[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.

[zzzpaz]

It's just a useless observation. Same as being an alien approaching our planet and saying "oh.... Look at this planet. Over the years billions of people must have died".

Well, while is true that many people died in the colosseum (so in the entire history of our planet) what's the point? If was not to analyze or judge their behavior?

If you look at the OP reply on one of my comments you'd see that his intention indeed was to judge their behavior with our lens. Which is wrong. That's it.

[DrSiemer]

Well, we are talking about many killings in a single location over a relatively short period of time. We are also specifically dealing with a historic artefact that symbolizes these killings. Pointing out how bizarre this is, according to today's standards, is not pointless as far as I'm concerned. It serves to remind us of a more primitive past and of how far we've come.

Agree to disagree then. Seems like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.

[zzzpaz]

The Colosseum was active for 400 years, you consider that a relatively short period of time? In total they estimated that 400.000 people died in there, in 400 years! That's 1.000 people a year. Even if you double or triple that number is nothing compared to the deaths of the slaves trade in the Americas (estimated to 5 millions and more, in the same timespan of 400 years - 1500 to 1900 - just before being capture or during the transit to America) or the number of native Americans that have died during colonization (which is estimated to be to the order of 100 millions with a decline in population of 98%)

If that's not even enough to give you another metric the Iraqi war killed 460.000 civilians in less than 20 years and it's pretty recent.

> It serves to remind us of a more primitive past and of how far we've come.

This is what you fail to understand as well, they were not primitive by any means. Despite this games the society in Rome during the Roman empire was liberal (go read a book about it), we've killed and we continue to kill much more after the Roman empire and nowadays. The examples above should be enough for you to understand

> We are also specifically dealing with a historic artefact that symbolizes these killings.

It does not symbolize these killings only and was not solely built to host gladiator games. The Colosseum had multiple purposes. There were kind of games with wild animals (lions or African animals) vs man (similar to what nowadays people do in Spain during the Bullfighting) and was also used to stage battles, drama, composition, natural environment simulation and so on.

If your historical sources are Hollywood movies and TV series, of course you are missing something out.

It was a place or entertainment, similar to what today is a Cinema or a theater (indeed it's real name is Flavian Amphitheater)

[DrSiemer]

Compared to your aliens, observing the entire history of earth, 400 years is relatively short.

You keep comparing the colosseum killings to events that transpired over large geographical areas, for different purposes than entertainment. As me and others here have pointed out repeatedly, what makes it special (to us, not to you apparently) is the fact that all those killings happened on a single location.

You cannot measure how primitive a culture is by the amount of people they kill.

To me (and, I would argue, most people), the monument symbolizes specifically those often pointless killings and nothing else. That is what it is famous for.

Unfortunately, your replies regularly border on the insulting. You keep pointing out how the arguments you present are things I "fail to understand" or prove my lack of knowledge of historical events, often telling me to "go read a book", like I'm some rambling child. Meanwhile, you have not told me anything I did not already know.

I'm done with this discussion, as it does not appear to go anywhere. Good luck with your opinions, I'll hold to mine.

[zzzpaz]

> You keep comparing the colosseum killings to events that transpired over large geographical areas, for different purposes than entertainment.

I see, so enslaving, torturing, raping Africans and native American was not entertainment right? Was really required to kill 98% of the indigenous population. I understand, that makes sense indeed given your point of view.

> You cannot measure how primitive a culture is by the amount of people they kill.

Oh no? Then what's the metric let's see. You define what's primitive?

> To me (and, I would argue, most people), the monument symbolizes specifically those often pointless killings and nothing else

What do you think and your opinion is useless for the history. The monument was not symbolizing these killings give that was build before the killings happened and was not build for the sole purpose of killing people.

> prove my lack of knowledge of historical events

You proved that yourself I didn't need to do anything.

> Meanwhile, you have not told me anything I did not already know.

Meanwhile, your opinion is wrong even tho you've the right amount of information to understand that these games was normal.

It's like box, extreme sport or anything else like that. The difference is that the violence and the killings were well received by the population as these were normal back then.

Gladiators were not forced to participate to the games, they decided to do out of their own will. Which is totally different from other events where people were not given the choice. If you didn't want to participate to the games, was ok. No freedom for you. If you wished to do so, you had a chance to live free and a chance to die in the arena.