The Imperial Hierarchy of the Gladiatorial Games

Colosseum

Romans celebrated civilization and their dominance over the Other in a variety of ways. In previous, posts I have touched on the monumentalization of Rome in sculpture. However, there were other methods in which Romans could perform Romanness—demonstrating the superiority of civilization over the barbarian—in a public setting. The Colosseum, the largest and most famous Roman amphitheatre, was one such place. The Colosseum was built near the end of the first century CE, and it could hold an estimated 65,000 spectators at one time. Roman emperors used these amphitheatres to put on spectacular events that were open to the public as both a display and celebration of Rome's success, and by extension the success of the emperor himself. In short, it was a form of patronage that gave ruling emperors a way to entertain their citizens with the spoils of war. The shows included events such as: gladiatorial combat, animal hunts, executions, and reenactments of past military victories. Another aspect of the games was that they allowed citizens a chance to form a group identity by collectively celebrating the benefits of conquest first hand, as the exotic animals, prisoners, and slaves that took part in the games were often brought to Rome from the provinces for the entertainment of the Roman citizen. The seating at these events was segregated by social class. The slaves were seated furthest away, and more influential citizens were allowed to sit closer to the arena in the centre. The emperor had his own box to further separate him from the masses of citizens. However, I do not believe that it was the slaves who were at the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid because the hierarchy extended past the seating of the amphitheatre to the arena itself. Therefore, it was actually the participants in the arena who were at the bottom of the hierarchy. With the exception of gladiators who were often Roman, the animals and people who were put on display in the arena originated from the provinces and unconquered lands. Therefore, the Otherness of newly conquered provinces was represented by the slaves and captured animals that were forced to fight in the arena, and these provinces were clearly defined as separate and lesser. This public display of provincial Otherness bears striking similarities to the British display of indigenous African and American people in zoos and exhibits during the early modern and modern periods.

The Roman Empire shared many practices of performing civilization and the formation of a group identity in opposition to a barbaric or savage Other with the empires of the early modern period. While they are not identical to the more modern colonial empires, many of the tools that postcolonial theorists have provided for the practice of modern history are, at least to some degree, applicable to the study of the Roman Empire. The practices involved in the domination and exploitation of colonial provinces, as well as the attempted assimilation of colonized peoples are similar in all empires. Rome was no different from the rest.

Johns, Catherine. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Kellum, Barbara. "Imperial Messages" in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. Edited by Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, and Elaine K, Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

The Merciful Emperors

Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius

Colonial narratives of imperial superiority are integral to the justification of colonization as a means of "bettering" the lives of the indigenous peoples who are being subjugated. This "bettering" comes in various forms, including social change or the construction of infrastructure. The Roman Emperor played an important role in the construction of a narrative that supports the notion that Roman civilization was a gift to the conquered enemies of Rome, a gift that improved the social structure of these conquered societies. The Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius provides us with an example of a sculpture that elicits an impression of a benevolent conqueror. The sculptor presents the emperor in a position of power atop a horse. Several historians believe that there is a piece of the sculpture missing that had a barbarian cowering beneath the raised hoof of the horse, but it is impossible to prove for certain. This added imagery would enhance the message of conquering benevolence presented in the sculpture, as Marcus Aurelius is seen with his hand outstretched, granting clemency to the character beneath him. However, even if the suggested barbarian was not present in the original sculpture, the message is clear: those who yield to the emperor, and therefore the Roman Empire, will be granted the gift of mercy. The emperor has the power to crush those before him, but he is also merciful in victory. This message is also present on the column of Trajan. Trajan is depicted numerous times on the column, but he is most often granting mercy to the defeated Dacians. For instance, Trajan can be seen granting mercy to a Dacian woman in scene 30 of the column. It is this juxtaposition of military might and the grace of civilized Rome that aids in the construction of Roman superiority.

Scene 30 of Trajan's Column

Ferris, Iain. "The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Trajanic Art." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Johns, Catherine. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Kellum, Barbara. "Imperial Messages" in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. Edited by Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, and Elaine K, Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Lepper, Frank and Sheppard Frere. Trajan's Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1988.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Ulrich, Roger B. Trajan's Column in Rome. Accessed June 30, 2018. http://www.trajans-column.org/

The Death of the Barbarian

Dying Gaul

Romans celebrated the defeat of the barbaric Other, and this means that there are various forms of Roman sculpture that depict a defeated barbarian. I've already touched on the Statue of the Capture Dacian. Statues of a similar form decorated much of Trajan's Forum in celebration of his conquest of Dacia. These sculpted barbarians are portrayed as passive in their defeat and suggest the inevitable romanization of the Dacian people. This form of subjugation implies a sort of "superiority" of the Roman people, but it also highlights a vital flaw in "barbarian culture:" the willingness to concede defeat. This was not the only way in which Romans depicted their victories over the Other. For example, the Dying Gaul is a sculpture that depicts the barbarian in a sympathetic manner. The statue is actually a marble copy of a Hellenistic sculpture that was likely commissioned in the third century BCE, but this does not detract from its meaning in a Roman context, regardless of the fact that it had a previous meaning. The sculpture itself portrays a mortally wounded Gaul in his last moments alive. He is clearly aware of his fate, and he has accepted it gracefully. With a tone that resonates with the modern Noble Savage trope, the artist at once portrays the assumed superiority of the Roman who dealt the blow, the nobility of the Gaul's grace in death, and the inevitability of the destruction of the barbaric way of life. While anachronistic, Richard H. Pratt's saying "Kill the Indian, save the man" sheds like on the metaphorical death of the "barbarian" that is implied in the sculpture. This kind of artwork can be found in empires throughout the ages, serving to maintain the superiority of the imperial way of life while also eliciting sympathy from the viewer. The conquest is deemed worthy by the perceived bettering of the barbarian society, and the barbarians are deemed worthy of bettering because they demonstrate qualities that are recognized as "good" by the Romans. Therefore, the complex narrative that is constructed in works such as the Dying Gaul rationalizes and justifies the violence and destruction that conquest demands.

