Southern Illinois University Carbondale
OpenSIUC
Honors eses University Honors Program
8-2001
Violence in Sports: A Comparison of Gladiatorial
Games in Ancient Rome to the Sports of America
Amanda Doherty
Follow this and additional works at: hp://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses
Name On Title Page: Amanda Stern
is Dissertation/esis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Honors eses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact opensiuc@lib.siu.edu.
Recommended Citation
Doherty, Amanda, "Violence in Sports: A Comparison of Gladiatorial Games in Ancient Rome to the Sports of America" (2001).
Honors eses. Paper 9.
.,
Violence in Sports: A Comparison
of
Gladiatorial Games in Ancient
Rome to the Sports
of
America
Amanda Stern
Gladiatorial games in Ancient Rome and modem sports have more in common
than
we would like to believe. Violence has been a key component to the success
of
each
of
these activities. Many spectators watched as the Coliseum was filled with blood from
brutal gladiatorial matches. Today, hundreds
offans
watch as two grown men hit one
another in a boxing ring. After examining gladiatorial games and looking at modem
sports one may notice similarities between the two. These similarities suggest that
modem sports seem
to be
just
as violent as games in Ancient Rome.
The Romans believed that they inherited the practice
of
gladiatorial games from
the Etruscans who used them as part
of
a funeral ritual (Grant, 7). The first gladiatorial
games were offered in Rome in 264 BCE by sons
of
Junius Brutus Pera in their father's
honor (Grant, 8). Gladiatorial combat was originally
part
of
a religious ceremony that
was intended to insure that the dead would be accompanied to the next world
by
armed
attendants and that the spirits
of
the dead would be appeased with this offering
of
blood
(Grant, 8). Although this ritual began as a ceremony to honor important men after their
death, it began to lose its religious significance and it became a more popular sport.
Aristocrats' funerals celebrated their victories and enhanced their reputations. Emperors
presented the games to show the public how much power they had.
Among the gladiators were thousands
of
prisoners
of
war. The historian
Josephus described how Titus dealt with his captives from the Jewish Rebellion. "The
number
of
those destroyed in contests with wild beasts
or
with one another or
in
the
flames exceeded 2,500" (Grant, 28). The Romans, however, seemed to believe that this
kind oftreatrnent was too light a punishment for their enemies (Grant, 28). At times
criminals were condemned to work in the mines, but they believed that being a gladiator
was a less severe sentence.
Many
people
were
killed
in
the mines,
and
they stood a better
chance
of
survival
in
the arena (Grant,
29).
Some
free
men
even entered the
games
in
hopes
of
popularity and patronage
by
wealthy citizens.
Some
people chose this lifestyle because gladiators
were
given three
meals a
day,
decent medical care, and if
they
were
good
enough they were given their
freedom.
They
may
be
free,
but they could never
be
citizens (Grant,
29).
These
men,
although
they
were
free, would never
be
seen
as
legitimate members
of
society
by
the
upper class. Upper class citizens saw
men
who
had
been gladiators
as
worthless
creatures.
They
viewed them as they
did
actors
whom
emperors sometimes forced to
fight
in
the arena just because they had disgraced themselves already
by
appearing
onstage (Grant,
29).
Another source
for
gladiators came
in
the
form
of
women.
However, the
emperor Septimius Severus
in
the early 3
rd
century
made
it impossible for
women
to
participate.
He
thought that the very presence
of
women
in
the arena suggested a lack
of
virtus (Grant,
32).
For
men
to
lose their virtus meant that they
were
no
longer seen
as
masculine
and
strong.
Having women participate
in
the arena
made
it
seem
as
though
men
no
longer
had
these great attributes. If
women
could
do
it then it must not
be
too
difficult.
When gladiators signed
on,
they
swore:
"I undertake
to
be
burnt
by
fire, to
be
bound in chains,
to
be
beaten, to die
by
the sword" (Grant,
45).
Gladiators would begin
the fight
and
continue until one
was
near
death.
If
one
gladiator had control
of
another
the crowd
was
given the opportunity
to
express their feelings
as
to whether
he
should
be
finished off(Grant,
45).
