Sousa 1

Over the course of centuries numerous countries have revered and studied the Ancient
Roman Empire and their ways of life. Although they have reserved their place in history as a
military powerhouse for their ability to unite and conquer the Mediterranean basin, there are
many aspects to their culture which is less commonly observed. Beginning as a funeral tradition,
gladiatorial games, along with other spectacula or ludi became extremely important to and
representative of exactly what it was to show pietas-loyalty or duty to Rome. Originally used to
show strength and honor to those who won in the arena, these games eventually revolutionized as
a tool for politicians to gain favor amongst the populace, and similarly evolved into a tool for the
people to hold power over theirs leaders. Likewise the ludi developed into political meeting
places for both the poor and elite to interact with each other. They also served as a unique place
to critique political leaders, and their involvement in the games.
In 264 b.c.e the first recorded gladiatorial games were put on at a funeral to honor a
deceased father (Parkin & Pomeroy, 2010). Gladiatorial shows or munus, translating into
service were believed to help serve the dead (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). As is common in
most Pagan religions, it was believed that by sacrificing and shedding blood during a funeral,
they would help their ancestors and the living relatives gain favor amongst the gods, and thus
making their transition into the afterlife a smoother with that favor (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010).
Although these shows began as a religious ceremonies performed to honor members of the
family, using dual pairs of gladiators (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010), these games would transform
into elaborate battles and ludi involving exotic animals venationes (hunters) and professional
fighters (bestiarii) for the amusement of the entire Roman population as an attempt for
politicians to appease the masses (Lindstrom, 2010).

Sousa 2

Although the gladiatorial games were opened to the public, and all social classes were
allowed to attend, no other event or leisure activity showed the stratification of Roman society.
Gladiators were typically slaves, or criminals or a class of outcasts or infamia, who had sworn an
oath or were forced to kill by their master, or as a punishment (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010) for
their crimes to entertain their betters(Reid, 2006). While some elites swore the gladiators oath
or sacramentum gladitorium, gladiators were slaves in their social status, whose duty it was to
fight for Rome, without fear or death (Reid, 2006). While these slaves were torn to bits by exotic
beasts, or fighting hand to hand combat, the upperclassmen in Roman society watched from the
front row, as the plebeians and lesser seating continued behind them. The elite took charge to put
on these circuses or games to control the humiliores with entertainment and bread (Parkin&
Pomperoy, 2010). Each group, gladiators and nobilis performed their duties as was expected of
them.
Similarly to gladiators, those who performed in theatre or in arenas were considered to be
of the lowest class. Originally travelling along -side the gladiatorial progresses between towns,
they began to put on shows themselves, without the command of the patricians (Parkin &
Pomperoy, 2010). Despite their low social status, these performers held power similar to that of
the gladiators, as they were able to appease both patricians and plebeian audiences. It was
clearly the height of political wisdom for the princeps not to neglect even mime artists and other
performers of the stage, the circus, and the arena, since he knew that the Roman people is
captivated by two things in particular, the grain supply and the shows [annona et spectacular],
and that the success of his reign depends on the amusement as much as on serious things
(Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). Such ability to captivate the masses of Roman people, distracting
them from the hardships of daily life, helped to transform the ludi into a political tool.

Sousa 3

In an attempted to show the populous his prestigiousness and wealth, at the height of
Pompey the Greats military career, he erected and funded the Temple of Venus Genetrix; the
first stone theatre constructed in Rome (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). To commemorate the new
temple, Pompey attempted to put on a show of enormous proportion. In the year 55 b.c.e.
Pompey gave venationes with 600 lions, 410 leopards, some apes, a lynx, a rhinoceros, and 20
elephants (Lindstrom, 2010). Rather than be glorified by the crowd, the shows put on by
Pompey had a negative effect on his popularity (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). As written by Cicero
in a letter to his friend Marius, he describes the actors as doing a horrific job, and the dcor as
entirely too lavish, and distracting from the overall bad display (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010).
Despite being the opinion of a man who disliked the inhumanness of such venationes (Parkin &
Pomperoy, 2010), the last day of the five day hunt persuaded public opinion against Pompey.
Pompeys elephants, having lost all hope of escape, tried to gain the compassions of the crowd,
entreating them with indescribable gesture and deploring their fate with a sort of wailing. The
crowd became so upset that they quite forgot about the imperator and his munificence, carefully
devised for their honor; instead they burst into tears, rose as a body, and heaped curses on the
head of Pompey, for which he soon afterwards paid the penalty (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010).
Despite the popularity of venationes in the Roman games, if the masses did not take to the
performances, or in Pompeys cases, felt sympathy for the beasts (or humans) killed, such games
could negatively affect even the most popular of men, future career in politics.
Whereas the ludi had a negative effect on the political career of some, Julius Caesar
perfected the use of the games as a political tool. He was known for spending enormous
amounts of his own wealth to fund gladiatorial games. In 64 b.c.e. Julius Caesar show his pietas
to his family by putting on a gladiatorial show in memory of his father (Parkin& Pomperoy,

