THE GLADIATORS:

Todd Stankas

The year 80 AD was unlike any other for the citizens of Rome. For nearly a decade the Romans had watched in anticipation as the magnificent Flavian Amphitheater was being built as a gift from the Emperor Vespasian. The Romans knew this spectacular edifice would be primarily used for their pleasure and entertainment. As the massive structure was nearing completion, the city of Rome would have been buzzing with rumors and excitement about what laid in store at the inauguration event. These games were so anticipated, that the crowd at the first event contained people from all over the burgeoning empire. In order to document this successful turnout at the games the Roman poet Martial said, “What race is so remote, so barbarous, Caesar, that no spectator from it is in your city?” Martial would describe the many different people that had traveled from far away provinces such as Thrace, Samaria, Egypt and Arabia. However, there was one particular event that would draw around 50,000 Roman citizens to the arena, the spectacle that everyone wanted to witness, the game that was always saved for last, the gladiatorial combat.

In the ancient city of Rome, society was defined by its people and their place within the social classes. An individual’s reputation depended on what he did for work, with whom he associated, and with the pleasures he would participate in. The people that were positioned within the lowest orders of the social ladder, like the slaves, were not allowed the most basic rights which were granted to the rest of the Roman citizens. The life of a slave could be legally ended at any moment and for any reason that was deemed fit by his master. Slaves were considered to be property and their bodies could be used in any way that was needed. They were the infames, social pariahs that laid on the outside of the protection of society. This is why the behavior of the Romans toward the gladiators is so interesting. Gladiatorial combatants were slaves that were reduced to a social nothingness, however, they were also adored and admired by the people at the same time. Gladiators were loved more than they were hated in Roman society. They were despised for their status as slaves, their practice of violence and their proximity to death. However, they were loved for their bravery, fighting skills and display of Roman virtues.

This paper will explore the social paradox that is presented by the gladiators’ legal social status and how the Romans actually viewed them in society. The Romans viewed the gladiator more as a celebrity and the embodiment of social virtues, instead of a despicable social outcast that needed to be butchered for the pleasure of spectators. The Roman writer Tacitus says that the people had an, “Obsession…and a passion for gladiatorial shows,” indicating that the people loved and anticipated the gladiator’s display of physical ability. However, the Roman historian Florus describes slaves as, “The lowest sort of men,” and gladiators as, “The worst sort of men.” This sentiment by Florus has been used by some historians to explain how Roman society viewed the gladiators with disdain and malevolence. However, I would argue against this belief because the statement was written to describe the slave revolt that was led by the gladiator Spartacus. Therefore, it is an inaccurate assessment of how the Romans viewed the gladiators, because this war was an embarrassment for the Romans since they were defeated by a band of slaves. When other accounts are considered which reference Spartacus, it becomes evident that Romans such as Diodorus Siculus viewed Spartacus as a “good man,” while the Senator Frontinus writes that he admires the gladiator’s intelligence in battle.

In order to substantiate my claim about Roman society’s benevolent view for the gladiators, I will describe their role as slaves, and how their role as famous athletes would overpower the negativity that comes with their servile position. I will discuss how each group valued the gladiators as their fans would include men, women, children and emperors. I will also highlight the different privileges that were given to the gladiators as a reward for their skills, and the extra rights that were bestowed upon them that other slaves did not possess. Finally, I will describe a few artistic representations that show depictions of the gladiators which would have been found all over the empire. These artifacts from the period reflect a type of fanfare that Romans used to materialize their obsession with the combat sport. However, before diving deeper into the paradox that is the Roman attitude toward gladiators, it is important to understand the origins and cultural context of the gladiatorial spectacles.

The origins of gladiatorial combat has been a subject of debate during the last century. The original theory primarily comes from the Greek writer, Nicolas of Damascus, who said, “The Romans organized performances by gladiators, a habit they had acquired from the Etruscans, not only at festivals and in theaters but also at feasts.” Due to this statement which is from the first century BC, scholars have long accepted that the tradition of gladiator combat had been adopted by the Romans from the Etruscans. This theory seemed to make sense because the Romans adopted many aspects of the Etruscan culture as their own. However, in the beginning of the twentieth century there was a discovery of grave paintings in the south of Italy in the region of Campania, which dated back to the middle of the fourth century BC. The frescoes depict two armed individuals fighting during the funerary games while being overseen by an umpire. This is the earliest known example of an organized combative event that was performed in front of a group of spectators disproving Damascus’s statement.

