Gladiators: everything you wanted to know

Summary

History Extra Podcast Summary: "Gladiators: Everything You Wanted to Know"
Release Date: November 16, 2024
Host: Emily Griffith
Guest: Historian Alison Footrell

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Gladiators: Everything You Wanted to Know," host Emily Griffith engages with historian Alison Footrell to delve deep into the intricate world of Roman gladiators. Released amidst the buzz of the "Gladiator 2" film sequel, the episode aims to bridge the gap between popular media portrayals and historical realities of gladiatorial combat.

Defining Gladiators

Alison Footrell begins by succinctly defining gladiators as "paired combatants who fought in front of spectators in politically resonant contexts in Rome" (02:30). She emphasizes that gladiatorial combat was more than mere entertainment; it was a reflection of Rome's political and social dynamics.

Origins and Evolution

Footrell traces the origins of gladiators back to the mid-third century BCE, highlighting their emergence during a pivotal era when Rome was expanding its military dominance in the Mediterranean (04:58). The establishment of gladiatorial games served as a means for the state to project power, celebrate military victories, and reinforce the emperor's authority.

She recounts how General Marius, around 105 BCE, utilized gladiators to train infantrymen in the use of the gladius—a short thrusting sword pivotal for Roman legionaries. This military connection underscores the intertwined nature of gladiatorial combat and Rome's military strategies.

Gladiators Across Civilizations

Emily Griffith poses a question about whether other ancient civilizations had their versions of gladiators. Footrell responds affirmatively, noting that "significant combats between important individuals were found basically everywhere," albeit not always under the name of gladiators (04:19). These combats often held cultural and political significance similar to those in Rome.

Entertainment vs. Political Tool

A recurring theme in the discussion is the dual role of gladiatorial games as both entertainment and political instruments. Footrell asserts, "It's never just entertainment," explaining that Roman spectacles were meticulously designed to convey messages about Rome's power, the emperor's generosity, and the might of the state (06:40). The amphitheaters became arenas where political sentiments were expressed and public approval was garnered.

Popularity and Social Impact

Addressing the popularity of gladiatorial games, Footrell notes the extensive investment in amphitheaters across the Roman Empire, indicating widespread public interest (08:41). While gladiatorial combat was immensely popular, it coexisted with other favored spectacles like chariot racing, which eventually overshadowed gladiatorial games in later periods.

Choreography and Spectacle

When asked if gladiatorial combats were choreographed akin to modern professional wrestling, Footrell remains cautiously speculative. She explains, "There's the potential that they were significantly choreographed," especially since fighters often trained together and were familiar with each other's styles (10:18). However, she emphasizes that Romans sought "a good, dynamic, dramatic, challenging show," suggesting that while some aspects might have been staged, the unpredictability of actual combat was a valued element.

The Reality of Death in the Arena

One of the most striking discussions revolves around the misconception popularized by films: the thumbs-up or thumbs-down gesture to signify a gladiator's fate. Footrell clarifies that while "thumbs were turned and that's literally what the Latin means policies" (11:50), the exact gesture remains uncertain. More crucially, she dispels the notion that gladiatorial combats were frequent death matches. Analyzing historical data, she estimates that "maybe one in five bouts ended in a death" (12:46), highlighting that the majority of fights did not result in fatalities.

Pathways to Becoming a Gladiator

Footrell outlines the various paths individuals took to become gladiators:

1. Prisoners of War and Slaves: The primary sources of gladiators were captives who could not be ransomed or were deemed suitable for combat.
2. Condemned Criminals: Some individuals were sentenced to the arena as a form of capital punishment.
3. Volunteers: A smaller subset chose the life of a gladiator, possibly seeking fame, wealth, or a means to escape poverty.

She elaborates on the motivations of volunteers, suggesting that some sought to "save your family from poverty" (25:46) or were drawn by the allure of potential celebrity status.

Gladiators in Roman Society

Discussing the social status of gladiators, Footrell explains that they had to "surrender a certain amount of social standing." By law, gladiators were considered infamous, akin to actors and prostitutes, as they "used their bodies to give pleasure to many people" (27:39). This infamy restricted their access to political power and societal mobility, placing them outside the elite echelons of Roman society.

Celebrity and Popularity

Responding to queries about gladiators being the "pop stars of the day," Footrell acknowledges that while some gladiators achieved fame, likening them directly to modern celebrities is an oversimplification. She cites Spartacus as arguably the most famous gladiator, not necessarily for his combat prowess but for leading a significant rebellion against Rome (29:35). Additionally, she mentions other renowned gladiators like Pachidianus, celebrated in contemporary literature for his unmatched skills.

Female Gladiators

A particularly intriguing segment addresses the presence and perception of female gladiators. Footrell reveals that while evidence is scant, there are instances of women participating in combats. She references an inscription from Ostia and a relief from Halicarnassus depicting two female gladiators named Anakilia and Achillea (38:09). These women were granted "mysia," indicating their release after a fight, suggesting recognition of their skills. Footrell points out that elite perspectives were largely negative, viewing female gladiators with "shock and outrage," but popular sentiment among the masses may have been more accepting or even admiring.

Daily Life of Gladiators

Exploring the daily existence of gladiators, Footrell describes a life of rigorous training, strict diets (notably high in barley), and disciplined routines (33:54). Despite the violence of their profession, gladiators often formed tight-knit communities, living in dormitories with fellow fighters. Evidence from tombstones indicates that gladiators maintained personal relationships, with some even forming families—a testament to their humanity beyond the arena.

