Italy Will Rebuild Colosseum’s Floor(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Italy Will Rebuild Colosseum’s Floor
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/italy-plans-install-floors-colosseum-1-180976635/
182 comments
The show “Alive” makes me think of colosseums sometimes. It is a reality show about surviving in the wild, except that they drop you in at the start of the fall where there is no food and the end of every season is a starvation and suffering fest. The most recent season there are mostly poor people, one formerly homeless, who are all so desperate for the money that they take medical or wildlife-related risks on a regular basis. In one season, a poor dad is hiding frost bitten toes so a he can try to win money for his kid etc. In several seasons somebody has requested emergency extraction because of cold or animals or other things and it took 6–12 hours to get help - imagine if it was really urgent. I used to really enjoy the show but reality tv is pushing the envelope here a bit too much. They aren’t slaves and are doing this by choice, but like I said, some are desperately poor
Do you mean the show “Alone”?
I have conflicted feelings about it if we’re discussing the same show. On one hand, many of the contestants are survival experts who relish the challenge, and get regular medical checkups etc. OTOH, they routinely discuss their financial motivations. It feels different from the (morally reprehensible) bum fights of the early internet but I could see the argument for rough equivalence.
I have conflicted feelings about it if we’re discussing the same show. On one hand, many of the contestants are survival experts who relish the challenge, and get regular medical checkups etc. OTOH, they routinely discuss their financial motivations. It feels different from the (morally reprehensible) bum fights of the early internet but I could see the argument for rough equivalence.
The early internet had bum fights !?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumfights
Despicable group of humans who went on to do such quality things as stealing body parts of dead babies to try smuggle them into the US.
Despicable group of humans who went on to do such quality things as stealing body parts of dead babies to try smuggle them into the US.
Early? Current internet has bum fights, killings, maimings, decapitations, prostitutes pissing on produce in grocery stores or masturbating with beer bottles from the shelf, people in India committing suicide by high voltage line (no ide a why, but very popular there), moped drivers falling into oncoming truck and getting popped like an ant, etc etc. Its all available now in greatest number to date, some of it you can even pay someone to make you tailor made snuff movie. theync is a real life 8mm (1999) times 100 every single day.
A friend somehow got one of the DVDs once, except it was the sequel: Ex-con fights. He made us watch it one night and it was really uncomfortable. Every fight ends with an epileptic seizure after somebody's head got kicked too many times. Its making me really uncomfortable to just think about it, its really horrible stuff
Pardon me, alone is probably the correct name. I can’t remember for sure
I just finished watching season 6 of Alone and at first found it to be an interesting watch, but as I saw more episodes (and the contestants had been out there longer), I saw more and more of what you're talking about here. And after I finished the show and looked it up online, I was surprised to see just how much of the narrative I had just watched was completely fabricated and morally repugnant. For those who aren't familiar, the premise is 10 people are shipped to a remote destination with the basics (sleeping bag, axe, cord, etc...) and whoever lasts the longest gets $500K ($0 if you lose, I presume). They are also given camera equipment and are responsible for filming themselves. They don't see anyone else while they're out there except a medical team for occasional check-ups. Season 6 took place in northern Canada in near arctic conditions, starting in late fall and continuing through winter.
(Spoilers)
* The skill gap between best/worst contestants is portrayed as minimal. In reality, some contestants came in with years of lived experience thriving in the exact environment of the show (like the victor, who had spent years living in Siberia with people native to the region), or are literally paid professionals (like the army survival instructor, who tapped out because he was so successfully surviving he was bored, and didn't need the money), while others come from difficult backgrounds and have picked up wilderness skills only as a hobby or by necessity. When you find out just how large the skill gap was, and how some of these contestants basically never had a chance, it feels completely exploitive and effectively rigged.
* Contestants give "camera confessions" in classic reality TV style, but these take a very dark turn as the show progresses. Going from "Excited to overcome the mental challenge of isolation", to starving, choking through tears "If I can hang on just a few more days I might be able to win the prize money for my family and give them the life I never had" in just a few episodes. If people are out there doing this for pride or because they enjoy the experience, so be it, but it's another thing entirely to dangle a large monetary prize in front of them. It just feels really sick to be watching people who are incredibly vulnerable and literally dying open up about their traumas and making it very clear they are only sticking it out for the cash. Begging to be allowed to stay when they are clearly underweight and at risk for cardiac issues.
* The final episode makes it seem like the 2 remaining contestants are both just hanging by a thread, a literal starvation contest, which would be sad enough. But if you do some research afterward, you find out that while the 2nd place contestant had lost a dangerous amount of weight and was eating rabbit entrails, the winner had 100s of lbs of food stored (including moose and plenty of fish) and had not lost any weight. Hell, the last (gigantic) fish he caught they apparently brought back and used to feed the production camp.
* All this said, the winner of Season 6, Jordan Jonas, is a very interesting (and apparently humble, good natured) guy, and I have enjoyed reading his commentary on the show on reddit and his blog. The show portrays him as lucky in some respects, probably to make him seem more like the other contestants, but he was in fact using a great deal of very specific techniques and knowledge, like how to build an structurally sound/ideal shelter, track/bait/hunt large game, ice fish, or build structures to keep stored food away from other predators. He himself admits the show obviously created a false narrative around his chances to win.
(Spoilers)
* The skill gap between best/worst contestants is portrayed as minimal. In reality, some contestants came in with years of lived experience thriving in the exact environment of the show (like the victor, who had spent years living in Siberia with people native to the region), or are literally paid professionals (like the army survival instructor, who tapped out because he was so successfully surviving he was bored, and didn't need the money), while others come from difficult backgrounds and have picked up wilderness skills only as a hobby or by necessity. When you find out just how large the skill gap was, and how some of these contestants basically never had a chance, it feels completely exploitive and effectively rigged.
* Contestants give "camera confessions" in classic reality TV style, but these take a very dark turn as the show progresses. Going from "Excited to overcome the mental challenge of isolation", to starving, choking through tears "If I can hang on just a few more days I might be able to win the prize money for my family and give them the life I never had" in just a few episodes. If people are out there doing this for pride or because they enjoy the experience, so be it, but it's another thing entirely to dangle a large monetary prize in front of them. It just feels really sick to be watching people who are incredibly vulnerable and literally dying open up about their traumas and making it very clear they are only sticking it out for the cash. Begging to be allowed to stay when they are clearly underweight and at risk for cardiac issues.
* The final episode makes it seem like the 2 remaining contestants are both just hanging by a thread, a literal starvation contest, which would be sad enough. But if you do some research afterward, you find out that while the 2nd place contestant had lost a dangerous amount of weight and was eating rabbit entrails, the winner had 100s of lbs of food stored (including moose and plenty of fish) and had not lost any weight. Hell, the last (gigantic) fish he caught they apparently brought back and used to feed the production camp.
* All this said, the winner of Season 6, Jordan Jonas, is a very interesting (and apparently humble, good natured) guy, and I have enjoyed reading his commentary on the show on reddit and his blog. The show portrays him as lucky in some respects, probably to make him seem more like the other contestants, but he was in fact using a great deal of very specific techniques and knowledge, like how to build an structurally sound/ideal shelter, track/bait/hunt large game, ice fish, or build structures to keep stored food away from other predators. He himself admits the show obviously created a false narrative around his chances to win.
Thank you for the thorough summary.
It sounds remarkably exploitative and horrible.
These are adults and are free to decide for themselves regarding whether to participate, but I am happy to have your summary, so that I don't have to support the production with viewership.
It sounds remarkably exploitative and horrible.
These are adults and are free to decide for themselves regarding whether to participate, but I am happy to have your summary, so that I don't have to support the production with viewership.
I’m sorry, no, I’m extremely liberal in general, but this can’t be left to supply/demand/personal ethics. This show is an infringement on ILO’s 1930 treaty on slavery.
(or rather the UN’s 1957 treaty, since the 1930 one excluded men aged 18-49).
(or rather the UN’s 1957 treaty, since the 1930 one excluded men aged 18-49).
> This show is an infringement on ILO’s 1930 treaty on slavery.
How is voluntary, compensated participation in a TV game show comparable to slavery?
How is voluntary, compensated participation in a TV game show comparable to slavery?
It’s like giving $100 to two hobos to fight.
In fact, it is exactly this, with a higher prize, and on TV. The family father who is hiding his frostbites on his feet from the doctor, accepting to be voluntarily handicapped for life (or dead right there) in hope his children will survive, he’s not free to work. Plus you don’t organize hobos to fight just for the show. You can get hurt in military or in oil, but at least you are being useful to something. Being a gladiator to willing die on the TV arena, 1500 years after the Romans quit doing it, we can’t let that happen.