If
the audience members turned their thumbs toward the ground
this signified that the gladiator's life should be spared.
On
the other hand,
if
the audience
pointed their thumbs to their chest the gladiator
was
to kill his opponent. After the
gladiator
was
put to death, an attendant with the mask
of
Mercury came in the arena with
a hot iron to make sure that the victim was really dead. Meanwhile, boys entered the
arena and spread clean sand over the victim's blood (Grant, 45).
This may seem extremely brutal, but it often
was
much worse. At times, two
criminals would enter the arena, but only one
of
them would be armed. Wild beasts
would be matched against each other
or
against humans. In 80 AD when the emperor
Titus inaugurated the Colosseum, 5,000 wild beasts were killed in a single day (Grant,
45). Seutonius states that, "during gladiatorial shows the emperor Titus would pit feeble
old fighters against decrepit criminals; or stage comic duels between respectable
householders, who happened to be physically disabled in some way or the other" (Grant,
104).
Emperor Caligula seemed to use violence as a way to punish those that he was
jealous
offor
some reason or another. "Aesius Proculus, a leading centurion's son, was
so good-looking that he was nicknamed 'Giant Cupid'. So Caligula had him dragged
from his seat and matched with a retiarius and then a secutor. Proculus won both times,
but
was
paraded through the streets in rags and then executed" (Grant, 104). Emperor
Claudius was also known to have a very violent side. It is told that he ordered that fallen
fighters, especially retiarii, should have their throats cut
so
that he could watch their
faces as they died (Grant, 104). The imperial gladiator Commodus "got together all the
men in the city who had lost their feet as the result
of
disease
or
some accident, and then,
after fastening about their knees some likenesses
of
serpents' bodies, and giving them
sponges
to
throw instead
of
stones, killed them with blows
of
a club, pretending they
were giants" (Grant,
104-5).
Although the gladiatorial games
were
extremely violent,
one
modern writer
believed that the Romans were not necessarily involved
in
these games only because
they
enjoyed killing
for
fun.
Alison Futrell proposes
in
her book Blood in
the
Arena ,"the
amphitheater was a politicized temple that housed the mythic reenactment
of
the cult
of
the Roman statehood.
The
death
of
a gladiator served
as
a foundation sacrifice that
answered the crisis
of
empire, validating
the
Roman struggle
for
power and offering a
model
for
understanding the basis
of
Roman power" (Futrell,
170).
She
believes that the
gladiators,
who
were
not
wonderful members
of
society, were given
to
the
gods
as
sacrifices.
This suggests that gladiatorial events were not violent because they were meant as
sacrifices
to the
gods.
It
seems
to
me
that sacrifices to the gods could have been made
with animals instead
of
humans. Futrell suggests that this sort
of
sacrifice
was
okay
because
it
was
meant for the gods, that
it
was
somehow better than murder
in
any
other
manner. Killing people
in
any
manner
is
a violent action even
if
it
is
for
the
gods.
"To explain the widespread popularity
of
violent sports, anthropologists speculate
about innate aggression and violence
in
human nature, and sociologists theorize about
how societies accommodate and
we
use
symbolic and real violence. Violence and blood
sports seem
to
be a universal legacy
from
the long prehistory
of
man
as
a hunter and
killer that
all
societies retain in sublimated or ritualized
form.
Some suggest that
all
social order
is
ultimately based on violence.
To
reinforce the social order violence must
be performed or proclaimed in public, and public violence tends
to
become ritualized
into games, sports, and even spectacles
of
death. Rome's brutal inclinations
in
spectacles
give support to theories
of
violence, vengeance, or sacrifice" (Kyle, 7).
"Sports can also be said to
be
a form
of
non-scripted, largely non-verbal theatre,
and emotional arousal can be enhanced by spectacular presentation, the emotional
'contagion' which derives from being part
of
a large, expectant crowd, and from the
'performances' which spectators and not just athletes put on" (Dunning, 3).
The sports
of
Ancient Rome are commonly viewed as a regression into barbarism.
The brutality
of
the gladiatorial combats, the mock battles, the massacres and the
bloodlust
of
the crowds are well established. Sociologically, these sports are indicative
of
an attitude to life, death, and the sufferings
of
others which was very different from
that which dominates in the contemporary West (Dunning,47).