The Decline of Gladiatorial Games

The episode addresses the eventual decline of gladiatorial combat, a process Footrell admits remains partially unclear. Initially believed to have ended with Emperor Constantine's Christian reforms, she clarifies that gladiatorial games persisted into the 5th century CE. The shift saw a move towards other forms of entertainment, such as chariot racing, and a geographical shift of spectacles to the eastern parts of the empire (44:43). The absence of a definitive endpoint underscores the gradual transformation of Roman entertainment practices.

Gladiators in Popular Culture

Footrell shares her personal appreciation for gladiatorial films and series, highlighting how they balance historical elements with dramatic storytelling. She praises productions like "Spartacus" and "Gladiator" for their emotional depth and portrayal of gladiators' personal struggles and relationships. While acknowledging that Maximus from "Gladiator" is a fictional character, she contrasts him with the historical Spartacus, emphasizing the latter's real-life impact and legacy (50:36).

Common Misconceptions

Towards the episode's conclusion, Footrell addresses widespread misconceptions about gladiators. She criticizes the "Thunderdome" stereotype of gladiatorial combat being a relentless death match, explaining that reality was more nuanced. Gladiatorial games were complex social rituals embedded with political significance, audience engagement, and elaborate power dynamics between the emperor, the fighters, and the spectators (51:36).

Conclusion

The episode effectively demystifies the world of gladiators, moving beyond sensationalized portrayals to reveal a multifaceted institution integral to Roman society and politics. Through Alison Footrell's insightful analysis, listeners gain a comprehensive understanding of gladiators' roles, lives, and the enduring legacy of their combats in both history and popular imagination.

---

For more intriguing historical insights and stories, visit HistoryExtra.com and consider unlocking full access for six months at a special rate.

Transcript

[Walmart Representative]

Want to shop Walmart Black Friday Deals first Walmart plus members get early access to our hottest deals. Join now and get 50% off a one year annual membership. Shop Black Friday deals first with Walmart plus see [e-mail] at the home Depot.

[Home Depot Representative]

The holidays have arrived and so is.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

All my family, so I'm working on keeping up with the laundry.

[Home Depot Representative]

The Home Depot is here to help with Black Friday savings up to 40% off select appliances. Spend less time doing laundry with smart, efficient appliances from Samsung, ranked number one in customer satisfaction.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Perfect. Less laundry time means more family time.

[Home Depot Representative]

Get Black Friday savings now with free delivery and financing on select appliances at the Home Depot. Visit jdpower.com awards for more details. Offer valid November 6 through December 4 US only C store Online for details.

[Amazon Representative]

This episode is brought to you by Amazon. The holidays are here and you know what that means. It's time to get your friends and family the gifts they deserve. Take the stress out of shopping with Amazon's great deals and low prices on a huge range of items from toys to tech and much more. Whoever you're gifting for, Amazon has great prices on everything you need this holiday season. Shop Black Friday week starting November 21st.

[Starbucks Representative]

The holidays are back at Starbucks and there's so much to share with classics like caramel brulee latte, peppermint mocha and Chestnut praline latte. We're celebrating everyone's flavor of festivity. Order yours in the app.

[Podcast Host]

Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. Yesterday saw the release of the Blockbuster sequel Gladiator 2. And so to give you some grounding in the real world of the Roman amphitheater, we wanted to bring you this everything you wanted to know episode from 2022 on Gladiators. Speaking to Emily Griffith, the historian Alison Futrell answers your questions on everything from who became a gladiator to whether an emperor giving you a thumbs down really signified a death sentence.

[Emily Griffith]

Today we're going to be talking about, well, everything you wanted to know about gladiators. And I have to say there have been a lot of questions sent in by our listeners, so I hope you're ready.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

I am absolutely ready. Who doesn't want to know everything about gladiators?

[Emily Griffith]

I'm going to start with the question from Instagram, which is what was a gladiator?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Just succinctly cutting it down to its essence, paired combatants is what gladiators were who fought in front of spectators in politically resonant contexts in Rome, perfectly.

[Emily Griffith]

Short answer. Got another question here on Instagram, which is where actually does the word gladiator come from?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Gladiator literally means someone who actually wields a gladius. Now, a gladius is a relatively short sword, and it's used for thrusting, it's not used for cutting, it's not used for slashing. It's also a sword that was used by the Roman infantry, by legionaries. And that kind of raises the question, who actually used it first? And it seems to be the gladiators used it first. There's a story about how in 105, the general Marius hired gladiators to teach infantrymen how to use this new weapon, relatively new to them, at least, to train them quickly in effective and aggressive use of that weapon. They were kind of in a pinch at that point in time. A couple of legionary armies had been destroyed by invaders in the Roman province of Gaul. Though Marius was in a bit of a pickle, and he had just gotten a bunch of fresh new soldiers drafting soldiers from the poorest members of the population in Rome. And they need to get their skill sets in order really quickly. Now, this actually had an impact on the armies using these kinds of people, this kind of connection to a new set of soldiers, and eventually this will lead to a real problem with warlords and with politically useful masses of soldiers in the later part of the Roman Republic.

[Emily Griffith]

Did other ancient civilizations have their own form of gladiators?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Sure. In fact, I would be hard pressed to think of a civilization that didn't have significant combats, sort of single combats between important individuals that other people gathered around to watch that would have some sort of meaning or impact or significance in the moment. You might think about duels between heroes in epic, but that sort of activity is something that's found basically everywhere, though not under the name of gladiators, necessarily.