In fact, it is exactly this, with a higher prize, and on TV. The family father who is hiding his frostbites on his feet from the doctor, accepting to be voluntarily handicapped for life (or dead right there) in hope his children will survive, he’s not free to work. Plus you don’t organize hobos to fight just for the show. You can get hurt in military or in oil, but at least you are being useful to something. Being a gladiator to willing die on the TV arena, 1500 years after the Romans quit doing it, we can’t let that happen.
Reminds me of The Running Man by Richard Bachman (Stephen King)
> whoever lasts the longest gets $500K ($0 if you lose, I presume).
I don't remember the numbers, but even the non winners are paid fairly well.
I don't remember the numbers, but even the non winners are paid fairly well.
That's good to know. They don't make any mention of it on the show but I did wonder if they were simply paid a "market rate" for their participation or something like that. Makes me feel a bit better about some of the people that dropped.
FWIW, I remember it as "that should be twice what any of them makes a week".
If the prizes went to charity it could remove the "sad" factor.
But most of the people with these skills are not independently wealthy, and would be hard pressed to give up wages for a few months just to participate.
I think the ideal situation would just be to use a tiered prize structure. Where the longer you last the more money you get, but not so much that you're incentivized to stay after it becomes hopeless/dangerous. A 500K 1st prize could easily be split into 150/100/75/50/50/25/25/25 for places 1-8. That way you're always competing for about 25K more, but you're not desperate to hang out or get sent home with nothing.
I think the ideal situation would just be to use a tiered prize structure. Where the longer you last the more money you get, but not so much that you're incentivized to stay after it becomes hopeless/dangerous. A 500K 1st prize could easily be split into 150/100/75/50/50/25/25/25 for places 1-8. That way you're always competing for about 25K more, but you're not desperate to hang out or get sent home with nothing.
Yes, but that reduces drama/colosseum fights. I think the original colosseum fights were mostly not fair either, but the audience just wants blood.
> I think the original Colosseum fights were mostly not fair either
I would expect the opposite. Nobody wants to see a pro baseball team crush a high school team, they want to see an evenly matched slugfest. The notion of a "fair fight" is deeply ingrained in people.
I would expect the opposite. Nobody wants to see a pro baseball team crush a high school team, they want to see an evenly matched slugfest. The notion of a "fair fight" is deeply ingrained in people.
Yeah, but the mob also likes winners. After a "fair" fight. Like in the reality survival show. It seems like a good fight, but when you have trained professionals vs. desperate people - you can have a spectactular fight, just not a fair one.
"Alone" edits it to look like a fair fight, which supports my hypothesis. Nobody is going to tune in to watch a race between a Beetle and a Porsche.
Most of the people who make it to the final two go on to make plenty of money in the outdoor and survival industries.
> ($0 if you lose, I presume).
The critical assumption...
And reading about how most of these outdoor reality shows are "really" made, it's mostly forced drama long enough for the shot, then surrounded by medics and outdoors experts the minute they need help.
The critical assumption...
And reading about how most of these outdoor reality shows are "really" made, it's mostly forced drama long enough for the shot, then surrounded by medics and outdoors experts the minute they need help.
If wage-slaves is a phrase, I suppose we can say wage-gladiators.
These shows are highly produced and lightly scripted, chances are the reality is nothing like what you get on TV.
Not everything is totally fake (within limits).
The best of those shows don't even have a crew on the island - there are statically positioned cameras and the players operate others themselves.
The best of those shows don't even have a crew on the island - there are statically positioned cameras and the players operate others themselves.
What's most fascinating to me about the Colosseum is how it is a reminder of the post-apocalyptic city Rome was until recently. Parts of it were used for building material, such as in the Vatican, but it survived while the buildings nearby were completely destroyed over time. Even as recently as 250 years ago, parts of Rome had been reclaimed by nature.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Giovanni...
Interesting. Why did people return to Rome?
People never really left Rome: describing it as "post-apocalyptic" is IMO a bit misleading (a real post-apocalyptic cultural transition looks a lot more like what happened to the north American native cultures in the aftermath of European contact than what happened on the Italian peninsula during the collapse of the western empire).
That said, as things like coastlines and rivers changed, settlement patterns evolved, and the post-Imperial city of Rome changed size and political importance, parts of the city that had been inhabited in ancient times did empty out and came to be dominated by abandoned ruins, some of which were quarried for their marble, others left to be buried by sediment and detritus.
I think a more apt comparison here is something like what happened to Detroit, but more so and over a longer period. A good overview using the example of the Forum can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum#Medieval
That said, as things like coastlines and rivers changed, settlement patterns evolved, and the post-Imperial city of Rome changed size and political importance, parts of the city that had been inhabited in ancient times did empty out and came to be dominated by abandoned ruins, some of which were quarried for their marble, others left to be buried by sediment and detritus.
I think a more apt comparison here is something like what happened to Detroit, but more so and over a longer period. A good overview using the example of the Forum can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum#Medieval
I highly recommend Ferdinand Gregorovius: 'Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter' (1859–1872). It is a fascinating read. Translations into English under the title: 'History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages' are available here: https://archive.org/search.php?query=History+of+the+city+of+...
Yeah, post-apocalyptic was misleading. Better said that after the chaos that Italy fell into in the 500s, the cities were depopulated.
The population of Rome dropped by more than 95 percent, mostly due to war. It ceased to be a city and became a sparsely inhabited ruin. That’s pretty apocalyptic.
>to Its Gladiator-Era Glory
Or "infamy". Between gladiator and slave fights to death, executions, and martyrs, it's not more glorious than a concentration camp would be...
Or "infamy". Between gladiator and slave fights to death, executions, and martyrs, it's not more glorious than a concentration camp would be...
We tend to have different standards for the ancients. For better or worse.
Look at structures such as the Great Wall of China, which according to Wikipedia[1] estimates say hundreds of thousands, up to a million perished during the construction. I’ve never been, but I doubt there is a lot of “wow we were so awful for building this” going on in the tourists centers. Maybe I’m wrong. Potentially the Cultural Revolution had that impact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
Look at structures such as the Great Wall of China, which according to Wikipedia[1] estimates say hundreds of thousands, up to a million perished during the construction. I’ve never been, but I doubt there is a lot of “wow we were so awful for building this” going on in the tourists centers. Maybe I’m wrong. Potentially the Cultural Revolution had that impact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
I'm sure many people died building the Great Wall, but the reference for "up to a million" is two travel guides[1], and the reference to "hundreds of thousands" is a throwaway line in pop science book about the Great Wall, whose author gives no evidence on how she arrived at the number. I couldn't find any scholarly articles. Maybe we just don't know how many workers died? Or maybe a search in Chinese would be more fruitful. It seems like something that there would at least be a scholarly agreement on an estimated range.
This doesn't take away from your larger point, which stands regardless of whether ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a million died.
[1] I think I'll remove those two references from the article, the revision is currently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Wall_of_Chi...
This doesn't take away from your larger point, which stands regardless of whether ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a million died.
[1] I think I'll remove those two references from the article, the revision is currently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Wall_of_Chi...
The Great Wall wasn't some monument to a vain ruler. It was part of the war effort against invading Mongolians.
People die fighting wars.
People die fighting wars.
>I’ve never been, but I doubt there is a lot of “wow we were so awful for building this” going on in the tourists centers.
Well, the weren't awful to begin with.
Whether succesful or not in the end, they built it to avoid Mongol and Manchu raids and invasions, and thus for saving their cities and their lives.
So, people perished are more like "people perished in acts of fortification / defense preparations" than "people killed willy nilly for the entertainment of the emperor and the viewers in the arena".
Well, the weren't awful to begin with.
Whether succesful or not in the end, they built it to avoid Mongol and Manchu raids and invasions, and thus for saving their cities and their lives.
So, people perished are more like "people perished in acts of fortification / defense preparations" than "people killed willy nilly for the entertainment of the emperor and the viewers in the arena".
A wall is a really different thing. I guess China (at that time) did the math that the wall construction was going to cost a million life; but a wall was going to save them all from the enemy. So it made sense and actually saved lives.
In reality, when the enemy finally did cross the wall (multiple times), they just killed the elites, moved into their palaces, and then took over the ever-so-burdensome task of administering the canals... and collecting the taxes.
you also fail to mention that the mongols did mass slaughtering of the entire population of cities that resisted. It was genocide at mass, even children and women were not spared.
Also, their raids will conflict massive damage to local populations (pillaging, plundering and rape).
So, yeah..... you make it like it was some kind of 'chivalrous' game between nobles/elites, while it was not at all.
Also, their raids will conflict massive damage to local populations (pillaging, plundering and rape).
