Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "10 MORE \"Modern\" things The Ancient Romans Actually Had" video.

What I like about ancient roman grafitti is how there are a lot of really crass and vulgar examples of it. Just like the kind or scribbles you might find in a restroom at a bar or pub or in a school. 🤣 Now I don't condone vandalism of other people's property, but the similarities in crass and vulgar content to contemporary times kind of humanize the romans for me. They were literally shitposting 2000 years before the internet! 🤣
241
Hey, call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't mind if gladiatoral games were brought back, so long as slavery is taken out of the equation.
39
@sigma9788 On the contrary, Gladiators didn't murder eachother. Most of the time it was about fighting but not to the death. Fatalities were an exception and not a norm, except for when Gladiatoral games were used as a means of execution of course. But i'm not really into capital punishment. But even so, you really can't think of anyone who would jump at the opportunity even if it was a duel to the death? I can think of several people that would. Many habitual brawlers and local thugs for example. And they really can't seem to live normal lives holding down normal jobs anyway, due to their behaviours and abject refusal of partaking civilly in mainstream society. So wouldn't it be better to give them an arena to duke it out in rather than having them vent their violent frustrations out on the streets or in bars and nightclubs where they end up hurting innocent and involuntary people?
5
Speaking of Hippocrates... How is the word "Hypocrite" related to Hippocrates? 🤔 They sound too similar to be a coincidence.
3
@enteringquery Fatalities will happen when gladiators are fighting with real weapons. And I would be okay with it, so long as the terms are voluntary, as in no slaves or public executions.
3
@sigma9788 Well, the "alcoholics" put on a really good show too sometimes. Look up the unlicensed bareknuckle boxer Lenny Mclean from Britain (I think that was his name). Throughout his entire life, he was basically a brawler. And he competed in illegal, bareknuckle boxing. And let's just say that the man certainly had some moves.
2
@wes4736 MMA but with sharp weapons though. So it would be dangerous and certainly involve a risk of death or serious injury. Even so, I can think of plenty of people who'd want to do it and watch it. And so long as nobody is forced and everyone agrees to the risks, then hiw is it different than any other dangerous extreme sport?
2
I'd like to put out another addendum to my original post: no animals. Animals can't consent to violence. Would be unethical to have gladiators kill animals for spectacle.
2
@enteringquery Yes. I am quite certain that there are men and some women out there who would want to partake in mortal combat for cheering crowds. And if we put it this way: it beats dying a pointless death in some modern battlefield solely for the pursuit of someone elses abstract geopolitical or economical goals. And I don't think it's too far removed from other lethal extreme sports that people already partake in (heavy weight boxing, MMA, Formula 1 racing, Speedboat racing, daredevil shows akin to Evel Knievel etc.)
1
@enteringquery And as I told Sigma, barring the case of public executions in the arena, the aim was not to kill. Fatalities were an exception and not a norm. Most of the time the combat was more like exhibition matches between armed fighters. So if you think that historical gladiatoral combat was the same as in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, then you'd be mistaken. Gladiators weren't cheap to house, feed and train after all. So the Ludii wouldn't be able to afford offering up Gladiators to their death for every single match.
1
@sigma9788 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_McLean
1
@enteringquery Well my position is basically this: some individuals are naturally drawn to danger, and humanity in general does have deep seated urges towards the spectacle of violence. We are a violent species. And I don't believe that we'll ever shed that instinct, regardless of how much philosophy or indoctrination we get subjected too. And I think that in some instances it's probably more dangerous to try and shoehorn some naturally violent people into fitting into mainstream society than it would be to let them express their deep seated and inescapable urges in a more purposeful and controlled enviroment. Some people will simply be natural born killers and brawlers. This because it was biologically beneficent to have such traits earlier in mankinds history. To fend off predators or rival human tribes. Civilized society doesn't offer these people the means to turn their aggression towards meaningful and constructive ends, so they often end up very downtrodden on the lowest ends of the social ladder, and I don't think that is fair or the best way to deal with them. So perhaps in an arena, they could find the purpose and meaning they feel deprived of, to the point where they spend their days engaging in petty and violent crime for the sake of the "rush" they get from it. If you want to find out more about this mentality then I'd suggest you look into the topic of football hooliganism. They are REALLY into fighting. The sport of soccer/football is really just secondary to the brawling they engage in with eachother on the streets. So instead of relegating them to the streets where they put the lives of involuntary bystanders at risk, why not let them have an arena?
1
@YSLRD People already vicariously enjoy violence. Always did. It's why the romans created gladiatoral games in the first place. They didn't invent this instinct in humanity. They just created a venue for it.
1