Poll: Would you watch gladiatorial combat?
- Thread starter Xan Krieger
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't even like watching boxing so no. Watching someone getting beaten unconscious is bad but actually dying? Hell no.
Unfortunately I think the steps needed to make something it relatively safe enough would take all the fun out of watching it. No one wants to watch gladiatorial combat with blunted weapons and padding.
I'm perfectly happy with well choreographed but fictional fight scenes.
Unfortunately I think the steps needed to make something it relatively safe enough would take all the fun out of watching it. No one wants to watch gladiatorial combat with blunted weapons and padding.
I'm perfectly happy with well choreographed but fictional fight scenes.
If I were raised with the morality of the Romans, I would probably have enjoyed the arena immensely. I'm a big fan of combat sports now and was an amateur boxer myself. All in all, I imagine I'd be there just about every week if I could afford it, if not happy to get in the arena and get my hands dirty myself. I love weapons and armor and I love to fight.
That said, with my moral upbringing as it is, I'd find arena combat appalling when it came to maiming/killing. I like a good bout of MMA or boxing but only as an exhibition of fighting skill not for the injuries that are caused.
That said, with my moral upbringing as it is, I'd find arena combat appalling when it came to maiming/killing. I like a good bout of MMA or boxing but only as an exhibition of fighting skill not for the injuries that are caused.
No, certainly not.
I like my violence in video-game form only, thanks. I'm not a violent person outside of games, and I don't like seeing people get hurt.
Not to mention I don't like seeing blood in real life, it makes me feel kind of weak. Pictures of blood don't do the same thing, which is strange.
I like my violence in video-game form only, thanks. I'm not a violent person outside of games, and I don't like seeing people get hurt.
Not to mention I don't like seeing blood in real life, it makes me feel kind of weak. Pictures of blood don't do the same thing, which is strange.
Gladiatorial competition was entertainment that required little thought to understand and was implemented as a way to distract the masses from the real problems the empire would not or could not mend. We Already Have That. Baseball, American and real Football, the Olympics, way too much etc. have diverted attention so much that who gets to play is national news.Xan Krieger said:
You say that as if people don't kill and maime people anyways. People get killed all the time. From other people and animals. Hell people go out of their way to find this stuff online to watch it. It's not that big of a stretch to say people would go to a colloseum to watch legalized events.Steve Waltz said:
Personally. It would depend on the participants. If it's feels like a one sided event I'll pass. But if it was actually equally skilled combatants, sure why not.
http://legvi.tripod.com/gladiators/id2.html
Depending on who you ask, between 1 in 10 to 1 in 9 gladiators died. Professional wrestling is damn near as dangerous (mild hyperbole). If we judge a sport only by it's death toll, the Roman games weren't quite as bad as generally perceived.
Mind you, I still wouldn't watch gladiatorial combat, as my abolitionist views would obstruct any enjoyment. As would my my dislike of displays of human barbarism. For me to watch it, so much would need to change that it may stop qualifying as gladiatorial combat.
Depending on who you ask, between 1 in 10 to 1 in 9 gladiators died. Professional wrestling is damn near as dangerous (mild hyperbole). If we judge a sport only by it's death toll, the Roman games weren't quite as bad as generally perceived.
Mind you, I still wouldn't watch gladiatorial combat, as my abolitionist views would obstruct any enjoyment. As would my my dislike of displays of human barbarism. For me to watch it, so much would need to change that it may stop qualifying as gladiatorial combat.
Yeah, I'd watch it. Bloodlust needs to be satiated somehow, and digital bloodshed has gotten stale to me.
Yeah, i think i would like to watch death row felons in a free for all melee for a chance... to do it again, i guess.
UK version got canned after the execs were caught fixing matches. Dont know what happened to the US version.
That was a thing for a while in both the UK and US.Fijiman said:
UK version got canned after the execs were caught fixing matches. Dont know what happened to the US version.
Oh yes, yes I would. Watching people get mauled by wild beasts or fight each other to death sounds like my kind of fun. But I do have a bit of a sadistic streak so I don't expect people to understand or approve of this.
Have you seen what's on television these days? To be honest I'm surprised they haven't already.Dynast Brass said:
Of course not: barbarism is barbaric. I get the feeling some people are saying 'yes' just to appear rather controversially bolshy/edgy.
'Yeah, look at me! I'm well'ard, I'd watch people murder each other for sport!'.
