Bareknuckle fighting

[Jay Vail]

Now, like Pete said, going back to the original:

However, the Greeks had clearly separated boxing/striking and wrestling, as indeed did the masters of the Far East.

!

My understanding has always been that the Church opposed gladiatorial games even during the existence of the Empire.

[Jay Vail]

I don't think the "masters of the Far East" really did either, at least not until the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty took over in China and prohibited the use of military weapons by the common Han (native Chinese) people. This caused the people to switch to improvised weapons and unarmed techniques as their primary methods of fighting, which led to a greater emphasis on striking techniques in order to substitute for the reach and impact of the weapons they were no longer permitted to use. A similar trend took place in Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate when the authorities ordered a crackdown on the ownership of military weapons by the common people.

Note that in both Japan and China, the military curriculum of martial arts per se still emphasized wrestling and ground-fighting as its primary methods of unarmed fighting. The old martial arts of the samurai produced the grappling techniques of judo and jujutsu--not the striking techniques used by the peasants' art of karate!

There is evidence that chuanfa (fist way) existed more than 2000 years ago and was not the result of any weapons ban.

Japanese peasants did not invent karate. It was invented by Okinawans; when no one is sure, although what we call karate is actually very recent: it appeared about 1840. One cannot reliably claim it grew out of needs arising from a weapons ban. It is almost certainly a native adaptation of Chinese fist way, changed to suit local tastes.

As for atemi, it was probably always present in the Japanese grappling arts, just as it appears to be present in ringen, tho not emphasized. Takenouchi jujutsu, founded in 1532, long before any weapons ban, has much atemi in it, although it is still largely a throwing locking art.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

Note that in both Japan and China, the military curriculum of martial arts per se still emphasized wrestling and ground-fighting as its primary methods of unarmed fighting. The old martial arts of the samurai produced the grappling techniques of judo and jujutsu--not the striking techniques used by the peasants' art of karate!

So basicly, using unarmed techniques to complement weapon fighting, there is more wrestling and ground-fighting, whereas completely weaponless fighting, would need more striking.

[Brian Hunt]

Hitting someone allows you a moment during which they may pause and allow you to get a really good grip. Part of Ringen and other wrestling arts is the potential to quickly cripple or kill your opponent, that is hard to do with a just a strike. While one punch knockouts may happen and you may kill your opponent if you can crush his larenx, it is not a good idea to rely upon the possiblity as a fight stopper when your life is on the line. Ringen gives you the ability to control your opponent and use a powerful lock to destroy his joints (most people will not continue to fight after you have destroyed their rotator cuff) or the potential to hurt or injure him with a throw.

just some random thoughts on this thread.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Gene Tausk]

You're confusing "possession of glittery metal" with "economic surplus" - which was one of the mistakes that destroyed the Spanish Empire. It's the "economic surplus" sort of wealth that the Romans were poor in.*

So true. Having studies economics myself, I learned the rather surprising fact that economic surplus consists of all means of production rather than just money and precious metal, and that the Romans had less economical power overall than their medieval successors. This statement is usually held to apply to a "medieval" bracket starting with the 12th century or so and ending at the mid-15th, but some economic historians go so far as to suggest that the Carolingian Franks already had more economical power than the sum of the Roman provinces that formerly occupied their domains. Others argue that the Carolingian Renaissance did represent a boost in economic productivity, but it was beaten down by the Viking invasion and the breakup of the Carolingian empire and the European economy only grew beyond the Carolingian maximum by the 12th century or so. (This argument, of course, largely ignores the economic growth of other regions like Anglo-Saxon England or Muslim Spain.)

Gene might have a point for the period immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West but this economic downturn was quite brief compared to the prosperity seen during the rest of the medieval period. There are even some scholars who think that Visigothic Italy of the 6th century A.D. was more prosperous than the Western Roman Empire at the end of its life because Theodoric the Great was more willing and able to enforce Roman law than the last Roman emperors did!

So, I'd agree with Jonathan in that the medieval culture did not hold large-scale gladiatorial games not because they couldn't afford to, but because they chose not to.