Sousa 4

2010). Such a gesture was considered very honorable; however, this memorial service was a
political ploy, as his father had been dead for twenty years (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). After
being elected as an aedile, whose duties included overseeing of public games, (Boatwright, et al,
2014), Caesar put on a lavish show of 320 gladiators, which resulted in an escalation of his
popularity (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010). By gaining popularity amongst the people, he was able
to gain favor amongst the elite, and further his political career with offers of higher offices,
eventually leading to his title of dictatorship (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010).
Similarly to Caesar, his successor Augustus used the gladiatorial games and theatre to his
advantage as emperor. He put on over 60 munus, spectaculum of athletes, circus, and
venationes bestiarium, with the sheer frequency and variety helping him to surpass all other
predecessors (Parkin& Pomperoy, 2010). Learning from the examples of Caesar, Augustus took
on the enormous expense of the ludi, showing himself as a rich and powerful leader and
reaffirming his status as emperor (Lindstrom, 2010). He was able to fulfill his pietas to the
Roman people by giving them the gifts of the ludi, and the entertainment they longed for
(Lindstrom, 2010). After the rule of Caesar and Augustus, few emperors were able to live up to
their popularity during the games (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010).
While the ludi were used as entertainment for the people, they allowed even the lowest
members of society to show their discontent for and to critique those in power. The structural
settings of the games, in which the audiences were allowed to be interactive with the elite, and
on occasion the Emperor, if he was present, enabled even the poor to identify with the Ancient
Roman leaders. There was no other social scenario where it was deemed appropriate for the
lower classmen to shout out, in an attempt to sway an Emperors decision of life or death, acting
as a unification event for all included (Lindstrom, 2010). While Augustus was considered to

Sousa 5

have had the best reputation for his attentiveness during the games (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010),
leaders such as Claudius were ridiculed for their cruelty and the gore invoked by his participation
in the games (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010). At Gladiatorial shows he ruled that all combatants
who fell accidentally should have their throats cut out- above all net fighters, so that he could see
their faces as they died He even forced one of his ushers [nomenculatores] to enter the arena
and fight in his toga (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010).
While the poorer could interact with the decisions and sometimes influence them, giving
them a feel of political power, the use of the ludi to gain political control was also publicly
critiqued by some who were part of the patrician class. Cicero disliked the brutality of the games
saying that no refined man could possible enjoy seeing a powerless man torn to pieces by the
manliest beast(Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010). Similarly Plutarch, Precept of Statecraft, saw the
games for what they truly had become: public bribes from elite members of society to the
masses, which they were unable to stop, as the lower classmen now demanded them to be put on
(Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010). With a strong dislike for the ludi, and the handouts which enticed
the people, he recognized that the games held no real power for those who lead, whereas
enticing the mob by such means as have just been mentioned is no different from catching and
herding irrational animals (Parkin & Pomperoy, 2010).

Sousa 6

References
Boatwright, M., Gargola, D., Lenski, N., & Talbert, R. (2014). A brief history of the Romans(2nd
ed., p. 328). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindstrom, T. (2010). The animals of the arena: How and why could their destruction and death
be endured and enjoyed? World Archaeology, 42(2), 310-323. Retrieved November 1,
2014, from
http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/00438241003673045#.V
GrBJzTF-0E
Parkin, T., & Pomeroy, A. (2010). Leisure and Games. In Roman social history a sourcebook(pp.
328-351). New York: Routledge.
Reid, H. (2006). Was the roman gladiator an athlete?. Journal of Philosophy of Sport, 33, 37-49.
Retrieved November 1, 2014, from
http://na01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/01CALS_USL/openurl?
frbrVersion=6&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_tim=2014-1117T19:49:28IST&ctx_ver=Z39.882004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.882004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.comtayfranc&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:article&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=
Was the Roman Gladiator an Athlete?&rft.jtitle=Journal of the Philosophy of
Sport&rft.btitle=&rft.aulast=Reid&rft.auinit=&rft.auinit1=&rft.auinitm=&rft.ausuffix=&
rft.au=Reid, Heather
L.&rft.aucorp=&rft.date=20060501&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.part=&rft.quarter=
&rft.ssn=&rft.spage=37&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=&rft.artnum=&rft.issn=00948705&rft.eissn=15432939&rft.isbn=&rft.sici=&rft.coden=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00948705.2006.9714689