So, yeah..... you make it like it was some kind of 'chivalrous' game between nobles/elites, while it was not at all.
Nothing that didn't happen during Chinese civil wars. My intended point was quite the opposite. The nobles were playing a game, a brutal one -- and the peasants were the pawns.
True, but that didn’t make them any less dead. Some estimates put casualties from Mongol invasions as as high as 60 million people. They certainly did kill millions, not just the elites.
>they just killed the elites, moved into their palaces, and then took over the ever-so-burdensome task of administering the canals... and collecting the taxes.
Locals didn't see it as merely "replacing some elite with another" any more than the Nazi Germany winning the war and establishing someone as the "President of the US" would be seen as that.
Sure, in the end life goes on, but there are many aspects that change, and domestic versus invading elites are seldom the same...
That's if we exclude the mass slaughters at the time, or the treatment of local ethnicities as second class citizens...
Locals didn't see it as merely "replacing some elite with another" any more than the Nazi Germany winning the war and establishing someone as the "President of the US" would be seen as that.
Sure, in the end life goes on, but there are many aspects that change, and domestic versus invading elites are seldom the same...
That's if we exclude the mass slaughters at the time, or the treatment of local ethnicities as second class citizens...
https://www.warriorsandlegends.com/gladiators/the-life-expec... ; they fought 2-3 times a year and would die around age thirty; now that would be the average life expectancy at that time. And you could buy your own freedom after three years. (on the other hand they can't be sure if the average age of thirty for gladiators is correct)
Now you would have it much worse if you were a slave at a silver mine, that would have been the worst fate for a slave - it would be a certain death sentence.
Also slaves in a city were much better off in general than slaves working on farms.
Now you would have it much worse if you were a slave at a silver mine, that would have been the worst fate for a slave - it would be a certain death sentence.
Also slaves in a city were much better off in general than slaves working on farms.
would die around age 30; now that would be the average life expectancy at that time
Not really: Numbers like that are low because high levels of infant mortality brought the average down. If you lived past that age, going into your 50's was pretty much the norm. So the gladiators were still dying 20+ years before "normal"
Not really: Numbers like that are low because high levels of infant mortality brought the average down. If you lived past that age, going into your 50's was pretty much the norm. So the gladiators were still dying 20+ years before "normal"
Well, the gladiator numbers are skewed too because of the high mortality of their profession for guys in their 20’s. If they lived long enough to be free, they likely had a normal lifespan.
That's pretty much the point: lots of dead gladiators dying earlier than they would have otherwise, contrary to the comment that they lived to about the same age as other Romans.
In short, if other Romans had to pass one high-mortality period in their childhood, gladiators survive high childhood mortality only to be thrust into another period of high mortality. Twice the hurdle to overcome in order to have a shot at a reasonable lifespan.
In short, if other Romans had to pass one high-mortality period in their childhood, gladiators survive high childhood mortality only to be thrust into another period of high mortality. Twice the hurdle to overcome in order to have a shot at a reasonable lifespan.
It needs to be said that life expectancy wasn't great for Roman emperors, either :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire... that's correct, though there might have been regional differences. I don't know if these figures were the same throughout the entire roman empire.
> they fought 2-3 times a year and would die around age 30; now that would be the average life expectancy at that time. And you could buy your own freedom after three years.
That's life expectancy with high infant mortality included. Life expectancy for those who made it to age 10 was around 50.
That's life expectancy with high infant mortality included. Life expectancy for those who made it to age 10 was around 50.
>now that would be the average life expectancy at that time
Taking infant mortality into account. Life expectancy at 25 would be much higher (e.g. if you've made it to 25, you'd be statistically expected to make it to 50-60 or so).
"However, when infant mortality is factored out, life expectancy is doubled to the late-50s. If a Roman survived infancy to their mid-teens, they could, on average, expect near six decades of life"
In general, child mortality ignored, life expenctacy hasn't changed that much through the millenia. Modern sanitary practices and quality of life (running water, etc.) and to a much lesser degree modern medicine gave us around 15-20 years more.
Taking infant mortality into account. Life expectancy at 25 would be much higher (e.g. if you've made it to 25, you'd be statistically expected to make it to 50-60 or so).
"However, when infant mortality is factored out, life expectancy is doubled to the late-50s. If a Roman survived infancy to their mid-teens, they could, on average, expect near six decades of life"
In general, child mortality ignored, life expenctacy hasn't changed that much through the millenia. Modern sanitary practices and quality of life (running water, etc.) and to a much lesser degree modern medicine gave us around 15-20 years more.
"In general, child mortality ignored, life expenctacy hasn't changed that much through the millenia. "
I recently read a paper on excavation of two burial sites in Southeast Moravia, one of the centers of the Great Moravia realm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Moravia). One of those burial sites spanned 9th-10th century, while the other was about 2 centuries younger.
The age profiles of the dead were rather different. The earlier cemetery had only a few remains over 37, while for the latter, the drop-off age was about 48. It seems that the more stable conditions of the High Middle Ages (including some improvement in agriculture) gave people about an extra decade to live.
Of course, this was Central Europe, very underdeveloped in comparison with the ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean.
I recently read a paper on excavation of two burial sites in Southeast Moravia, one of the centers of the Great Moravia realm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Moravia). One of those burial sites spanned 9th-10th century, while the other was about 2 centuries younger.
The age profiles of the dead were rather different. The earlier cemetery had only a few remains over 37, while for the latter, the drop-off age was about 48. It seems that the more stable conditions of the High Middle Ages (including some improvement in agriculture) gave people about an extra decade to live.
Of course, this was Central Europe, very underdeveloped in comparison with the ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean.
How much fighting was necessary to get rid of the PTSD from being a gladiator?
It's widely (although not universally) believed that PTSD was far less common in pre-mechanised warfare/violence. This article has a high level overview on the prevailing theories: http://www.historiamag.com/roman-ptsd/
Interesting article. It could be argued that certain practices of Roman society were itself a manifestation of mass, society-wide PTSD: systemic child abuse, slave abuse, military expansionism, gladiatorial spectacles. But, the article makes a good point that PTSD as a defined medical condition could be relative to our society's understanding of the individual, not a universal human failing
Sometimes I ask really stupid questions and get answers that I don't deserve. This was a great read.
Many (most?) of the gladiators were free men, looking to increase their wealth and status by being a successful gladiator.
Gladiators rarely fought to the death.
Gladiators rarely fought to the death.
I think society has come full circle. You've just named 3 new genres of future reality TV shows.
supposedly Glory is intended as the magnificence that originally had for people at the time
It is also funny to note that many other roman arena and theater are still used today for shows. From concert to bull fighting.
I attended a concert at one in Orange:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Theatre_of_Orange
I wondered if emperor Augustus could imagine his statue would overlook such an event centuries later.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Theatre_of_Orange
I wondered if emperor Augustus could imagine his statue would overlook such an event centuries later.
One must note * across Europe. No bullfighting in Italy.
And in Switzerland this is Swiss Cow fighting (combat de Reines)
Note that's two cows fighting one other
I didn’t realize that bull fighting happened in Italy, I thought it was an unfortunate Spanish thing
Tauromachy (bullfighting) is a very ancient ritual: the spanish one is just one of its most recent formalisation. Venationes (hunting games) were common practice in Rome. The picture of gladiators fighting lions in the Colosseum is iconic, but bulls were also used.
I wonder wether the whole Matador thing is a direct-line descendant leftover of the games in Roman time Iberian arenas or if there have been discontinuities and reinventions along the way.
It's also older than Rome, there are plenty of Minoan era representations of bullfighting (leaping, but that's still a tradition in France and Spain, too).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-leaping
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-leaping
I think he means Roman era amphitheatres in Spain.
> that both celebrated and embodied the grandeur of Rome.
So what exactly put an end to these inhumane shows? Did the arena become destroyed in a fire or was sacked and plundered, or did the populace lose its taste for gore and grow a conscience or something in that direction? Or was it that these shows went on for the full life of the Roman Empire and yet no following generation and municipality picked it up again and or didn't know how to operate the thing when the empire fell.
So what exactly put an end to these inhumane shows? Did the arena become destroyed in a fire or was sacked and plundered, or did the populace lose its taste for gore and grow a conscience or something in that direction? Or was it that these shows went on for the full life of the Roman Empire and yet no following generation and municipality picked it up again and or didn't know how to operate the thing when the empire fell.
In the received history, Emperor Honorius banned them in 399 AD. Rome would be sacked by barbarians a decade later and never recovered.
Some games would continue after that into the 5th century, anyway. Still, it was on the way out before the Empire fell in the West. The origins of gladiatorial combat are disputed, but it's tied to the military and religious rites of the Roman people specifically, and long predated the imperial era. It probably ties back into the human sacrifice themes common to the Indo-European religions. It was a practice alien to most of the peoples in the empire, and was used as a means of asserting imperial authority.