[Emily Griffith]

When, and I guess why did gladiators first come to the scene?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

We first know about gladiators from the middle of the third century, and that's an important time for shows and spectacles, as it turns out, in Rome. It's also a significant time for the history of humankind because that's when the Roman state gets involved in overseas military activity that eventually leads to the Romans becoming the dominant political power in the ancient Mediterranean. So they start to interact more and more dynamically with other people. They gain more power in the Mediterranean. They start to think about what makes them romantic. And I think that the spectacles that they start to put on more regularly as part of what the state does part of the state duties are a means of them telling a certain kind of story about themselves, who they are, what has put them in this kind of position, and to justify in some sense their political authority. It's interesting too, with the military thing. One of the significant military leaders at this time, Aemilius Paulus, makes this comment about. It's the same skill set that's used by a general in planning a successful campaign that enables that general return to a civilian context to put on really great shows. And that kind of connection between the two indicates a certain resonance that these spectacles have.

[Emily Griffith]

A lot of our questions are about was this just for entertainment? So it's not just that side of it.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

I guess it's never just entertainment. Let me put it that way. You know, we have a much more casual notion of entertainment. We have entertainment on demand. When I'm standing in line somewhere, when I'm bored, whatever, I have vast arrays of spectacle literally in the palm of my hand. And they did not. So entertainment has a different meaning for them. Especially mass entertainments that the Romans start to come up with are special and rare and different from one's daily experiences. In these purpose built venues that blocked out the rest of the world, they literally become this new universe filled with meaning. With lessons about Rome's power, with lessons about the emperor, the general's generosity and his command of nature, he makes myths come true. And we have seen it with our own eyes. These fragrant mists drift down on us. They fresh our senses, they cool us. Silken sheets manned by sailors shade us from the sun and transform our perceptions with colors. And we're showered with cakes and fruits and exotic nuts from distant gardens. And fighters in front of us demonstrate that even people from far away who are unfamiliar with the city and its stories, who might be low born, who might be untaught, even they have the capacity for bravery and resilience that we can be inspired by. And we respect their efforts and we cheer their names and the sponsor heeds us in our responses and our wishes. So it's not just entertainment at all.

[Emily Griffith]

We've had a few questions here from Sweden Hungry on Twitter and Diogo Morgado on Twitter as well, who's also asked, how popular were gladiator fights across the Roman Empire? Were they perhaps more popular than other sports and games?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

They were certainly popular. We know they were popular because their amphitheaters, which are structures specifically designed to house this kind of activity, these kind of blood events are scattered across the Empire. And these are Very big, very expensive structures that require a heavy commitment. Although there is some variety in the amphitheater, some were less expensive than others. Different kinds of labor, different kinds of materials being used, but very sophisticated structures, potentially with a lot of attention to entrances and exits, accommodations, large audience, a lot of concrete, and they wouldn't commit those kinds of resources if they didn't anticipate a really positive response from the general population. So they were popular, were they the most popular over time? Clearly, other sorts of events, I'm thinking specifically of chariot racing, were popular at the same time, were popular before gladiators started to be deployed by the Roman state, and clearly became the most popular kind of event in the later empire and in Byzantium.

[Emily Griffith]

We've spoken obviously about this side of spectacle and obviously an element of popularity. So we've got a question, another one on Twitter, actually, by someone whose name is archivelurker. They've asked, was gladiatorial combat more choreographed and staged, managed, perhaps, like we might see professional wrestling today?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

It's hard for us to say how choreographed individual combats were. There's the potential that they were significantly choreographed. And part of that is because outside Rome in particular, people who were contracting with a gladiatorial troop to provide a certain set of games would be contracting with a troop. So they'd be using fighters who were very experienced with each other, who would be practicing with each other, who knew each other, that sort of thing. That said, the Roman audience didn't want to see something that looked rehearsed. They wanted to see a good, dynamic, dramatic, challenging show. But the gladiators knew that. So there's speculation that they were able to present something that maybe was less hazardous to the individual combatants involved, that did offer certain things that the audience clearly loved, that did have certain connections to modern day professional wrestling and so forth, that enabled them to make use of their best skills to show those off, to make a sort of personal appeal as individuals to the crowd, to get the crowd on their side and so forth, and to get them engaged in a productive and entertaining way with the outcome of the combat.

[Emily Griffith]

So I think this is one that we've all seen, particularly in the films. There are so many films that feature gladiators. But was the thumbs up, thumbs down thing for the death sentence, was that actually a thing or is that just kind of made up for popularity audiences?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

In the films, thumbs were turned and that's literally what the Latin means policies. That was one of the main signaling gestures. But we don't actually have images of how they were turned. We don't have images with the thumbs up and thumbs down like on social media. How does a thumb turn? How can you actually do that in a way that can be detected from a distance? Because they are using this to assess the response of the audience and to to make determinations about outcome and so forth. There might be other ways that would be clearer. We know that they used a sign that drew the finger across the neck, which is pretty visible from a distance as well. But fingers were something that people used. Fingers are also used by gladiators who raised fingers to acknowledge their forced submission and that they yield to the will of the viewers or the sponsor to what happens next.