Johns, Catherine. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Kellum, Barbara. "Imperial Messages" in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. Edited by Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, and Elaine K, Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Lepper, Frank and Sheppard Frere. Trajan's Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1988.

Pratt, Richard H. Kill the Indian, Save the Man, 1892.

Roman Colonial Infrastructure in Trajanic Art

Scenes 67 and 68

Empires often present a narrative that suggests that imperialism improves the daily lives of colonized peoples. This includes both the social conversion from barbarian to "civilization" that is often referred to as romanization, and the introduction of infrastructure and building practices that surpass the capabilities of the indigenous peoples, which included but were not limited to Roman roads and concrete. In essence, colonial powers believe that colonialism benefits the colonized and subjugated because the imperial powers "gift" them with superior culture and technology. The beginnings of this narrative can be found in Roman Imperial imagery. For instance, the Column of Trajan highlights the supposed superiority of Roman buildings. Scenes 11, 20, and 73 depict Roman soldiers constructing stone fortifications, and scene 43 shows captured Dacians being held behind a large stone wall. It is these stone buildings that set the Romans apart from their enemies. Further depictions of contrasting building practices are visible in scenes 67 and 68, which depict Dacians cutting down trees in a disorganized and rushed attempt to build defences, while the Romans build their stone fort with composed efficiency. It is this juxtaposition of building techniques and quality that highlights the superior engineering and training of the Roman military. Later constructions of colonial narratives from the early modern period to today have used this implied superiority of colonizing powers to suggest that the introduction of infrastructure and technology justifies the conquest and slaughter of the local populace. Furthermore, Romans did build roads and aqueducts in provinces following the conquest of the area, thereby improving the infrastructure of the local populace. However, there is no evidence that Romans used this "local betterment" to justify their conquest. They recognized that they benefited from these projects, as the roads allowed for the creation of prolific trade routes and facilitated the movement of the Roman legions to ensure the obedience of the subjugated peoples. While this particular colonial narrative is not necessarily a Roman creation, it is interesting to note the beginnings of a sense of superiority that was later used by modern imperial forces to justify the conquest and destruction of indigenous peoples.

Scene 11

Scene 20

Scene 73

Scene 43

Ferris, Iain. "The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Trajanic Art." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Johns, Catherine. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Kellum, Barbara. "Imperial Messages" in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. Edited by Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, and Elaine K, Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Lepper, Frank and Sheppard Frere. Trajan's Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates. Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1988.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Ulrich, Roger B. Trajan's Column in Rome. Accessed June 30, 2018. http://www.trajans-column.org/

Roman Creations of a Barbarian Other

Statue of a Kneeling Barbarian

One characteristic that is uniform across nearly all empires is the need to create a collective identity in opposition to an Other. This Other provides those in power with a “boogeyman” to rally the populace against. What defines this Other does not always represent the lived experiences of those being Othered, but the traits associated with Otherness does reflect the values and fears of the people creating the Other. Othering is not unique to empires, and Romans began Othering long before the rule of Augustus. In fact, the Roman use of Othering to create the unified identity of Civilization in opposition to Barbarian was borrowed from the Greeks, but the Romans modified and nearly perfected this dichotomous relationship. Romans portrayed many of their enemies with similar characteristics that they deemed represented the so-called barbarian, as seen in the Statue of a Kneeling Barbarian, a sculpture made out of paonazzetto marble, which is thought to have been commissioned by Augustus in 20 BCE following his retrieval of the standard from the Parthians. The sculpture shows a man in trousers and a tunic with long hair and an unkempt beard, all traits that are characteristically unroman and can be found in depictions of barbarians throughout the Roman Empire.

Statue of a Captured Dacian

Indeed, the Statue of the Captured Dacian, which was commissioned in the late second century CE, bears a striking resemblance to the Statue of a Kneeling Barbarian. The Dacian sports a similar hairstyle, the same trousers, the same hat, and a similar style of tunic, which ends just below the knees. The two statues look so much alike because they share the same un-roman characteristics, and not because these are accurate representations of the people they are meant to portray. An interesting use, or rather reuse, of this barbarian imagery can be found on the Arch of Constantine. The arch commemorates Constantine's victory over Emperor Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE. The battle was fought between two Roman Emperors with Roman armies, so it is strange that four statues of captured Dacians stand at the top of the arch. These statues were likely taken from Trajan's Forum and resemble the Statue of the Captured Dacian. In fact, much of the artwork on the Arch of Constantine is recycled from previous monuments, and it serves to construct Maxentius as unroman. The arch celebrates Constantine's supposed liberation of Rome from an oppressor and specifically erases any indication that the war was fought between Romans. Constantine's use of othering solidifies his identity as the rightful Roman emperor and assuages any fears of disunity among the Roman peoples, sending the message that Maxentius and his barbarians are everything that Romans are not.

The Arch of Constantine

Johns, Catherine. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, Edited by Sarah Scott, and Jane Webster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Kellum, Barbara. "Imperial Messages" in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. Edited by Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski, and Elaine K, Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.