Gladiators in ancient Anatolia lived to entertain the masses
archaeology.org
archaeology.org
Not so recently then.
And then during the thrilling final act, it often came true.
Here is an example of what a lap of the circuit looks like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RZ5wU-Fg0
Riding in the TT is like climbing Everest. It's the ultimate challenge. Typically, there is at _least_ one death during racing each year. Often many more.
The Isle of Man motorcycle races (with a death toll of 1-2% per year) are, both today, and historically, one of the most dangerous motor vehicle events in the world.
IoM takes both novices and veterans. Yet, they all sign up anyway. It's a thrilling spectacle to be sure.
The "novices" are those new to the course, not new to racing. They're skilled racers, proven, successful. But stuff happens, and the course can be unforgiving.
David Jefferies was a lap record holding, TT winning champion when he collided with a wall in 2003.
ergo, I'd much rather be a charioteer (a modern TT racer), than a comparatively safe gladiator (a modern boxer). :-)
[0] "But if he were injured or killed, the lease would convert to a sale and the gladiator's full cost would have to be paid, a sum that might be some 50 times higher than the lease price." https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038038
> 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...
> “Hymnis had this tomb made for Palumbos, in memory of her own husband” The image on the stela clearly depicts Palumbos as a murmillo. Although the relatively simple stela isn’t a sign of great wealth, it is evidence that Palumbos and his wife could afford a proper commemoration after his death and have it placed in a prominent location in the city.
I don't see why that is obvious. If the translation "her own husband" is indeed correct it sounds like a woman and her husband (who was not Palumbos) owned slaves (of which Palumbos was one). Her husband died (off in a war maybe)? And when Palumbos also died (honorably in combat like her husband, one presumes) it sounds to me like the woman felt compelled to honor him as a transitory way of honoring her husband (which honor to her husband was also then worthy of inscription).
That is a very different thing than watching your husband go do gladitorial battle in an arena, be killed, and then buy an expensive memorial with all the money he made fighting.
Note: my assumption is that all other context is lost and these words are all we have to go on now. Other evidence I see for this interpretation: "husband" and Palumbos are mentioned separately, when it would have been easier to identify the single subject of the memorial once. "Own" implies a necessary distinction, and while a stela may not have been a sign of great wealth a prominent location for it suggests much more money than a mundane one.
Imagine if Formula 1 racing was a demolition derby.
Even Cirque du Soleil carries more risk of death. The corpse removal process is seamless enough that the show continues.
I was shocked to hear this and looked up a Wikipedia article [0]. Given their reaction when a performer died (abrupt stoppage of the show with full refunds), I think you're making this up.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sarah_Guyard-Guillot
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.
Anyone have primary sources for this? Diodorus?
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'.
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?
requiring n time the word Greek until you are satisfied is a you problem. I don't care enough about you to attack you personally. If you read more on these you would not get stuck in these accounting problems.
They went into enough specifics to name individual cities but I admit I don't always know which cultures lived in which cities in which time periods off the top of my head. I remember just enough that calling it 'Greek style' for the Greek cities they named seemed wrong to me. I think it's more informative when articles gives at least a little insight to unread people like me on which populations they are referring to, not just geography:
https://gizmodo.com/dna-from-pompeii-victims-reveals-surpris...
Many people (ok, Americans :) ) don't even realize Greeks lived in Anatolia anymore.