[Emily Griffith]

How often did gladiators actually fight to the death?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Using what data we have available to us, it's pretty clear that the Colosseum was not Thunderdome. It was not. Two men enter, one man leaves. And there are some people who've done the math with the very non representative evidentiary sample that survives, selecting relatively well documented first century. And these people suggest that maybe one in five bouts ended in a death. So if you figure out the death rate, that's for the people who are losing, they have a one in five chance of dying. For everyone who's actually entering the arena, it's a 1 in 10 chance of dying. But we don't know how that death actually takes place. Are they dying, fighting? Is it a weapons sort of thing? Or are they fighting to some person submitting, asking to be released, being ordered to die? We're not quite sure. But if you think about it in an economic basis, this is an investment that people are making to contract with these particular performers. And no doubt built into the contract are special fees if they actually lose one of those performances during the show that have to be paid. So there's a certain kind of incentive to a number of different people to not encourage the death thing. It's also clear that in some particular shows where the emperor states that these will be sine missio combats, that there will be no release for the non winner, that the response from the audience is not a positive one. This is a judgment apparently on the emperor. And the stories that are told about this indicate that this is received pretty negatively. It's the mark of a bad emperor. Plus, as I said, it's not cost effective, it's a waste of resources. And these are resources with faces who have the opportunity to make connections with the crowds. And the Roman crowds don't seem to like that. It's interesting too that in other contexts, they don't like the mass slaughter of animals either. This upsets them, it's off putting and they start to turn against the sponsor of the individual shows. So they like it when people have the opportunity to use the resources to take advantage of chance, of their skill set, of their charm, seizing their moments, fate and fortuna on their size. These are meaningful things to the spectators. They're meaningful in their daily lives. And if someone has to die, that diminishes those factors. It's a bad message.

[Emily Griffith]

Was there a way to get out of this life?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

We know of a number of gladiators who actually retired, who finished up their career and went on. Some of them retired with special honor. They had a sort of ceremonial handing over of the wooden sword. The rudus granted their freedom from the ludus. Sometimes they became official personnel for the gladiatorial school as trainers and as as administrators and whatnot. But yeah, they could get out of it. Some people were sentenced to the gladiatorial school too as a criminal penalty. And this was apparently available for them as well.

[Walmart Representative]

Want to shop Walmart Black Friday deals first Walmart plus members get early access to our hottest deals. Join now and get 50% off a one year annual membership. Shop Black Friday deals first with Walmart plus see [e-mail].

[Starbucks Representative]

This is the sound of your ride home with dad after he caught you vaping. Awkward, isn't it? Most vapes contain seriously addictive levels of nicotine and disappointment. Know the real cost of vapes brought to you by the fda?

[eBay Representative]

This is what you do when you've just found that statement handbag on ebay and you want to build an entire wardrobe around it. You start selling to keep buying. Yep. On ebay. Over that all black everything phase. List it and buy all the color. Feeling more vintage than ever. It's out with the new and in with the pre loved. Next thing you know, you've refreshed your wardrobe basically without spending a dime. Yeah, ebay the place to buy and sell new pre loved vintage and rare fashion.

[Emily Griffith]

So we've had this question on Twitter from Adam Platt and from Gabzat on Instagram, who asked, were gladiators the pop stars of the day? Ultimately, did they become rich and famous? Did they have fan clubs?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Well, sort of. People definitely favored certain kinds of gladiators, certain kinds of armature. Some were big fans of the heavily armed people. There were others who did, like the netmen, the radiari. They were much more visible, they were more naked in certain ways. Were they pop stars? Well, they were famous. Some of them were very famous. They were sexy to some people. Yeah. Certainly there were stories about how they attracted women, in particular, even elite women who sometimes abandoned their families to run off with gladiators. And you have these image. There's one story in particular that has this senatorial lady who runs off with her gladiator beau, let's put him that way. And he's all deformed from his bouts in the arena. He has one eye that's sort of weeping fluid constantly. And she's on a ship sailing across the Mediterranean and she's having a great time. Wind in her hair, like, yes, this is wonderful. And he's kind of loathsome and disappointing in certain ways. Is this a frequent occurrence that elite ladies are running off of gladiators? Probably not. Gladiators themselves are not known for being able to be good providers. They have a profession that sort of discourages that. They're not leisured, wealthy people, they're not influencers, they're not living the high life. Charioteers, I think, maybe selectively better known for their wealth and for their fatal fandom. There's one story about one particular charioteer who has his fans literally throwing themselves onto his funeral pyre when he finally died. They were so intensely committed. You have to kind of wonder about who's telling these stories. And this makes a difference, too. There's some pretty famous graffiti that exists in Pompeii about Crescends the Netman who trains by night, all the girls. Or Kelidas the Thracian, all the girls gasp over him. But who's writing the graffiti? Is it the collective girls who are writing these stories about these male gladiators? Or is it male fans? Or is it the gladiators themselves? And that really makes a difference in how we understand this kind of statement.

[Emily Griffith]

Were there certain types of gladiators that maybe had an edge over their opponents?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Well, there are a lot of ways to answer that. If you're actually thinking about the edge itself, there are differences in the swords. There are differences in the pointy things that are being thrust into vulnerable flesh. Right. So the gladius itself is a short, thrusting sword, but that's not the only kind of sword they use. The caeca is this curved sword that some gladiators use that is much more for slashing. So if you want the display of an edge on flesh, that's going to be more graphic, perhaps, than the thrusting weapon of the gladiators. But the thing is, paired Combat doesn't actually work that way. There are some types that typically fight other types. So they're paired off against someone who kind of balances them out in terms of challenges and vulnerabilities versus strengths and advantages. So a classic pair is the Netman versus the Secutor. The Radiarius is the Netman and he's armed with a weighted net, hence the name, and a trident. He doesn't have a helmet, he doesn't have a lot of protection. He has something maybe to protect his arm and his neck, something like that. Supposedly he has a dagger too, but it's not really clear to me where he puts it, where is he holding it. But he can stand at a distance and hurl his weapons at someone. He's not overly encumbered with things, so he's very mobile, he's fast. His opponent, the Secutor, is heavily armored. He's got this interesting kind of helmet that's very smooth. It's not going to catch on any weapon. And it has these weird little eye holes in it and it covers his entire head basically. And that's kind of a disadvantage as it is protective, sure, but it's probably very hard for him to see. It might even be hard for him to breathe after a certain point. He's also carrying a very heavy big shield. He has a heavy sword. He's got leg protection, he's got arm protection. And that makes it more wearing on him to be in a long term fight. You know, it's harder for him to deal with that. And it's also really creepy looking. That helmet is just weird. You know, representations of it are spooky and that probably affects the way in which he's able to interact with the audience. You know, it makes him kind of scarier and it might changes how things work out for him in terms of the overall viewer response too.

