WereKitten said:
@Steven
People who trained as gladiators also played dice. Does that make it a gladiatorial game? :) (1)Seriously, gladiatorial games= ludi gladiatorii were a separate thing from venationes or ad bestias (death sentences by wild animals). You're thinking more in general of ludi circenses= arena games. (2)
And yes, there were other classes, but the point is that the games were highly formalized, except for very special events, and that opponents were paired. They were not the "free for all" massacres shown in movies, and that was where all this conversation started. (3)
As for emperors "fighting as gladiators", that was akin to a celebrity throwing the first ball in baseball: going in the arena clothed as a gladiator and putting up a fight against wooden swords. It was also despised because gladiators were highly frowned upon, much like actors. (4)
|
(1) You are making a metaphor, I was citing reality. People of ancient and modern times referred to the events leading up to and including the gladiator combat (the arena games) as gladiator combat/shows/pageants/or whatever other name you want to call them... You stretched it to the point of absurdity. I describe two events where success was based on skill, involving human fighters, that happen in the same place, and happen at the same time. You are describing a false analogy... then you produce a smiley gives off the impression that you thought that the argument was undeniable, which is "begging the question".
(2) The difference in the games from their start, in the 1st century, till their end, in the 5th century, went through many changes. Gladiators, especially early on, participated in all types of events. As the sport grew in popularity, it became more like a business. Gladiators became too expensive of an investment to waste on events that paid less than owhat you describe as gladitorial combat (for the most part) but it still happened at one point in history. I provided links and references to prove this in earlier posts.
(3) That is not where I entered. I entered, calling out your mistake on using definitive language for something that I provided sources which had conflicting information.
(4) It depended on the Emperor but, you're right, they did face less danger; they were each the head of state and had responsibilities which would make it irresponsible for them to fight for real... go back and read my citations... while you're at it, provide some of your own. Give me a legitimate source, that says, "No gladiator ever fought as a bestiarius."
Also your latin declension is a little off.
(Edit: WereKittens latin was right, I misread his statements. I am a jack ass.)