It is important to understand that the earliest examples of gladiatorial spectacles in the city of Rome were funerary in nature like their original purposes in the region of Campania. These Roman combats would usually be held in the honor, or in the commemoration, of an important figure that had passed away. The gladiatorial contests did not originate as state occasions based around mindless killing, but as obligatory offerings that were owed to important men at the time of their deaths. Ironically, gladiator spectacles were also associated with renewal and the rebirth of life. Traditionally, the games, which were called the munera by the Romans, were usually held at the end of the year or during seasons like spring or summer. These events were a way for the Romans to come to terms with death and to celebrate the occasions of rebirth in nature. This paradoxical nature of the munera is expressed in Martial’s account of the inaugural games for the Flavian Amphitheater:

A light spear had pierced a pregnant sow. One of her litter lept out of the hapless mother’s wound. Savage Lucina, was this a delivery? She would have wished to die wounded by further weapons, so that the sad path might open for all her brood. Who denies that Bacchus sprang from his mother’s death? Believe that a deity was so given birth: so born was a beast.

This strange event was noteworthy enough for Martial to document it into his account about the spectacles, because the munera was not just about death but also life. Martial would also compare this occurrence with that of the Roman god Bacchus, which would reinforce the symbolic nature of this miraculous birth in the instance of death.

Overtime the munera in Rome would grow in popularity and politicians would use them as a tool to gain public support. Ultimately, the Roman citizens loved the politicians that would sponsor the most spectacular and exotic games. During the period of the Roman Republic, funding a munera was a good way for an individual to showcase his wealth, power and prestige, and it was an easy way to ensure public support during the next election. Cicero commented that if, “Such entertainment is demanded by the people, men of right judgment must at least consent to furnish it, even if they do not like it.” A politician’s popularity was earned by pleasing the people, and he could please them by giving food or spectacles. Even during the time of the Empire, the most popular emperors with the public were considered to put on the more exciting games. The most popular emperors would physically participate in the events, I will discuss this phenomena later in the paper.

I would like to establish the time period in which this paper is focused, when the gladiators were the most popular, were the years between the first century BC and the forth century AD during Imperial Rome. As I have already pointed out, the earliest displays of gladiatorial combat were a type of offering that was intended to give honor to the deceased. There is certainly no denying the games’ popularity during the Republic, because the Senate had to pass laws limiting how many games a person could hold. My claim of gladiatorial popularity also does not extend into the Christian period, which began in the middle of the fourth century AD. This is because the rise of Christianity in the empire has been associated with the decline of popularity in gladiatorial games. This drop in popularity was not due to the Christians having moral dispositions against the display of violence, but because the origins of the munera were rooted in pagan religious practices. The height of the popularity for the gladiatorial games is based in the Empire and its militaristic nature.

The gladiators in Roman society were considered to be slaves. They had no rights over their own destinies and the vast majority of gladiators were forced to train and fight against their will. A small portion of gladiators would have been criminals that were convicted of the most heinous crimes in Roman society. Sending an individual to a gladiator school, which was called the ludus, was a way to carry out justice if he was guilty of crimes such as murder, poisoning or temple desecration. These criminals were sentenced ad ludum gladiatorium, which means “to the gladiator school.” However, the largest percentage of gladiators were captured prisoners of war. Since the Romans were rapidly expanding their territory throughout Europe there was never a shortage of detained foreign soldiers. Most of these prisoners had fighting experience and may have already been exposed to killing and death. These traits would make for a more successful gladiator then a man convicted of poisoning his father. The gladiators were certainly in the lowest ranks of Roman society, however, they were also admired by the public and considered to be the symbol of a true Roman man.