[Emily Griffith]

Brendan Mitchell on Facebook asked us how varied were events in terms of fighters, weapons, number of participants? Kind of touched upon that a bit there, but could you go into more detail about it?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Spectacles probably varied a lot depending on where they were put on in Rome. This is the center of power. That's where the resources really exist. And that's where the emperor is motivated to put on significant shows as a demonstration of his power, to celebrate really significant things, to make use of resources that are coming in as the result of major victories and that sort of stuff. So that's where we know about the spectacles that go on for literally hundreds of days that involve hundreds of combatants that Take up a significant point of the yearly calendar. So that's where the really big shows and really fancy shows with all kinds of special effects and a huge variety of performers too, and not just gladiators. People are going to be having combats, if we want to put them that way, with exotic animals. And other kinds of shows are going on as well that are not necessarily going to, to lead to significant deaths. Whereas in the smaller arenas out on the fringes of empire, chances are you're going to have many fewer shows, they're going to be much more modest in number. They might be drawing on local talent to show up in the arena between bouts and sing a little song, do a little dance, tell a little story, that kind of thing, though a bit more humble and probably things running the gamut in between. We have respectively sized amphitheaters in Gaul, in North Africa, which are nowhere near the size of the Colosseum, but still expensive and reasonably fancy and reasonably able to accommodate the special effects too.

[Emily Griffith]

Probably one of the main contextual questions, which is who actually became a gladiator? Who were they?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

We know of several pathways that led to this life. Earliest gladiators seemed to be prisoners of war. Prisoners of war who were not ransomed back by their families. So people who were captured by the Romans and were not going to go back home. In ancient warfare, routinely these people would be recirculated into the larger slave economy of the ancient Mediterranean. So there's kind of an overlap between prisoners of war and slaves. Slaves who seemed suitable to this kind of activity might also be chosen by people running gladiatorial schools and taken into this kind of life. So those are two kinds. Condemned criminals also made it into the arena. Those who were convicted on a capital charge basically went into the arena for a one time event and they were there to die. Those who went into the gladiatorial schools as criminals, that was not a death sentence. It was not anticipated that they would be very quickly joining the realm of the dead. There were also volunteers, people who actually did choose to do this, though they may have been rather fewer than the other kinds of categories.

[Emily Griffith]

So could you tell us a little bit more about those who actually went on to make that choice to become a gladiator?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

So some people did apparently choose to do this. And why they might make this choice is a big question. There are some stories that suggests that this is a way to get out of serious debt and importantly, to save your family, especially your honored parents, from poverty by willingly sacrificing your own security. By taking this particular route. There are a few other anecdotes that suggest that there were thrill seekers who were choosing to be gladiators, people who got a charge from the risk, who were drawn in by the focus of the audience's attention, who were lured by the possibility that they could become celebrities in some sense, if they were successful at that. There are some people who are actually actively enjoying that. There are some other stories that people were drawn by the humiliation involved here, that there was this weird kind of attraction to that too, to the abasement of your body and the shame that was involved as well. But, you know, the perks of potential celebrity were there for some people. Bear in mind that the stories about celebrity, the stories about the occasional gladiator who became the emperor's good buddy or became the love pet of the empress, it's not that the gladiator is in control of that relationship. You know, it's the emperor who's in control of the relationship and who's making sure that things happen in a certain way, not the gladiator. So there's some risk in becoming the emperor's pet. You know, some emperors might be more reliable friends than others.

[Emily Griffith]

A question that we've had from Catherine Kelly on Twitter, who's asked, where did gladiators fit in the social structure of Roman society?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Everyone who became a gladiator surrendered a certain amount of social standing. Gladiators, by law, were infamous. And what I mean by that is that they lost certain things legally in Rome. So by Roman law, gladiators did not have access to certain kinds of political power. They did not have certain kinds of social mobility. By Roman law, they were not to marry someone of elite standing. They had sort of the same social stigma as actors and as prostitutes, because gladiators like them used their bodies to give pleasure to many people. And they were submitting to the will and to the desires of the crowds. They also, as gladiators, had to take an oath to submit to the discipline of being a gladiator. That meant as part of their training, they would regularly be beaten. They surrendered physical autonomy. They did not control their own body bodies. And that was something that slaves had to submit to. So by becoming a gladiator, you put yourself physically in the same position, the same status as someone who was enslaved. That's something that was seen as absolutely horrific by those who were elites who assumed that, of course, they are always going to be in charge of their bodies. They will never have this kind of problem. And by elites, I of course, mean Elite males in particular. So that was something that was repellent to them. And that's why they viewed people who chose to become gladiators with a certain amount of suspicion. They have that kind of lens on that choice being made.

