[HN Gopher] Italy Will Rebuild Colosseum's Floor
___________________________________________________________________
Italy Will Rebuild Colosseum's Floor
Author : pseudolus
Score : 96 points
Date : 2021-01-03 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| rasengan wrote:
| I'm looking at pictures of the venue and wondering how it will
| only cost 10m to restore the floor? Secondly, if it's so cheap
| relatively, why wasn't it done earlier?
| dmurray wrote:
| Even if it's free (EUR10m does sound too cheap) it's always a
| tough question for conservators: is it better to restore an
| ancient building or artwork to what we think it used to look
| like, or to preserve it so that everything you see is
| authentic?
|
| There are arguments on both sides. We don't generally repaint
| Ancient Greek marble statues, for example.
| mam2 wrote:
| Since i'm a kid i've never understood what good there was to
| keep ruins, as opposed to rebuilding "in the spirit of". In
| the end that's what do a lot of movies and video games and
| it's a better experience than visting ruins.
|
| This may sound childish but I'm dead serious.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I agree with you in theory and that's why I'm excited by
| the Assassin's Creed games' exploration variants and by the
| potential for VR to permit temporal tourism like this.
|
| But the answer is pretty easy: we don't restore these
| things because we're never sure if we're doing it right.
| Think of it as giving everyone the raw data and letting
| them fill in.
| mam2 wrote:
| Yes but does it mean REALLY something to "do it right" ?
| I mean, everything is a product of the current
| civilisation. If there are changes there are changes and
| it will reflect OUR civilisation maybe 1000 more years in
| the future. Why are we the first civilisation / period to
| care so much about "being right" when the colosseum was
| already rebuilt multiple times.
|
| I'm not sure the "potential value" of having ruins is
| really higher than just redoing a nice building at some
| point...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " I mean, everything is a product of the current
| civilisation"
|
| Wow. You might want to check history again, or you have a
| very broad(to the point of meaningless) definition of
| civilisation.
|
| Anyway, some other point: I for one enjoy certain old
| ruins much more, than most modern buildings. And even
| though I would like to see them in their former glory, I
| know that in most cases this would be increadibly hard,
| or just impossible, unless you just want a cheap movie
| requisite.
| joe_91 wrote:
| I've always thought the same! It would make history so much
| more relatable and generate more interest in ancient
| buildings.
|
| They wouldn't even have to do all of it, just one third
| would at least show us what we think it used to look like!
| crowf wrote:
| For one, look at how Sadam rebuilt Babylon. He literally
| rebuilt walls by putting new stone on top of the ruins. As
| expected, that caused permanent damage to the ruins. So
| what should have been done? Destroy the ruins and rebuild
| how it was?
| xwdv wrote:
| I agree with you, it would be more impactful to go to the
| colosseum and see a show, knowing this is how Romans did it
| thousands of years ago at this very spot in these same
| seats, than to basically go and just see a dump.
| fjdjsmsm wrote:
| What you see now is the result of previous poor
| restorations. The Colosseum had become overgrown with
| plants and was like a large public garden. It was unique.
| For many of the plants it was the only place you could find
| them in Western Europe. It is believed that the seeds from
| many of the plants were transplanted through the excrement
| of the animals from the games.
| retrac wrote:
| Not disturbing an archaeological site leaves whatever's
| left for future, and perhaps more competent,
| archaeologists. Though at this point with the Colosseum
| specifically, I'm not sure there's any part of it left that
| hasn't been dug up or trampled on.
| rsynnott wrote:
| This actually used to be common enough. And the things
| rebuilt were often ruined. "Leave well enough alone, or at
| most sensitively restore" is a fairly modern idea.
| trianglem wrote:
| It depends. If you use the same stone from similar quarries
| and stick to a faithful reproduction that might be a good
| experience. Otherwise imagine McMansion levels of
| construction quality to rebuild the colosseum. That would
| be disgusting. Also visiting ruins is an amazing
| experience. You can touch stones that were put in place by
| humans _millenia_ ago. If that doesn't stir something in
| you then you're a different kind of person than me.