'Yeah, look at me! I'm well'ard, I'd watch people murder each other for sport!'.
It was definitely violent, but professional gladiators generally didn't fight to death. The purpose was to provide a good show and good combat prowess. The nasty things you mentioned were actually reserved for criminals and prisoners of war. Anyone sentenced to death could've been placed in the arena in some sort of show before the main event where they'd get a death sentence in... an innovative way. There were also professional "gladiators" to deal with wild animals; these shows were called "venationes" or "hunts." But the actual gladiatorial combat was mostly safe. A gladiator was a costly investment and losing one was generally not something a lanista would want. A gladiator would get executed only if he displayed exceptionally poor skill or done something to repeatedly offend his fans with his performance (at that point, he was no longer a good investment). Fans were crucial for a gladiator's survival as they often paid a lot of money to come and watch their favourites train or buy souvenirs (bottled gladiator's sweat was popular. Weird times.) and they almost always pleaded for their favourite to stay alive even if he lost the battle.JoJo said:
Yep, this is true. We actually know what their diet was. It consisted of various plants such as barley and beans; they didn't eat meat. They were even called "hordearii" ("the ones who eat barley"). The purpose of the diet was to give them enough fat (injury protection) and enough energy. We know from records that they also ate some special mixtures with unknown ingredients; some records talk about bones grind to ash, but we don't know if that was actually the case. Whatever it was, it worked. Bone analysis of gladiator skeletons shows that their bones had higher values of calcium than the rest of the population.evilthecat said:
OT: Despite my intense interest in these shows (wrote my bachelor's thesis on gladiators), I wouldn't actually want to watch it live, at least not if wasn't just make believe. Even if it involved only volunteers and deaths weren't common, there's just something wrong about the whole idea of watching someone potentially getting seriously injured or killed for entertainment. Though, I do like a good gladiator movie or show or game. And I watched historical re-enactments which were great.
I'd be all for some VR gladiatorial combat. That would be really cool from an entertainment standpoint and would even be useful in research and experimental archaeology. Even harmless re-enactment can lead to injuries; in one of the fights I've watched, from professional re-enactors who train for this stuff like any other sport, there were injuries. Nothing big, but a slash here and there. Broken bones are also common. Well, like any other sport really, but combat is combat. Even with blunted weapons.Dynast Brass said:
Don't we sort of still have it these days with MMA, Boxing and Wrestling? Unless you mean good ol' fashion sword and board, man on man on animal fighting that may or may not have resulted in serious injury? If it was properly regulated to minimise excessive or permanent injury I guess it could work, but otherwise I think these days we're much to "civilised."
Hopefully, one day, we'll have this. I hope it happens within my lifetime because oh man, I'd love to try it. I'd even try re-enactment, but removing the possibility of serious injuries could probably turn this into something more than that.Dynast Brass said:
No. I'm too old, too conditioned, too repulsed by genuine violence to learn to be accepting of it now.
I'd play the shit out of a well made gladiator game though.
I'd play the shit out of a well made gladiator game though.
No ... the Circus Maximus would be violent enough for me.
Well, actually ... is it raining? Colosseum had better weather protection. Not only that, but what years are we talking about? If we're talking early 2nd Century, then yeah. If only to watch the mock naval battles. Blood and sand battles wouldn't interest me as much as the mock naval battles.
But in general, Circus Maximus ... better seating and closer to the action. So close you might be able to concuss a rival with a stone you lob at them from the crowd.
I mean, what else are you going to do with 180 days of officially recognized holidays each year? Ancient Rome ... it's not like you can veg out on your non-existent couch and play games. All you have is gambling and wine, and trying to crap in public, open air toilets with a diet largely revolvng around crusty bread and cheese. Sure you can go to the forum and discuss philosophy or the brothels, or perhaps indiscreet casual sex at a temple of Isis during certain events, whilst lounging in hot water baths after coating yourself in oils and perfumes.
But after catching your potential death with venereal disease, settling for the Circus Maximus would be my primary hobby. Circus Maximus had better gambling payouts and better long odds.
Say what you like, but you'd die of boredom otherwise. I consider myself a fairly ethical person. But if you stripped away from me my good dining, my expansive array of wines, my books, my laptop, my pen and paper RPGs, my network of distant friends I can travel and go out with, modern shopping, internet, my motorbike, my investments, my university education, what am I?
