This is a semi-related topic from a video I recently watched during medieval sieges: "What motivated a person to be first to climb up a ladder attacking a fortress?"
> The most common perception of gladiatorial games is that they were violent and gruesome because someone always died,” says archaeologist R. R. R. Smith of the University of Oxford, who directs excavations at the site of Aphrodisias. “This isn’t true. In gladiatorial games, most of the time, both participants left the arena on their feet. The games weren’t about killing, but about the excitement of two men fighting, about showcasing skill, discipline, endurance, strength, tactics, and different weapons.” In the rare cases when gladiators were killed or condemned to death, they had been trained to die theatrically to add to the performance’s impact.
By nature they are violent because they are fighting. I would not like these odds.
> There have been works that estimate the actual percentage of deaths; the highest I've heard is 1/5 matches resulting in a death, quite often accidentally. That was Mary Beard's estimate. Many other authors have estimate somewhere between 1/5 and 1/8 matches resulting in deaths.
That about the odds to be killed in a year for a Russian volunteer signing up to go to Ukraine. They do it for just $3k/month - for many Russians it is a great money and thus they risk their lives. Giving the limited options, it may as well be that many gladiators were happy to fight in the arena instead of dying from hunger and exhaustion in say quarry.
Considering many people willingly became gladiators you're pretty on point, it was not only about money, but it was an easy way to gain access to housing, food and other amenities that gladiators were offered between fights and training, not to mention it could also be an alternative to slavery when one fell into debt they couldn't repay.
Most gladiators were slaves, fyi. Rarely you could make enough money to buy your freedom, but that was hardly unique to being a gladiator. Your other points still stand—it was more attractive than destitute poverty or death.
Is MMA not meant to be a spectacle? Meanwhile WWE is more like a cooperative dance in drag than it is resembling actual fighting. And I mean that in a sense of absolute respect for the art.
> Even Cirque du Soleil carries more risk of death. The corpse removal process is seamless enough that the show continues.
I was shocked to hear this and looked up a Wikipedia article [0]. Given their reaction when a performer died (abrupt stoppage of the show with full refunds), I think you're making this up.
You really don't know anything about pro wrestling if that's what you think. The moves they perform might not have the intention hurting, but they're both dangerous and painful, there's a lot of skill involved to not end up in a hospital, not to mention some of the less spectacular moves come directly from olympic wrestling and it's variants. It's a performative spectacle, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous or skillful, saying otherwise is just being ignorant.
For what it's worth: As a martial artist, the hits WWE fighters take are mind boggling. Part of learning martial arts is learning how to safely take a fall. As far as I can see, a lot of the falls and hits that people are taking in WWE are the sort that you can't really take "safely". As far as I can tell, they are often just ignoring the pain and doing the best they can to minimize the damage.
With how expensive payouts to the stable of a dead gladiator could be[0], it seems very likely to me that a lot of the matches were at least coordinated, if not outright planned.
[0] "But if he were injured or killed, the lease would convert to a sale and the gladiator's full cost would have to be paid, a sum that might be some 50 times higher than the lease price." https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038038
Riding in the TT is like climbing Everest. It's the ultimate challenge.
Typically, there is at _least_ one death during racing each year. Often many more.
Just supposing that being a chariot driver was more dangerous and lethal than being a Gladiator.
The Isle of Man motorcycle races (with a death toll of 1-2% per year) are, both today, and historically, one of the most dangerous motor vehicle events in the world.
IoM takes both novices and veterans. Yet, they all sign up anyway. It's a thrilling spectacle to be sure.
That's the whole point. IoM is an equal opportunity killer.
The "novices" are those new to the course, not new to racing. They're skilled racers, proven, successful. But stuff happens, and the course can be unforgiving.
David Jefferies was a lap record holding, TT winning champion when he collided with a wall in 2003.
The point you missed..... is that like chariot racing once was, the TT is a stupidly dangerous thing to do, yet it's a race many will willingly risk their lives to compete in for the challenge.
ergo, I'd much rather be a charioteer (a modern TT racer), than a comparatively safe gladiator (a modern boxer). :-)
I don't understand why the title got edited by OP from "How gladiators in ancient Anatolia lived to entertain the masses" to remove the "How". It just turns it into an obvious statement and doesn't convey what the article is about, which is about their life, training, etc.
What would be the reason? In most titles / statements I can come up with it changes the meaning, and saving 4 chars ain't good enough reason, better would be a/an/the.
> It just turns it into an obvious statement and doesn't convey what the article is about, which is about their life, training, etc.
It's not an obvious statement.