Now, like Pete said, going back to the original:

However, the Greeks had clearly separated boxing/striking and wrestling, as indeed did the masters of the Far East.

I don't think the "masters of the Far East" really did either, at least not until the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty took over in China and prohibited the use of military weapons by the common Han (native Chinese) people. This caused the people to switch to improvised weapons and unarmed techniques as their primary methods of fighting, which led to a greater emphasis on striking techniques in order to substitute for the reach and impact of the weapons they were no longer permitted to use. A similar trend took place in Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate when the authorities ordered a crackdown on the ownership of military weapons by the common people.

Note that in both Japan and China, the military curriculum of martial arts per se still emphasized wrestling and ground-fighting as its primary methods of unarmed fighting. The old martial arts of the samurai produced the grappling techniques of judo and jujutsu--not the striking techniques used by the peasants' art of karate!

Jay Vail wrote:
Interesting because historians that I have read link the decline of the Roman army and the subsequent fall of the Western Empire with a decline in the tax base. A small and inefficiently used tax base is also thought to be a cause of the rise of feudalism.

Jay and I read the same books. I was referring to the time period of 90AD-180AD. While no economic paradise, it is my understanding that the tax base of the Empire allowed for growth, grandiose projects and the "dole," among other things. I know of no Medieval society that had the tax base of the Empire of this time period and could take on such extensive projects, not only the ones mentioned but public sanitation, public baths, aquaducts, roads and postage systems (to name a few). And, of course, the great games.

Jay already also commented on the history of karate. Nothing for me to add there. The idea that "weapons were taken away so people had to become weapons" is a myth. Empty hands against weapons 99% of the time means the empty-hand practitioner is dead. This is one of the reasons why people use weapons. Even using improvised weapons such as sticks, pitchforks and even torches gives a person a tremendous advantage.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Interesting because historians that I have read link the decline of the Roman army and the subsequent fall of the Western Empire with a decline in the tax base. A small and inefficiently used tax base is also thought to be a cause of the rise of feudalism.

Jay and I read the same books. I was referring to the time period of 90AD-180AD. While no economic paradise, it is my understanding that the tax base of the Empire allowed for growth, grandiose projects and the "dole," among other things. I know of no Medieval society that had the tax base of the Empire of this time period and could take on such extensive projects, not only the ones mentioned but public sanitation, public baths, aquaducts, roads and postage systems (to name a few). And, of course, the great games.

We need to make a clear distinction between public economy and private economy here. Public economy deals with the economic activities of the government, not those of the population as a whole. Taxation and government revenue is a good indication of the state of public economy, but not that of the market and the economy in general. So even if the medieval public economy was smaller and less efficient than that of the Roman Empire, it did not mean that the economy as a whole had to be weaker too. Other aspects of the economy--especially the private sector ran by people like freeholding farmers, itinerant merchants, and other sorts of entrepreneurs--could have grown in spite of the decline in the public economy, and this growth could have been more than enough to offset the reduction in the size of the public economy.

But then, I've probably been talking about nothing since medieval public economy might not have been all that small anyway. Otherwise, how could the Church and the governments find the resources to build things like great cathedrals, vast urban fortifications, and sprawling networks of castles all over the countryside? Of course, we can't really think of medieval "public finance" in the same way that we think of modern government spending, since the medieval public sector was a highly competitive field where the Church competed with both the royal government and the numerous local governments (including such authorities as trade and merchant guilds) spread all over Christian Europe. If anything, this competition fueled the building craze rather than dampening it, and I'm sure the largest of those medieval governmental institutions would have put their effort into building ever larger gladiatorial arenas if they had wanted to, just for the sake of trumping the competition. But they didn't want to--so they didn't, channeling their energies instead into things like the aforementioned cathedrals and fortifications.