In the 3rd/4th century, we have the empire under strain economically which gives real-world pressure to curtail the games. Demographics are shifting and there are a lot of culturally non-Roman citizens in the empire, including emperors. At the same time, Christianity was on the rise. It erased the ancient religious justifications, and created new religious objections. Once Christianity becomes cemented as the state religion it was pretty much done -- Christian martyrs being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum was an old meme even then.
Some games would continue after that into the 5th century, anyway. Still, it was on the way out before the Empire fell in the West. The origins of gladiatorial combat are disputed, but it's tied to the military and religious rites of the Roman people specifically, and long predated the imperial era. It probably ties back into the human sacrifice themes common to the Indo-European religions. It was a practice alien to most of the peoples in the empire, and was used as a means of asserting imperial authority.
In the 3rd/4th century, we have the empire under strain economically which gives real-world pressure to curtail the games. Demographics are shifting and there are a lot of culturally non-Roman citizens in the empire, including emperors. At the same time, Christianity was on the rise. It erased the ancient religious justifications, and created new religious objections. Once Christianity becomes cemented as the state religion it was pretty much done -- Christian martyrs being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum was an old meme even then.
What does "received history" mean in this context? A quick google search found use of the phrase when discussing history, but I didn't find any definitions.
Depending on context, it's used to mean either
(a) "history as generally accepted" (positively) or
(b) "history as generally accepted" (but negatively, when implying that the generally accepted version doesn't tell the real story).
(a) "history as generally accepted" (positively) or
(b) "history as generally accepted" (but negatively, when implying that the generally accepted version doesn't tell the real story).
I would add (c) history as generally accepted, but there's really a lack of historical information to agree or disagree with the claims.
Another way of saying received wisdom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
[deleted]
[deleted]
With the fall of the western empire, Rome's population collapsed from over a million to only tens of thousands. It wouldn't cross 100,000 again until the 18th century. It just didn't have the wealth or population necessary to hold such shows.
I can't imagine what it would be like living in a city that was once so large and then so sparsely populated. Like a medieval apocalypse. Was the remaining population densely located in few spots amongst ruins?
Mostly outside the ruins. IIRC the main churches were built around the edge (because the center was full) in late Roman times, and these locations became the new centers in medieval times.
It is also one of the main reasons so many buildings, both ruined and standing, still are around and accessible. Had the population not collapsed, they probably would have been built over or repurposed over the years. This way, they just remained fallow until Italy was conceived again in the 1800s as a nation (from its individual king and dukedoms) and Rome was chosen as its capitol.
Many of the landmarks that still exist (and of those that don't, e.g. the Septizodium), except for those saved by being directly converted into a church (the Pantheon), saw heavy repurposing as fortifications in the endless and often violent power struggles between patrician families. The Circus Maximus was a Frangipani stronghold.
Others (and the Circus Maximus before it was taken over by the Frangipani) were simply saved from getting used as a quarry by getting incorporated in-place as structural elements for new, well, shacks, as documented by the many, many square holes hewn into the formerly flat stone surfaces. Square holes for holding wooden beams I suppose. The (still in use!) appartment on top of the Theatre of Marcellus give an idea of how that went. In this case, they are the outcome of a slow fortress->palace->middle class residential transition.
Others (and the Circus Maximus before it was taken over by the Frangipani) were simply saved from getting used as a quarry by getting incorporated in-place as structural elements for new, well, shacks, as documented by the many, many square holes hewn into the formerly flat stone surfaces. Square holes for holding wooden beams I suppose. The (still in use!) appartment on top of the Theatre of Marcellus give an idea of how that went. In this case, they are the outcome of a slow fortress->palace->middle class residential transition.
You can visit Detroit if you want to experience something like that.
> So what exactly put an end to these inhumane shows?
You might want to check out the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin, episode "Painfotainment". It has some ideas as to why that happened.
You might want to check out the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin, episode "Painfotainment". It has some ideas as to why that happened.
There was no “following municipality” for about 1000 years. Not one rich enough to fund that size of show.
Practically speaking, after the deposition of the last Western Emperor, Italy was still nominally part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire did actually reconquer most of Italy from the Ostrogoths, but they didn't hold onto it for long, and much was reconquered by the Lombards, except for the Exarchate of Ravenna.
The collapse of Byzantine rule in Italy led the pope to ask the Carolingians for protection from the Lombards, and the pope got control of (most of) the ex-Exarchate of Ravenna in return, renamed the Papal States. The Republic of Venice gained independence from the Byzantine Empire at roughly the same time, and grew into one of the most dominant powers of the Middle Ages, eventually managing to conquer the Byzantine Empire in the Fourth Crusade. Other parts of Northern Italy also developed large, powerful merchant republic city-states throughout the Middle Ages: Amalfi, Genoa, Pisa, Ancona, Gaeta, Ragusa (although that was actually on what is now Croatian coastline).
I will point out that, throughout the Middle Ages, the largest, richest, and most powerful cities in Western Europe would have been these Italian city-states. They absolutely would have been able to fund that size of show--after all, these are the cities that patronized the arts and eventually the Italian Renaissance.
The collapse of Byzantine rule in Italy led the pope to ask the Carolingians for protection from the Lombards, and the pope got control of (most of) the ex-Exarchate of Ravenna in return, renamed the Papal States. The Republic of Venice gained independence from the Byzantine Empire at roughly the same time, and grew into one of the most dominant powers of the Middle Ages, eventually managing to conquer the Byzantine Empire in the Fourth Crusade. Other parts of Northern Italy also developed large, powerful merchant republic city-states throughout the Middle Ages: Amalfi, Genoa, Pisa, Ancona, Gaeta, Ragusa (although that was actually on what is now Croatian coastline).
I will point out that, throughout the Middle Ages, the largest, richest, and most powerful cities in Western Europe would have been these Italian city-states. They absolutely would have been able to fund that size of show--after all, these are the cities that patronized the arts and eventually the Italian Renaissance.
And Rome itself remained unable to rebuild itself into a strong city because it's bishops somehow managed to reestablish something like the imperial Roman bureaucratic control on the religious side, establishing Catholicism as a centralistic "church empire" reaching farther out than the secular empire ever did (well, secular except for the occasional deification..).
This influence of the city's bishop (aka pope, still elected in an utterly informal process by the citizenry for much of the middle ages) reliably prevented the development of stable power structures in the city, because papal succession was so important outside that whenever an imbalance between roman "families of power" was developing the weaker sides were immediately supported by outsiders (the stronger side would not be open to outside influence). Outsiders like the seemingly endless succession of German kings that went to Rome with an army hoping to get emperor status in exchange for helping the next pope into his job, but also by many others (e.g. Normans in what is now southern Italy).
Imagine what the District of Columbia would be like if elections routinely involved violence, war between US states wasn't unheard of and (kind of like the inverse of the US Senate) nobody outside of DC had a vote for the presidency.
This influence of the city's bishop (aka pope, still elected in an utterly informal process by the citizenry for much of the middle ages) reliably prevented the development of stable power structures in the city, because papal succession was so important outside that whenever an imbalance between roman "families of power" was developing the weaker sides were immediately supported by outsiders (the stronger side would not be open to outside influence). Outsiders like the seemingly endless succession of German kings that went to Rome with an army hoping to get emperor status in exchange for helping the next pope into his job, but also by many others (e.g. Normans in what is now southern Italy).
Imagine what the District of Columbia would be like if elections routinely involved violence, war between US states wasn't unheard of and (kind of like the inverse of the US Senate) nobody outside of DC had a vote for the presidency.
> They absolutely would have been able to fund that size of show
Perhaps collectively? The Colosseum killed what, order 1k ppl/yr? Peak slave trade through Genoa and Venice each seems to be mid-to-low order 1k ppl/yr?[1] And that's with women and children being common. Even Venice had a population an order of magnitude down from peak Rome - they'd all fit in the Circus Maximus. And its total slave population was two orders down, at a few thousand, majority women. So I don't quite see those cities individually being able to even afford the dead, let alone the rest of it. There looks a gap of maybe one or two orders of magnitude?
[1] https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8610XH4 /The Black Sea Slave Population/
Perhaps collectively? The Colosseum killed what, order 1k ppl/yr? Peak slave trade through Genoa and Venice each seems to be mid-to-low order 1k ppl/yr?[1] And that's with women and children being common. Even Venice had a population an order of magnitude down from peak Rome - they'd all fit in the Circus Maximus. And its total slave population was two orders down, at a few thousand, majority women. So I don't quite see those cities individually being able to even afford the dead, let alone the rest of it. There looks a gap of maybe one or two orders of magnitude?