A factor that contributed to the gladiator’s popularity was that he was considered to be a prime physical specimen. He would have spent most of his life inside the ludus training and preparing for the munera. Gladiatorial combat certainly was a sport that demanded intense preparation in order to be successful, and in the case of this sport, to be able to walk out of the arena alive. The gladiator’s training would have demanded a diet high in fats and proteins and his master would have provided him with the best nutrition that was available. In addition to being well nourished, the gladiator would have also been provided with the latest medical care to make sure that he would be healthy for his next fight. His role as a top athlete in society would naturally guarantee that he would receive excellent treatment and care from his master, because a healthy gladiator would have a better chance at victory in the arena. The athletes’ long and rigorous training regimen resulted in an admirable human form. The Greek historian Plutarch describes a gladiator as having, “Great spirit and bodily strength,” as well as being, “More intelligent and nobler then his fate,” as a slave.

The Roman people loved the gladiators and the gladiators loved the people. The spectators adored the athletes that stepped out into the arena to fight for their amusement and entertainment. The gladiators displayed virtues and physical attributes that every viewer could appreciate independent from their gender, age or social class. First, I will talk about the gladiator’s popularity with the women of Rome. The gladiators were considered to be sexual icons and the embodiment of what it meant to be a man in society. Women found these athletes to be sexually attractive with their muscular and toned bodies that were the product of their rigorous training. Women that witnessed the gladiators claimed that they were society’s favorite symbol for manliness, because they exposed their bodies to the audience. The Latin word gladius, which means “sword,” would even become a slang term for penis. There was a scandal were the wife of Emperor Marcus Aurelius was unable to resist the allure of the gladiators and was accused of having an affair with one. This story was used to explain why her son, the future Emperor Commodus, was so interested in the combat sport.

The interest of the men towards the gladiators was not much different from that of their female counterparts. Men admired the gladiator’s physicality and display of Roman virtues. The fans of these games would commit themselves to the sport similar to how an American football fanatic commits to his team today. They would have had their favorite types of gladiators and would certainly vocalize their allegiance in the arena. The early Christian author Tertullian noticed that, “Men surrendered their souls,” to the gladiators and virtually worshipped them as heroes. Men would also compare their favorite gladiators to legendary warriors, and Martial offers an example of this as a gladiator, “Plunged his spear in a charging bear, once prime in the peak of the Artic pole; he laid low a lion of unprecedented size, a sight to see, who might have done honor to Hercules’ hands.” It seems that even Martial is infatuated with the skills and abilities of the gladiators. The ancient author offers another fanatical description of a gladiator named Hermes:

Hermes, favorite fighter of the age; Hermes, skilled in all weaponry; Hermes, gladiator and trainer both; Hermes, tempest and tremor of his school; Hermes, who makes Helius afraid; Hermes, before whom Advolans falls; Hermes taught to win without wounding; Hermes, himself his own substitute; Hermes, gold mine of seat-mongers; Hermes, darling and distress of gladiators’ women; Hermes, proud with battling spear; Hermes, menacing with marine trident; Hermes, formidable in drooping helmet; Hermes, glory of Mars universal; Hermes all things in one and thrice unique.

When it came to the most popular gladiators, there was no limitation for their popularity with the people. In the case of the gladiator Hermes, Martial poured his heart into his admiration of the famous fighter. There is no reason to believe that other Romans did not share this same level of enthusiasm and dedication to certain gladiators, as well as to the sport. The gladiators were social icons which rose to levels of fame that were unprecedented for individuals in the same servile social status.

The munera would have featured members in every level of Roman society, from the most elite politicians to the poorest working class people. Children were also present during the games, cheering on their favorite fighters and gladiator schools. Roman children would have been running through the streets of Rome, while taking on the personas of their favorite gladiators, and fighting each other with mock weaponry. The popularity that was associated with the gladiators was very appealing to children of all ages. They saw these athletes win money, acquire fame and be admired by men and women alike. These gladiatorial athletes were seen as role models to children. They embodied the traditional Roman virtues and showed heroic abilities of strength, stamina and fighting ability. These were qualities that the Roman child would have wanted to emulate as they grew up to become adults. However, this behavior of “playing gladiator” was not limited to children. Even the most powerful members in the highest levels of society wanted to imitate these athletes, and some would give up their rights as citizens to live and train in the ludus.

