(See Martin Goodman, The Roman World 44BC-AD180)
The Romans, like all other civilizations loved games, the way the people of Britain seem to be obsessed with football. Gambling took place in and outside of the stadiums by private betting, there was no public betting on the chariot racing but imagine if you can, horse racing in England with no gambling allowed! No one would care so much about it. The thrill of a race with money on was obviously a very pleasurable pastime. The Romans had many public holidays and the majority of these holidays had public games, it is an integrated part of their culture. The majority of the contestants were slaves and it gave these slaves the chance to die honorably or even win enough money to buy their freedom. Some became heroes and sex symbols. It isn’t difficult to appreciate the Romans passions for the games; they adulated the successful racers and were loyal to the teams they supported. It can also be said, like the football hooligans of today, there was plenty of violence between the gangs of rival supporters.
The games also gave the public a feeling of power, the power over life and death and of the greatness of Rome: Quote (Alison Futrell, Blood in the arena, page 213) ‘Here was public pleasure as well as law and order, here was the conquest of the Roman world as well as its integration in the creation of a new balance, a working sociopolitical order. The amphitheater was Roman power, Roman agency, the ability to define and construct the space in which significant actions, resonant in a Roman and provincial interpretation, were made real, given active form, drawing on the spirit of the Roman people and the basic impulses of a mythic past to create and to celebrate a new world order.’ & Quote (Thomas Wiedemann, Emperors and gladiators, page 180) ‘On each occasion when they fought, gladiators enacted a spectacle of death and rebirth, and they did that in the presence of the Roman people, enabling individuals to come to terms with their mortality by reflecting on the unprecedented power and continuity of Rome's universal rule.’
- Celebrations and to show the power of leaders
The games were funded by the Emperors of Rome to celebrate certain things and the wealth of anyone who hosted them was basically on display, the more powerful an emperor was could be seen on the greatness of his shows. Some of the most impressive staged battles were that of the naumachia, or sea-fight. Its seems that Julius Caesar (the greatest Emperor) came up with the idea, confirming his great ambition and ingenuity. He made an artificial lake and set up 2 fleets of 10,000 oarsmen and 1,000 soldiers dressed to impersonate the men of Tyre and Egypt. Claudius in AD 52 staged the biggest ever sea-battle. The lake took 11 years and 30,000 men to construct and the bloody battle consisted of 19,000-armed contestants in 2 naval fleets, missiles and catapults of fire were bombarded on them. The winning survivors were excused execution. These powerful shows of blood showed the emperor Claudius to the people as an incredibly clever and powerful man, no one could take him on and win.
The Emperor Nero became leader in AD 54; an ex-wife poisoned Claudius after she persuaded him to adopt Nero. Claudius had great victories and his sea-battle proved his greatness; he took on Europe, but couldn’t escape his ex! Nero is renowned through his lack of self-control and his lust. He has been described as quite deranged by many. After many attempts on his behalf on his mother’s life, which failed, he simply sent a man round her home and she was clubbed to death. He strangely celebrated this by creating 2 new bouts of chariot racing, athletics and music contests. The latter served the function of showing of his singing talent to the Roman people. No one was allowed the leave while he was singing for any reason whatsoever. The games served a purpose to any Emperor to show his power, no matter how crazy a celebration was, it was their decision how to try to impress and control the people.
Excessive and strange celebrations have been described; obviously there are less profound celebrations by other Emperors. For example, Vitellius celebrated his succession with extravagant entertaining and betting on races as would be expected. He though was out of touch with the people and didn’t understand the importance of the arenas. He made an announcement at the games of a new day of worship on a day considered very unlucky. This contributed to his violent murder a few months later.
Apart from the celebrations of succession, many Emperors celebrated wars and battles that they had won. One example is with Trajen (who became Emperor in AD98). After a triumphal procession to celebrate his victory over the Dacians in AD103, he held 123 days of games and gladiator fights. It was an important victory that gained him glory.
(See Antony Kamm, The Romans)
Politics and the manipulation of the public were embedded in the chariots and gladiator fights. These were the main ‘locus’ for the public opinion to be displayed. Quote (Martin Goodman, The Roman World, page 93)’ An example of how much the Emperors recognized this was through occasional rulings forbidding members of the upper classes to appear on the stage.’
Juvelus was a 1st century satirist who was a popular writer. Quote’ Long ago the people shed their anxieties, ever since we do not sell our votes to anyone. For the people—who once conferred imperium, symbols of office, legions, everything—now hold themselves in check and anxiously desire only two things, the grain dole and chariot races in the Circus” (Satires 10.77-81).’ Juvenal's famous phrase, panem et circenses (“bread and circuses”) has become essential to describe those who give away significant rights in exchange for material pleasures. Juvenal has put his finger on two of the most important aspects of Roman chariot races—their immense popularity and the pleasure they gave the Roman people, and the political role they played during the empire in diverting energies that might otherwise have gone into rioting and other forms of popular unrest.
There are 2 arguments about the way that the politics were played by the people and the Emperors, and ultimately who kept the upper hand. Alison Futrell, Blood in the Arena, argued that the problems of the empire weren’t sugarcoated, as they were too important to just be forgotten by putting on a show. The political function was to reinforce the might and strength of the roman army, thus showing the people that they weren’t strong enough to take them on. Quote (p 212)’ The ritual performance in the arena was a means of Imperial control through directed attitudinal change, the creation and manipulation of mass emotional response, renewed regularly at the behest of the ruling hierarchy.’
Thomas Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators, found it too hard to believe that the games could be effective by proving the armies absolute power and to divert political opinions. Quote (p 169)’ [A]ttendance at munera subjected emperors to pressure from the people, rather than diverting potential expressions of political will in other directions.’ This book explains how Tiberius tried to keep away from the games to escape the pressures, but it was so unpopular that later Emperors didn’t make the same mistake. Quote (p 169)’ When an emperor was at Rome, then his personal presence at munera was expected. An emperor who was unpopular might be criticized either for being too interested in these games, or not interested enough: the tightrope which each emperor had to walk was a necessary consequence of the ambiguous position of the emperor as both autocrat and servant of the Roman people. . . .’
