[DrSiemer]

In the context of discussing the value of the colosseum I used the wrong word here.

The simple remark that started this was just someone expressing wonder over how many people must have died there, purely for the entertainment of the masses.

The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.

Surely there is some better word that covers both the amazement about countless colosseum deaths and feeling resentment towards modern day atrocities, but I can't think of one. The fact that these things are not really connected is actually the point I am trying to make.

[zzzpaz]

> The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.

Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned.

If you want speak about history you need to consider the era that we are referring to. So yes, in the ancient time these things were commonplace (Romans, Greeks, Egyptian and Babylonian), in the contemporary era these are not.

You can't use modern time logic to fight against ancient times. Otherwise next time we can spend the afternoon to speak about the code of Hammurabi and how stupid these laws were.

A good start is to learn about the historic periods and understand how to put things into perspective before being offended by random fact far away

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods

[DrSiemer]

> Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned.

I didn't, I specifically wrote "appears to" to prevent doing that.

But where do you get this idea from that nobody is allowed to have any kind of opinion on past events, when that opinion is colored by modern day standards? This is not an objective historical essay we are writing here, it's just random comments on the internet.

Nobody is "fighting" anything, the Romans are long gone. Also, nobody is "offended" by what they did. As I admitted in another reply, that was not the correct word to use.

It is a bit confusing to me what the point is that you are trying to make, if it is not what I assumed it was.

[zzzpaz]

I just said it multiple times just go and look at my replies.

Is not required to have an opinion on past events based on nowadays standards. Historian do that all the time, they look at the history with objectiveness especially when is far away to avoid to get trigger by random deaths that happen all the time (even nowadays).

So if you want understand the history the worst thing to do is to cry because someone died. You need to understand events and why these things happened and then maybe you can learn something.

I don't think is complicated to understand, but apparently seems to be the case.

If nobody is offended then why are we here discussing about how many people have died in the colosseum? Just enjoy the fact that now you can see more as compared as what we were able to see before.

Maybe you never been there, so just pay a visit and see the magnificence of it. After all, is still around after 2000 years and pretty well conserved.

[DrSiemer]

So just because it is a long time ago, it is not allowed to be in awe of the staggering amount of deaths that occurred in one single location?

You appear to argue that there is only one valid attitude when it comes to historic artefacts; trying to understand everything, without any kind of emotional reaction.

That's not what I did when I was there. I'm not a historian nor a student of history. I prefer to be in awe.

[zzzpaz]

> So just because it is a long time ago, it is not allowed to be in awe of the staggering amount of deaths that occurred in one single location?

You can from your individual point of view of course. But not to argue on historical facts.

> You appear to argue that there is only one valid attitude when it comes to historic artefacts; trying to understand everything, without any kind of emotional reaction.

Unfortunately that's not me, this is how history is analysed to many extend.

Your view of the history is subjective and by definition could be wrong.

Is not that you can't empathize with deaths that occured in the past, is just that you can't portrait your view as historical fact, is just your opinion as valid as anyone else. Since we can't commit to 7 billion different opinions, we've to use fact and logic to analyze history otherwise it will just be a mess.

Roman empire was not a place where people died only. Was a liberal empire, pretty cosmopolitan, high level of personal freedom (was ok to be gay for example) and it has shaped the entire ancient Europe with streets and reliques that some are still in use today (look at the Roman roman aqueducts).

On the other hands they used to enslave and kill people, like any other country and empire has done before and after that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogen...

[DrSiemer]

All of this started with this simple remark:

> 10000 people and 30000 animals in the first 100 days. I would guess that millions of lives were lost there.

Nobody was analyzing or defining history here. It was not a judgment on Roman moral code. It was just an observation of the remarkable death rate of one specific geographical area. "Millions" was probably hyperbole, but as far as I know, rigid historical accuracy is not a requirement for posting here.

And modern day ideology does not even play a part in it. I would guess many a Roman could experience a similar sense of amazement, if they ever stopped to think about it.

[ALittleLight]

I think you "ambivalent" rather than "ambiguous".

I agree that there is no reason to judge the past with their "moral lens". Of course the people in ancient Rome (in total) thought it was okay to kill people in the Coliseum - they were the ones doing it and watching it.

[DrSiemer]

Ah, yes, thank you, I was a bit unsure about that word!