Customer Reviews

Emperors and Gladiators

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Meticulously researched with an outstanding, chapter by chapter bibliography, this book should be read by anyone interested in the factual history and cultural significance of gladiatorial contests. Debunks many "Hollywood" misconceptions, such as the myth of the "we who are about to die salute you" salute and the "thumbs down" signal.

This book, by author Thomas Wiedemann, is a penetrating look into the processes of the gladiatorial, or spectacle games, of the Roman era. I can agree to some extent with the previous reviewer who stated that this book is difficult for beginners. The only reason I got so much out of it is that I've been reading heavily on spectacles and games. Once you've covered a few of these books, it gets much easier, as most of the same citations and quotes appear in every account. In other words, once you recognize Martial, Tertullian and historians such as Dio and Tacitus, things become much clearer.

Wiedemann touches on almost every aspect one can think of in this book. Background information on Republican games is covered well, and the Imperial aspects of the games are also given liberal treatment. Wiedemann discusses the political content of spectacle as well as the decline of the games in the later Roman Empire. Interesting treatments of the role of myth in the games appears here, as does the paradox of the gladiator (Romans considered gladiators the lowest of the low socially, yet idolized them at the same time). Wiedemann sees the gladiators as symbols of Roman virtu, slugging it out in the arena in order to show Romans what it means to be Roman and to teach important lessons on death and rebirth. Wiedemann's discourse on opposition to the games is especially noteworthy. Wiedemann shows that not one aspect of Roman society opposed the games on humanitarian grounds. There was no ACLU in these days. Philosophers opposed the games on the grounds that it brought forth dangerous emotions in man while denying the rational mind. Even Christians didn't make a stink about the dehumanization of the games. They opposed the games because the lessons of rebirth the games taught were an error. Rebirth comes not from receiving mercy from the people and the emperor, but from acceptance of Christ and the sacraments. Actually, the death and destruction the Christians suffered in the arena could be seen as a boon; the huge amount of martyrs created by the games bolstered Christianity by providing important examples of the serenity and power Christ could bring to the faithful.

This is a very good book and very helpful to me as I attempt to write a paper on the political role of the games. I do wish Wiedemann could have been a little more organized in his approach. Oftentimes, he seems to be all over the place with his discussions. Some of his claims, while interesting, are somewhat shaky. Wiedemann writes that the placement of the arenas, on the edge of towns and cities, were a symbol of the games themselves, specifically the fight between civilization and nature as best expressed by the animal fights (venatio). I'll buy this civilization vs. nature argument, but not the placement of the arenas. Not all arenas were on the outskirts of towns. Alison Futrell showed that many were tied to local religious sites. In the East, many games were held in pre-existing theaters, which were not necessarily on the outskirts of town. Like all things Roman, uniformity is hard to find. This is one reason why Rome was so successful in holding things together for so long. The Romans were willing to accept many local customs and traditions if they could throw a veneer of Romaness over them. Despite a few inconsistencies, this book is a valuable contribution to the often misunderstood Roman spectacle.

This is a very thorough, meticulously referenced book with a tremendous number and variety of facts about Gladiators, BUT it is not well organized for easy reading.It is NOT recommended for someone with casual interest in Gladiators and other Spectacle Entertainments among Romans.

As the author himself states, if you are interested in learning about the different kinds of gladiators or getting a vivid picture of the arena, you would do better to turn to one of the popular surveys such as that by Michael Grant. This book is a study of the role the games played in Roman society -- how they arose, what purpose they served, and why they ultimately disappeared (not, as you might think, because of some new humanitarianism accompanying the rise of Christianity). The author frequently broadens his scope to include the wild-beast shows as well. Much documentary and monumental evidence is discussed. Although scholarly, the book is written in a very readable style and should be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about how the Romans thought.

For a book entitled Emperors and Gladiators it certainly features very little of the former. The focus of the book is entirely on the gladiator and on the Roman games (munera). It might seem a small thing but the title says a lot about a book. When it is poor or inaccurate it inevitably skews the perception of those reading it. Given the actual subject matter a title dealing with gladiators and Roman perceptions would have been a better choice. The thesis of this book is that the purpose of the gladiatorial games was to give Romans an acceptance of death. A good portion of the book is given over to what amounts to psychological speculation about the meaning that gladiators had to the Romans. To Wiedemann the entertainment value is secondary to their importance as a way for the Romans to come to terms with their mortality. The survival of a gladiator is seen as a redemptive act, allowing a return to life for one who is brave. A gladiator who fights and survives is thus resurrected. Making an argument about the purpose of an event based on the perceived emotional reactions is fraught with peril. He certainly includes a good deal of data but none of it really proves anything. If you accept his basic conclusions then the data fits in with it but if you do not then there is nothing that disproves the more obvious theory that gladiatorial shows were intended for entertainment in the same way as sports are today. After all, gladiatorial combat is usually placed (even by him) within the context of other forms of entertainment such as theatrical exhibitions and chariot races. Why does it need a deeper meaning when neither of those do?