| pmontra wrote:
| The Pantheon, which is close to the Colosseum, has been in
| use and maintained since it was built. They have about the
| same age. The Pantheon is well off, the Colosseum is almost
| a pile of rocks inside. I always wonder what their
| architects would think of us if they could see the state of
| their work now. I bet one of them would be sad. Well, not
| as sad as others that built buildings that were destroyed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
| rsynnott wrote:
| Honestly, I'd say they'd all be amazed that anything was
| left at all. They'd never have seen a 2000 year old
| building themselves, unless they'd visited Egypt
| possibly. And statistically they'd be right; very few
| structures that old actually survive.
| jsinai wrote:
| > very few structures that old actually survive.
|
| That's what makes the Pantheon so amazing. It's easy to
| forget it's that old when you're standing inside, because
| the structure is still so sound!
| mhb wrote:
| That's not what it will cost. It's not even designed yet.
| That's what the Italian government has pledged towards it.
| hertzrat wrote:
| The show "Alive" makes me think of colosseums sometimes. It is a
| reality show about surviving in the wild, except that they drop
| you in at the start of the fall where there is no food and the
| end of every season is a starvation and suffering fest. The most
| recent season there are mostly poor people, one formerly
| homeless, who are all so desperate for the money that they take
| medical or wildlife-related risks on a regular basis. In one
| season, a poor dad is hiding frost bitten toes so a he can try to
| win money for his kid etc. In several seasons somebody has
| requested emergency extraction because of cold or animals or
| other things and it took 6-12 hours to get help - imagine if it
| was really urgent. I used to really enjoy the show but reality tv
| is pushing the envelope here a bit too much. They aren't slaves
| and are doing this by choice, but like I said, some are
| desperately poor
| xwdv wrote:
| These shows are highly produced and lightly scripted, chances
| are the reality is nothing like what you get on TV.
| coldtea wrote:
| Not everything is totally fake (within limits).
|
| The best of those shows don't even have a crew on the island
| - there are statically positioned cameras and the players
| operate others themselves.
| etrautmann wrote:
| Do you mean the show "Alone"?
|
| I have conflicted feelings about it if we're discussing the
| same show. On one hand, many of the contestants are survival
| experts who relish the challenge, and get regular medical
| checkups etc. OTOH, they routinely discuss their financial
| motivations. It feels different from the (morally
| reprehensible) bum fights of the early internet but I could see
| the argument for rough equivalence.
| extr wrote:
| I just finished watching season 6 of Alone and at first found
| it to be an interesting watch, but as I saw more episodes (and
| the contestants had been out there longer), I saw more and more
| of what you're talking about here. And after I finished the
| show and looked it up online, I was surprised to see just how
| much of the narrative I had just watched was completely
| fabricated and morally repugnant. For those who aren't
| familiar, the premise is 10 people are shipped to a remote
| destination with the basics (sleeping bag, axe, cord, etc...)
| and whoever lasts the longest gets $500K ($0 if you lose, I
| presume). They are also given camera equipment and are
| responsible for filming themselves. They don't see anyone else
| while they're out there except a medical team for occasional
| check-ups. Season 6 took place in northern Canada in near
| arctic conditions, starting in late fall and continuing through
| winter.
|
| (Spoilers)
|
| * The skill gap between best/worst contestants is portrayed as
| minimal. In reality, some contestants came in with years of
| lived experience thriving in the exact environment of the show
| (like the victor, who had spent years living in Siberia with
| people native to the region), or are literally paid
| professionals (like the army survival instructor, who tapped
| out because he was so successfully surviving he was bored, and
| didn't need the money), while others come from difficult
| backgrounds and have picked up wilderness skills only as a
| hobby or by necessity. When you find out just how large the
| skill gap was, and how some of these contestants basically
| never had a chance, it feels completely exploitive and
| effectively rigged.
|
| * Contestants give "camera confessions" in classic reality TV
| style, but these take a very dark turn as the show progresses.
| Going from "Excited to overcome the mental challenge of
| isolation", to starving, choking through tears "If I can hang
| on just a few more days I might be able to win the prize money
| for my family and give them the life I never had" in just a few
| episodes. If people are out there doing this for pride or
| because they enjoy the experience, so be it, but it's another
| thing entirely to dangle a large monetary prize in front of
| them. It just feels really sick to be watching people who are
| incredibly vulnerable and literally dying open up about their
| traumas and making it very clear they are only sticking it out
| for the cash. Begging to be allowed to stay when they are
| clearly underweight and at risk for cardiac issues.
