Notwithstanding NihilCredo’s point, the lack of gladiatorial combat today is most likely due to a genuine change in taste, probably related to secular decline in social violence and availability of increasingly varied entertainment (movie theaters, TV, video games etc.). The popularity of blood sports in general is decreasing. We also know that folks used to entertain themselves in ways that would be unthinkable today, such as gathering scores of cats and burning them in a fire.
Notwithstanding NihilCredo’s point, the lack of gladiatorial combat today is most likely due to a genuine change in taste, probably related to secular decline in social violence and availability of increasingly varied entertainment (movie theaters, TV, video games etc.).
For gladiatorial games specifically, their decline was caused by Christian objections. Sorry, you don’t get to redefine historical facts just because they don’t fit your narrative.
gathering scores of cats and burning them in a fire.
We also know that folks used to entertain themselves in ways that would be unthinkable today, such as gathering scores of cats and burning them in a fire.
It makes me suspicious when some phenomenon is claimed to be general, but in practice is always supported using the same example.
There’s no shortage of well-documented blood sports both before and during the Christian era. I know of few as shocking as bogus’s example (which was, incidentally, new to me), but one that comes close might be the medieval French practice of players tying a cat to a tree, restraining their own hands, and proceeding to batter the animal to death with their heads. This was mentioned in Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror; Google also turns up a reference here.
I suppose there’s something about cats that lends itself to shock value.
Notwithstanding NihilCredo’s point, the lack of gladiatorial combat today is most likely due to a genuine change in taste, probably related to secular decline in social violence and availability of increasingly varied entertainment (movie theaters, TV, video games etc.). The popularity of blood sports in general is decreasing. We also know that folks used to entertain themselves in ways that would be unthinkable today, such as gathering scores of cats and burning them in a fire.
For gladiatorial games specifically, their decline was caused by Christian objections. Sorry, you don’t get to redefine historical facts just because they don’t fit your narrative.
Wait, that sounds like fun.
Can you shed any light on why, or what would be fun about it? This confuses me.
It makes me suspicious when some phenomenon is claimed to be general, but in practice is always supported using the same example.
There’s no shortage of well-documented blood sports both before and during the Christian era. I know of few as shocking as bogus’s example (which was, incidentally, new to me), but one that comes close might be the medieval French practice of players tying a cat to a tree, restraining their own hands, and proceeding to batter the animal to death with their heads. This was mentioned in Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror; Google also turns up a reference here.
I suppose there’s something about cats that lends itself to shock value.