened this educational element by the implicit idea that 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’. Here the Romans present the philosophical aspect of seemingly barbaric acts of violence: one can learn from one’s enemy.
In order to enjoy the spectacles, the Romans also had to dehumanize their enemies. They did this by treating them less like people and more like spoils of war. Gladiators fought with their helmets on to protect their identity. This made it easier for the winners to deliver the final death blow without making it personal.
Another characteristic of Roman games was the persecution of different religious groups. These people were thought to commit blasphemous acts against the Roman and therefore had to be put to death. While this seems barbaric to Western civilization, this practice is in full effect today. The persecution of religious sects in Africa, Asia and some parts of Europe still take precedence in today’s news.
Animals were trained to perform tricks in the colosseum. Sometimes they were pitted against humans like Christians or condemned slaves. On other occasions, they showed conditioned behaviours which again emphasized the ultimate god-like power of the emperor in that he could change the will of even animals like the mighty lion. By today’s standards, we perform seemingly barbaric acts for fun, until recently, fox-hunting was legal in the UK and bull fighting is still practiced in Spain. At least the Romans had values to stand behind whether or not the modern world agrees with them.
Cicero, who condemned gladiatorial games, states ‘ a gladiatorial show is apt to seem cruel and brutal to some eyes, and I incline to think that it is, as now conducted, but in the days when it was criminals who crossed swords in the death struggle, there could be no better schooling against pain and death.
One writer believes that the games became a common denominator amongst all the conquered people in the Mediterranean area. As they came from different cultural backgrounds, this was the one pastime which they had in common. What I believe to be most interesting about the Romans was that for a moment, the common folk had the ultimate power to save or destroy a life in the ring. For most, this was the only opportunity to be a part of the decision making process.
In conclusion, I feel that while some people of the 21 century understand the Roman way of life, there are some who will form an opinion judging them by today’ standards without fully understanding or studying the culture ethics and morals of the time. Each society has a set of norms and traditions and the Romans were no different. For them, the colosseum and its events served the purpose of uniting the people against the common foes of lawlessness and blasphemy and gave them a sense of unity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An Introduction to the Humanities Block 2 The Colosseum. Open University Press 1997
Wiederman, T. Emperors and Gladiators. London. Rutledge 1992
Wistrand, M. Enertainment and Violence in Ancient Rome: The attitude of Roman writers of the first century A.D. Gotegorg:Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1992