|
| * The final episode makes it seem like the 2 remaining
| contestants are both just hanging by a thread, a literal
| starvation contest, which would be sad enough. But if you do
| some research afterward, you find out that while the 2nd place
| contestant had lost a dangerous amount of weight and was eating
| rabbit entrails, the winner had 100s of lbs of food stored
| (including moose and plenty of fish) and had not lost any
| weight. Hell, the last (gigantic) fish he caught they
| apparently brought back and used to feed the production camp.
|
| * All this said, the winner of Season 6, Jordan Jonas, is a
| very interesting (and apparently humble, good natured) guy, and
| I have enjoyed reading his commentary on the show on reddit and
| his blog. The show portrays him as lucky in some respects,
| probably to make him seem more like the other contestants, but
| he was in fact using a great deal of very specific techniques
| and knowledge, like how to build an structurally sound/ideal
| shelter, track/bait/hunt large game, ice fish, or build
| structures to keep stored food away from other predators. He
| himself admits the show obviously created a false narrative
| around his chances to win.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| If the prizes went to charity it could remove the "sad"
| factor.
| extr wrote:
| But most of the people with these skills are not
| independently wealthy, and would be hard pressed to give up
| wages for a few months just to participate.
|
| I think the ideal situation would just be to use a tiered
| prize structure. Where the longer you last the more money
| you get, but not so much that you're incentivized to stay
| after it becomes hopeless/dangerous. A 500K 1st prize could
| easily be split into 150/100/75/50/50/25/25/25 for places
| 1-8. That way you're always competing for about 25K more,
| but you're not desperate to hang out or get sent home with
| nothing.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Yes, but that reduces drama/colosseum fights. I think the
| original colosseum fights were mostly not fair either,
| but the audience just wants blood.
| antcas wrote:
| Reminds me of The Running Man by Richard Bachman (Stephen
| King)
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _whoever lasts the longest gets $500K ($0 if you lose, I
| presume)._
|
| I don't remember the numbers, but even the non winners are
| paid fairly well.
| appleflaxen wrote:
| Thank you for the thorough summary.
|
| It sounds remarkably exploitative and horrible.
|
| These are adults and are free to decide for themselves
| regarding whether to participate, but I am happy to have your
| summary, so that I don't have to support the production with
| viewership.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _to Its Gladiator-Era Glory_
|
| Or "infamy". Between gladiator and slave fights to death,
| executions, and martyrs, it's not more glorious than a
| concentration camp would be...
| hankchinaski wrote:
| supposedly _Glory_ is intended as the magnificence that
| originally had for people at the time
| ericmay wrote:
| We tend to have different standards for the ancients. For
| better or worse.
|
| Look at structures such as the Great Wall of China, which
| according to Wikipedia[1] estimates say hundreds of thousands,
| up to a million perished during the construction. I've never
| been, but I doubt there is a lot of "wow we were so awful for
| building this" going on in the tourists centers. Maybe I'm
| wrong. Potentially the Cultural Revolution had that impact.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I've never been, but I doubt there is a lot of "wow we
| were so awful for building this" going on in the tourists
| centers._
|
| Well, the weren't awful to begin with.
|
| Whether succesful or not in the end, they built it to avoid
| Mongol and Manchu raids and invasions, and thus for saving
| their cities and their lives.
|
| So, people perished are more like "people perished in acts of
| fortification / defense preparations" than "people killed
| willy nilly for the entertainment of the emperor and the
| viewers in the arena".
| morsch wrote:
| I'm sure many people died building the Great Wall, but the
| reference for "up to a million" is two travel guides[1], and
| the reference to "hundreds of thousands" is a throwaway line
| in pop science book about the Great Wall, whose author gives
| no evidence on how she arrived at the number. I couldn't find
| any scholarly articles. Maybe we just don't know how many
| workers died? Or maybe a search in Chinese would be more
| fruitful. It seems like something that there would at least
| be a scholarly agreement on an estimated range.
|
| This doesn't take away from your larger point, which stands
| regardless of whether ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a
| million died.
|
| [1] I think I'll remove those two references from the
| article, the revision is currently https://en.wikipedia.org/w
| /index.php?title=Great_Wall_of_Chi...
| csomar wrote:
| A wall is a really different thing. I guess China (at that
| time) did the math that the wall construction was going to
| cost a million life; but a wall was going to save them all
| from the enemy. So it made sense and actually saved lives.