It tells us that the gladiators aimed to entertain the masses. It could have been that they didn't care about their audience (and only cared about money, or saving their lives). Or it could be that they had contempt for their audience (if they for example were forced to fight against their will). It could also have been that they lived to entertain the elites and not the masses. Or lived to entertain other gladiators, or please the gods or any other alternatives.
More than you'd think! I recall reading about touring gladiators. Rome might have been the big city, but audiences get tired of seeing the same gladiators all the time, so they'd go on tour. Now if you have a highly successful gladiator and you're in Podunkus, Asia Minor, would you risk losing your meal ticket to some hairy local? No. You fix the match. After the tour, you head back to Rome for the triumphant return and people are excited to see your guy again.
I hate how politically jaded I have become reading anything related to modern archeology.
When first introducing Ephesus (why not add '(a Greek founded and speaking city)'. I mean they are talking about Roman cultural introduction to the existing culture, saying 'Anatolia' doesn't give me context of the culture being introduced to Roman ways. There was no 'Anatolian' culture.
Why say 'Greek-style athletic contests' when they were just actual greek athletic contests held largely in Greek founded, Greek speaking cities? With so much modern agenda filtering archaeology I can't help but see erasure that much of Anatolia was Greek or greek founded. I just see a misleading implication that these cities hosting 'greek style contests' weren't, you know, culturally Greeks. It is crazy that there are 14 instances of Anatolia and the only time Greek occurs is 'Greek style'.
I don't see the need to ascribe anything to an agenda. This is an article for popular consumption. They are focusing on the exciting bits (the gladiator stuff) and skimping on the wider cultural background. All pretty standard for popular science articles.
How does that necesitate using the less descriptive 'Greek-style athletic contests' than just saying Greek athletic contests? Wouldn't it be better to use the more familiar Greek or identifier in the case of popular consumption?
And your point other than a personal attack on my feelings of self worth (in direct violation of not just the rules but the ethos of Hacker News)?
Anatolia is a location, not a culture. This is an article on cultural changes. Using Anatolia, a large region of land, as a descriptor for culture seems weird an needlessly imprecise in an archeological/anthropological sense for an article talking about an impact on cultures (what cultures?). Why would someone use 'Greek-style athletic contests' when 'greek athletic contests' is a more accurate/direct/correct description?
It is totally valid to say 'I don't like the current trend of twisting words/obfuscating, it sucks and makes me defensive reading the article, and the use of this less descriptive subsubstition and zero direct mention triggered that distrust'. Or are you saying I should just brainlessly consume everything I read online and to do otherwise is somehow not manly?
You should read more carefully to start with before accusing everything you see that does not fit into your narrative.
requiring n time the word Greek until you are satisfied is a you problem. I don't care enough about you to attack you personally. If you read more on these you would not get stuck in these accounting problems.
Why lead with more personally directed comments? Instead help me understand how a geographic area that has changed cultures is the best way to refer to the culture being talked about? At least refer to XYZ/ABC/123 populated Anatolia or something (I get it can get somewhat blurry in that area and time). I don't think the linguistic root of the geographic area's name gives all that much context and think they cop out because interdisciplinary politics of if ABC or XYZ is Greek but they then leave unread people like myself uninformed who they are talking about.
They went into enough specifics to name individual cities but I admit I don't always know which cultures lived in which cities in which time periods off the top of my head. I remember just enough that calling it 'Greek style' for the Greek cities they named seemed wrong to me. I think it's more informative when articles gives at least a little insight to unread people like me on which populations they are referring to, not just geography:
This is a semi-related topic from a video I recently watched during medieval sieges: "What motivated a person to be first to climb up a ladder attacking a fortress?"
https://youtu.be/bwM0gP1p0xw?si=rt_lkLF5j-Mx3Gc8
> a video I recently watched during medieval sieges
Not so recently then.
Still waiting for the sequel, seems to be getting a bit overdue . . .
Lol. I should never edit before I have my coffee.
this is the one that I ended up watching a few days ago after the one above came into my feed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmat8xK9raM
I would say they were dying to entertain the masses too.
And then during the thrilling final act, it often came true.
> The most common perception of gladiatorial games is that they were violent and gruesome because someone always died,” says archaeologist R. R. R. Smith of the University of Oxford, who directs excavations at the site of Aphrodisias. “This isn’t true. In gladiatorial games, most of the time, both participants left the arena on their feet. The games weren’t about killing, but about the excitement of two men fighting, about showcasing skill, discipline, endurance, strength, tactics, and different weapons.” In the rare cases when gladiators were killed or condemned to death, they had been trained to die theatrically to add to the performance’s impact.
By nature they are violent because they are fighting. I would not like these odds.