Connected to that is the way in which the Christians viewed gladiatorial fights. As he points out the Christian intolerance of munera were the exception, not the rule. They tolerated chariot races and even plays (for a while). That they singled out gladiatorial fights suggests that there was something about them particularly that offended Christian sensibilities. There are several possible explanations beyond the one he mentioned. Given the number of martyrdoms in amphitheatres it is not surprising that Christian authors should have a negative view of them. The Christians might not feel much sympathy for the criminals but they would certainly disapprove of the audience watching such a spectacle. While humanitarian concerns for the victims may not be the motivating factor he has provided enough evidence in the rest of the book that even pagan moralists could disapprove of the way in which the matches affected the audience. The idea that Christians would not wish for people to cheer for men who were seen as unclean and base is not a great stretch. His view that Christians did not like the idea that a man could be cleansed by violence is tied in with his views of gladiatorial combat as a redemptive act, but it is not necessary to go as far as he does for an explanation. Clearly Christians would not like the idea that men could earn their freedom through bloodshed. That was pretty much the opposite of their beliefs. If a man sinned then he should be punished. To get out of it through violence in no way allowed a man to return to society.

All of this leads to the question of what he leaves out. While he mentions other authors' beliefs that there were Romans who disapproved of the games on humanitarian grounds he rarely explains what evidence they use to argue it. An analysis of the evidence used to back up their thesis would have been most useful. What he does do is set up a pair of German historians from the Nazi era as straw dogs for him to take down. This leaves one with the impression that all historians holding to that view are as mad as they were, which is patently untrue. During one of his rare slip ups he mentions that Josephus did in fact object to gladiatorial bouts on the grounds of their cruelty. That he barely even mentioned this bit of data leaves one with the impression that he is skipping over any arguments that do not bolster his case. This definitely seems like a case which calls for an explanation of where his colleagues are coming.

His section on Roman perceptions of justice was very enlightening. The view of cruel and unusual punishment as a positive thing is not one that comes easy to modern minds. Yet the fact that the ancients thought that way makes it important to understand their perspective. That they did think in that way is shown in their documents and unlike the popularity of gladiatorial fights this question really does need an explanation. Wiedemann's explanation is as good as any and views them as reassuring reminders that justice will be served. It does seem however that he is so focused on justifying Roman values that he fails to consider those of their contemporaries. Since he explains their views on justice as being due to a preindustrial view of the world it seems that it would be important to compare Rome with other such civilizations to see whether such attitudes towards punishment were universal or unique to the Romans. As with so much of this book he is so intent on justifying the Roman's actions that he does not consider the alternatives. He presents the situation as if there are only two alternatives: the Roman way, or the modern way. Needless to say that is not the case. A full comparison of morality is not necessary, but a few examples from contemporary cultures would really help his case.

It was nice to see that Wiedemann did not feel the need to push his own theories on the thumbs up/thumbs down issue. Too many books on gladiators feel the need to either push their own theory or else denigrate the opposing one. His comments were brief but covered the issue well without spending too much time on the arguments for either side. The image of a man giving what would later become a Christian symbol of forgiveness suggests a radically different use for that symbol and a possible explanation for ancient evidence. The work as a whole does well in examining the varying perceptions of gladiators but is perhaps too speculative in explaining Roman motivations. His efforts to make the Romans seem less cruel come across more as trying to find excuses for what they did than trying to explain them. His efforts to avoid judging them harshly have led to him judging them too lightly when perhaps the best approach is to not judge them at all. When he sticks to that his work is a success.

This 1992 book is a scholarly review of the religious, social, cultural, and entertainment values of the Roman Ludi (festivals) and Munera (funeral rites). Thomas Wiederman separates executions from gladiatorial exibitions and explains the legal and cultural significence of each. Christians are certainly thrown to the lions, crucified,and used as human torches but so were many other catagories of 'criminals'. These criminals had no opportunity for self-redemption and ultimate victory. The gladiators, on the other hand, were warring in honor of a recently deceased Roman noble. They were socially beneath contempt, but sometimes adored by their fans (think Dennis Rodman). This book is an intellectual challenge but dispenses with the Hollywood glitz and methodically takes the reader through the mores of ancient Roman times with a cogent explaination of gladiators in purely ancient Roman terms. This book does a wonderful job of avoiding 21st century values in explaining how the 'games' arose and why they persist to this day in the form of bullfights. Hard work, but worth it. Highly recommended. ...