Gladiators

[thir]

I watched a program about the first finding of a grave with gladiators, and about all the deductions from this find.

Thinking about a talk on what civilization is: can the Romans, who watched this, be said to be civilized?
They had their circuses all over their empire, it was a big thing.

The people in the program seemed to think that the gladiators were there voluntarily. As far as I know this is nonsense, but say that they were: could the gladiators then be said to be civilized?

[ksst]

Sure, civilizations are not defined by producing only lovely and happy events. They are often bloody and brutal, but still considered civilizations. The Romans enjoyed blood sports, and were still a great civilization. The 20th century also saw it's share of horrors inflicted by civilized people. I guess for me, civilized doesn't mean good, it just means big and more complexly organized than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.

[leo9]

I guess for me, civilized doesn't mean good, it just means big and more complexly organized than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.

That was pretty much the definition I came up with last time the question arose. "Civilised" is used as a moral description meaning "better behaved," but that's because it's the "civilised" people using it. Same way "urbane" (from a word original meaning "from the town") is used to mean "refined, sophisticated,", because the townies wrote the books.

On the other hand, civilisations support (among other specialised types) thinkers, who can be racist, warmongering and repressive, but on average, over time, historically seem to converge towards such things as equality and respect for life; and being a part of a civilisation, rather than a hunter-gatherer tribe, means that their ideas get spread widely. So though on the face of it there's nothing morally good about the practical functions of civilisation, it does seem to work out for the better in the long run.

[DuncanONeil]

Some were, but not very many!

I watched a program about the first finding of a grave with gladiators, and about all the deductions from this find.

Thinking about a talk on what civilization is: can the Romans, who watched this, be said to be civilized?
They had their circuses all over their empire, it was a big thing.

The people in the program seemed to think that the gladiators were there voluntarily. As far as I know this is nonsense, but say that they were: could the gladiators then be said to be civilized?

[thir]

Some were, but not very many!

I have always been taught that gladiators were slaves, which made sense to me. I do not really understand where they got this new idea from, it wasn't mentioned in the program.

[thir]

That was pretty much the definition I came up with last time the question arose. "Civilised" is used as a moral description meaning "better behaved," but that's because it's the "civilised" people using it. Same way "urbane" (from a word original meaning "from the town") is used to mean "refined, sophisticated,", because the townies wrote the books.

Quite!

On the other hand, civilisations support (among other specialised types) thinkers, who can be racist, warmongering and repressive, but on average, over time, historically seem to converge towards such things as equality and respect for life; and being a part of a civilisation, rather than a hunter-gatherer tribe, means that their ideas get spread widely. So though on the face of it there's nothing morally good about the practical functions of civilisation, it does seem to work out for the better in the long run.

But when discussing civilisation in the sense of 'more complicated' you also have to count in all the infectious illnesses that so many people in small (relatively speaking) area makes, more big and more destructive wars, more oppression as in few (or one) person making all the decision and so on. The more you make complex and centralize, the bigger catastropies you can unleash.

Also, I am not so sure that equality and respect for life is the dominating factor of our time, in spite of all our complex societies?

I find that the question whether the good outweighs the bad rather complicated, but incredibly important with a view to the future. There has to be better ways than what we have now, and maybe the first step is to put a question mark on the concept of 'progress', and be more critical of what happens.

[Thorne]

There has to be better ways than what we have now

There probably are, but people tend to resist them when tried, or those who benefit most from the status quo find ways to corrupt the better ways. It's human nature, I suppose.

and maybe the first step is to put a question mark on the concept of 'progress', and be more critical of what happens.

Which tends to put a full-stop period on progress. How can you know beforehand which new development will be absolutely good and which will be absolutely bad? And when has there ever been a development which has been absolutely good for everyone?

Computers have been a major force of progress for decades, bringing knowledge right to your fingertips, allowing virtual face-to-face meetings between people on opposite sides of the world, spreading information to everyone at the speed of light. Shall we toss them on the trash heap of progress because they can also be used for identity theft, fraud and spreading hate?

Trying to control progress only results in stagnation. Which, admittedly, is a good thing for those who benefit from the way things are. Not so good for those who would benefit from change.

[IAN 2411]

I watched a program about the first finding of a grave with gladiators, and about all the deductions from this find.

The problem with all these finds of historical importance is the fact that they throw a lot more questions into the equations than answers. History is written on a daily basis, and as we find other ways of supporting or contradicting what we believe to be true it is re-written. Theories and deductions reference the worlds history are being thrown about all the time, but unless you are into the minds of those that were there at the time then the truth will never be perfect.

Thinking about a talk on what civilization is: can the Romans, who watched this, be said to be civilized? They had their circuses all over their empire, it was a big thing.

They were the Civilised people at the time in Europe and that is not in doubt, but compared to today they were barbaric in their justice and discipline. Their circuses and Amphitheatre were no more than worse than live pornographic shows except people died in horrific ways. It is also written that the people that attended these theatres and sat in the 10 cent seats, were intimidated into going there by the thought of ending up as part of the show themselves at a later date.

Which brings about the question, was it the Roman population sitting in the 10 cent seats that were civilised, and the emperor, senators and their families that organised the orgy of death that were un-civilised?

The people in the program seemed to think that the gladiators were there voluntarily. As far as I know this is nonsense, but say that they were: could the gladiators then be said to be civilized?

The Gladiators were once sitting in the 10 cent seats, but due to being found guilty of some crime, they were given the chance to fight for their freedom in the arena. Yes the Gladiators were civilised but turned into animals for the amusement of the Emperor of the day. To think the Gladiators volunteered to be mauled by Tigers and Lions is obscene.

Be well IAN 2411