| retrac wrote:
| In reality, when the enemy finally did cross the wall
| (multiple times), they just killed the elites, moved into
| their palaces, and then took over the ever-so-burdensome
| task of administering the canals... and collecting the
| taxes.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _they just killed the elites, moved into their palaces,
| and then took over the ever-so-burdensome task of
| administering the canals... and collecting the taxes._
|
| Locals didn't see it as merely "replacing some elite with
| another" any more than the Nazi Germany winning the war
| and establishing someone as the "President of the US"
| would be seen as that.
|
| Sure, in the end life goes on, but there are many aspects
| that change, and domestic versus invading elites are
| seldom the same...
|
| That's if we exclude the mass slaughters at the time, or
| the treatment of local ethnicities as second class
| citizens...
| jonny_eh wrote:
| More: http://blog.tutorming.com/expats/was-the-great-
| wall-china-ef...
| ardit33 wrote:
| you also fail to mention that the mongols did mass
| slaughtering of the entire population of cities that
| resisted. It was genocide at mass, even children and
| women were not spared.
|
| Also, their raids will conflict massive damage to local
| populations (pillaging, plundering and rape).
|
| So, yeah..... you make it like it was some kind of
| 'chivalrous' game between nobles/elites, while it was not
| at all.
| retrac wrote:
| Nothing that didn't happen during Chinese civil wars. My
| intended point was quite the opposite. The nobles were
| playing a game, a brutal one -- and the peasants were the
| pawns.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The Great Wall wasn't some monument to a vain ruler. It was
| part of the war effort against invading Mongolians.
|
| People die fighting wars.
| eplanit wrote:
| I think society has come full circle. You've just named 3 new
| genres of future reality TV shows.
| echan00 wrote:
| I love the history. But sometimes it really feels like that's
| what Italy is all about: let's spend money on the past for more
| tourist money.
| bamboleo wrote:
| Wait till you hear about Egypt.
|
| Prices in Italy are balanced and not even that bad. The ticket
| to the colosseum is 16EUR and includes the entire park nearby.
| 16EUR for the main attraction in one of the most visited
| countries in the world is pretty reasonable.
| npsomaratna wrote:
| I can remember visiting Egypt (many years ago) and being
| frustrated about how expensive the fees were for foreign
| tourists. Being from a third world country, and not having
| much personal wealth at that time, I was forced to skip the
| Tutankhamun exhibit in the Cairo museum--something that I
| regret even today.
|
| Note: I was in Cairo as part of an official delegation (i.e.,
| my country paid for my travel, and the sponsor organization
| in Egypt paid for my bed + board). At that time, I couldn't
| have afforded either.
| npsomaratna wrote:
| Addendum: unfortunately, this is something that my country,
| Sri Lanka, does as well. One price for locals, and another
| price for tourists. The latter is typically 10x as much as
| the local price, but does not confer much (if any at all)
| additional privileges or facilities.
|
| Indonesia has a similar policy--higher prices for foreign
| tourists--but when I visited Borobudur and Prambanan I was
| pleasantly surprised to see that the higher price I paid
| did buy me extra amenities: a separate entrance point and
| some refreshments. Sure, the Indonesians came out better
| from that deal, but at least I didn't feel ripped off.
| bamboleo wrote:
| You got my point exactly, this is why I mentioned the
| colosseum entrance ticket.
|
| The few friends who could afford an AirAsia ticket were
| annoyed by the high entrance fee that many South East Asian
| attractions charge to foreigners, regardless of whether
| you're from Vietnam or Iceland.
|
| When the price difference is preposterous I skip the
| attraction altogether as a matter of principle. The
| Yogyakarta attractions you mentioned are the perfect
| example with the 25 USD entrance fee for Prambanan vs 5 USD
| for locals.
| thih9 wrote:
| > Wait till you hear about Egypt.
|
| What about Egypt? Could you elaborate?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Have you been to italy?
|
| Because even though tourism is important, I never had this
| impression.
| mynegation wrote:
| I love technology. But sometimes it really feels like that's
| what Google is all about: let's spend money on search for more
| advertisers' money.
|
| Obviously it works for Italy and huge number of people so why
| not?
| thefz wrote:
| Italy instead should promote even more of its cultural heritage
| like France does, as an example, and not less. It is really the
| most valued richness of our country. Investing in valorising
| the past does not mean crystallizing on it, it means learning
| from its lessons.