It
was probably bound up
with the centrality
of
slavery in the economy and society
of
Ancient Rome.
Dunning is suggesting that gladiatorial combat works in Rome because the
Romans held a different view when it came to life, death, and the sufferings
of
others.
Romans knew that their life span
was
not extremely long so death was not something
they feared as we seem to today. Death
was
all around them. Many
of
their children
died at an early age or at birth, death was a
part
of
their lives. Also, Romans did not
seem to care too much about their fellow man, especially those who were in a lower class
than they were. Thus, seeing two
of
them fighting to the death did not seem to bother
them because they did not see many
of
them, slaves and criminals, as people.
According to Peter Marsh nearly all animals are aggressive in some manner and
sport is a way for humans to get out that aggression. Marsh suggests:
"Virtually all species
of
animal are aggressive... for reasons which appear... very
sound. Firstly, aggression allows for the establishment and maintenance
of
relatively stable patterns
of
dominance and submission. Secondly, the process is
involved in territorial defense, resulting in optimum dispersal
of
animals in
relation
to the resources available in their environment. Some species have more
rigidly structured dominance hierarchies than others and there is also great
variation in the extent to which animals are territorial. But aggression is common
to all and it is one
of
the things which keeps them in the survival game. At the
same time, however, it presents a problem because
of
its destructive potential.
Rivals need to be subdued and trespassers repelled. But
if
such activities
regularly resulted in death and serious wounding a species would soon find itself
on the verge
of
extinction. Not only would the population decline as a result
of
the increased fatality rate but the basic dominance networks would rapidly fall
apart. You
can't
very well dominate another male
if
you have killed him. And if,
in the process, you have also been seriously wounded then an easy task is
presented for ambitious rivals. The solution here is ritualization. By turning the
whole conflict business into aggressive ritual, fights became stylized games and
displays- things which bear an uncanny resemblance to the events....at the
football ground". (Marsh,33-34)
He
is
suggesting that
if
it were left up to the species itself the animals would not
continue to kill one another because the species would be close to extinction.
Ritualization helps by turning the more violent games into an activity where competitors
are not hurt as often as they were before. This can be seen in the game offootball. Since
the game has been ritualized, people know what is coming next, people are less likely to
get hurt. What would these games be like
if
they had not been ritualized? Since two
teams
of
very large men are knocking one another down it would seem that members
of
these teams would be getting dangerously hurt.
According to the Encyclopedia
of
World Sports, "All sports are inherently
competitive and hence conductive to aggression and violence, however, in some, such as
boxing, rugby, soccer and American football, violence and intimidation in the form
of
"play fight"
or
"mock Battle" between two individuals or groups are central ingredients.
Such sports involve the socially acceptable, ritualized expression
of
violence, butjust as
real battles that take place in war can involve a ritual component, so these mock battles
that take place on a sports field can involve elements of,
or
be transformed into, non-
ritual violence. This may occur when, perhaps as a result
of
social pressures
or
the
financial and prestige rewards involved, people participate too seriously."
Take for example, some modem day violent sport stories. Football coaches seem
to like it when their defense plays rough football.
An Atlanta football coach watched as
his special team players slam into each other and remarks
"I
love it when they knock
each other out". Vicious tackles produce roars
of
appreciation from the crowd and praise
from the commentator. Cincinnati Bengals defensive star Tim Krumie broke his leg in
the first quarter in the super bowl and the accident was replayed in slow motion on the
television
of90
million people. One
of
the pitchers for the Cincinnati Reds beaned a
Dodger player and then stated, "I threw it at him. He'll be lucky
if!
don't take his head
off
the next time
I'm
pitching". Some pro sports can be extremely violent. Defensive end
Sean Jones compares being a pro football player to being a gladiator
in
a Roman
coliseum. Have pro sports been dragged down to barbaric customs
of
the past? Some
Minnesota Vikings say,
"It's
not a good business
if
you care whether blood is bubbling
from a guys mouth." Are modem sports promoting and glorifying violence? (Aeseng, 58-
62)
Some people think that players
try
to hurt each other on purpose as in the case
of
the Philadelphia Eagles who
joked
about "Body bags" when they injured Washington
quarterbacks
Jeff
Rutledge and Stan Humpphries in a 1990 game (Aeseng, 35).