Let's get back to the crux of the argument and examine the gladiatorial games themselves. Like Jonathan mentioned, most such games were held in cheap, rickety arenas rather than the grand amphitheaters of Rome. All but the poorest medieval shires would have been able to pool the resources to build such structures if they had wanted to. The gladiators wouldn't have been a problem either. Most of the fighters in the distant provinces were in rather sad shape compared to the distinguished examples who were sent to Rome. A medieval society would have found many such people among the ranks of village bullies and street toughs, and it shouldn't have been a difficult matter to persuade some of these into the gladiatorial line of work with the prospect of fame, the promise of a regular income, and the idea of a relatively safe and uneventful life (most gladiators fought only a few times per year, and what few fights they got were seldom fatal).

But the medieval people didn't do any of these things--because they didn't want to. At least not in the shape of armed gladiatorial fights.

There is evidence that chuanfa (fist way) existed more than 2000 years ago and was not the result of any weapons ban.

Did it exist separately from an extensive curriculum that included the use of various weapons and grappling? I don't think so--at least not at that stage.

Japanese peasants did not invent karate. It was invented by Okinawans; when no one is sure, although what we call karate is actually very recent: it appeared about 1840. One cannot reliably claim it grew out of needs arising from a weapons ban.

Did I say that karate was invented by Japanese peasants? I only pointed at its propensity for striking as opposed to the grappling-centered approach of jujutsu.

Look back at my post and read it carefully. I mentioned this distinction between jujitsu and karate in a separate paragraph, focusing on the soldierly martial arts. It's not part of the previous paragraph where I talked about the weapons ban and the growth of bare-handed striking arts among the peasantry. Even then I don't think it's entirely inappropriate since karate did begin among the Okinawan peasantry, not among the Japanese aristocracy of the island.

As for atemi, it was probably always present in the Japanese grappling arts, just as it appears to be present in ringen, tho not emphasized. Takenouchi jujutsu, founded in 1532, long before any weapons ban, has much atemi in it, although it is still largely a throwing locking art.

Where do we disagree here? I never said that striking was not a part of the grappling arts either.

The idea that "weapons were taken away so people had to become weapons" is a myth. Empty hands against weapons 99% of the time means the empty-hand practitioner is dead. This is one of the reasons why people use weapons. Even using improvised weapons such as sticks, pitchforks and even torches gives a person a tremendous advantage.

True enough--against armed people like soldiers (or brigands). That's the whole point of the weapons ban anyway, which was to make to common people powerless against the armed might of the government. And it worked. I never argued that unarmed striking techniques were made to empower the people against an unarmed government--I agree that it simply wouldn't work. But armed soldiers were not the only people that the Han Chinese commoners could be expected to fight during the period of Manchu overlordship. They sometimes fought against other equally unarmed commoners in brawls, robberies, and the like, and unarmed striking techniques was often the best option available to them in such situations, especially since they would not always have had the time or the opportunity to find an improvised weapon.

Try to think like a denizen of the Third World--especially a country where the arms ban is strictly and efficiently enforced but law enforcement in general terms is somewhat lacking. You'd see lots of brawls between martial art schools--at least the ones that fail to provide good moral/spiritual education--and in many cases the brawlers are smart enough to fight strictly unarmed so that they'd be able to dodge the heavier penalties related to armed assault. An unarmed man who killed a robber in self-defense is also more likely to be able to use that self-defense argument at court than if he had employed anything as an improvised weapon. Such cases probably had strong parallels in Qin China, with its paranoid government and its efficient but highly pedantic law courts.

[Gene Tausk]

Interesting because historians that I have read link the decline of the Roman army and the subsequent fall of the Western Empire with a decline in the tax base. A small and inefficiently used tax base is also thought to be a cause of the rise of feudalism.

Jay and I read the same books. I was referring to the time period of 90AD-180AD. While no economic paradise, it is my understanding that the tax base of the Empire allowed for growth, grandiose projects and the "dole," among other things. I know of no Medieval society that had the tax base of the Empire of this time period and could take on such extensive projects, not only the ones mentioned but public sanitation, public baths, aquaducts, roads and postage systems (to name a few). And, of course, the great games.

