Was becoming a Roman Gladiator a Fair Punishment?
This sort of punishment would have been very harsh, this only being if you were not sentenced to death. If you were a prisoner of war, then was it unfair? Or just harsh as well. It was a way out of being worked to death. So was it so bad? Only the strongest and the toughest were picked. You had to be the best. So was it an honour becoming a Gladiator?
Economical?
For a start, the Gladiatorial games would not have been economical. In other words, it was not resourceful. Many, many people were killed at the expense of one day's entertainment in the form of the Gladiatorial Games.
One day at the Colesseum would have cost a fortune to run. The animals brought in would cost Rome a whole load of money, and then there is the weapons and armour that the Gladiators use.
Just building the Colesseum would have cost more money to build than the Emperor would have ever spent on one thing alone.
The cost of constant armour and weapons being needed would have been the main cost. The deaths of animals meant that even more animals were needed for the games. This would not have been cheap.
Workers were killed, meaning that more money was needed to be put into the job of whoever had been killed during the Games.
The only thing that funded the Gladiatorial Games was the sponsorship of rich and powerful people in Rome. Including the Emperor. But as the games were free to watch, the sponsors got no money back. It was not a sustainable way of entertainment and not an economical means of punishment.
Popular?
The Gladiatorial Games were defiantly popular with the Roman community. People every game would queue up to watch the so called "Spectacular Games."
Sponsors were eager to put their money into funding the Gladiatorial Games.
Quotes suggest that people could simply forget about their life along with all of their troubles, and just watch the Gladiators fight in a life and death situation. They would chant and shout for their favourite gladiator to
win. They would get over excited and get to the point where they were wishing, sometimes innocent, sometimes criminals to death. Either way, it was a truly unfair punishment for them to die! Especially with the crowd willing you dead, when you were still standing, fully alive.
People willing people on other people to kill someone who they may have known, or not. It was certainly popular, it was certainly unfair in the favouritism aspect that the stronger, better fighter got more sponsorship if he were to fight a second time against someone not so good and not so strong. It certainly brought out the worst of the Roman public.
A Good Deterrent?
This kind of punishment was harsh, but made a good deterrent, crimes were cut down on, once criminals realised that if they were found committing crimes, they were going to be sentenced to death or be forced to
fight as a gladiator in the Games as entertainment.
The Games may also be able to help with the development of the Roman army. The victors would not have fought in the Roman army, but they are experienced fighters, they could help train new soldiers for the army. Some of the Gladiatorial training techniques may have also been used to train the Roman army.
Nevertheless, the main deterrent was that many, many crimes were stopped because of the fear of being sentenced to fight as a Gladiator. Which in some aspects was even worse than being sentenced to death.
Justice?
It is all well and good if the punishment was deterrent, and popular, but did the punishment serve justice?
Those people who were getting the sentence to become a gladiator, may have not committed a very serious crime, to what crimes are punishable for today, but back then a not so serious crimes were very punishable.
Stealing something probably should have resulted in a fine or being put into the stocks, or prison. However, there has been some evidence to show that this kind of a crime has brought a sentence of death or to fight in
the Gladiatorial Games. This is the same punishment as if you were to brutally murder someone.
When you look at it like this, then you will find that this kind of punishment does not serve the minor criminal justice. Yes, they committed a crime, but they should not die or practically be sentenced to death for
it.
However, when you look at it from the person who had murdered someone's point of view. They will not want to die; neither will they want to fight in the Games. Even so, killing someone is a very serious matter;
personally, I think that they should not die for their crime. Nevertheless, they do deserve a very bad punishment.
Then there is the victim. They may have something stolen from them, and then they want the thief punished. But even the victim will probably think that sentencing them to almost certain death through the Gladiatorial Games will be very harsh.
There is also the view of the family of the person murdered. They will miss their friend or family member. Nevertheless, they will also want to see the person suffer for what they did. I would not celebrate someone being sentenced to fight in the Games and almost certainly be killed as if it were just a game; but they might. They might also feel better if they watch that person die painfully and brutally. In addition, get justice for the death of their family member.