[Emily Griffith]

We've spoke a little bit about popularity and celebrity. This is a question from Jessica Roberts on Facebook, who said, well, who was the most famous gladiator in their time?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

The most famous gladiator is probably Spartacus. He of course was the headman for a major rebellion, the last, most successful of the three so called slave wars of the Republic. He did destroy a series of armies who were sent against him and his army of gladiators and slaves and refugees and displaced peoples and so forth, and managed to run pretty freely amok in Italy for a number of years, causing a lot of distress to the powers that be. But I did want to point out that Spartacus is probably a lot more famous to us than he was to Romans who didn't happen to be alive during the Spartacus war. Spartacus is celebrated as a freedom seeker, as an example of the potential greatness within each human, no matter his social status, no matter his background or education level. Spartacus becomes a reference point during the Enlightenment and in successive generations ever since, as someone who stands as a symbol of resistance to imperial conquest, to colonization, to repression. And note that Spartacus is not famous for actually gladiating in the arena. He's famous for standing up to Rome and for sending a message to future generations. We do know about some other famous gladiators. There's a particular gladiator who was active during the 2nd century BC, a guy named Pachidianus who was a professional. And stories about him are still being told by Cicero 100 years later and the poet Horace years even after that. And they still reference him as the best gladiator who ever lived since the dawn of mankind, and focus especially on a kind of grudge match he had against a guy named Yserninus who fought in anger. So Pachinianus is like this symbol of control, of maturity, of wisdom and insight into the human state versus passion and lack of discipline and just letting yourself run amok. So it's a kind of lesson that is remembered as exemplary and something to be taught to the children, I guess.

[Emily Griffith]

Well, we've mentioned Spartacus, very well known, I imagine, to our listeners. Scott Jeans on Instagram has asked, was Spartacus revolt the only major gladiator rebellion? And if not, did any almost succeed?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Yes, it's the only one. There are gladiators who get involved in other kinds of resistance. In certain ways, gladiatorial troops were useful as potential thugs in urban riots during the late Republic. There's some evidence that people at the time are claiming that their opponents are all gladiators. They're using as an invective, as an epithet to suggest the low standing of their political opponents and so forth. But there's some other evidence that suggests that gladiators assembled for certain spectacles in Rome could be deployed as kind of threatening escorts for major political players, as something that could be used potentially as muscle in street combat or that sort of thing. There's also this really interesting episode involving gladiators associated with Mark Antony, supposedly who were in place to perform at the victory celebrations that they were anticipating. Once Antony and Cleopatra won out over Octavian, you know, all kinds of shows would be sure to follow in that way. Of course, that didn't happen. Antony and Cleopatra lost at Actium and this troop of gladiators is kind of stranded there and have to fight and sneak and commando raid themselves back towards Egypt. They don't actually make it there. They eventually secure some freedom and mobility and safety. They would make a great movie. If we had more details or, you know, people who just make up details, I think it'd make a great movie.

[Emily Griffith]

Well, I've got a few questions about pop culture movies coming up from being used as these almost thugs. What was the daily life of a gladiator actually like?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

For most gladiators, shows are fairly infrequent, Nowhere near a daily or even a weekly schedule of actual performances. But clearly they did train, they kept in shape. They were thoughtful about diet and conditioning. They are sort of famous for their consumption of barley, sometimes called the barleymen. That may be some form of carb loading for shows. They paid attention to temperatures. Should they be drinking water, should they be drinking wine? They did commit to this kind of thing. Galen, who's a medical writer and did have a lot of experience with actual gladiators, talks about how their hyper developed physique, all their muscle mass and sheer mass to enable them to use their weight to thrust shields and swords and so forth, was not a good thing for them. That it's not something that they could maintain, that it made them less resilient. It damaged their bodies in some way that repeatedly in fights, their arms and legs would be damaged and dislocated. There was risk to the body that's involved. That said, they clearly had some kind of family existence. And we can think about this in two ways. Gladiators who live in dormitories, basically, with the other members of their troop. They live together, they train together, and clearly they develop emotional connections to each other. Very often it's the fellow gladiators of an individual fighter who set up tombstones for them. And bear in mind that tombstones are not cheap. These are monuments set in stone, meant to last the ages. And as it turns out, they did last the ages. So that indicates a bond or an obligation they share within that community that transcends existence on earth. So that's significant. We do know some gladiators who actually did get married and had children and so forth, had a sort of biological family, if we think of it that way. We have tombstones that are set up by the adult children of gladiators. For example, one daughter commemorated her parents, Cornelius, who was the actual gladiator, and Cornelia, his wife, inscribed that they were her well deserving and sweetest parents. There's another episode that took place where four adult sons of a gladiator pleaded for his release from the gladiatorial school because of his excellent service in the arena. And apparently they did this in a public setting, possibly in the arena itself. The audience was cheering for this to happen, and the emperor granted it and pointed out, you know, it's good to have a large family and, you know, four surviving adult sons certainly indicates success in that matter. So we do have those kinds of perhaps more normative family experiences that some gladiators are having.

[Emily Griffith]

Could you tell us a bit more what we know about that experience of having to fight those they clearly have bonds with.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

We can imagine that this must have been painful and alarming, the knowledge that you might end up fatally wounding or even outright killing someone that you associate with on a daily basis, someone that you feel connected to. And certainly that's something that's picked up on in some gladiator movies, imagining rethinking that. That said, there's the possibility that you can prepare for that by practicing. Not just movements, choreograph steps that show off your weapon skills, but also potentially minimize the risk involved. There are different kinds of targets on the body, of course, that are going to be less dangerous to someone that you actually care about. On the other hand, living in close quarters doesn't necessarily ensure that you feel affection for all the members of your troops. And there might have been competition as well, sort of grudging acceptance that some are going to play better with the crowd and episodes of jealousy. And that might also prove an opportunity for more negative interactions.