> There have been works that estimate the actual percentage of deaths; the highest I've heard is 1/5 matches resulting in a death, quite often accidentally. That was Mary Beard's estimate. Many other authors have estimate somewhere between 1/5 and 1/8 matches resulting in deaths.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12k1r6/how_f...
That about the odds to be killed in a year for a Russian volunteer signing up to go to Ukraine. They do it for just $3k/month - for many Russians it is a great money and thus they risk their lives. Giving the limited options, it may as well be that many gladiators were happy to fight in the arena instead of dying from hunger and exhaustion in say quarry.
Considering many people willingly became gladiators you're pretty on point, it was not only about money, but it was an easy way to gain access to housing, food and other amenities that gladiators were offered between fights and training, not to mention it could also be an alternative to slavery when one fell into debt they couldn't repay.
Most gladiators were slaves, fyi. Rarely you could make enough money to buy your freedom, but that was hardly unique to being a gladiator. Your other points still stand—it was more attractive than destitute poverty or death.
Also better death as a gladiator than death in the mines.
To be honest when I think of Gladiators I think in terms of WWE wrestling more than I do MMA. As it is meant to be more of a spectacle.
Is MMA not meant to be a spectacle? Meanwhile WWE is more like a cooperative dance in drag than it is resembling actual fighting. And I mean that in a sense of absolute respect for the art.
Looks more like Medieval Times to me. WWE is just a bunch of performative groping.
Even Cirque du Soleil carries more risk of death. The corpse removal process is seamless enough that the show continues.
> Even Cirque du Soleil carries more risk of death. The corpse removal process is seamless enough that the show continues.
I was shocked to hear this and looked up a Wikipedia article [0]. Given their reaction when a performer died (abrupt stoppage of the show with full refunds), I think you're making this up.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sarah_Guyard-Guillot
You really don't know anything about pro wrestling if that's what you think. The moves they perform might not have the intention hurting, but they're both dangerous and painful, there's a lot of skill involved to not end up in a hospital, not to mention some of the less spectacular moves come directly from olympic wrestling and it's variants. It's a performative spectacle, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous or skillful, saying otherwise is just being ignorant.
For what it's worth: As a martial artist, the hits WWE fighters take are mind boggling. Part of learning martial arts is learning how to safely take a fall. As far as I can see, a lot of the falls and hits that people are taking in WWE are the sort that you can't really take "safely". As far as I can tell, they are often just ignoring the pain and doing the best they can to minimize the damage.
So, WWE more than war-like fighting
I think MMA would be a more apt comparison; the fighting itself was very real, if still entertainment.
With how expensive payouts to the stable of a dead gladiator could be[0], it seems very likely to me that a lot of the matches were at least coordinated, if not outright planned.
[0] "But if he were injured or killed, the lease would convert to a sale and the gladiator's full cost would have to be paid, a sum that might be some 50 times higher than the lease price." https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038038
I sort of agree in the sense that most fights you could probably guess who wins, but I don't think that's the same as a cooperative performance.
Given all the training done with gladiators, if every match resulted in a death, it would likely be unsustainable.
Imagine if Formula 1 racing was a demolition derby.
Yeah, would rather have been a gladiator than a charioteer.
Yet many of us bikers long to compete in the Isle of Man TT.
Here is an example of what a lap of the circuit looks like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RZ5wU-Fg0
Riding in the TT is like climbing Everest. It's the ultimate challenge. Typically, there is at _least_ one death during racing each year. Often many more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_TT
What does this have to do with chariots or am I missing some context?
Just supposing that being a chariot driver was more dangerous and lethal than being a Gladiator.
The Isle of Man motorcycle races (with a death toll of 1-2% per year) are, both today, and historically, one of the most dangerous motor vehicle events in the world.
IoM takes both novices and veterans. Yet, they all sign up anyway. It's a thrilling spectacle to be sure.
I thought IoM vetted the contestants to keep out inept riders.
That's the whole point. IoM is an equal opportunity killer.
The "novices" are those new to the course, not new to racing. They're skilled racers, proven, successful. But stuff happens, and the course can be unforgiving.
David Jefferies was a lap record holding, TT winning champion when he collided with a wall in 2003.
The point you missed..... is that like chariot racing once was, the TT is a stupidly dangerous thing to do, yet it's a race many will willingly risk their lives to compete in for the challenge.
ergo, I'd much rather be a charioteer (a modern TT racer), than a comparatively safe gladiator (a modern boxer). :-)
I don't understand why the title got edited by OP from "How gladiators in ancient Anatolia lived to entertain the masses" to remove the "How". It just turns it into an obvious statement and doesn't convey what the article is about, which is about their life, training, etc.
