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?"
I would say they were dying to entertain the masses too.
And then during the thrilling final act, it often came true.
PittleyDunkin 56 days ago [-]
> 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.
Mistletoe 56 days ago [-]
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.
tumsfestival 56 days ago [-]
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.
PittleyDunkin 56 days ago [-]
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.
conartist6 45 days ago [-]
The article says something quite odd that doesn't make much sense.
> “Hymnis had this tomb made for Palumbos, in memory of her own husband” The image on the stela clearly depicts Palumbos as a murmillo. Although the relatively simple stela isn’t a sign of great wealth, it is evidence that Palumbos and his wife could afford a proper commemoration after his death and have it placed in a prominent location in the city.
I don't see why that is obvious. If the translation "her own husband" is indeed correct it sounds like a woman and her husband (who was not Palumbos) owned slaves (of which Palumbos was one). Her husband died (off in a war maybe)? And when Palumbos also died (honorably in combat like her husband, one presumes) it sounds to me like the woman felt compelled to honor him as a transitory way of honoring her husband (which honor to her husband was also then worthy of inscription).
That is a very different thing than watching your husband go do gladitorial battle in an arena, be killed, and then buy an expensive memorial with all the money he made fighting.
Note: my assumption is that all other context is lost and these words are all we have to go on now. Other evidence I see for this interpretation: "husband" and Palumbos are mentioned separately, when it would have been easier to identify the single subject of the memorial once. "Own" implies a necessary distinction, and while a stela may not have been a sign of great wealth a prominent location for it suggests much more money than a mundane one.
nothercastle 55 days ago [-]
Also better death as a gladiator than death in the mines.
DamnYuppie 56 days ago [-]
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.
PittleyDunkin 56 days ago [-]
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.
clown_strike 56 days ago [-]
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.
sushid 56 days ago [-]
> 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.
harimau777 56 days ago [-]
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.
frandroid 56 days ago [-]
So, WWE more than war-like fighting
PittleyDunkin 56 days ago [-]
I think MMA would be a more apt comparison; the fighting itself was very real, if still entertainment.
tokai 56 days ago [-]
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
PittleyDunkin 56 days ago [-]
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.
WalterBright 56 days ago [-]
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.
tokai 56 days ago [-]
Yeah, would rather have been a gladiator than a charioteer.
GJim 56 days ago [-]
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
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.
What does this have to do with chariots or am I missing some context?
whartung 56 days ago [-]
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.
WalterBright 56 days ago [-]
I thought IoM vetted the contestants to keep out inept riders.
whartung 56 days ago [-]
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.
GJim 56 days ago [-]
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). :-)
iLoveOncall 56 days ago [-]
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.
vbezhenar 56 days ago [-]
HN automatically does that.
jajko 56 days ago [-]
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.
vbezhenar 56 days ago [-]
Apparently those kinds of titles are considered "clickbaity". I agree that this particular edit makes things confusing.
fuzzfactor 56 days ago [-]
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.
remoquete 56 days ago [-]
You can re-edit it to preserve the How though.
HPsquared 56 days ago [-]
I wonder what the statistics look like on these auto adjustments.
krisoft 56 days ago [-]
> 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.
082349872349872 56 days ago [-]
> A pair of mounted gladiators featured in the initial spectacle
Anyone have primary sources for this? Diodorus?
apples_oranges 56 days ago [-]
This looks like professional wrestling to me. Way to go, Anatolians!
cptnapalm 56 days ago [-]
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.
_DeadFred_ 56 days ago [-]
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'.
biorach 56 days ago [-]
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.
_DeadFred_ 56 days ago [-]
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?
ilayn 56 days ago [-]
Anatolia is a Greek word. Read some. It will give you confidence about yourself so you don't seek confirmation from every piece.
_DeadFred_ 56 days ago [-]
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?
ilayn 56 days ago [-]
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.
_DeadFred_ 56 days ago [-]
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://youtu.be/bwM0gP1p0xw?si=rt_lkLF5j-Mx3Gc8
Not so recently then.
And then during the thrilling final act, it often came true.
> 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...
> “Hymnis had this tomb made for Palumbos, in memory of her own husband” The image on the stela clearly depicts Palumbos as a murmillo. Although the relatively simple stela isn’t a sign of great wealth, it is evidence that Palumbos and his wife could afford a proper commemoration after his death and have it placed in a prominent location in the city.
I don't see why that is obvious. If the translation "her own husband" is indeed correct it sounds like a woman and her husband (who was not Palumbos) owned slaves (of which Palumbos was one). Her husband died (off in a war maybe)? And when Palumbos also died (honorably in combat like her husband, one presumes) it sounds to me like the woman felt compelled to honor him as a transitory way of honoring her husband (which honor to her husband was also then worthy of inscription).
That is a very different thing than watching your husband go do gladitorial battle in an arena, be killed, and then buy an expensive memorial with all the money he made fighting.
Note: my assumption is that all other context is lost and these words are all we have to go on now. Other evidence I see for this interpretation: "husband" and Palumbos are mentioned separately, when it would have been easier to identify the single subject of the memorial once. "Own" implies a necessary distinction, and while a stela may not have been a sign of great wealth a prominent location for it suggests much more money than a mundane one.
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
[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
Imagine if Formula 1 racing was a demolition derby.
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
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.
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.
ergo, I'd much rather be a charioteer (a modern TT racer), than a comparatively safe gladiator (a modern boxer). :-)
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.
Anyone have primary sources for this? Diodorus?
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'.
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?
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.
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.