[Emily Griffith]

Another thing that we've had a lot of questions about how common were female gladiators?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

How common were female gladiators? This is a hot question that is much contested by scholars. Were female gladiators gladiators anomalies? Or does our relatively skimpy evidence represent the tip of the iceberg? And I have to tell you, I'm kind of a tip of the iceberg kind of gal. All kinds of women who do all kinds of things are pretty much absent from our ancient sources of information. And it's not because there are genuinely only 20 women who exist in the empire and they're all staying quietly in one room. All right, so we know about the absences in the sources. We know about their silences. Sources do have women with weapons that appear as participants in spectacles. Sometimes the description surrounding this suggests that this is shocking and outrageous. But usually that shock and outrage is directed against the sponsor, usually an emperor. And it's usually an emperor who's making other kinds of bad decisions about spectacle and about power in general. Sometimes we have women with weapons who are described and sometimes even named in large shows as part of the lavish provisioning of engagement and entertainment and performers and so forth. And when they're noted, you know, they're described. Sometimes they're described in more detail, but they're not singled out as something that's utterly unique and bizarre. Right. But actually just part of a very expanded, very detailed, very expensive show. We have a few commemorations of historical female gladiators. We have an inscription from Ostia that talks about women with swords. They were in a show. Woo. Very exciting. Probably the best piece of information is the relief from Halicarnassus that's in the British Museum. It comes from the 2nd century CE, 2nd century AD and it has two women facing off against each other. They have their swords pointing towards each other. They have weaponry on, they have shields. They're stepping forward in a kind of dynamic pose. It's a face off between these two women and they're in so called heavy armature. They're carrying significant weight in weapons and protection. And bear in mind that shields are weapons as well. Their names are there underneath them. Amazon, Anakilia, Great names. There's an inscription written above them that indicates that both of them were granted mysia. Both of them were granted release to fight another day. There was no death. So it's a recognition of their fighting skills, their determination, the effort that they're putting forward in this. Neither is yielding, neither is submitting. And that's indicated as well, of course, by their posture and those names. Those names are great. Amazon, of course, a reference to the ancient imagined female dominated society, famed for their war skills and their interactions with heroes of yesteryear, heroes like Achilles. And one of them is, of course named Achillea. So Achilles was famous for fighting Amazons too. He, at the Trojan War, had this face off with the queen of the Amazons, Penthesileia. He's known for falling in love with the queen of the Amazons at the moment that he strikes the fatal blow. So just as the spear is going in, she starts to die. He realizes she's the only woman he could love. So poignancy. Achilles, interestingly enough, too, also had a certain amount of gender fluidity in his backstory. When he was just a teenage lady before the Trojan War, his mother was trying to hide him from being recruited because she knew that his doom was potentially to die and that and she wanted to protect him. So she put him with the royal women on Skyros, dressed as a girl, claiming, oh, my daughter was raised by Amazons. She needs to be civilized, she needs to be cultivated and learn about domestic responsibility and so forth. And Achilles is feminized by that, but not just by what he's wearing. His face, his body, his shoulders start to take on the softness and sweetness of femininity and of course, the beauty. So that experience starts to have an impact on his core masculinity and has a tension inside Achilles that may linger on because people know this story. So Achilles is inherently different. He's compellingly attractive and he's still powerful. Achilles, of course, but there's that in him. And maybe that's also inspiring this particular woman to take on the arena name, Achillea. Lots of sexual resonance in the arena.

[Emily Griffith]

Another question for you about female gladiators is how were they seen in society?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

How female gladiators were seen in society depends on who's doing the looking. Much of our surviving texts present the perspective of elites, especially elite males, who have a certain kind of sensitivity about status, they want to protect their privilege and so forth. So they have a kind of lens that they're using. That lens is not something that's used by everyone. You know, there are thousands of people in the stands at the Colosseum, and clearly a lot of them are finding the gladiators attractive and appear healing and relatable in ways that are vastly different from the standpoint of the vestal virgins or the senators and so forth. So someone with a senatorial standing might be shocked and appalled by women in the arena. And certain laws were passed to keep elites out of the arena, to keep them off the stage at various points in time, banning that kind of activity. We do know that people nevertheless sometimes took up a sword in the backyard and trained as gladiators. And some of those people were female people. They were drawn to it for different reasons. And maybe part of it is the feeling of power and agency that's so physically being realized by the gladiator. Sometimes they just want to thrust the sword home.

[Emily Griffith]

I'd like to almost take us to the decline of the gladiators. So we've got a question from Zoe Maureen on Instagram, who's asked us when and how did the gladiatorial games come to an end.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

That's an excellent question. And the fact is we don't actually know. We have bits and pieces of information that people have drawn in to make an argument and others have poked at that and said, no, you can't actually say that. It used to be believed that Constantine, as the first emperor who was Christian, did away with gladiatorial conduct because it was the right thing to do. It's true that Constantine at one point in time redirected condemned criminals away from gladiatorial schools and into mines. Ancient minds are horrible. That would have been a quicker and much more wretched kind of existence, faster to death. So it's not exactly a decision of mercy in that regard. It does cut off one supply line for gladiators, but that's it. And clearly gladiatorial combat is still going on long after Constantine is dead. It seems to have waned in popularity a bit. And certainly it's true that Rome itself is no longer the capital of the Roman world. But gladiatorial combat continues into the 5th century. Some people suggest that there's another ban in 404 that's iffy, seems to just be applied to Rome. And maybe it's just about the ceasing activity of the imperial schools that are there. It's clear, because we know about a famous incident that happened to St. Augustine in the fifth century, that there are still gladiatorial combats going on throughout the empire. What does change in this later period is the industry of spectacle. There's a lot more emphasis on chariot racing and the chariot factions take over much of the so called entertainment industry. They're the ones who are organizing all kinds of performance at that point in time. And there's a shift away from the West. You know, lots more things happening in Constantinople and other cities in the eastern Mediterranean.