We need to make a clear distinction between public economy and private economy here. Public economy deals with the economic activities of the government, not those of the population as a whole. Taxation and government revenue is a good indication of the state of public economy, but not that of the market and the economy in general. So even if the medieval public economy was smaller and less efficient than that of the Roman Empire, it did not mean that the economy as a whole had to be weaker too. Other aspects of the economy--especially the private sector ran by people like freeholding farmers, itinerant merchants, and other sorts of entrepreneurs--could have grown in spite of the decline in the public economy, and this growth could have been more than enough to offset the reduction in the size of the public economy.

But then, I've probably been talking about nothing since medieval public economy might not have been all that small anyway. Otherwise, how could the Church and the governments find the resources to build things like great cathedrals, vast urban fortifications, and sprawling networks of castles all over the countryside? Of course, we can't really think of medieval "public finance" in the same way that we think of modern government spending, since the medieval public sector was a highly competitive field where the Church competed with both the royal government and the numerous local governments (including such authorities as trade and merchant guilds) spread all over Christian Europe. If anything, this competition fueled the building craze rather than dampening it, and I'm sure the largest of those medieval governmental institutions would have put their effort into building ever larger gladiatorial arenas if they had wanted to, just for the sake of trumping the competition. But they didn't want to--so they didn't, channeling their energies instead into things like the aforementioned cathedrals and fortifications.

Mr. Curtis, I am going to ask you the same thing I asked someone previously: what "Medieval society" are you talking about? I have limited my discussion to the Empire during the time of the "Pax Romana" from 90 AD-180AD. The "Middle Ages" stretched from appx. 476 until 1450. That is a lot of time and we are talking about a lot of different "societies." So, before this conversation can advance to the next stage, I need you to define your terms. Which Medieval societies are you claiming whose economies and government building and support projects rivaled the Empire during the time period I have indicated?

I am talking about an Empire that housed a capital city of over a million people with an enormous tax base (yes, I am familiar with "private" economies and "public" economies) which provide numerous social and physical services for its inhabitants, including (but not limited to): the grandiose building projects such as the Flavian Amphitheater and Hippodrome, numerous pagan temples (which were on par with the cathedrals of Medieval Europe), a road system still in use today in some parts of Europe, public baths (with hot and cold running water), public toilets, aquaducts, the "dole" [good socialist program with the expected failure of all socialist programs which endevour to go down this path and the equally sad inability to learn from the failure of these programs, right Mrs. Clinton?], courts of law where Roman citizens could obtain, if not justice, then at least the right to be heard, a postage system, a military force to guard the frontier and protect the citizens, a navy, and a forensics unit to investigate crimes [the first autopsy in history was carried out on the corpse of Julius Ceasar}. And these are just from the top of my head.

From what I understand, the next city after Rome to house more than a million people in Europe was London and that was not until the 1600's. What Medieval society approached the Empire in this regard?

Did every Roman city have these facilities I mentioned above? Of course not. But, from the reading I have done, the average Roman citizen during the time period I have mentioned had a longer lifespan than most people in Europe during the time period of 476 AD-1450 AD. Ruins of Roman bathhouses, public toilets, and guardposts have been found in most cities of the Empire, indicating that at least some of these services were widespread in the Empire.

It is my understanding that the real failure of the Roman economy was its reliance on slaves which forstalled any type of real research and development into new technologies. Why bother if you have slaves to do the work?

I think one of the most telling accounts of the difference between the Roman world and the Medieval world was the reaction of the Conquistadores when they reached the capital of the Aztec Empire in 1520. They were amazed by the public baths and public toilets, forgetting that their ancestors had the very same things more than 1000 years ago.

So, once again, show me to what "Medieval society" you refer because I can think of a dozen, once again off the top of my head, that were around from AD 476-AD1450 and NONE of them had the social and physical service of the Empire that I just mentioned.

[Jonathan Coupe]

Interesting because historians that I have read link the decline of the Roman army and the subsequent fall of the Western Empire with a decline in the tax base. A small and inefficiently used tax base is also thought to be a cause of the rise of feudalism.

