Gladiator re-write

Still standing today, the coliseum is one of the best known remainders of the Roman Empire.This monument was a place of battle for the entertainment of the masses, a monument of violence. The scale of this building could be considered evidence that the sport of the times, Gladiator fights, were the opium of the masses. Gladiator (slaves) entered the colosseum to fight animals, and each other in many spectacular ways with a violent flair. "Rome is light." I disagree with this statement. To be fair, these matches would be extremely suspenseful and full of action, but were forcing men to act against their human nature for the enjoyment of the masses. 


They called the people of the North, the People of Gaul, barbarians, but wasn't that hypocritical? Slaves killing each other for the entertainment of "civilized" people. When does the empire become the Barbarians?

A massive project dedicated to bloodshed. The coliseums walls were bathed in blood of Slaves taken from their homes. What moral society would allow this to happen? None. Watching people murder each other is not a morally correct, so why would a society participate in watching this atrocity? During the matches, not only would they have regular battles with one victor, they would re-enact actual battles as seen in Gladiator with the battle of Carthage. The fact that people would spend time, often betting on these matches implies a morbid fascination with military tactics the Roman people held. It is not in human nature to kill each other, these murders for entertainment were prevalent and an important social event for the Romans. 

Gladiator matches were often a spectacle for everyone, poor and rich, regular citizens and Emperors to watch. The coliseum could flood and display naval battles with boats for the people to watch. They also had wild animals battle to the death. unlike today's Rooster fights and Dog fights, they had Lions and Tigers and Bears rip each other as well as Gladiators apart. Another key part in Gladiator fights was Audience decided the outcome. As illustrated in Gladiator (to a degree), Gladiators would engage in battle, until one was defeated, but not killed. The wining gladiator would look to the crowd and they would give a thumbs up or down. The Emperor in this case would have final decision. Thumbs up, you live to see another battle, down, you die.


Imagine going with your friends, all getting in the car or bus, heading downtown, showing your tickets to the usher, taking your seats, and waiting for the match to begin. Out from the pits of the arena step the competitors. They are armed. There is a countdown... 3...2...1. The competitors turn on each other. One stabs their opponent on their left in the throat and is covered in a spray of blood, but is then beheaded by his opponent behind him. You and your friends cheer and scream as your favourite throws a spear through the heart of the other gladiator. Sound like the Hunger Games? Sound Barbaric? That was paraphrasing a gladiator fight. We can't imagine watching a murder take place, much less cheering for the demise of an innocent person. This upholds the themes of violence in Rome. The leaders in Rome were considered a violent lot, but this sport, the Opium of the masses, takes the general public and brings them forward to a moral judgment. 


How can a civilization that watched people get killed for enjoyment be considered "civilized". The Romans went around conquering people and taking slaves to become Gladiator, but had the audacity to call their neighbours "barbarians." Barbaric; savagely cruel, primitive, exceeding brutal, uncivilized. These are all words to describe gladiator fights.  It was inhumane. Was this morally and ethical acceptable ? Absolutely not. The greatest civilization ever known, watching slaves murder each other with no quarrel between the parties for entertainment, yet claiming to be a civilized people.  Gladiator fights were a disgusting, yet morbidly fascinating cornerstone of Roman Life. A sadistic display of  the power of Rome. It was said Rome was steeped from violence, and this furthers and strengthens that thesis. The Romans were hypocritical. Pointing fingers, calling tribes that were different from them barbarians. Gladiator fights were Empire wide and extremely popular. 

From its founding in 750 BC, the evidence of barbarism has been prevalent and woven into the Roman culture. Beginning with Romulus killing Remus and the rape of the Sabin women it was clear from the beginning that violence would only loom over the empire for its duration. Only a world power could get away with blood sports of this nature. When the Romans conquered a territory, they left no holds barred. When the Romans conquered new territory, they intended to keep it. In Gaul, there was a rebellion led by Vercingetorix. This resulted in a bloody war, and the massacre of 40,000 people in the siege of the city of Avaricum. At the siege of Alesia, walls were built between the Romans and opposing forces, leading to the starving of women and children.

