Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Execution ad bestias - throwing people to the lions, bears, or other savage beasts - was one of the most notorious aspects of Roman public entertainment. But how was it actually done? Was it enough simply to introduce a number of starved animals and a number of prisoners into an arena and leave them to get on with it?
Mosaics from North Africa show some prisoners tied to poles mounted on little carts, while others are apparently being herded around by men with whips. In both cases, the prisoners seem to be used as live bait for venators or other bestiarii. Would an animal normally attack a bound captive in this way, though?
Other sources indicate that the victims were supposed to fight the animals in some way. On occasion the number of victims seems to have been quite high - even allowing for exaggeration. Panegyric VI (12.3) claims that the 'great numbers' of captured Bructeri killed in the area at Trier in 308 'wore out the raging beasts'...
Does anyone know what methods might have been used to make the animals attack and kill the victims in such numbers, or alternatively how the entire grisly spectacle might have been organised into 'entertainment'?
Nathan Ross
Posts: 3,607
Threads: 226
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
5
Hmmm. An other chance for experimental archaeology?
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Hmm, tempting ....
My experience with cats (big and small) is that if something moves or runs, it attracts the attention and invokes an attack respons. With a large number of captives (and beasts), one could see behaviour like a fox or marten in a henhouse. All they initialy want is a meal, but with the chickens flapping around in panic, the preditor finds himself in a very unusual environment and kills till the commotion stops.
If a lion, tiger or leopard is baited and molested whilst in captivity, it will certainly have a foul disposition towards humans. A human tied to a stake on a cart could be attacked if the animal is either very foul tempered, or has been trained to expect a meal when attacting whatever it is attached to that stake.
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
1
Seneca talks about beast-fighting in the arena on a number of occasions, but he uses them to illustrate different philosophical points that he makes. Are they accurate representations? Perhaps, but I don’t know.
For instance, he seems to imply movement is used to get some animals to attack:
Quote:The bull is aroused by a red colour, the asp strikes at a shadow, bears and lions are irritated by a handkerchief; all creatures by nature wild and savage are alarmed by trifles.
Seneca, On Anger
(Side note: So red was used to make a bull charge even then! I learned something new today.)
He also mentions: disembowelling a person to get the animals to eat him (perhaps this is how they attacked bound captives?), using chariots to scare lions back into their cages (they were frightened of the wheels, evidently), and having witnessed a contest where the beast-fighter used to be the trainer of a lion, and the lion recognised him and refused to attack him.
If I remember correctly, some Lives of the Saints have cases where the lion refused to attack, but these might not be reliable. Also, I swear I recall Horace or Juvenal complaining about watching a case when the lions wouldn't attack. However, I couldn't find this episode using word searches so I might have imagined it.
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Well, it would not be unlikely for big cats not to attack if their hunting instinct was not invoked by the captive. If the condemmed man or woman stood their ground, the animal, having been in contact with humans before and not seeing these as prey, would most likely not attack. The arena with all the noise would be an unsettling environment for them. I have read a report somewhere that they kept special lions etc. as excecutioners, these having been trained to kill the condemmed and accustomed to the arena. These lions fetched a good price and were not used for anything else.
Side note: A bull is a herbivour and thus color blind. So the red cloth is a total mith, it is the flapping movement that invokes the charge..
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
That's not a leopard in the center of the mosaic, that's a cheetah. Tear lines run from the eyes to the nose, check for yourself.
The one on the left, however, is a leopard. You can see where the romans tried to represent an irregular spot pattern, where on the one in the center there are no semicircular spots, they're all dots. It doesnt have tear lines either.
It would take a lot to get a cheetah to attack people... they're shy in nature and run from potential threats. You'd have to starve it for a very, very long time; almost 3 weeks. But by that point it would be too weak to fight for its food, except maybe attacking a man on a pole like shown here.
Posts: 1,550
Threads: 81
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation:
49
Quote:Execution ad bestias - throwing people to the lions, bears, or other savage beasts - was one of the most notorious aspects of Roman public entertainment. But how was it actually done? Was it enough simply to introduce a number of starved animals and a number of prisoners into an arena and leave them to get on with it?