Tax bases are as much about the transportability of wealth as the actual amount of wealth in a society. If wealth is concentrated in locally made goods that are moved easily (e.g. most agricultural products in the MA and RE, except when they are on exceptional water transport routes - hence the importance of the Nile Delta and Sicily to the Romans) then it isn't taxable.

Jay and I read the same books. I was referring to the time period of 90AD-180AD. While no economic paradise, it is my understanding that the tax base of the Empire allowed for growth, grandiose projects and the "dole," among other things.

These weren't economic achievements but political consequences. Firstly, the RE had conquered important provinces - which it raped, reducing their overall output. Secondly, the Roman rural middle class was being destroyed: the dole etc were partly compensation for this (and only partial) and partly vote buying.

I know of no Medieval society that had the tax base of the Empire of this time period and could take on such extensive projects, not only the ones mentioned but public sanitation, public baths, aquaducts, roads and postage systems (to name a few). And, of course, the great games.

Once again:

- The concentration of wealth is not the same as the possession of total wealth in a society. The Coliseum was a certain sign of the concentration, nothing more.

- Gladiatorial games did not require large sums of money. The Romans had them at early stage of their society when they were dirt poor. The Coliseum was a not necessary equipment for them, anymore than a marble bath house with a staff of slaves is for taking a bath.

The MA's were less urbanized and centralized than the RE: that isn't the same as poorer. Instead it's something you have to take into account when assessing the comparative wealth of the two societies.

[Jonathan Coupe]

Mr. Curtis, I am going to ask you the same thing I asked someone previously: what "Medieval society" are you talking about? I have limited my discussion to the Empire during the time of the "Pax Romana" from 90 AD-180AD. The "Middle Ages" stretched from appx. 476 until 1450. That is a lot of time and we are talking about a lot of different "societies."

The same applies to the Roman Empire. Although you have now - if you did before, I missed it - defined a short period, doing so defeats your purpose - precisely because gladiatorial activity was not confined to that period, but carried out also during periods when the Roman economy was much very different and much smaller.

I would also criticize this:

the "dole" [good socialist program with the expected failure of all socialist programs which endevour to go down this path and the equally sad inability to learn from the failure of these programs

It was the dole-bred soldiers of the Head Count who won the greatest and most important victories the Romans ever achieved and formed the first army which had all the distinctive features we now associate with them. Julius Caesar merely carried on Marius's methods: Marius was the innovator. Projecting politics on to past eras is likely to end in, umm, passed errors...

courts of law where Roman citizens could obtain, if not justice, then at least the right to be heard,

Previous and subsequent systems were hardly without courts, and the Roman ones were notable for their corruption.

a military force to guard the frontier and protect the citizens

I think you'll find that other civilizations had these, too.

the first autopsy in history was carried out on the corpse of Julius Ceasar.

The easiest, too: "He was - wait, yes, I'm sure - stabbed!"

From what I understand, the next city after Rome to house more than a million people in Europe was London and that was not until the 1600's. What Medieval society approached the Empire in this regard?

This argument might set off alarm bells in your own head if you reflect a moment: Rome required control of the entire Mediterranean world and Near Asia - especially the Nile Delta - to support Rome. But the Elizabethans, with farming technology that was still that of the Middle Ages, supported London only with the economy of England? Using land that the Romes could barely farm? That's an increase of economic capability of several orders of magnitude - England alone, using MA agricultural techniques, had arguably started to produce as much wealth as the entire Roman Empire.

Did every Roman city have these facilities I mentioned above? Of course not. But, from the reading I have done, the average Roman citizen during the time period I have mentioned had a longer lifespan than most people in Europe during the time period of 476 AD-1450 AD.

Think about what you've written, Gene. Citizens were a relatively elite minority in the Empire. Slaves were about 20%-30% of the total imperial population - more than citizens. Comparing the life of a Roman citizen to a MA peasant will produce a very slewed answer - you need to compare the life of a MA peasant and a Roman agricultural slave, who was typically chained in an underground barracks at night and worked under the lash and thread of impalement or crucifixion.