[1] https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8610XH4 /The Black Sea Slave Population/
Well, the Eastern empire (where the capital was moved to) did well for those other 1000 years.
Christianity, essentially
> St. Ignatius, the first Christian who died in the Colosseum, chose to die for his religion in front of tens of thousands of people rather than escape persecution or die in a less public place. About 3000 Christian martyrs in all died in the Colosseum.
[deleted]
per Wikipedia: Honorius issued a decree during his reign, prohibiting men from wearing trousers in Rome. The last known gladiatoral games took place during the reign of Honorius, who banned the practice in 399 and again in 404, reportedly due to the martyrdom of a Christian monk named Telemachus while he was protesting a gladiator fight.
(Which was pretty much at the end of the Roman Empire and the city was sacked a few years later.)
(Which was pretty much at the end of the Roman Empire and the city was sacked a few years later.)
Why would they ban trousers?
From https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/trousers-pants-roman-h...
Like with GPS and the internet, innovations from the military sector slowly spread to civil society. By 397, trousers, in all their odiousness, were becoming so common that brother-emperors Honorius and Arcadius (of the Western and Eastern empires, respectively) issued an official trouser ban. The ban is cited in a code named for their father, Theodosianus, which read: “Within the venerable City no person should be allowed to appropriate to himself the use of boots or trousers. But if any man should attempt to contravene this sanction, We command that in accordance with the sentence of the Illustrious Prefect, the offender shall be stripped of all his resources and delivered into perpetual exile.”
“What the ban basically does is that it bans civilians from wearing a military outfit in the capital,” says Elm, “so one could see it as an indirect way to make it easy to distinguish civilians from military men at a time where tension was high.” Four years prior, Emperor Valens had been killed in battle within Roman borders, and a third of the army had been wiped out. So banning trousers could have been a way to make sure that the capital was easier to police, and that fighters were kept out.
The ban could also be read as the desperate attempt of late-period emperors to cling to a sense of Roman identity at a time where the empire had become a melting pot of traditions, after hundreds of years of expansion and cultural appropriation. Long hair and flashy jewels soon joined boots and pants as forbidden fashion.
“Barbarian influence on fashion was something that emperors wanted to control, but then their own bodyguards, which presumably they trusted, were barbarians,” says Elm. “So rather than anti-barbarian, they were mostly anti-barbarian-identity.” Restoring concepts such as “purity” and “identity” is not uncommon in fading empires—authoritarian ways to make rulers feel in control at home in the face of external weakness.
Like with GPS and the internet, innovations from the military sector slowly spread to civil society. By 397, trousers, in all their odiousness, were becoming so common that brother-emperors Honorius and Arcadius (of the Western and Eastern empires, respectively) issued an official trouser ban. The ban is cited in a code named for their father, Theodosianus, which read: “Within the venerable City no person should be allowed to appropriate to himself the use of boots or trousers. But if any man should attempt to contravene this sanction, We command that in accordance with the sentence of the Illustrious Prefect, the offender shall be stripped of all his resources and delivered into perpetual exile.”
“What the ban basically does is that it bans civilians from wearing a military outfit in the capital,” says Elm, “so one could see it as an indirect way to make it easy to distinguish civilians from military men at a time where tension was high.” Four years prior, Emperor Valens had been killed in battle within Roman borders, and a third of the army had been wiped out. So banning trousers could have been a way to make sure that the capital was easier to police, and that fighters were kept out.
The ban could also be read as the desperate attempt of late-period emperors to cling to a sense of Roman identity at a time where the empire had become a melting pot of traditions, after hundreds of years of expansion and cultural appropriation. Long hair and flashy jewels soon joined boots and pants as forbidden fashion.
“Barbarian influence on fashion was something that emperors wanted to control, but then their own bodyguards, which presumably they trusted, were barbarians,” says Elm. “So rather than anti-barbarian, they were mostly anti-barbarian-identity.” Restoring concepts such as “purity” and “identity” is not uncommon in fading empires—authoritarian ways to make rulers feel in control at home in the face of external weakness.
> “So rather than anti-barbarian, they were mostly anti-barbarian-identity.”
Indeed. The Roman empire was not really "anti-barbarian" (except in its final throes): the Roman Emperorl considered himself to be the ruler of the whole world and all people in it, so the "us vs them" mentality was weaker than we may think. For instance, whenever Rome conquered some province, it usually granted citizenship to the local ruling class, so as to foster assimilation. Also, for a really long time barbarians were accepted at the "frontier" (limes) and sent to provinces that needed manpower, or to the army (which allowed them to become citizens, once discharged). Things only started to get out of hand after the battle of Adrianopolis (378), when the limes became unguarded and basically all Goths, displaced by the Huns, swarmed across the empire.
Indeed. The Roman empire was not really "anti-barbarian" (except in its final throes): the Roman Emperorl considered himself to be the ruler of the whole world and all people in it, so the "us vs them" mentality was weaker than we may think. For instance, whenever Rome conquered some province, it usually granted citizenship to the local ruling class, so as to foster assimilation. Also, for a really long time barbarians were accepted at the "frontier" (limes) and sent to provinces that needed manpower, or to the army (which allowed them to become citizens, once discharged). Things only started to get out of hand after the battle of Adrianopolis (378), when the limes became unguarded and basically all Goths, displaced by the Huns, swarmed across the empire.
Conquering people and telling them they are now your subjects is anti those people.
Yes of course it's not ethical or good. But lou1306's point is that the Romans didn't think the barbarians were bad, but rather saw that the barbarians had some good stuff (land, fighting ability) and wanted to take that stuff for their own. That is, the Romans weren't motivated by hate or the desire to destroy, but by greed and desire for power.
Agree. Another issue, when discussing this topic, is that Romans are believed to have adopted the Greek culture after the conquest of Greece. This is indeed mostly true, but not when it comes to the attitude towards foreigners, which could not be more dissimilar.
Greek culture was much more insular. Greek poleis really considered themselves to be superior to anyone who did not speak their language (which is what "barbarian" actually means). And, while they did invest in colonies, they were never really interested in conquering territories where other cultures were already present. Needless to say, this kind of attitude does not lead to burgeoning territorial acquisition.
Romans were much more aggressive and warmongering, but they also showed some degree of acceptance of the cultures they assimilated. They allowed provinces to keep some of their pre-existing laws. They were fine with people worshipping their non-Roman gods, as long as they also recognized the divinity of the emperor. And, as I said, they routinely employed barbarians at all levels of their society (not just for slavery, as it is sometimes assumed).
Greek culture was much more insular. Greek poleis really considered themselves to be superior to anyone who did not speak their language (which is what "barbarian" actually means). And, while they did invest in colonies, they were never really interested in conquering territories where other cultures were already present. Needless to say, this kind of attitude does not lead to burgeoning territorial acquisition.
Romans were much more aggressive and warmongering, but they also showed some degree of acceptance of the cultures they assimilated. They allowed provinces to keep some of their pre-existing laws. They were fine with people worshipping their non-Roman gods, as long as they also recognized the divinity of the emperor. And, as I said, they routinely employed barbarians at all levels of their society (not just for slavery, as it is sometimes assumed).
By today's standards, it is. However, we should not use today's worldview to judge another era's way of thinking. Also, a citizen was not just a "subject". A citizen from a conquered province could rather easily become senator [1], and some even became emperors (e.g., Septimius Severus was born in Leptis Magna, in modern-day Lybia, from a Punic family). Also:
> "they are now your subjects"
Nope, they were always the subjects of the emperor. That's the point of calling yourself an emperor. And it's not limited to Rome: the Persian and Chinese emperors also claimed their power to be universal.
[1] That was also true in Republican era. There's even a running joke in the Asterix comics series, where the chief of the Gallic village recurringly says that Caesar offered him a seat in the Senate if he surrendered.
> "they are now your subjects"
Nope, they were always the subjects of the emperor. That's the point of calling yourself an emperor. And it's not limited to Rome: the Persian and Chinese emperors also claimed their power to be universal.
[1] That was also true in Republican era. There's even a running joke in the Asterix comics series, where the chief of the Gallic village recurringly says that Caesar offered him a seat in the Senate if he surrendered.
The whole point of my comment is that it isn't just up to the emperor, claiming your power is universal has always been a douchebag move. Claiming much power at all for that matter.
Trousers had long been culturally associated with the Germanic and Celtic peoples. It's cold in Switzerland. The traditional Roman elites saw it as an unwelcome barbarism. When tensions got high with the threat of a Germanic invasion of Rome itself, you get the usual identity signalling required publicly. That's just my interpretation, though.
