
Horrors of the Colosseum - diodorus
http://www.livescience.com/53615-horrors-of-the-colosseum.html
======
jorangreef
These words by Paul, writing to the Corinthians circa 55 AD, are prescient:

"For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men
sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to
angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake [...] when reviled, we
bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become,
and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things."

------
DanielBMarkham
The author goes on a bit about how Rome lost its values and this was the
beginning of the collapse. That's fair enough since the Romans spent a good
amount of time telling each other the same thing.

But it's a mistake to apply what we think today to how they felt about things.
One of the things the Romans lamented was the fact that after the Greek
conquest, some Romans were taking to using beds at night! Beds! Every real
Roman slept on the ground, where it was natural.

Likewise with the "Horrors of the Colosseum". We think of the animal acts as
horrendous -- and they were, to us. To Romans, who knew death on a much more
personal level, it was entertaining but not profoundly obscene. (Can you
imagine what it would be like to live in a huge city in Roman times without
modern medicine? You had to pass dozens in the street every day either dying
or almost dead)

They were not without standards. In the history of one of the Christian
martyrs, Perputua, there's a story of women stripped naked and put in a net --
in order for the animals to take them. The crowd was horried, however. Why?
Because one of the women had just given birth and was still producing milk. So
they demanded she be clothed, she was, and the animals proceeded to destroy
them all.*

The Romans were a bloodthirsty bunch, for sure. But they did have what they
considered to be high moral standards. Those standards just don't match up to
the ones we have today. (I'm not trying to make a case for relative morality,
simply pointing out that you have to learn and accept the Romans in their own
terms. Otherwise you'll be making all kinds of assumptions that simply aren't
true)

1\.
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/perpetua.html)

* Also interesting was that the Romans selected _female_ animals to kill the women. Because of course that was the right thing to do.

~~~
jorangreef
That's just relativism, and falls very far short of what we know based on the
MSS available.

I doubt the victims felt no pain, or felt no injustice. Mob violence has been
around for centuries.

------
exit
we are still the same disgusting species

------
gadders
I thought the case for these atrocities being inflicted on Christians was
patchy - written by mostly Christian converts, hundreds of years after that
occured.

~~~
danielvf
Here's what a non-Christian Roman Senator and preminint historian of his time,
who spent some of his time in charge of foreign cults in Rome, and was alive
during the time of Nero, had to say:

\---

But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of
placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had
taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as
culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men,
loathed for their vices,27 whom the crowd styled Christians.

28 Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the
reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus,29 and the
pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more,
not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself,
where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.

First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their
disclosures, vast numbers 30 were convicted, not so much on the count of arson
as for hatred of the human race.

31 And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts'
skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when
daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his
Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with
the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car.

Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment,
there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being
sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single
man.

~~~
IsaacL
Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250,
there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians.

The timeline is roughly (apologies if dates are inexact, but this is roughly
correct from memory):

AD64: Nero perseuctes the Christians in Rome, who at that time were a tiny
community

AD 65-249: Christianity is largely ignored and left to grow in peace. During
this time, Rome enjoys a golden age under five virtuous emperors, then begins
to disintegrate under the reign of various tyrants and opportunists.

AD 250-260: Rome is falling apart under various civil wars and there's two
major state-led persecutions (by Decian and Valerian) of Christians. (The
motivation being "rid the Empire of this impious cult which is weakening our
social fabric").

AD 260-300: The "long peace of the Church", where Christianity is officially
tolerated.

AD 300-310: Diocletian comes to power and starts a brutal series of
persecutions to wipe out Christianity for good. It's from the Diocletian
persecution that most of the images of brutal Roman suppression come from.

AD 310-325: Various civil wars, leading Constantine to come to power.

AD 325: Constantine establishes Christianity as the state religion.

So though there's one small persecution in 64, then two medium-sized
persecutions in the 250s, then a massive persecution in the 300s, between
these Christianity is either ignored or tolerated by the Roman state. There's
evidence of mobs of Roman citizens attacking Christians independently of any
state backing, but aside from that, Christians were largely left alone for a
200 year period.

This is the age of the 5 "enlightened" emperors - Trajan's attitude is
informative. The Romans saw Christians as impious atheists (for not
worshipping the Roman gods) and superstitious cultists (for following a novel
religion), and they were troubled by the growth of this sect; Trajan took it
for granted that Christians who refused to worship the Roman gods should be
punished. But, he also states that actively seeking out Christians would be
"out of keeping with the spirit of our age"\- a weird Roman kind of tolerance,
but there you go.

"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those
who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay
down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be
sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished,
with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really
proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion
in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted
accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a
dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

(Trajan's letter to Pliny here:
[http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html](http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html))

~~~
jorangreef
"Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250,
there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians."

"So though there's one small persecution in 64, then two medium-sized
persecutions in the 250s, then a massive persecution in the 300s, between
these Christianity is either ignored or tolerated by the Roman state. There's
evidence of mobs of Roman citizens attacking Christians independently of any
state backing, but aside from that, Christians were largely left alone for a
200 year period."

That's reductionist and misleading. Sure, the state did not always actively
mandate pogroms, as you quote Trajan ("they are not to be sought out"), except
at least for the dates you describe (and not only those) when it actively did.

But for the rest of the time, neither did the state uphold the rights of
Christians. The rights of Christians were at times essentially nil. The state
tolerated the persecution of Christians and often partook when requested.
Governors were free to execute Christians merely on the basis of being
denounced. If anything else, the Trajan letter you quote should make that
clear.

To say therefore that this lack of active mandate by the state implies a lack
of persecution is careless, and against the grain of evidence.

------
guard-of-terra
Take this with a grain of salt. After all, Europeans could only contemplate
why Colosseum was needed somewhere at the start of XX century. Before that,
the modern concept of "stadium" as a place of mass watching of sport performed
by professionals was unknown.

Yes, we only then caught up to Rome.

Gladiators were perhaps boxers and ice hockey players of Roman age. Yes, it
was dangerous and traumatic, but rarely lethal and very famous.