HN automatically does that.
What would be the reason? In most titles / statements I can come up with it changes the meaning, and saving 4 chars ain't good enough reason, better would be a/an/the.
Apparently those kinds of titles are considered "clickbaity". I agree that this particular edit makes things confusing.
I think there was a rapidly rising tide of auto-generated blogspam "How-To" articles at one point, that can be filtered in a fairly specifc way.
You can re-edit it to preserve the How though.
I wonder what the statistics look like on these auto adjustments.
> It just turns it into an obvious statement and doesn't convey what the article is about, which is about their life, training, etc.
It's not an obvious statement.
It tells us that the gladiators aimed to entertain the masses. It could have been that they didn't care about their audience (and only cared about money, or saving their lives). Or it could be that they had contempt for their audience (if they for example were forced to fight against their will). It could also have been that they lived to entertain the elites and not the masses. Or lived to entertain other gladiators, or please the gods or any other alternatives.
> A pair of mounted gladiators featured in the initial spectacle
Anyone have primary sources for this? Diodorus?
This looks like professional wrestling to me. Way to go, Anatolians!
More than you'd think! I recall reading about touring gladiators. Rome might have been the big city, but audiences get tired of seeing the same gladiators all the time, so they'd go on tour. Now if you have a highly successful gladiator and you're in Podunkus, Asia Minor, would you risk losing your meal ticket to some hairy local? No. You fix the match. After the tour, you head back to Rome for the triumphant return and people are excited to see your guy again.
I hate how politically jaded I have become reading anything related to modern archeology.
When first introducing Ephesus (why not add '(a Greek founded and speaking city)'. I mean they are talking about Roman cultural introduction to the existing culture, saying 'Anatolia' doesn't give me context of the culture being introduced to Roman ways. There was no 'Anatolian' culture.
Why say 'Greek-style athletic contests' when they were just actual greek athletic contests held largely in Greek founded, Greek speaking cities? With so much modern agenda filtering archaeology I can't help but see erasure that much of Anatolia was Greek or greek founded. I just see a misleading implication that these cities hosting 'greek style contests' weren't, you know, culturally Greeks. It is crazy that there are 14 instances of Anatolia and the only time Greek occurs is 'Greek style'.
I don't see the need to ascribe anything to an agenda. This is an article for popular consumption. They are focusing on the exciting bits (the gladiator stuff) and skimping on the wider cultural background. All pretty standard for popular science articles.
How does that necesitate using the less descriptive 'Greek-style athletic contests' than just saying Greek athletic contests? Wouldn't it be better to use the more familiar Greek or identifier in the case of popular consumption?
Anatolia is a Greek word. Read some. It will give you confidence about yourself so you don't seek confirmation from every piece.
And your point other than a personal attack on my feelings of self worth (in direct violation of not just the rules but the ethos of Hacker News)?
Anatolia is a location, not a culture. This is an article on cultural changes. Using Anatolia, a large region of land, as a descriptor for culture seems weird an needlessly imprecise in an archeological/anthropological sense for an article talking about an impact on cultures (what cultures?). Why would someone use 'Greek-style athletic contests' when 'greek athletic contests' is a more accurate/direct/correct description?
It is totally valid to say 'I don't like the current trend of twisting words/obfuscating, it sucks and makes me defensive reading the article, and the use of this less descriptive subsubstition and zero direct mention triggered that distrust'. Or are you saying I should just brainlessly consume everything I read online and to do otherwise is somehow not manly?
You should read more carefully to start with before accusing everything you see that does not fit into your narrative.
requiring n time the word Greek until you are satisfied is a you problem. I don't care enough about you to attack you personally. If you read more on these you would not get stuck in these accounting problems.
Why lead with more personally directed comments? Instead help me understand how a geographic area that has changed cultures is the best way to refer to the culture being talked about? At least refer to XYZ/ABC/123 populated Anatolia or something (I get it can get somewhat blurry in that area and time). I don't think the linguistic root of the geographic area's name gives all that much context and think they cop out because interdisciplinary politics of if ABC or XYZ is Greek but they then leave unread people like myself uninformed who they are talking about.
They went into enough specifics to name individual cities but I admit I don't always know which cultures lived in which cities in which time periods off the top of my head. I remember just enough that calling it 'Greek style' for the Greek cities they named seemed wrong to me. I think it's more informative when articles gives at least a little insight to unread people like me on which populations they are referring to, not just geography:
https://gizmodo.com/dna-from-pompeii-victims-reveals-surpris...
Many people (ok, Americans :) ) don't even realize Greeks lived in Anatolia anymore.
duh
Just like me :(