In the scheme of things that late Roman emperors did, banning trousers seems very normal.
More seriously, possibly early culture wars, trousers being an un-Roman, foreign innovation.
More seriously, possibly early culture wars, trousers being an un-Roman, foreign innovation.
The visible damage to the structure is mostly due to the building materials having been reused in other structures in the following centuries.
[deleted]
I’m looking at pictures of the venue and wondering how it will only cost 10m to restore the floor? Secondly, if it’s so cheap relatively, why wasn’t it done earlier?
Even if it's free (€10m does sound too cheap) it's always a tough question for conservators: is it better to restore an ancient building or artwork to what we think it used to look like, or to preserve it so that everything you see is authentic?
There are arguments on both sides. We don't generally repaint Ancient Greek marble statues, for example.
There are arguments on both sides. We don't generally repaint Ancient Greek marble statues, for example.
Since i'm a kid i've never understood what good there was to keep ruins, as opposed to rebuilding "in the spirit of". In the end that's what do a lot of movies and video games and it's a better experience than visting ruins.
This may sound childish but I'm dead serious.
This may sound childish but I'm dead serious.
Not disturbing an archaeological site leaves whatever's left for future, and perhaps more competent, archaeologists. Though at this point with the Colosseum specifically, I'm not sure there's any part of it left that hasn't been dug up or trampled on.
For one, look at how Sadam rebuilt Babylon. He literally rebuilt walls by putting new stone on top of the ruins. As expected, that caused permanent damage to the ruins. So what should have been done? Destroy the ruins and rebuild how it was?
I'm european and have been all over western europe and seen a ton of ruins and old buildings. I fully agree with you. Time destroys everything in the end. Rome especially is full of ruins that, if left untouched, will one day no longer be with us. Far too many to preserve in exactly their current state. I think we know enough to restore buildings with a decent degree of accuracy. I agree that we should try to be as faithful to the original as possible, but letting the buildings crumble to dust just means our descendants won't be able to enjoy them anymore. We could always be sure to document their pre-restoration state digitally, so we can double check the data in the future should we need to do so.
Not rebuilding does not mean letting the ruins crumble. The aim is to keep them in the state they’re in.
The Pantheon, which is close to the Colosseum, has been in use and maintained since it was built. They have about the same age. The Pantheon is well off, the Colosseum is almost a pile of rocks inside. I always wonder what their architects would think of us if they could see the state of their work now. I bet one of them would be sad. Well, not as sad as others that built buildings that were destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
Honestly, I’d say they’d all be amazed that anything was left at all. They’d never have seen a 2000 year old building themselves, unless they’d visited Egypt possibly. And statistically they’d be right; very few structures that old actually survive.
> very few structures that old actually survive.
That’s what makes the Pantheon so amazing. It’s easy to forget it’s that old when you’re standing inside, because the structure is still so sound!
That’s what makes the Pantheon so amazing. It’s easy to forget it’s that old when you’re standing inside, because the structure is still so sound!
Ever buy a souvenir on a vacation? Have anything you keep because it reminds you of some past experience?
This is pretty much the same thing on a societal level. Also consider that movies & videogames you mention would have no idea of what to put in them if things like this hadn't been preserved. If the Colosseum had been fully demolished after the fall of the Roman empire, no CGI would have been able to recreate it for your enjoyment in the latest AAA game.
This is pretty much the same thing on a societal level. Also consider that movies & videogames you mention would have no idea of what to put in them if things like this hadn't been preserved. If the Colosseum had been fully demolished after the fall of the Roman empire, no CGI would have been able to recreate it for your enjoyment in the latest AAA game.
It depends. If you use the same stone from similar quarries and stick to a faithful reproduction that might be a good experience. Otherwise imagine McMansion levels of construction quality to rebuild the colosseum. That would be disgusting. Also visiting ruins is an amazing experience. You can touch stones that were put in place by humans millenia ago. If that doesn’t stir something in you then you’re a different kind of person than me.
The more common thing (now) is to make the new work high-quality but clearly distinct. I presume that's what's planned here -- don't build all the basement walls up again with similar stone to an original-style stage floor, instead add a steel structure over all the old stuff holding a modern floor, with glass skylights for touring the ruins below.
Notre Dame post-fire reconstruction has a similar issue. Some of the stonework, i.e. the naves, needs work. According to PBS Nova geologists & architects located the old quarries for different stone around metro Paris.
Notre-Dame never made it to ruins, though. It is a building that was still in use and still has a function to fulfil. And the people rebuilding it have a good idea of how it was before.
It’s quite different from patching up however we can something that was left to rot for centuries.
It’s quite different from patching up however we can something that was left to rot for centuries.
This actually used to be common enough. And the things rebuilt were often ruined. “Leave well enough alone, or at most sensitively restore” is a fairly modern idea.
What you see now is the result of previous poor restorations. The Colosseum had become overgrown with plants and was like a large public garden. It was unique. For many of the plants it was the only place you could find them in Western Europe. It is believed that the seeds from many of the plants were transplanted through the excrement of the animals from the games.
I agree with you in theory and that's why I'm excited by the Assassin's Creed games' exploration variants and by the potential for VR to permit temporal tourism like this.
But the answer is pretty easy: we don't restore these things because we're never sure if we're doing it right. Think of it as giving everyone the raw data and letting them fill in.
But the answer is pretty easy: we don't restore these things because we're never sure if we're doing it right. Think of it as giving everyone the raw data and letting them fill in.
Yes but does it mean REALLY something to "do it right" ? I mean, everything is a product of the current civilisation. If there are changes there are changes and it will reflect OUR civilisation maybe 1000 more years in the future. Why are we the first civilisation / period to care so much about "being right" when the colosseum was already rebuilt multiple times.
I'm not sure the "potential value" of having ruins is really higher than just redoing a nice building at some point...
I'm not sure the "potential value" of having ruins is really higher than just redoing a nice building at some point...
Well, since we're arguing "potential value", and this isn't being stonewalled by authority against public opinion, I suspect you're simply in the minority as to the value (which, after all is dictated here by the market of public opinion).
Which is a long way of saying "You think it has low value as it stands, and high value as something else, but you don't have the wallet to buy it from the guys currently holding it" which is a long way of saying "People's tastes differ and you're in the minority".
Which is a long way of saying "You think it has low value as it stands, and high value as something else, but you don't have the wallet to buy it from the guys currently holding it" which is a long way of saying "People's tastes differ and you're in the minority".
About value..Thats a way too static way of looking at life. It's the typical subject where 1% of the population think that and the rest don't care and would agree with anything...
But if you really think about it most nice monuments visited by tourists in any city, like churches, temples are actually buildinga mostly well restored and currently used in some way.
Colosseum is just a bunch of ugly ruins. Visiting Colosseum was one the most underwhelming experience of my life and I've travelled quite a bit. just build something nice Instead
But if you really think about it most nice monuments visited by tourists in any city, like churches, temples are actually buildinga mostly well restored and currently used in some way.
Colosseum is just a bunch of ugly ruins. Visiting Colosseum was one the most underwhelming experience of my life and I've travelled quite a bit. just build something nice Instead
" I mean, everything is a product of the current civilisation"
Wow. You might want to check history again, or you have a very broad(to the point of meaningless) definition of civilisation.
Anyway, some other point: I for one enjoy certain old ruins much more, than most modern buildings. And even though I would like to see them in their former glory, I know that in most cases this would be increadibly hard, or just impossible, unless you just want a cheap movie requisite.
Wow. You might want to check history again, or you have a very broad(to the point of meaningless) definition of civilisation.
Anyway, some other point: I for one enjoy certain old ruins much more, than most modern buildings. And even though I would like to see them in their former glory, I know that in most cases this would be increadibly hard, or just impossible, unless you just want a cheap movie requisite.
Then you can rebuild it elsewhere or visit it in video games. Once you destroy a ruin, it’s gone. Doing it for the sake of entertainment sounds selfish, particularly when we have other ways of experiencing it.
the idea of rebuilding in the spirit of was common in the XIX century, with figures like Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. But such restorations are controversial, since it's rather hard to exactly restore building as they were and it will be even more complicated to agree on what the spirit of building is, especially for buildings which had a long history and been modified multiple times.
We don’t bother in the west, but in Japan they rebuild ancient temples every couple decades or so.
I've always thought the same! It would make history so much more relatable and generate more interest in ancient buildings.
They wouldn't even have to do all of it, just one third would at least show us what we think it used to look like!
They wouldn't even have to do all of it, just one third would at least show us what we think it used to look like!
I agree with you, it would be more impactful to go to the colosseum and see a show, knowing this is how Romans did it thousands of years ago at this very spot in these same seats, than to basically go and just see a dump.