[Jonathan Coupe]

As the final coup de grace, consider bullfighting. This was a form of gladiatorial combat, and it did take place in the MA. It was no cheaper than man-vs-man (especially man vs man using prisoners of war) but it was more socially acceptable - the aim was to kill an animal for entertainment, not a man.

And, once again, military nobles, who had the disposable cash, would have considered non-lethal man-vs-man combat to be "girly-man" - a term I believe Charlemagne coined.

[Gene Tausk]

As the final coup de grace, consider bullfighting. This was a form of gladiatorial combat, and it did take place in the MA. It was no cheaper than man-vs-man (especially man vs man using prisoners of war) but it was more socially acceptable - the aim was to kill an animal for entertainment, not a man.

And, once again, military nobles, who had the disposable cash, would have considered non-lethal man-vs-man combat to be "girly-man" - a term I believe Charlemagne coined.

Mr. Coupe - you have not answered my simple question - to which society in the MA are you referring when you state argue that it was on par with the Roman Empire in the ways and methods I describe?

The closest that you come in answering my question is the following:

"England alone, using MA agricultural techniques, had arguably started to produce as much wealth as the entire Roman Empire. "

Great - you have narrowed your discussion to one country in the MA. Now, give me a time period between 476 AD and 1450AD in England to which you refer so we can begin to advance this discussion to the next level.

I cannot follow your argument about Roman citizens. First, I stated quite clearly that one of the main problems with the Roman economy, if not the main problem, was its reliance on slaves and slavery. Second, citizens were not the "elite" of Roman society. That would be the patricians and the nobles. Third, during the time period I describe (ONCE AGAIN 90 AD-180AD), there was a process in place by which non-citizens could become citizens of the Empire, so it was not a privileged class.

I have no idea why you are including bullfighting in your discussion. This discussion began, in part, because we were talking about why boxing was not popular in the MA and one of the responses (mine) was that MA society did not have the resources to devote to housing, training and supplying trained sportsmen the same way the Empire did (once again, this was due, in a large part, to the Empire's reliance on slaves. Although, gladiators could eventually win their freedom). Incidentally, I did a quick check on the internet on bullfighting in the Middle Ages and could only find reference to Spanish bullfighting and even the origins of that are in dispute [including arguments that bullfighting occurred during the Middle Ages] (of course, this was a quick 1 minute internet search on my own so I fully admit I did not cover all sources). So, ONCE AGAIN, narrow your time period to what you are discussing because I have no idea how you can compare bullfighting in the MA to full-scale gladiatorial combats. Oh, and provide sources for your statements about bull fighting.

So, Mr. Coupe, ONCE AGAIN and for the last time, I am asking you to narrow your scope of discussion to a society and time period during the Middle Ages (which I have already defined for you) so you can argue that this one society produced as much wealth as the Roman Empire between 90 AD and 180 AD.

I am interested in comparing the society to which you refer (but have yet to define) that provided its citizens with roads, public baths, public toilets, a large, functioning and disciplined army that covered most of Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East and North Africa, a navy to battle pirates (among other threats), large public works projects such as the Flavian Amphitheater and Hippodrome (not an all-inclusive list), courts of law, temples for every pagan deity under the sun, a postage system, a sewage system, aquaducts.....and gee, the list goes on.

Need some help finding different societies in the Middle Ages? Here is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_c ... l_timeline

This timeline lists as couple of dozen different "Medieval" societies and cultures. Pick one.

[Gene Tausk]

Mr. Coupe - incidentally, you referenced "Elizabethan England" in one of your posts. This is outside the time period I mentioned (Elizabethan England being appx. 1550-1603) and certainly in the Renaissance by just about every scholar's definition. So, your this example will not work.

[Jonathan Coupe]

As the final coup de grace, consider bullfighting. This was a form of gladiatorial combat, and it did take place in the MA. It was no cheaper than man-vs-man (especially man vs man using prisoners of war) but it was more socially acceptable - the aim was to kill an animal for entertainment, not a man.

And, once again, military nobles, who had the disposable cash, would have considered non-lethal man-vs-man combat to be "girly-man" - a term I believe Charlemagne coined.

