From the number of paintings and drawings, sculptures, mosaics and other artefacts which have existed since the days of the Colosseum and have been produced since that period, it is reasonable to assume that the games formed a significant part of Roman life. Undoubtedly they had a major impact in those who were alive at the time, whether spectators, participants or critics, and with more than 150 Roman amphitheatres stretching across Europe and Northern Africa, there were opportunities for millions of people to see the games during centuries of Roman supremacy. Sadly, there were also many thousands killed through participation.
Equally, they have been an influence on art and artists through the ages and even to the modern day where popular film culture lets us imagine what it was like to be at the very centre of the games.
Whatever the Roman games mean to us today, they had a very different meaning to ancient Roman society and it is that meaning, or indeed those meanings, which I would like to discuss here. First of all though, it is important to remember that ancient Rome was not a classless society. It was more akin to 18th century Britain or modern day India in that there were layers of society determined principally by wealth or status. We should therefore consider the meaning of the games from the perspective of those who provided them and those who attended. Also we should consider the meaning of the word Games. Today we associate the word games with sport but this is not the case with Roman games. They served a wider social and political purpose so any comparison with what we regard as games today is invalid. Having said that, and in the absence of what we know as organised sporting events, the games would have been considered sport by many Romans and non-Romans.
At the very highest level of Roman society, the Emperor, the games were his “gift” to the people of Rome and were a means by which he could show his generosity. Much of the income derived by Rome was wealth captured from the taking of land and the overthrow of other peoples so perhaps the provision of free games for the people somehow balanced the enormous wealth enjoyed by emperors. However, it would be wrong to necessarily confuse this apparent generosity with philanthropy. Emperor Augustus for example cites in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, “I gave three gladiatorial games in my own name and five in that of my sons or grandsons”. Hosting the games was therefore also a way for an emperor to be remembered for his generosity – and to reflect his grandeur and power.
The games would also provide an excellent opportunity for propaganda and for the emperor to engender public support for his position. Roman politics were renowned for their Machiavellian tendencies so any emperor would do well to find favour with the public. With such large crowds attending, this would be an opportunity for the emperor to increase his popularity and thus diminish the likelihood of any factions within the Roman senate attempting to overthrow him.
The games also provided opportunities for other noted public figures to show generosity. Though their shows would not be allowed to be as lavish as those of the emperor, they served the purpose of showing support for the emperor and perhaps secured a place in finer Roman society.
As far as the people of Rome were concerned the games were, on the surface, much like modern day sports events. There is more to it than watching people and animals being killed. There is the atmosphere of the amphitheatre, seeing the emperor and the characters in the arena – some of whom would have been famous gladiators – meeting with friends. We must remember that at that time in history there were no other major spectator enabled events (our equivalents, the modern Olympic Games and Football World Cup are products of the 20th century). As a result, the Games filled a much needed space in what could have been for some Romans an uninspiring social calendar.
It is hard for us today to understand what the attraction of these apparently bloodthirsty games would have been to ordinary people. We do not instinctively associate the people of Rome with violent behaviour. Though Rome was a conquering nation their legacy to the modern world reaches far wider than these seemingly brutal acts. To understand the motivation of the crowd, who by many accounts enjoyed the Games, it is helpful to refer to The story of Alypius by St Augustine. Here Alypius is taken to the Games by some friends under duress. He is expecting to be appalled by what he sees but instead is enthralled. This parable serves to illustrate how the madness of crowds can be such an influencing factor in the behaviour of ordinary citizens who attended the Games.
Beyond meeting the popularity needs of the emperor and the entertainment needs of the people, the Roman games served two other important social functions.
The first of these was to provide a means of disposing of prisoners who had been condemned to death. These prisoners may have been criminals, perhaps defeated enemies who did not acknowledge Rome’s superiority or Christians who posed a threat to the stability of Roman rule. Whatever their crime, the arena provided a public venue for their slaughter. However, in some instances they were given a chance to redeem themselves through bravery in battle (which could be among themselves or against savage animals). In such instances the crowd would participate in the determination of their fate. In this way the responsibility for killing prisoners of all types was one which was shared by all of Roman society.
The second function was to clear areas of land of dangerous animals so that it was fit for habitation. For example, it is recorded that at the hundred days’ festival a total of 9,000 animals were killed. The Romans believed that such wholesale slaughter of wild animals, some of species that posed no threat to human life, was a necessary exercise to create more usable land in the Empire.