That's not what it will cost. It's not even designed yet. That's what the Italian government has pledged towards it.
Will they be giving out free bread to attendees at Colosseum shows?
No, just circus tickets.
Are they pre-selling tickets for the first show?
Would it be linoleum ?
Get it ? Coleseum - Linoleum :)
Get it ? Coleseum - Linoleum :)
I was there a few years back and the thing is really run down, they should really rebuild the whole thing.
And those Pyramids, those things are showing their age, right ?
Don't even get me started on the Parthenon.
And those Pyramids, those things are showing their age, right ?
Don't even get me started on the Parthenon.
I'm not sure if you're just joking around, or if this is a critic of restoring and rebuilding ancient monuments, but I know I used to be critical of restoring ancient monuments when I was younger. I thought the process of restoring these sites with new materials and even going so far as to reimagine what parts might have looked like thousands of years ago made the cultural experience somewhat less genuine because I knew a lot what I was seeing was added recently and probably didn't fully reflect what it would have looked like back when it originally built.
But I've become a lot more accepting of the practise the more I've learnt. I don't know much about the Colosseum's history, but I'm sure over the many years it was in operation parts of it would have been being rebuilt and extended. Arguably in most cases the original monument was destroyed long before anybody in modern society touched it.
I also started to realise that without a huge amount of restoration most of my favourite historical places would be almost unrecognisable. For example, if you look at Stone Henge before and after the restoration work you'll see what I mean.
It's also true that without occasional upkeep and maintenance many of these monument wouldn't survive long given the number of visitors they attract each year. So if we need to do some amount of restoration anyway, why not also restore what was lost before modern times?
I think so long as we are respectful and honour the character of what was built before we arrived it's probably fine to do our best to restore what we believe was once there. After all in most cases we're simply continuing what would be a long history of modifications and restorations. If it wasn't for those modifications and restorations we wouldn't be able to enjoy these sites in the first place so we probably have some duty to continue that work for future generations.
But I've become a lot more accepting of the practise the more I've learnt. I don't know much about the Colosseum's history, but I'm sure over the many years it was in operation parts of it would have been being rebuilt and extended. Arguably in most cases the original monument was destroyed long before anybody in modern society touched it.
I also started to realise that without a huge amount of restoration most of my favourite historical places would be almost unrecognisable. For example, if you look at Stone Henge before and after the restoration work you'll see what I mean.
It's also true that without occasional upkeep and maintenance many of these monument wouldn't survive long given the number of visitors they attract each year. So if we need to do some amount of restoration anyway, why not also restore what was lost before modern times?
I think so long as we are respectful and honour the character of what was built before we arrived it's probably fine to do our best to restore what we believe was once there. After all in most cases we're simply continuing what would be a long history of modifications and restorations. If it wasn't for those modifications and restorations we wouldn't be able to enjoy these sites in the first place so we probably have some duty to continue that work for future generations.
The more I come to see history as a way of understanding the past instead of revering it, the more I want to experience faithful restorations.
Imagine trying to understand the culture of NASCAR a thousand years from now by looking at some rusted out car frames in a case.
The best part of floating museums like the USS Bowfin is actually standing there inside the cramped corridor, everything around you (at least appearing) ready for service... you can almost imagine you are there.
Imagine trying to understand the culture of NASCAR a thousand years from now by looking at some rusted out car frames in a case.
The best part of floating museums like the USS Bowfin is actually standing there inside the cramped corridor, everything around you (at least appearing) ready for service... you can almost imagine you are there.
You're not sure I was joking around?
Really?
[deleted]
I love the history. But sometimes it really feels like that's what Italy is all about: let's spend money on the past for more tourist money.
I love technology. But sometimes it really feels like that’s what Google is all about: let’s spend money on search for more advertisers’ money.
Obviously it works for Italy and huge number of people so why not?
Obviously it works for Italy and huge number of people so why not?
Italy instead should promote even more of its cultural heritage like France does, as an example, and not less. It is really the most valued richness of our country. Investing in valorising the past does not mean crystallizing on it, it means learning from its lessons.
Wait till you hear about Egypt.
Prices in Italy are balanced and not even that bad. The ticket to the colosseum is 16€ and includes the entire park nearby. 16€ for the main attraction in one of the most visited countries in the world is pretty reasonable.
Prices in Italy are balanced and not even that bad. The ticket to the colosseum is 16€ and includes the entire park nearby. 16€ for the main attraction in one of the most visited countries in the world is pretty reasonable.
I can remember visiting Egypt (many years ago) and being frustrated about how expensive the fees were for foreign tourists. Being from a third world country, and not having much personal wealth at that time, I was forced to skip the Tutankhamun exhibit in the Cairo museum—something that I regret even today.
Note: I was in Cairo as part of an official delegation (i.e., my country paid for my travel, and the sponsor organization in Egypt paid for my bed + board). At that time, I couldn't have afforded either.
Note: I was in Cairo as part of an official delegation (i.e., my country paid for my travel, and the sponsor organization in Egypt paid for my bed + board). At that time, I couldn't have afforded either.
Addendum: unfortunately, this is something that my country, Sri Lanka, does as well. One price for locals, and another price for tourists. The latter is typically 10x as much as the local price, but does not confer much (if any at all) additional privileges or facilities.
Indonesia has a similar policy—higher prices for foreign tourists—but when I visited Borobudur and Prambanan I was pleasantly surprised to see that the higher price I paid did buy me extra amenities: a separate entrance point and some refreshments. Sure, the Indonesians came out better from that deal, but at least I didn't feel ripped off.
Indonesia has a similar policy—higher prices for foreign tourists—but when I visited Borobudur and Prambanan I was pleasantly surprised to see that the higher price I paid did buy me extra amenities: a separate entrance point and some refreshments. Sure, the Indonesians came out better from that deal, but at least I didn't feel ripped off.
You got my point exactly, this is why I mentioned the colosseum entrance ticket.
The few friends who could afford an AirAsia ticket were annoyed by the high entrance fee that many South East Asian attractions charge to foreigners, regardless of whether you’re from Vietnam or Iceland.
When the price difference is preposterous I skip the attraction altogether as a matter of principle. The Yogyakarta attractions you mentioned are the perfect example with the 25 USD entrance fee for Prambanan vs 5 USD for locals.
The few friends who could afford an AirAsia ticket were annoyed by the high entrance fee that many South East Asian attractions charge to foreigners, regardless of whether you’re from Vietnam or Iceland.
When the price difference is preposterous I skip the attraction altogether as a matter of principle. The Yogyakarta attractions you mentioned are the perfect example with the 25 USD entrance fee for Prambanan vs 5 USD for locals.
> Wait till you hear about Egypt.
What about Egypt? Could you elaborate?
What about Egypt? Could you elaborate?
Pardon the jab at Egypt, I mentioned it because when I travelled across it it felt like history was the only thing it offered (except on the Red Sea) and everyone was keen on taking advantage of tourists. Wanna take a photo here? Tip please. You paid €60 for this tour? Tip please. You already paid to enter this museum? Pay more for this one special expo please.
One of the guides also mentioned how excavations and restorations always take forever so that they’re employed forever.
One of the guides also mentioned how excavations and restorations always take forever so that they’re employed forever.
It's funny because Egypt has fallen even further from its peak glory than Italy.
Have you been to italy?
Because even though tourism is important, I never had this impression.
Because even though tourism is important, I never had this impression.
> “The arena will be used for high culture, meaning concerts or theater,” Russo adds, “but no gladiator shows.”
That’s a shame. Simulated gladiator shows would be a HUGE draw.
Right now, the Colosseum isn’t much to look at, just a bunch of rubble. But imagine if they had actors recreate some of the battles they had there. Maybe throw in some holographic lions. Every young boy around the world would be demanding to visit Rome.
I would argue the recreated Globe Theater in London is a better tourist attraction than the Colosseum, on account of it being a more immersive experience.
That’s a shame. Simulated gladiator shows would be a HUGE draw.
Right now, the Colosseum isn’t much to look at, just a bunch of rubble. But imagine if they had actors recreate some of the battles they had there. Maybe throw in some holographic lions. Every young boy around the world would be demanding to visit Rome.
I would argue the recreated Globe Theater in London is a better tourist attraction than the Colosseum, on account of it being a more immersive experience.
I have to ask what is impressive to you if you call Colosseum "just a bunch of rubble".
Not the OP. I found the Palatino ruins to be extremely impressive, and the Colosseum to be a "just a bunch of rubble". It's just not a good looking building, and the areas that are open don't let you see anything that I found particularly interesting. It's big, and well built, and it's interesting how similar it is to a modern day stadium. But it's just a stadium. Vising the Forum and the temples on the other hand has fascinating, and made think about how life in antiquity would have been.