| cambalache wrote:
| Are they pre-selling tickets for the first show?
| irrational wrote:
| Will they be giving out free bread to attendees at Colosseum
| shows?
| StavrosK wrote:
| No, just circus tickets.
| jxramos wrote:
| > that both celebrated and embodied the grandeur of Rome.
|
| So what exactly put an end to these inhumane shows? Did the arena
| become destroyed in a fire or was sacked and plundered, or did
| the populace lose its taste for gore and grow a conscience or
| something in that direction? Or was it that these shows went on
| for the full life of the Roman Empire and yet no following
| generation and municipality picked it up again and or didn't know
| how to operate the thing when the empire fell.
| rendall wrote:
| Christianity, essentially
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > St. Ignatius, the first Christian who died in the
| Colosseum, chose to die for his religion in front of tens of
| thousands of people rather than escape persecution or die in
| a less public place. About 3000 Christian martyrs in all died
| in the Colosseum.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| per Wikipedia: Honorius issued a decree during his reign,
| prohibiting men from wearing trousers in Rome. The last known
| gladiatoral games took place during the reign of Honorius,
| who banned the practice in 399 and again in 404, reportedly
| due to the martyrdom of a Christian monk named Telemachus
| while he was protesting a gladiator fight.
|
| (Which was pretty much at the end of the Roman Empire and the
| city was sacked a few years later.)
| hertzrat wrote:
| Why would they ban trousers?
| rsynnott wrote:
| In the scheme of things that late Roman emperors did,
| banning trousers seems very normal.
|
| More seriously, possibly early culture wars, trousers
| being an un-Roman, foreign innovation.
| retrac wrote:
| Trousers had long been culturally associated with the
| Germanic and Celtic peoples. It's cold in Switzerland.
| The traditional Roman elites saw it as an unwelcome
| barbarism. When tensions got high with the threat of a
| Germanic invasion of Rome itself, you get the usual
| identity signalling required publicly. That's just my
| interpretation, though.
| ArikBe wrote:
| From https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/trousers-
| pants-roman-h...
|
| Like with GPS and the internet, innovations from the
| military sector slowly spread to civil society. By 397,
| trousers, in all their odiousness, were becoming so
| common that brother-emperors Honorius and Arcadius (of
| the Western and Eastern empires, respectively) issued an
| official trouser ban. The ban is cited in a code named
| for their father, Theodosianus, which read: "Within the
| venerable City no person should be allowed to appropriate
| to himself the use of boots or trousers. But if any man
| should attempt to contravene this sanction, We command
| that in accordance with the sentence of the Illustrious
| Prefect, the offender shall be stripped of all his
| resources and delivered into perpetual exile."
|
| "What the ban basically does is that it bans civilians
| from wearing a military outfit in the capital," says Elm,
| "so one could see it as an indirect way to make it easy
| to distinguish civilians from military men at a time
| where tension was high." Four years prior, Emperor Valens
| had been killed in battle within Roman borders, and a
| third of the army had been wiped out. So banning trousers
| could have been a way to make sure that the capital was
| easier to police, and that fighters were kept out.
|
| The ban could also be read as the desperate attempt of
| late-period emperors to cling to a sense of Roman
| identity at a time where the empire had become a melting
| pot of traditions, after hundreds of years of expansion
| and cultural appropriation. Long hair and flashy jewels
| soon joined boots and pants as forbidden fashion.
|
| "Barbarian influence on fashion was something that
| emperors wanted to control, but then their own
| bodyguards, which presumably they trusted, were
| barbarians," says Elm. "So rather than anti-barbarian,
| they were mostly anti-barbarian-identity." Restoring
| concepts such as "purity" and "identity" is not uncommon
| in fading empires--authoritarian ways to make rulers feel
| in control at home in the face of external weakness.
| lou1306 wrote:
| > "So rather than anti-barbarian, they were mostly anti-
| barbarian-identity."
|
| Indeed. The Roman empire was not really "anti-barbarian"
| (except in its final throes): the Roman Emperorl
| considered himself to be the ruler of the whole world and
| all people in it, so the "us vs them" mentality was
| weaker than we may think. For instance, whenever Rome
| conquered some province, it usually granted citizenship
| to the local ruling class, so as to foster assimilation.