Frankly, anybody that says 'no' is forgetting that there isn't a whole lot to do before electricity, other than survive. If you're a Roman, you didn't even need to worry about that so much as evade the soldiers and thieves wanting to stab you for your coin purse. You're going to be bored. Someone who comes up to you and says; "Hey, wanna watch two grown men swing bits of metal at eachother?" is going to sound like a true friend.
After you spend enough moons sitting around and digging bits of grinding stone from your bleeding gums due to archaic milling practices, that is. You're going to entertain pain and danger greater than your own as your only means of comfort in a cruel, depressing atmosphere of having nothing but base desires and emotions wishing to be sated. This is why it seems half the world can laugh when an actor on screen suffers torments beyond the pale of average civil society. Because we're no better than those Roman peasants suffering horrors and expecting worse horrors from others to alleviate our own for a brief moment of escapism.
(Edit) I can guarantee, in only a 200 years from now your upstanding, enlightened self who should shun these excesses of gratuitous indulgences of the past will be spurned and looked down upon by a generation who will see those still alive today as mindless consumers of base pleasures. People who consumed half of the world's fossil fuels, whilst properly feeding only an sixth of the world, to entertain a livelihood far beyond their means. Sickening, bloodthirsty louts who did nothing but satisfy base desires without a care for those that would come after. Time and history have a habit of making us all bastards.
Well, actually ... is it raining? Colosseum had better weather protection. Not only that, but what years are we talking about? If we're talking early 2nd Century, then yeah. If only to watch the mock naval battles. Blood and sand battles wouldn't interest me as much as the mock naval battles.
But in general, Circus Maximus ... better seating and closer to the action. So close you might be able to concuss a rival with a stone you lob at them from the crowd.
I mean, what else are you going to do with 180 days of officially recognized holidays each year? Ancient Rome ... it's not like you can veg out on your non-existent couch and play games. All you have is gambling and wine, and trying to crap in public, open air toilets with a diet largely revolvng around crusty bread and cheese. Sure you can go to the forum and discuss philosophy or the brothels, or perhaps indiscreet casual sex at a temple of Isis during certain events, whilst lounging in hot water baths after coating yourself in oils and perfumes.
But after catching your potential death with venereal disease, settling for the Circus Maximus would be my primary hobby. Circus Maximus had better gambling payouts and better long odds.
Say what you like, but you'd die of boredom otherwise. I consider myself a fairly ethical person. But if you stripped away from me my good dining, my expansive array of wines, my books, my laptop, my pen and paper RPGs, my network of distant friends I can travel and go out with, modern shopping, internet, my motorbike, my investments, my university education, what am I?
Frankly, anybody that says 'no' is forgetting that there isn't a whole lot to do before electricity, other than survive. If you're a Roman, you didn't even need to worry about that so much as evade the soldiers and thieves wanting to stab you for your coin purse. You're going to be bored. Someone who comes up to you and says; "Hey, wanna watch two grown men swing bits of metal at eachother?" is going to sound like a true friend.
After you spend enough moons sitting around and digging bits of grinding stone from your bleeding gums due to archaic milling practices, that is. You're going to entertain pain and danger greater than your own as your only means of comfort in a cruel, depressing atmosphere of having nothing but base desires and emotions wishing to be sated. This is why it seems half the world can laugh when an actor on screen suffers torments beyond the pale of average civil society. Because we're no better than those Roman peasants suffering horrors and expecting worse horrors from others to alleviate our own for a brief moment of escapism.
(Edit) I can guarantee, in only a 200 years from now your upstanding, enlightened self who should shun these excesses of gratuitous indulgences of the past will be spurned and looked down upon by a generation who will see those still alive today as mindless consumers of base pleasures. People who consumed half of the world's fossil fuels, whilst properly feeding only an sixth of the world, to entertain a livelihood far beyond their means. Sickening, bloodthirsty louts who did nothing but satisfy base desires without a care for those that would come after. Time and history have a habit of making us all bastards.
Yes, because we never really stopped. I mean Boxing, martial arts, MMA, Pro Wrestling are basically just that. Gladiatorial combat. Heck tat's basically 50% of the film industry right there where you get to watch the fianl showdown with the hero and the villain beating each other senseless.
I'd only watch it if there's a Scottish announcer shouting "Contestant READY? Gladiator READY? 3. 2. 1." before blowing his whistle.