Mosaics from North Africa show some prisoners tied to poles mounted on little carts, while others are apparently being herded around by men with whips. In both cases, the prisoners seem to be used as live bait for venators or other bestiarii. Would an animal normally attack a bound captive in this way, though?
Other sources indicate that the victims were supposed to fight the animals in some way. On occasion the number of victims seems to have been quite high - even allowing for exaggeration. Panegyric VI (12.3) claims that the 'great numbers' of captured Bructeri killed in the area at Trier in 308 'wore out the raging beasts'...
Does anyone know what methods might have been used to make the animals attack and kill the victims in such numbers, or alternatively how the entire grisly spectacle might have been organised into 'entertainment'?
I read one of the standard English books on games and spectacles a few years ago, and it had lots of grisly details of the things which fell under an execution ad bestias. I won't repeat what I can remember (which doesn't include the title unfortunately!), but the Romans had different ways to get animals to bite, gore, trample, or rape their victims, and animals which were reliable killers were valued.
Executions often had mythological themes, and it seems that thinking up a new version was one way to make a games stand out. So those saints' lives with fantastical means of execution reflected something in Roman popular culture.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Hmm, but it is shown with retracted claws (cheetahs cannot retract their claws) and the build is sturdy like a leopard, not as sleek as a cheetah. While leopards are notoriously viscous, you are correct in assuming it would be unlikely a cheetah was used for this purpose, due to its friendly disposition.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Good point Robert about the body shape, a cheetah looks like a greyhound in that regard, but none of the other cats are shown with their claws extended either.
Lions are notorious for killing leopards, because leopards are notorious for killing lion cubs. It has a lot to do with how they interact in the wild certainly.
You made an excellent point about a Fox in a chicken coup. With all the prey scurrying about a confused predator is more likely to kill everything it can than target an individual for food.
Either way, if it is a cheetah this makes it one of only 3 depictions I've seen with a Cheetah in Roman art.
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Both lions and leopards are notorius for killing cheetah. Both will also musscle in on any kill a cheetah makes and a cheetah is very vulnerable to attack, as even a not really very severe injury can impart its speed, which is all it has to stay alive, that and an amazing agiliy on the hoof. They lose as much as half their kills. Cheetahs lead a precarious life. In case you wonder, yes, I did study biology :-) . Graduated on sharks. though ...
They may not be shown with their claws extended, but the cheetah would clearly have claws on the feet, the claws are non-retractable and act as spikes to a runner.
In the mozaic, the tearline is not conclusive, for in cheetah it runs down to the muzzle. Here all I see is the line of the snout depicted. So I would vote leopard.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Yeah, cheetahs are one of those quirky things I study, just like Warp Drive, Roman History, and Myriapods.
Considering most people then didn't know there was a difference between a cheetah and a leopard, Pardus and Iubatus, you're right its probably a leopard.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
Well... according to a very well researched movie based on hard historical facts, once Pontius Pilatus sent a soldier to gladiator school where he was supposed to fight wabit wild animals in the arena... (the order is given at 2min 30 secs into the clip) 
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Posts: 1,189
Threads: 33
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
There is a statuette from North Africa showing a woman prisoner bound to a horse being attacked by a big cat. Of course, a cat couldn't tell the difference between a horse and a human riding it, and there is no way a horse will be still when it sees or smells a predator. That may have been the reason for the miniature chariot, to keep the victim in motion so the cat would attack.
Pecunia non olet
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
Big Cats know the difference between people and Horses... they can see the entire spectrum - red, green, and blue. Predators know the difference, but to them Humans are just a different kind of monkey, they don't understand sapience.
Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Quote:If the condemmed man or woman stood their ground, the animal, having been in contact with humans before and not seeing these as prey, would most likely not attack.
This is interesting - so animals would be more likely to attack moving victims. That might explain some of the stories of Christians in the arena being unmolested by the animals - you'd need either a pretty strong will, or a lack of fear of death, to stand immobile when surrounded by ravenous beasts! The men in the arena with the whips may have been used to make unwilling victims run about more...
I still wonder how this would have worked with large numbers of victims though - the various accounts of prisoners of war being thrown to the beasts, for example. I suppose they could have been sent into the arena in small groups - surely the animals would be unlikely to attack a big group of people, however defenceless they may have looked?
Nathan Ross
|