Whatever our own personal view of the Games is today, it is sure to be one which would provoke reaction – whether horror at their brutality or fascination at the extent of the spectacle, or both. However it is evident from what we know of them that if they existed today, they would have an important place in our emotions. In the same way, they must have held an important place in the mind of all Romans and even though many contemporary writers were mildly scathing in their description of the events they remained, in some form, a feature of Roman life for some 500 years.
Equally, they have been an influence on art and artists through the ages and even to the modern day where popular film culture lets us imagine what it was like to be at the very centre of the games.
Whatever the Roman games mean to us today, they had a very different meaning to ancient Roman society and it is that meaning, or indeed those meanings, which I would like to discuss here. First of all though, it is important to remember that ancient Rome was not a classless society. It was more akin to 18th century Britain or modern day India in that there were layers of society determined principally by wealth or status. We should therefore consider the meaning of the games from the perspective of those who provided them and those who attended. Also we should consider the meaning of the word Games. Today we associate the word games with sport but this is not the case with Roman games. They served a wider social and political purpose so any comparison with what we regard as games today is invalid. Having said that, and in the absence of what we know as organised sporting events, the games would have been considered sport by many Romans and non-Romans.
At the very highest level of Roman society, the Emperor, the games were his “gift” to the people of Rome and were a means by which he could show his generosity. Much of the income derived by Rome was wealth captured from the taking of land and the overthrow of other peoples so perhaps the provision of free games for the people somehow balanced the enormous wealth enjoyed by emperors. However, it would be wrong to necessarily confuse this apparent generosity with philanthropy. Emperor Augustus for example cites in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, “I gave three gladiatorial games in my own name and five in that of my sons or grandsons”. Hosting the games was therefore also a way for an emperor to be remembered for his generosity – and to reflect his grandeur and power.
The games would also provide an excellent opportunity for propaganda and for the emperor to engender public support for his position. Roman politics were renowned for their Machiavellian tendencies so any emperor would do well to find favour with the public. With such large crowds attending, this would be an opportunity for the emperor to increase his popularity and thus diminish the likelihood of any factions within the Roman senate attempting to overthrow him.
The games also provided opportunities for other noted public figures to show generosity. Though their shows would not be allowed to be as lavish as those of the emperor, they served the purpose of showing support for the emperor and perhaps secured a place in finer Roman society.
As far as the people of Rome were concerned the games were, on the surface, much like modern day sports events. There is more to it than watching people and animals being killed. There is the atmosphere of the amphitheatre, seeing the emperor and the characters in the arena – some of whom would have been famous gladiators – meeting with friends. We must remember that at that time in history there were no other major spectator enabled events (our equivalents, the modern Olympic Games and Football World Cup are products of the 20th century). As a result, the Games filled a much needed space in what could have been for some Romans an uninspiring social calendar.
It is hard for us today to understand what the attraction of these apparently bloodthirsty games would have been to ordinary people. We do not instinctively associate the people of Rome with violent behaviour. Though Rome was a conquering nation their legacy to the modern world reaches far wider than these seemingly brutal acts. To understand the motivation of the crowd, who by many accounts enjoyed the Games, it is helpful to refer to The story of Alypius by St Augustine. Here Alypius is taken to the Games by some friends under duress. He is expecting to be appalled by what he sees but instead is enthralled. This parable serves to illustrate how the madness of crowds can be such an influencing factor in the behaviour of ordinary citizens who attended the Games.
Beyond meeting the popularity needs of the emperor and the entertainment needs of the people, the Roman games served two other important social functions.
The first of these was to provide a means of disposing of prisoners who had been condemned to death. These prisoners may have been criminals, perhaps defeated enemies who did not acknowledge Rome’s superiority or Christians who posed a threat to the stability of Roman rule. Whatever their crime, the arena provided a public venue for their slaughter. However, in some instances they were given a chance to redeem themselves through bravery in battle (which could be among themselves or against savage animals). In such instances the crowd would participate in the determination of their fate. In this way the responsibility for killing prisoners of all types was one which was shared by all of Roman society.
The second function was to clear areas of land of dangerous animals so that it was fit for habitation. For example, it is recorded that at the hundred days’ festival a total of 9,000 animals were killed. The Romans believed that such wholesale slaughter of wild animals, some of species that posed no threat to human life, was a necessary exercise to create more usable land in the Empire.
Whatever our own personal view of the Games is today, it is sure to be one which would provoke reaction – whether horror at their brutality or fascination at the extent of the spectacle, or both. However it is evident from what we know of them that if they existed today, they would have an important place in our emotions. In the same way, they must have held an important place in the mind of all Romans and even though many contemporary writers were mildly scathing in their description of the events they remained, in some form, a feature of Roman life for some 500 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment