|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 982
|
Here is some stuff, based, apparently on Daniel P. Mannix: Those About To Die. NY: Ballantine Books, 1958.
Quote:
Finally, once the animals had been brought to Rome and introduced into their cages or into the yards which were maintained in the vicinity of the arenas (there was also space underneath some venues, such as the Colosseum), the all-important work of training them for the games began: for the animals, in their natural state, were not necessarily ready to participate yet. Many came from the wild with a natural fear of humans, or else did not associate humans with prey; while many others were easily disturbed and intimidated by the alien terrain of the arena, and by the roaring din of the human spectators, which provoked them into flight and withdrawal rather than combat and audacity. Whereas fear and evasion were totally expected in the case of antelope and deer, these responses were utterly unacceptable in the case of creatures billed as ferocious predators: creatures such as wolves or lions, who the audience had come to witness at their very fiercest. Expert trainers were therefore required to help overcome the natural instincts of these "savage beasts", and to get their demeanor in line with their public image.
Very quickly, trainers discovered that pure starvation was not the answer. Hunger, overutilized as a strategy for provoking aggression, often only weakened big predators such as lions to the point of completely shutting them down. In cases, animals let loose into the arena to kill, collapsed and died from exhaustion without hurting anyone. Complicated procedures were therefore often necessary to mold the animal captives into convincing beasts of prey. Trainers preferred to start with young animals who had less experience in the wild, and to accustom them to attacking humans. They would feed them human meat (from the dead of the arena), and train them to be fearless hunters of men, by a variety of means. Heavily padded men would provoke them to attack and pretend to be bested (even by cubs who they could have beaten away), increasing the confidence of the animals; later, the predators would be incited to attack slaves whose arms had been broken and teeth knocked out so that they could not harm the beasts set against them or in any way create a mental deterrent for future attacks against humans. Finally, the animals might be unleashed against healthy slaves, and thereby accustomed to some degree of genuine resistance, which was usually futile, however. If the victim did manage to put up a good fight, the trainer would quickly end the struggle with a spear thrust, to prevent his animal from getting hurt or developing any inhibitions against attacking humans. Whereas the animal was trained to be confident and aggressive towards humans, the aggression he learned was specifically associated with a training area resembling the arena in which he would perform, an open space covered with sand, outside of which he would most often not act out; besides this, he was usually respectful of his master trainer, or handler. There was, thus, a long process of preparation required before the deadly animals of the Roman circus could be counted on to give an optimum performance in the arena. In many cases, though, they must have been sent into the arena with little training, due to constraints of time and the finite number of individuals competent to train them. In cases such as these, the unprepared beasts sometimes had to be driven to fight by trainers armed with whips, flails with lead balls, hot irons and burning firebrands; or else pursued, cornered, and provoked to fight by determined and well-trained bestiarii.[emphasis added]
|
Quote:
Public Executions as a Feature of the Games
* * * *
Animals, of course, became major players in the destruction of the condemned, probably because death by wild beasts seemed especially savage and terrifying to the Roman audience, as well as more unpredictable, and therefore interesting, than death by the hand of human executioners. At times, prisoners were tied to stakes and left to the mercy of bears, lions, wolves, or other predators who were trained or incited to attack them. At other times, unrestrained but also unarmed, the captives might be let loose to wander about the arena, as wild beasts were introduced. Since, as previously stated, predators such as lions were not always naturally inclined to attack human beings, their intended human victims were often coached into provoking the attacks that would end their lives. This strategy was most often employed with groups of what we might call "political prisoners", such as captive Jews from Palestine. . .or Christians. . . As leverage to convince the doomed to cooperate, the Romans would typically hold onto a portion of the prisoners as "hostages", promising those who were being sent to die that this portion would be spared as long as everyone else collaborated in their own destruction. With no escape from death - for if the lions did not kill them, they would be killed by men - and with the lives of some of their friends and loved ones, usually children, at stake - the captives would most often accept the terms of their captors, and participate in the precipitation of their slaughter. As one example: when lions were to be the executioner, the prisoners would be convinced to don the skins of zebras, antelopes, and other creatures familiar to their intended destroyers; they would, furthermore, be instructed not to shout, yell, or make any sudden movements which might startle or frighten the beasts, but rather, to move their hands about slowly, and sway their bodies gently, giving signs of life without radiating any hint of danger. As much as possible, they were to mimic the natural prey of the lion: to appear herd-like, vulnerable, familiar, and unthreatening, until one or more of the lions became interested enough, and brave enough, to charge. Usually, once the first blow was struck, and the killing had begun, the hunting instinct of the other lions would be triggered, and a general massacre of man by beast would ensue. When more "talented", well-trained or experienced man-eaters were "in stock", negotiations with prisoners could, naturally, be dispensed with.
|
If the above is accurate, then isn't it possible that Eusebius' account is substantially correct?
|
01-30-2006, 04:31 PM