If you were a prisoner of war, it would not be fair to be put into labour that almost kills you and then be forced to fight in the Gladiatorial Games. You were only fighting for survival for you and your family
against the might of Rome. It was not really your fault that you were fighting against Rome.
You would be risking your life to protect your country and Town. You are then captured and sentenced to almost certain death. This is not justice for the prisoners of war.
This kind of punishment can serve justice, or not, depending on what angle you look at it. And who it has been sentenced to.
But was it a Fair Kind of Punishment?
Personally, I do not think that becoming a gladiator was a fair kind of punishment. You were being sentenced to almost certain death. No one should have that much power over whether you live or not.
If you commit a crime serious enough that people are considering putting you into a Gladiator fight, instead they should put you in some kind of prison or never let you back into the Roman community. Killing them or punishing them so unfairly is not an option in my mind.
If they were to choose to fight, then the Editor should let them fight for their freedom. But I think that they should choose to fight and put their own life at risk, rather than being forced to fight and forced to put their life at risk.
If they were to stop the criminals from being forced to fight, then they may not have as many fights. This means that the public may get a bit annoyed and angry. But it will serve more justice to the criminal.
As the criminal is not being forced to fight, then the victim may not get as much justice as they deserve, nevertheless, I do not think that anyone should have the power to force someone to do something so dangerous and horrible if they do not wish to do so.
If the prisoners of war wanted freedom, rather than to die working. The Empire should have let them fight in the Roman army if they wanted to. If not, let them go or use them as workers rather than a kind of worker
that is essentially a slave.
This way the Roman Gladiatorial Games become fair, just as popular if not more, as it is just volunteers rising to fame. It will not serve justice, but this can be worked out using other methods of punishment that is
less life threatening and less serious. It is also more economical as you will be getting more money in the training side of the Games. This could have made profit for the games. Making them more entertaining, making them even more popular. Essentially bringing even more money into the Gladiatorial Games. This will make it a sustainable way of entertainment for Rome.
There will be no harsh and completely unfair means of punishment through being forced to fight in the Gladiatorial Games.
That is why I do not think that this was the best mean of punishment that Rome could have had. It was very unfair and harsh. In some cases it did not work. Yes, it was entertaining, but it could have been made a
whole lot better, if the Emperor and other powerful Romans had thought about it more deeply.
It was not the best means of punishment to get justice for the victim.
Economical?
For a start, the Gladiatorial games would not have been economical. In other words, it was not resourceful. Many, many people were killed at the expense of one day's entertainment in the form of the Gladiatorial Games.
One day at the Colesseum would have cost a fortune to run. The animals brought in would cost Rome a whole load of money, and then there is the weapons and armour that the Gladiators use.
Just building the Colesseum would have cost more money to build than the Emperor would have ever spent on one thing alone.
The cost of constant armour and weapons being needed would have been the main cost. The deaths of animals meant that even more animals were needed for the games. This would not have been cheap.
Workers were killed, meaning that more money was needed to be put into the job of whoever had been killed during the Games.
The only thing that funded the Gladiatorial Games was the sponsorship of rich and powerful people in Rome. Including the Emperor. But as the games were free to watch, the sponsors got no money back. It was not a sustainable way of entertainment and not an economical means of punishment.
Popular?
The Gladiatorial Games were defiantly popular with the Roman community. People every game would queue up to watch the so called "Spectacular Games."
Sponsors were eager to put their money into funding the Gladiatorial Games.
Quotes suggest that people could simply forget about their life along with all of their troubles, and just watch the Gladiators fight in a life and death situation. They would chant and shout for their favourite gladiator to
win. They would get over excited and get to the point where they were wishing, sometimes innocent, sometimes criminals to death. Either way, it was a truly unfair punishment for them to die! Especially with the crowd willing you dead, when you were still standing, fully alive.
People willing people on other people to kill someone who they may have known, or not. It was certainly popular, it was certainly unfair in the favouritism aspect that the stronger, better fighter got more sponsorship if he were to fight a second time against someone not so good and not so strong. It certainly brought out the worst of the Roman public.
A Good Deterrent?
This kind of punishment was harsh, but made a good deterrent, crimes were cut down on, once criminals realised that if they were found committing crimes, they were going to be sentenced to death or be forced to
fight as a gladiator in the Games as entertainment.