Mr. Coupe - you have not answered my simple question - to which society in the MA are you referring when you state argue that it was on par with the Roman Empire in the ways and methods I describe?

Yes, I did - I said that your "simple question" was self-defeating. Because it attempted to link gladiatorial contests to a single very narrow period, when in fact they they pre- and post-dated it. The contests existed when the Roman noblemen were still looking after their own pigs; they weren't linked to the period of Roman history you singled out.

To pick a MA society to attempt to show that it out-competed the specific Roman period you have picked in the criteria you accept as defining wealth would be to compound your error - you have fallen into the trap of believing that the trappings of gladiatorial combat in one period were its pre-requisites. In modern terms, you believe that the Superbowl and cable TV are necessary to play the sport of American football. Nope.

I cannot follow your argument about Roman citizens. First, I stated quite clearly that one of the main problems with the Roman economy, if not the main problem, was its reliance on slaves and slavery. Second, citizens were not the "elite" of Roman society.

No; the nobles were an elite within an elite. Or do you really think that slaves and citizens enjoyed equal opportunities??? (An elite is *any* significantly privileged group, not just the highest one.)

...during the time period I describe (ONCE AGAIN 90 AD-180AD), there was a process in place by which non-citizens could become citizens of the Empire, so it was not a privileged class.

And today anyone in the US might win the lottery. Does that mean that wealth is negligible as a factor in social analysis? Most slaves did not have the chance to become freemen - it was something that happened to the lucky and the exceptionally useful. The average slave was a mine or a farm worker, not a literate Greek secretary. We know far more about the later than the former because they were literate and close to power - that shouldn't make us think that they were typical! Imagine a C30th historian thinking that Oprah and Dinah Ross were representative Black American women and you'll see the nature of your error.

I have no idea why you are including bullfighting in your discussion.

Because it was a form of gladiatorial combat that persisted in the MA, showing that MA societies could afford such combats.

This discussion began, in part, because we were talking about why boxing was not popular in the MA and one of the responses (mine) was that MA society did not have the resources to devote to housing, training and supplying trained sportsmen the same way the Empire did

Yes, this is what you said and it's wrong. Early Roman society had gladiators when the average Roman nobleman though meat or fish once a day was a luxury. The MA could afford vast religious establishments and the importation of spices from the Asia; by comparison the cost of employing a few men to hit each would have been minimal. You are only confused on this issue because you can't disassociate the cost of the Coliseum from the cost of gladiatorialism as a whole.

Here's a thought experiment: I'm the governor of Paris in 1450. I want to stage a crowd pleaser and I've read Lilly or whatever. I have some prisoners who are going to die anyway - I enforce the death penalty for almost anything - and I decide to feed several to some of mastiffs (trained for bear baiting) or captured wolves, and get some to fight - the winners get a pardon. Is my biggest obstacle:

1. Finding a field to stage the show in and knocking up some wooden stands for the grander spectators...

Or

2. Being excommunicated - killing people to enact Gods justice is one thing; killing people for entertainment, spurning the specific condemnation of the Church that ended such contests is another.

I'd go with 2. Really.

On reflection, I think I'll stage some bloody and varied public executions instead. The Church doesn't have a problem with them, and the all-important family audience loves them.

[Gene Tausk]

Mr. Coupe -

This discussion is going nowhere and will be terminated. I have asked you twice and Mr. Curtis once to provide me with a timeframe for discussion. No timeframe has been forthcoming. I leave it to the readers to frame their own conclusions as to why this occurred, or, more specifically, has not occurred.

This thread has gone off topic to discuss matters which have nothing to do with the original question which began this thread and I admit that part of this is my fault. To the other moderators who got on my case for allowing this disussion to diverge from the original discussion and get (WAY) off-topic, my apologies. I allowed my personal interest to override my duties as a moderator.

The thread will remain open because most of the posts are on topic. However, this thread will be monitored closely.

Mr. Coupe, Mr. Curtis, if you wish to PM me to continue this discussion, please do so.