In addition to the gladiators’ popularity amongst men, women and children in the lower social classes, the gladiators were also admired by the wealthiest and most powerful members in society, which included the Roman emperors. I had mentioned at the beginning of this paper that an individual’s status and reputation was very important to Roman citizens and most of them would never associate with the servile classes. However, when the reality of this strictness within the social class system is considered, it becomes interesting that even Roman emperors would take on the persona of a slave to bask in the fame that was afforded to the gladiators. Perhaps this is because the emperors did not need to worry about damaging their reputation, and would even allow their favorite gladiators into their inner circles and parties. Some of the emperors would not only associate with their favorite gladiators, they would also perform in the arena as gladiators in front of the people. Surprisingly, emperors that have been associated with mild temperedness like Titus and Hadrian would perform in the arena, as well as the more aggressive emperors, such as Commodus, Nero and Caligula. The Roman historian Suetonius had this to say about the Emperor Caligula, “[He] practiced many other various arts…most enthusiastically, too. He made appearances as a Thracian gladiator, as a singer, as a dancer, fought with real weapons, and drove chariots in many circuses in a number of places.” These emperors had the power to do anything, but as huge fans of the gladiators, they chose to take on the role of gladiator. They wanted the attention, fame and admiration that came with being a gladiator in Roman society.

The Roman emperors were not the only individuals that wanted to step inside the arena. Freeborn Romans, wealthy and poor, would relinquish their rights as citizens to enter the ludus to train and perform as gladiators. It has been debated as to why these citizens would choose to surrender their freedoms and voluntarily become a slave in the gladiator schools. Some scholars believe that people may have entered the ludus seeking wealth, and it may have been seen as a viable option to avoid bankruptcy. Although, another theory suggests that these Romans were simply seeking the fame and recognition that was associated with successful gladiators. However, the Roman historian Cassius Dio suggests that, “Young [Roman] men became gladiators instead of soldiers,” because Septimius Severus only allowed recruitment to the Praetorian Guard from outside provinces. So perhaps young men saw that entering the ludus was an additional opportunity to learn combat skills and acquire the virtues of a desirable Roman man. It is important to point out that whichever the individual’s motives may have been, they still believed that the positive rewards of entering the ludus outweighed the negative effects on their reputation. The money, admiration, fame and recognition that a citizen could earn as a gladiator were seen to be more important to a person’s life then being a slave.

Despite being a slave and a social outcast, the gladiator was a celebrity that was associated with virtues such as honor, courage and bravery. These qualities were expected to be displayed by the most respected Romans. These virtues were so important in defining a Roman that the gladiator’s public display of these qualities allowed them to be accepted back into society. The Romans valued strength, courage, and the ability to fight with bravery. These are all virtues that the most popular gladiators would display each time they stepped into the arena. Cicero would document the bravery and courage of the gladiators by saying, “Just look at the gladiators…and consider the blows that they endure! Consider how they who have been well-disciplined prefer to accept a blow then ignominiously avoid it….They consider nothing other than the satisfaction of their master or the people.” The Romans also valued the concept of the “good death.” If it was decided for a gladiator’s life to end, his ability to show no fear as he received the death blow, was seen to be an honorable quality to have as a Roman. A gladiator that pulled away from a blow or showed fear would be denied honor and most likely be condemned to die by the crowd. Another virtue the gladiator was typically associated with was that of being a good warrior. Roman society was militaristic and the trait of being able to fight and to be a good soldier were very desirable. Martial would glorify the fighting abilities of a gladiator named Carpophorus by comparing his accomplishments with those of Hercules, Martial says, “Let the glory of Hercules’ achievements be numbered: it is more to have subdued twice ten wild beasts at one time.” The gladiators were the embodiment of the traditional Roman virtues and they were revered for this quality. Even the gladiators upheld their honor amongst themselves by pledging to the gladiator’s oath. These virtues were very important to the gladiator because his successful display of these traits could mean the difference between life and death.