Going back to the origins of Rome, there was a Sybil that foretold a curse on Rome. She predicted that Rome would sink into a swamp of decadence, boys would be pimped, civil tumult, and chaos and disorder among other things. Examples of this showing truth can be seen under the reign of Caligula (37-41 AD) and Nero (54-68 AD). Caligula was known, and still is known for his adulterous lavished orgies and insest. He let the power corrupt so much he made a horse a senator. Years later, Nero became emperor and was arguably worse. He killed his own mother and burnt Christians (dipped in oils and lit up for light in the garden.)  He was an asshole. In 64 AD, when a fire burnt down most of Rome,  theory's suggest that it was him that had the fire started to clear land for his new house. These two emperors were willing to commit attar it's to their own people, further proof of the barbaric nature of this society and their leaders.

For a civilization that was considered "the light",  there was a lot of dark. They built their economy on Slavery, and based their entertainment on the deaths of those they deemed to be below them. An empire that derives the enjoyment of the people on bloodshed is sadistic and too powerful. We read books like the "Hunger Game" and think, "oh that is brutal, but it all fiction." The reality is, that is based on true to life events. The empire of Rome had become morally corrupt. The ones with the power had become the true barbarians, not the neighbours to the North or in Northern Africa or Asia.  Gladiator foretold the demise of the Roman Empire, How could they point their fingers and call "barbarian" with the blood of man dripping from their hand?

Final test essay (Machiavelli)

Political morality is a very Gray area, it always has been and always will be. Morality in general is a very interesting concept. Is there a solid line between good and evil? Or is there a more of a grey zone. In the renaissance times, Machiavelli was advisor to the Medici family, the most powerful family in Florence. He advocated using violence and aggression to rule, but claimed it was the best for the people. His policies were not to allow a leader to do whatever they wanted, but to be sure the leader was strong enough to do what needed to be done for the people.This does not apply to individuals, only people in political power. At first seems like a very questionable way of looking at morality, but is actually quite effective. 

In his writing, Machiavelli states that a prince must be willing to crack down hard on those who commit crimes. If he is too merciful, individuals who mean to do harm will continue to do so, which will effectively hurt the community. This brings up the concept of moral math. Staying in line with the concept of harsh punishments, it is crucial for an individual in power to be feared. If he is feared, his people will stay in line, which will lead to less crime as a direct result. A leader must get things done. If they are too lenient and too focused on popularity, how can one be sure they will do what is best for their community. 

Now Machiavellis teachings can be seen as very problematic, advocating violence? Take for example De Orco. He was known to be ruthless and violent, yet he was put in charge of a town and ended up killing thousands of people and mounting their heads on pikes as a warning to not fuck with him. He was following Machiavelli to a T. This is not a rational moral rule at all. 

Kant replaces religious obedience with rational moral rule. "What if everyone did this?" . Wrong is wrong and Right is Right. It is wrong to manipulate people and right and wrong are concepts as a way to behave. People should act according to this theory, correct? People should act as if the choice they made would be replicated by every single person on the globe. This is all well and good if we are speaking about individuals that are only worried about themselves. In the context of politics, this is a load of crap. 

Returning to de Orco. He ran the town with a bloody fist, people were scared of him so they obeyed the rules out of sheer fear. When the prince came to visit the town latter, he saw the heads, saw the iron rule and said to de Orco "wow this is pretty snazzy, you fixed the town, but unfortunately I'm going to kill you because how you did it was not cool" (totally paraphrased he did not actually say that). He mounted de Orcos head on a pike so people could see he was dead. The people ended up loving the prince for saving them. Little did they know, they had been manipulated to love a false saviour, but the town was still in order. 

This is moral math, yes a few people need to die, but the end result is positive. A leader must be a fox and a lion, clever enough to work around obstacles, but fearsome enough that opposition will not mess with them. A leader had the job of protecting the people, and begin and angel will not get the job done. A leader that is too nice will be reluctant to make the hard calls that are best for the people.  Order over love. Things may get a bit bloody, but at least the end result will be for the better. A leader is not there to sit around and think "oh if I kill this person, his family will be sad " or "oh killing this criminal is not moral." They are there to get stuff done. Short term pain for long term gain. A leader needs to make decisions that will improve the lives of his people, and if the choice will lead to a better life, the end will justify the means.