[Emily Griffith]

When was the last known description of there actually being gladiator? Do we have a final document, a final piece, an artifact that says this is ultimately it?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

I don't think that we have an artifact that says this is it, this is the last one. You know, we have long interest in shows politically that continues and it's just difficult to tell what kind of bloodiness is there. Right. So we tend to focus on the gladiators as the vulnerable human beings who are exposed to this kind of danger and front of the spectators. But there are beast combats that continue seemingly after the interest in man on man combats has dwindled a bit. And that's, you know, a fairly horrific death, I would imagine too. And certainly lots of danger in exposure to leopards and lions and whatnot. So, yeah, it dwindles over time. But we don't have a specific cut off point that says this and no longer.

[Emily Griffith]

Well, as promised, I did say we'd return to this earlier. I wanted to talk to you a bit about popular media depictions. So we've had a few questions here from Philip Chadwick on Facebook and Craig Tarlington on Facebook as well. He said, well, what do you think about films about gladiators? Can pop culture really give us some sense of reality?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

I love Gladiator movies, some of my favorites. I really enjoy the Kirk Douglas Spartacus, which is a terrific film. I get something new out of it every time I watch it. And I teach courses on film, so I have watched it many, many, many times. But it's excellent. And recently I have just been so caught up by the emotional growth of Spartacus and his ability to connect with other human beings and specifically his relationship with Venia. It is so, so good. And I don't want to start crying, but I will. I have. It makes me weep. Gladiator is also really good. The imagery and the constructed identity of Maximus. Personally, I wanted a lot more on his friendships with the other gladiators that are initiated in North Africa. I got that with the stars series on Spartacus, which was really good and really spent a lot of time very interestingly treating those connections, those relationships within the Ludus and beyond the Ludus too, the Lanistas in Capua and their competition over Roman patronage and so forth, Identity and autonomy in the context of Roman colonization, Roman coercion. It's really, really rich. I especially love series one with Andy Whitfield. I've written extensively about episode six, so episode six of series one is really compelling with Spartacus as both the victim of Roman colonization, Roman expansion, Roman militarism, and also a tool for perpetuating that is really very powerful. Watch it if you haven't seen it. I have a fondness too for a bunch of, they're called sort of Roman Christian movies of classic Hollywood. A lot of them based on 19th and 20th century novels like the Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Victor Mature, bless his expressive meaty face. They're goofy, but they are so of their time. And I find them charming on a number of different levels.

[Emily Griffith]

So here's another one for you. This one's from jaxambroise on Twitter. Who's asked you who was the best gladiator, Spartacus or Maximus?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Well, we see Maximus, of course, using his gladiatorial skills to achieve his end. Right. And we don't really see that with Spartacus. It becomes a different sort of story. With Spartacus, once he goes to war against Rome there, it's the connections that he's making with his supporters and with his potential allies more than his knife skills or, you know, his net skills or what have you. So on that level, Maximus has the advantage. But they're different stories.

[Emily Griffith]

Hard to make a competition out of something where they are so different, I guess.

[Historian Alison Futrell]

And I should point out too, of course, that Maximus is an invented character who didn't exist historically. Spartacus was a historical character who actually did carry on a war against that lasted a significant amount of time. And I think that matters too.

[Emily Griffith]

I think we're at our last question now. What do you think people have wrong about gladiators?

[Historian Alison Futrell]

Well, I think too many people are caught up in the idea of Thunderdome, that you go in there and you are going to die, period, that this is where death, death, death, death, death happens and there is death happening. These are blood events. There is risk and danger involved. But that's not all they are. The arena is a distillation of Roman power, but it's a complicated distillation and there are a lot of people who are engaged in the meaning making that is going on in the amphitheaters. And they're not all people on top. The arena was a place for a lot of important discussions. The Roman audience had very good communication skills and they used them in this universe that's created in the Colosseum. There's a lot of connection going on. The emperor is pretty much on the spot. He is there to create a positive experience for people. And there's discourse that's happening. People in the stands are chanting loudly at him about things, things they want to happen, things that are going on in the arena, but also other things, taxes, changes they want to be made in their environment that will affect their lives. And the emperor's under pressure to say yes in order to keep the positive vibe going in the event and make it a successful spectacle. And there's also communication coming up from the arena, too. Those people have a certain amount of autonomy to influence what goes on for them and to affect the crowd and to affect the emperor. That one guy whose four sons pleaded for him did get the release that he wanted, did get the honor paid to him in a very public event. So there's a lot of, a lot of communication, a lot of declaration, a lot of power being wielded in different ways by different people.

[Podcast Host]

That was Alison Footrell speaking to Emily Briffitt in 2022. Gladiator 2 is out now. And in case you missed it, check out our recent episode with Guy de la Bdoire in which he shares some of the more extraordinary and surprising stories from the Gladiator Arena. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Jack Bate.