I feel the same way, the most fun experience at the Colosseum was enjoying a glass of wine and a sandwich in a park nearby.
Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top in the world if not a bit crowded.
Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top in the world if not a bit crowded.
I was recently thinking about this as they built a state of the art office building nearby.
It has around 15 floors, looks amazing, it appears well built based on what I could tell.
It’s going to house hundreds if not thousands of humans, will be perfectly equipped to handle climatization, waste disposal, cleanliness. This is an amazing feat, and one that I personally did not really give proper thought.
Basically what I’m arguing is that any modern office building is so much more impressive than the colliseum was, maybe even at inception. More specifically, to answer your question directed at OP, I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum.
I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?
Edit: really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes.
It has around 15 floors, looks amazing, it appears well built based on what I could tell.
It’s going to house hundreds if not thousands of humans, will be perfectly equipped to handle climatization, waste disposal, cleanliness. This is an amazing feat, and one that I personally did not really give proper thought.
Basically what I’m arguing is that any modern office building is so much more impressive than the colliseum was, maybe even at inception. More specifically, to answer your question directed at OP, I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum.
I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?
Edit: really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes.
> really I had no idea this would bring me to negative points. Would love someone explaining what I’m missing in these downvotes.
I downvoted you and I'll give some insight as to why.
- "I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum". Yeah, if we judge the colosseum by today's standards, it's not impressive. What's impressive is that it is 2000 years old.
- "I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?" It isn't a pile of rubble. It's a full standing building in reasonable shape. There are plenty of piles of rubble that are 2000 years old and they simply don't get much attention, because they are piles of rubble.
- When you go to the colosseum, you get a sense of what life was like 2000 years ago in one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and the one upon which Western Civilization is built. The historical value is probably more remarkable than the technical achievement.
- There are very few structures of this scale that are this old and in reasonable shape.
- I've been to the colosseum and it isn't even my favorite ancient building in Rome. That honor goes to the Pantheon, which I think is a far more impressive technical achievement. I've also been to Petra, the Pyramids, Hagia Sophia and the temples at Luxor and I personally like all of those better. But that doesn't make the colosseum bad or meaningless.
- The 15 floor office building in your neighborhood is unlikely to last 2000 years without much maintenance. It is certainly not a huge achievement for it's day. It probably has little cultural value compared to other buildings in your city.
I downvoted you and I'll give some insight as to why.
- "I’m hard pressed not to find anything modern that’s less impressive than the Colosseum". Yeah, if we judge the colosseum by today's standards, it's not impressive. What's impressive is that it is 2000 years old.
- "I’m interested in what you find so special about the bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?" It isn't a pile of rubble. It's a full standing building in reasonable shape. There are plenty of piles of rubble that are 2000 years old and they simply don't get much attention, because they are piles of rubble.
- When you go to the colosseum, you get a sense of what life was like 2000 years ago in one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and the one upon which Western Civilization is built. The historical value is probably more remarkable than the technical achievement.
- There are very few structures of this scale that are this old and in reasonable shape.
- I've been to the colosseum and it isn't even my favorite ancient building in Rome. That honor goes to the Pantheon, which I think is a far more impressive technical achievement. I've also been to Petra, the Pyramids, Hagia Sophia and the temples at Luxor and I personally like all of those better. But that doesn't make the colosseum bad or meaningless.
- The 15 floor office building in your neighborhood is unlikely to last 2000 years without much maintenance. It is certainly not a huge achievement for it's day. It probably has little cultural value compared to other buildings in your city.
I don't think a downvote is meant for expressing disapproval of an opinion. Using it that way means that people may not express themselves, or only do so if they think it's consensus
I try to use downvotes sparingly, only for posts that have violated the guidelines, particularly when the post is mean or dismissive.
If it's an opinion I disagree with, I might reply, but I won't otherwise downvote
I try to use downvotes sparingly, only for posts that have violated the guidelines, particularly when the post is mean or dismissive.
If it's an opinion I disagree with, I might reply, but I won't otherwise downvote
I generally don't downvote because I disagree. I downvote because I think a comment is detracting from the discussion.
It's my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me) that saying that your local 15 floor office building that was built a year ago is more impressive than the Colosseum doesn't add much to the conversation.
It's my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me) that saying that your local 15 floor office building that was built a year ago is more impressive than the Colosseum doesn't add much to the conversation.
I do cheerfully disagree, but thanks for your answer.
To my mind, his question surfaced some good observations from others on what actually is impressive about the Colosseum versus a modern quotidian office building, and deeper insights about historical versus modern accomplishments. Unfortunately, he may be discouraged from raising such an interesting contrast in future
To my mind, his question surfaced some good observations from others on what actually is impressive about the Colosseum versus a modern quotidian office building, and deeper insights about historical versus modern accomplishments. Unfortunately, he may be discouraged from raising such an interesting contrast in future
[deleted]
Let's see if that "modern office" builidng is still recognizable as a building in 5000 years
Isn't at least part of that because an amphitheater, by the nature of its shape, is more likely to survive for millenia than an enclosed, rectangular office building?
Reinforced concrete isn't really meant to last.
True. On the other hand, Roman concrete is pretty damn amazing stuff.
Stone will last much more than concrete and steel.
If that is our definition for a building being impressive, sure, modern office buildings will not hold the test of time without maintainance as well as the Colosseum...
The Colosseum had wine & water on tap as part of its design. So you don't have to leave the building and can just unblock the tap and refill your cup. The concrete "piping" is still there today. I'd say that feature alone makes it amazing.
Also the complex system of elevators and trap doors it had below the fake stage floor is more complex than any broadway stage today. Granted the stage floor has not survived, but plenty of the under-the-floor mechanisms are still there.
Also the complex system of elevators and trap doors it had below the fake stage floor is more complex than any broadway stage today. Granted the stage floor has not survived, but plenty of the under-the-floor mechanisms are still there.
Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best:
- the Colosseum is a remarkable building for its time, only a handful of large buildings of that age are still standing
- even by modern standards, the remaining architecture is striking IMO
- objectively, 7 million people per year visit the Colosseum, making it one of the most popular sites in the world. So even if you don't think it's special on at least some metrics, you're wrong by definition.
- the Colosseum is a remarkable building for its time, only a handful of large buildings of that age are still standing
- even by modern standards, the remaining architecture is striking IMO
- objectively, 7 million people per year visit the Colosseum, making it one of the most popular sites in the world. So even if you don't think it's special on at least some metrics, you're wrong by definition.
> Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith on HN, I'll try my best
Why would it be such a struggle to assume good faith even with the unedited original? It was a politely expressed confusion over why the Colosseum received so much attention. No guideline transgression, just an opinion.
Why would it be such a struggle to assume good faith even with the unedited original? It was a politely expressed confusion over why the Colosseum received so much attention. No guideline transgression, just an opinion.
Personally, I prefer the older buildings as most new buildings at least here in London are soulless and bluntly said ugly. Disrupts the skyline
I feel like people have been missing your idea due to the ‘rubble’ statement, which for some reason everyone is taking literally.
I agree with you. I happen to live in a country with castles here and there, and I would love for a more interactive experience when I go there.
Also, having visited Rome and the Colloseum multiple times, I’m always more impressed at other buildings or some hidden corner than by this particular attraction.
The Colloseum, reworked in its original spirit and form, used as an entertainment arena, would be heaps more entertaining than it is now.
I agree with you. I happen to live in a country with castles here and there, and I would love for a more interactive experience when I go there.
Also, having visited Rome and the Colloseum multiple times, I’m always more impressed at other buildings or some hidden corner than by this particular attraction.
The Colloseum, reworked in its original spirit and form, used as an entertainment arena, would be heaps more entertaining than it is now.
oh wow. really?
as someone who has actually visited the Colosseum I can tell you that it’s so much more than a “bunch of rubble”.
as someone who has actually visited the Colosseum I can tell you that it’s so much more than a “bunch of rubble”.
> That’s a shame. Simulated gladiator shows would be a HUGE draw.
And real ones would be a HUGER draw!
I bet UFC would pay them top dollar to rent it out for a night.
And real ones would be a HUGER draw!
I bet UFC would pay them top dollar to rent it out for a night.
On a similar note, during the 1960 Olympics in Rome, wrestling competitions were held at Massentium's Basilica [1]. If Rome ever gets to host another edition of the Olympic Games, the Colosseum would make for an incredible setting.
[1] https://www.rerumromanarum.com/2016/08/olimpiadi-di-roma-196... (in Italian, but it has pictures)
[1] https://www.rerumromanarum.com/2016/08/olimpiadi-di-roma-196... (in Italian, but it has pictures)