The acceptance
of
body contact and borderline violence seems to be based on the
idea that sports is
an
area
of
life in which it is permissible to suspend usual moral
standards. Studies show that athletes commonly distinguish between game morality and
the morality
of
everyday
life.
A coIlege basketbaIl player
says,
"In
sports
you
can
do
what
you
want.
In
life
it
is
more
restricted". A football player
says
"The
footbaIl
field
is
the
wrong place
to
think about ethics" (Miedzian,
57).
A child
who
watches acts
of
violence committed
by
thieves, murderers, or sadists
in
films
or on
TV
knows
that society disapproves
of
these
acts.
The child
who
watches
sports
knows
that athletes' acts
of
violence are approved
of
It
makes sense that sports
violence would serve
as
an
important
role
model
for
children
who
tend to
be
weIl
adjusted sociaIly,
while
illegal violence
on
the screen would tend to
have
a greater
influence on the behavior
of
children
who
are
more
psychologicaIly damaged and/or
feel
more
alienated
from
society (Miedzian,
61).
Sports
plays
a major
role
in
reinforcing the
concern with success, winning,
and
dominance.
On
the sports field these goals alone
justify illegal
and
violent acts (Miedzian,
62).
Children see these
images
on
the field
and
believe it
is
okay
for
them
to act
in
this fashion because their favorite athlete
is
acting
in
a violent
manner.
Competitors in violent sports
may
not keep the violence
on
the
field.
One
may
recaIl
many
stories
of
the
major athlete
who
comes
home
only
to beat
his
wife.
I
do
not think
this
is
the
kind
of
example that should
be
set
for
the youngsters
in
our
country.
Sports Illustrated took
an
"unscientific
poIl
of
fans"
and
reported
in
its August
8,
1988
issue that
"everyone
who
had
ever been a spectator at a sporting event
of
any
kind
had, at one time or another,
experienCed
the beIlowing
of
obscenities, racial or religious
epithets
...
abusive
sexual
remarks
to
women
in
the vicinity, fistfights between strangers
and
fistfights between friends" (Miedzian,
81).
When
"60
Minutes"
did a program on
youth
footbaIl
they
found
that the emphasis
was
very much on winning - to the point that
it
was
no longer
fun.
The
emphasis
on
winning deprives youth
of
the pleasure
of
playing the
game.
The
fmdings
of
academic
researchers confirm "the obsession with winning
is
far
from
infrequent
in
youth sports".
Eventually, integrity takes a backseat
to
the pragmatic concern
of
winning
games.
Players
learn that integrity
is
a rhetorical strategy one should raise only
in
certain times and
places.
The
adults involved with Little League tend to be oriented toward winning,
losing, and competition (Miedzian, 86)
Ironically, instead
of
focusing
on
enjoying sports, reaping physical benefits, and
instilling a lifelong involvement
in
athletics, too
many
of
our sports programs are geared
exclusively toward winning (and coincidentally destroying bodies
and
missing out on the
fun).
Many coaches think it
is
correct
to
use
techniques
of
pushing, yelling,
dehumanizing the opposing team,
etc.
Many coaches also teach players
to
sacrifice their
bodies unnecessarily, hide
all
feelings
of
fear
and vulnerability (however warranted they
may
be),
to
sacrifice the bodies
of
others, and
use
sexual slurs often
to
provoke boys to
prove their manhood. (Miedzian,
91)
This could
be
seen
in
the arena in Ancient Rome
when
for
the
longest time
women were not allowed to be spectators and they were banned
from
actually competing.
This re-enforced the idea that women were below them. Also seen
in
Ancient Rome
was
the idea that
men
should not fear
the
fight.
They knew that they were going to die and
they
should face
it
like
men;
they should
be
strong.
A major justification for our nation's enormous investment
in competitive sports
is
that 'sports build character, teach team effort, and encourage sportsmanship and fair
play' Miedzian,
99).
Studies indicate that youth involved
in
organized sports show less