Another reason that supports the benevolence for the gladiators in Roman society is the spectators did not go to the munera to watch these athletes be slaughtered. Research has been done in the past that has tried to rationalize why the Romans would want to view these blood spectacles. Some scholars have argued that the Romans simply enjoyed the gore and violence, however the sources show that this is may not be the case. The Romans went to the games to watch displays of Roman virtues and skillful combat. They attended the games to see the honor and valor of the gladiators every time they fought in the arena. Another aspect of the sport the spectators enjoyed was the gladiators’ ability to put on an exciting show. If the fighters performed poorly and failed to entertain the crowd they would lose popularity. An example that shows that the Romans were not at the arena for blood, but to witness skill and virtue is found in the writings of Martial. The poet talks about how two gladiators fought so valiantly that they both were awarded victory and their freedom, he said, “As Priscus and Verus each drew out the contest and the struggle between the pair stood equal, [the crowd] shouts loud…sought discharge for the combatants….Equal they fought, equal they yielded. To both Caesar sent wooden swords and to both palms. Thus valor and skill had their reward.” This act by Emperor Titus astonished the crowd and caused much excitement in the arena. This decision even brought the emperor popularity with the audience and made him appear merciful and just. It was rare that both gladiators earned victory, usually there was a loser that would be allowed to leave with is life if he showed skill and virtue. However, in the case of Priscus and Verus, both fighters showed great virtue and skill and both were granted victory for their efforts. The belief that the spectators were at the games to see the gladiators butcher themselves is false, the crowd was there to see fair and honest competition.

The gladiators were granted extra privileges that other slaves did not have in society. The gladiators were able to amass large amounts of wealth which was something that could not be done by most slaves. Each victory would come with the award of gold, and some gladiators would win numerous times. Gladiators which were able to survive over a long period of time and accumulated their victories were able to save enough wealth to buy their own freedom. There are examples of gladiators competing in over forty fights, and some of these fighters could go undefeated in the arena. It is easy to imagine the wealth that some of the gladiators could actually obtain as they earned victory after victory. This wealth could also help the gladiators raise and support a family.

Another privilege the gladiators were able to enjoy which other slaves could not, was to be able to marry and raise children. Some of the most successful gladiators could manage their own households, or at least have their wives and children live with them at the ludus. Typically, other slaves would not be able to marry or have relationships with freewomen in Rome. Also, any child that was born to a slave was usually the master’s property and did not belong to the parents. Gladiators were interestingly an exception from this rule. The Roman poet Juvenal records a love story between a woman and a gladiator. Juvenal mentions that the woman was not ashamed of being called a “gladiator groupie,” and it did not matter that the man’s appearance was deformed from combat because, “He was a gladiator.” According to Juvenal, the woman said the gladiator is what she, “Preferred to her sons and her fatherland, to her sister and her husband. It’s the steel that [she is] in love with.” In addition to stories like these there is evidence that even supported women living with the gladiators in the ludus. During the excavation of Pompeii the remains of a well-dressed woman were found within the ash in the city’s gladiator barracks. The fact that the gladiators were exempt from certain restrictions which were placed on other slaves shows the level of respect that the Romans had for these men.

An additional privilege that gladiators had which other slaves did not, was the right to have their bodies disposed of with dignity. Due to their wealth and fame, the gladiators were able to purchase elaborate epitaphs, and they had family and fans that wanted to honor their memory. This is the opposite from the fate of the bodies of other slaves, which would end up being thrown into the river or simply left exposed to the elements. Before the gladiators took to the arena, the munera featured beast hunts in the morning and public executions at lunch. All of the bodies that were generated by these games would be dragged out of the arena by hooks, desecrated and exposed. The gladiators were the only victims that died in the arena that received honor and were interred. There are not many gladiator epitaphs known to exist but the mere presence of them supports their immense popularity in Roman society. It shows that the gladiators were wealthy enough to have an epitaph posted in public and they had loved ones to commission it after they had died. Another point to consider about the existence of these burial inscriptions is that the public believed it was worth the time and effort to preserve the memory of these slave warriors. In some circumstances the public would honor the most popular gladiators with high-profile funerals that were suitable for the Roman aristocrats. The Roman people wanted to remember these successful fighters and document their achievements for future generations.

