Gladiators in ancient Anatolia lived to entertain the masses

https://archaeology.org/issues/november-december-2024/features/let-the-games-begin/

by diodorus • 2 years ago

82 51 2 years ago

archaeology.org

082349872349872• 2 years ago

A pair of mounted gladiators featured in the initial spectacle

Anyone have primary sources for this? Diodorus?

iLoveOncall• 2 years 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.

vbezhenar2• 2 years ago

HN automatically does that.

jajko• 2 years 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.

remoquete• 2 years ago

You can re-edit it to preserve the How though.

HPsquared• 2 years ago

I wonder what the statistics look like on these auto adjustments.

krisoft• 2 years 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.

apples_oranges• 2 years ago

This looks like professional wrestling to me. Way to go, Anatolians!

cptnapalm• 2 years 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.

fuzzfactor3• 2 years ago

I would say they were dying to entertain the masses too.

And then during the thrilling final act, it often came true.

PittleyDunkin5• 2 years 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.

tokai2• 2 years ago

Yeah, would rather have been a gladiator than a charioteer.

frandroid• 2 years ago

So, WWE more than war-like fighting

Mistletoe• 2 years 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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12k1r6/how_f...

WalterBright2• 2 years 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.

DamnYuppie• 2 years 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.

brendanfay• 2 years ago

Just like me :(

gosub1002• 2 years ago

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?"

https://youtu.be/bwM0gP1p0xw?si=rt_lkLF5j-Mx3Gc8

sabujp• 2 years ago

this is the one that I ended up watching a few days ago after the one above came into my feed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmat8xK9raM

kgwgk• 2 years ago

a video I recently watched during medieval sieges

Not so recently then.

fuzzfactor3• 2 years ago

Still waiting for the sequel, seems to be getting a bit overdue . . .

gosub1002• 2 years ago

Lol. I should never edit before I have my coffee.

rambojohnson• 2 years ago

duh

_DeadFred_4• 2 years 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'.

ilayn2• 2 years 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_4• 2 years 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?

biorach• 2 years 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_4• 2 years 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?

Gladiators in ancient Anatolia lived to entertain the masses

Related Stories