The Games may also be able to help with the development of the Roman army. The victors would not have fought in the Roman army, but they are experienced fighters, they could help train new soldiers for the army. Some of the Gladiatorial training techniques may have also been used to train the Roman army.
Nevertheless, the main deterrent was that many, many crimes were stopped because of the fear of being sentenced to fight as a Gladiator. Which in some aspects was even worse than being sentenced to death.
Justice?
It is all well and good if the punishment was deterrent, and popular, but did the punishment serve justice?
Those people who were getting the sentence to become a gladiator, may have not committed a very serious crime, to what crimes are punishable for today, but back then a not so serious crimes were very punishable.
Stealing something probably should have resulted in a fine or being put into the stocks, or prison. However, there has been some evidence to show that this kind of a crime has brought a sentence of death or to fight in
the Gladiatorial Games. This is the same punishment as if you were to brutally murder someone.
When you look at it like this, then you will find that this kind of punishment does not serve the minor criminal justice. Yes, they committed a crime, but they should not die or practically be sentenced to death for
it.
However, when you look at it from the person who had murdered someone's point of view. They will not want to die; neither will they want to fight in the Games. Even so, killing someone is a very serious matter;
personally, I think that they should not die for their crime. Nevertheless, they do deserve a very bad punishment.
Then there is the victim. They may have something stolen from them, and then they want the thief punished. But even the victim will probably think that sentencing them to almost certain death through the Gladiatorial Games will be very harsh.
There is also the view of the family of the person murdered. They will miss their friend or family member. Nevertheless, they will also want to see the person suffer for what they did. I would not celebrate someone being sentenced to fight in the Games and almost certainly be killed as if it were just a game; but they might. They might also feel better if they watch that person die painfully and brutally. In addition, get justice for the death of their family member.
If you were a prisoner of war, it would not be fair to be put into labour that almost kills you and then be forced to fight in the Gladiatorial Games. You were only fighting for survival for you and your family
against the might of Rome. It was not really your fault that you were fighting against Rome.
You would be risking your life to protect your country and Town. You are then captured and sentenced to almost certain death. This is not justice for the prisoners of war.
This kind of punishment can serve justice, or not, depending on what angle you look at it. And who it has been sentenced to.
But was it a Fair Kind of Punishment?
Personally, I do not think that becoming a gladiator was a fair kind of punishment. You were being sentenced to almost certain death. No one should have that much power over whether you live or not.
If you commit a crime serious enough that people are considering putting you into a Gladiator fight, instead they should put you in some kind of prison or never let you back into the Roman community. Killing them or punishing them so unfairly is not an option in my mind.
If they were to choose to fight, then the Editor should let them fight for their freedom. But I think that they should choose to fight and put their own life at risk, rather than being forced to fight and forced to put their life at risk.
If they were to stop the criminals from being forced to fight, then they may not have as many fights. This means that the public may get a bit annoyed and angry. But it will serve more justice to the criminal.
As the criminal is not being forced to fight, then the victim may not get as much justice as they deserve, nevertheless, I do not think that anyone should have the power to force someone to do something so dangerous and horrible if they do not wish to do so.
If the prisoners of war wanted freedom, rather than to die working. The Empire should have let them fight in the Roman army if they wanted to. If not, let them go or use them as workers rather than a kind of worker
that is essentially a slave.
This way the Roman Gladiatorial Games become fair, just as popular if not more, as it is just volunteers rising to fame. It will not serve justice, but this can be worked out using other methods of punishment that is
less life threatening and less serious. It is also more economical as you will be getting more money in the training side of the Games. This could have made profit for the games. Making them more entertaining, making them even more popular. Essentially bringing even more money into the Gladiatorial Games. This will make it a sustainable way of entertainment for Rome.
There will be no harsh and completely unfair means of punishment through being forced to fight in the Gladiatorial Games.
That is why I do not think that this was the best mean of punishment that Rome could have had. It was very unfair and harsh. In some cases it did not work. Yes, it was entertaining, but it could have been made a
whole lot better, if the Emperor and other powerful Romans had thought about it more deeply.
It was not the best means of punishment to get justice for the victim.