Another argument for the popularity of the gladiators in Roman society is their repeated representation in Roman art. The gladiator’s depiction in art has been found all over the many provinces in the Roman Empire. The popularity of the gladiator was not limited to the city of Rome, but was wide spread across the empire. Gladiatorial combat was not just a sport enjoyed in Rome because citizens all over Europe, North Africa and Asia loved the display of virtuous fighting that was performed by gladiators. I will be talking about two different examples of the artistic representation of gladiators, which are found in different parts of the Empire, showing how popular they were with the people.

Figure 1 Gladiator helmet oil lamps found in Rome (left) and Germany (right).

Throughout the empire, archeologists have found representations of gladiator helmets in oil lamps. These helmet lamps have varied in shape depending on the different types of gladiators, however the most popular was the murmillo’s helmet (figure 1). There are not many gladiator lamps that have been discovered since there are only twenty-eight of these artifacts known to exist. However, these lamps have been found from the islands of Britain to the mountains of Serbia, which suggests a high interest in this household item amongst the citizens across the Roman Empire. It is also believed that most of the lamps came from a single craftsman that would have distributed his product around the Empire. The fact that these lamps were created in the first place is compelling, because an artist saw a profit to be made in creating these lamps. He must have known that the lamps would be bought by interested buyers and that he would make money. It is interesting that representations of gladiators can be found in such common household items. The owners of these lamps would have used them every night as a source of light, while at the same time being reminded of their favorite spectacle of gladiatorial combat.

The second piece of art is a mosaic that was discovered in a massive villa outside of the ancient city called Lepcis Magna, which is located in modern day Libya. The city was very important for the Carthaginian trade system before it was conquered by the Romans after the Punic Wars which occurred during the 300-200s BC.

The segment shown in figure 2 is one of many scenes of the munera that was featured on a floor mosaic in the Villa Dar Buc Ammera. This specific scene shows several different aspects of a gladiatorial match. The mosaic depicts the fights’ small and compact nature along with the presence of a referee which shows a strict organization. The Zliten Mosaic does not feature the gladiators being butchered or even killed, instead it depicts the athletes’ fighting ability and the games’ fair competitive nature. This mosaic also shows that the gladiators were popular with the upper classes of Roman society. The owner of this Villa chose to have this mosaic placed in his home, which showcased his admiration for the gladiators and their sport. Roman society was obsessed with social structure and was very strict about who they associated with, so it is interesting that these wealthy elites would choose to have slaves depicted in the décor of their homes. This shows that the Romans, from all social classes, revered the gladiators for their virtues and fighting ability more then they hated them for their position in the servile class.

Throughout this paper I have talked about several different ways that Roman society admired the gladiators. However, I would like to clarify that I am not arguing that the Romans did not view the gladiators with any kind of hostility, because they certainly did view them with some disdain. Tertullian best describes the relationship between the gladiators and the citizens of Rome, “They [the Romans] love whom they lower; they despise whom they approve; the art they glorify, the artist they disgrace.” It is important for anyone that is studying gladiators in society to remember these type of sentiments that the Romans had towards the athletes when analyzing their ambivalence. Although, it may be difficult for someone in the modern world to fully understand what it means to admire and love a person like a celebrity while at the same time hating and despising him as a social outcast.

The Romans loved the gladiators more then they hated them. I have talked about the benevolence that the Romans had toward the gladiators by explaining how each member of society admired the fighters. The women loved them, the children idolized them and the men wanted to be them. I showed how this affection for the gladiators did not stop at the common Roman citizen, but transcended the social ranks to effect the Roman Emperors. The power and fame that came with being the emperor was not enough, so they had to take the guise of a gladiator. I also talked about how the gladiators had more rights than other slaves in the empire, and how it reflects that the society had more respect for the gladiators than they did other slaves. Finally, I talked about how the Romans did not confine their fandom to the arena, but they also brought it home with visualizations of gladiators in art. All of these factors support a more benevolent attitude towards Rome’s celebrity outcasts in the society that would eventually influence the modern world.