Are gladiator contests ethical?

[Kramerman]

aren't they one and of the same???

[Sava]

he wishes

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, I don't think expense had anything to do with ending the gladiator contests. The "animal" hunts continued to be displayed in the Coliseum at great expense well into the next century and ended only at the onset of the Gothic Wars.

Bestiarii were nowhere near as expensive as gladiatori, and executions by "damnatio ad bestias" were still a common deterrent spectacle, so the procurement of wild beasts was fairly lucrative - besides, they made nice ornamental decorations, so there were multiple markets to support the practice.

The extent of regulation on numbers and types of fighters and composition of the games was extensive - it was a very heavily regulated commerce, so that indicates both fraud, and a great deal of importance put on gladiator contests. No similar body of regulation exists with respect to animal exhibits.

What happened in 407 is that one Telemachus, a traveler from the Eastern Empire, attended the Coliseum one day. When he saw what was happening, he went to the lower barrier and began to call for the gladiators to stop. "In the name of God, I call on you to stop!" (After all, they were butchering each other.) When they ignored him, Telemachus jumped into the arena and ran about to each gladiator pair urging them to stop. He was suddenly struck himself by an unintentional blow and fell dead in the arena. Thereupon silence fell over the Coliseum. The gladiator contests stopped and the assembled crowd left in solemn silence.

The next day, Emperor Honorius banned gladiator contests throughout the Western Empire.

Which is a very nice story, but if you believe it, I have seven hills to sell you. No individual author of the era is factually reliable, so for anything to have much validity, it has to be found in multiple independent sources. Roman writers and illustrators were expected to embellish stories for moral and dramatic emphasis, and there was no tradition for objective recording of facts.

Why would a pagan Roman horde, who paid to see blood shed, and was quite happy to attend executions ad flammas and ad bestias for "fun" suddenly get upset when some do-gooder who interfered in their recreation got run through with a sword? It is inconsistent with everything known about the Roman masses.

However, it would make a nice propaganda story for an emperor who was looking for an excuse to condemn the games and end them without being deposed by the mob.

[Shi Huangdi]

to what Zkribbler said.

[Ned]

MtG, It is wonder that the Emperors did not think through what they had in the Coliseum. Instead of a great expense, they could have had a great source of revenue!

Undoubtedly, though, the gladiator contests were a great source of revenue to Rome. The games must have attracted visitors from across the Empire who spent money in town on wine, women, and song in addition to the finest goods the Empire could produce. I can see how a great city was brought low by this simple decree (and the ransoms paid to Alaric prior the sack of Rome in 410).

But, MtG, I think you underestimate the power of Christianity in Honorius' decision. He, after all, was the son of Theodosius who made Christianity the sole and exclusive religion of the Empire, even over the opposition of the Roman patricians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, It is wonder that the Emperors did not think through what they had in the Coliseum. Instead of a great expense, they could have had a great source of revenue!

Provincial games that were run on a profit basis existed, but were rather small and humble compared to the real shows. The great games in the provinces and in Rome especially were publicly and privately subsidized affairs. Not so bad when you had lots of prisoners of your wars of conquest (four types of gladiators, the galius, crupellarius, thraex and samnitus, were based on typical weapons and equipment of enemy soldiers of specific regions conquered in the early empire), and lots of tribute and plunder. Later on in the empire, when you had to pay for slaves or pay signing bonuses for auctorati, gladiators themselves became a very expensive commodity, and even when not killed, they were expensive to nurse back to health. Food, medical treatment, training and equipment were all expensive. There was simply no way to run in on a profit basis, because the idea was to give the rabble something to do other than think about how nice it would be to have a reborn Republic or at least a new Emporer. Pricing attendance at the games out of existence, so their was one more thing to ***** about, would have been a rather shortsighted policy.

Undoubtedly, though, the gladiator contests were a great source of revenue to Rome.

They were actually a huge drain on the Roman economy. Their function was to distract the masses, not to make money. You have to remember the kinds of cretins that were commonly emperors - even many of the "smart" ones like Aurelius and Severus were busy with other things, so worrying about profit-making venues in the city of Rome wasn't high on the list. You also miss the point - the point wasn't to make a profit (a base job for merchants and others who "worked" - it was to demonstrate the greatness of the host of the games, whether Caesar, or a provincial governnor, or a candidate for Aedile or Quaestor in Rome.

The games must have attracted visitors from across the Empire who spent money in town on wine, women, and song in addition to the finest goods the Empire could produce.

Trade and taxation were primitive. There was no "income tax" so trade was primarily a private benefit. Most revenue was from sales of certain things (Roman citizenship was a hot item) including exemption from tributes, and from collection of tributes from provinces and vassal states.

I can see how a great city was brought low by this simple decree (and the ransoms paid to Alaric prior the sack of Rome in 410).

Rome's financial problems were legendary for three centuries beforehand. A complete lack of fiscal discipline, plus a lack of ability to sustain conquest (or find places wealthy enough to be profitable to conquer) set in motion the basic elements of inevitable collapse.

But, MtG, I think you underestimate the power of Christianity in Honorius' decision. He, after all, was the son of Theodosius who made Christianity the sole and exclusive religion of the Empire, even over the opposition of the Roman patricians.

Christianity in Rome was adopted primarily for strategic reasons unrelated to religious doctrine. The emperors had long had a problematic relationship with the traditional religious authorities, so much of the adoptation of Christianity in both east and west related to secular power issues, not moral religious issues.