| Also, for a really long time barbarians were accepted at
| the "frontier" (limes) and sent to provinces that needed
| manpower, or to the army (which allowed them to become
| citizens, once discharged). Things only started to get
| out of hand after the battle of Adrianopolis (378), when
| the limes became unguarded and basically all Goths,
| displaced by the Huns, swarmed across the empire.
| bboreham wrote:
| There was no "following municipality" for about 1000 years. Not
| one rich enough to fund that size of show.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Practically speaking, after the deposition of the last
| Western Emperor, Italy was still nominally part of the
| Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine
| Empire did actually reconquer most of Italy from the
| Ostrogoths, but they didn't hold onto it for long, and much
| was reconquered by the Lombards, except for the Exarchate of
| Ravenna.
|
| The collapse of Byzantine rule in Italy led the pope to ask
| the Carolingians for protection from the Lombards, and the
| pope got control of (most of) the ex-Exarchate of Ravenna in
| return, renamed the Papal States. The Republic of Venice
| gained independence from the Byzantine Empire at roughly the
| same time, and grew into one of the most dominant powers of
| the Middle Ages, eventually managing to conquer the Byzantine
| Empire in the Fourth Crusade. Other parts of Northern Italy
| also developed large, powerful merchant republic city-states
| throughout the Middle Ages: Amalfi, Genoa, Pisa, Ancona,
| Gaeta, Ragusa (although that was actually on what is now
| Croatian coastline).
|
| I will point out that, throughout the Middle Ages, the
| largest, richest, and most powerful cities in Western Europe
| would have been these Italian city-states. They absolutely
| would have been able to fund that size of show--after all,
| these are the cities that patronized the arts and eventually
| the Italian Renaissance.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, the Eastern empire (where the capital was moved to) did
| well for those other 1000 years.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| With the fall of the western empire, Rome's population
| collapsed from over a million to only tens of thousands. It
| wouldn't cross 100,000 again until the 18th century. It just
| didn't have the wealth or population necessary to hold such
| shows.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| I can't imagine what it would be like living in a city that
| was once so large and then so sparsely populated. Like a
| medieval apocalypse. Was the remaining population densely
| located in few spots amongst ruins?
| iguy wrote:
| Mostly outside the ruins. IIRC the main churches were built
| around the edge (because the center was full) in late Roman
| times, and these locations became the new centers in
| medieval times.
| ricw wrote:
| It is also one of the main reasons so many buildings,
| both ruined and standing, still are around and
| accessible. Had the population not collapsed, they
| probably would have been built over or repurposed over
| the years. This way, they just remained fallow until
| Italy was conceived again in the 1800s as a nation (from
| its individual king and dukedoms) and Rome was chosen as
| its capitol.
| frostburg wrote:
| The visible damage to the structure is mostly due to the
| building materials having been reused in other structures in
| the following centuries.
| [deleted]
| retrac wrote:
| In the received history, Emperor Honorius banned them in 399
| AD. Rome would be sacked by barbarians a decade later and never
| recovered.
|
| Some games would continue after that into the 5th century,
| anyway. Still, it was on the way out before the Empire fell in
| the West. The origins of gladiatorial combat are disputed, but
| it's tied to the military and religious rites of the Roman
| people specifically, and long predated the imperial era. It
| probably ties back into the human sacrifice themes common to
| the Indo-European religions. It was a practice alien to most of
| the peoples in the empire, and was used as a means of asserting
| imperial authority.
|
| In the 3rd/4th century, we have the empire under strain
| economically which gives real-world pressure to curtail the
| games. Demographics are shifting and there are a lot of
| culturally non-Roman citizens in the empire, including
| emperors. At the same time, Christianity was on the rise. It
| erased the ancient religious justifications, and created new
| religious objections. Once Christianity becomes cemented as the
| state religion it was pretty much done -- Christian martyrs
| being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum was an old meme even
| then.
| MereInterest wrote:
| What does "received history" mean in this context? A quick
| google search found use of the phrase when discussing
| history, but I didn't find any definitions.
| [deleted]
| PoachedSausage wrote:
| Another way of saying received wisdom:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
| coldtea wrote:
| Depending on context, it's used to mean either
|
| (a) "history as generally accepted" (positively) or
|
| (b) "history as generally accepted" (but negatively, when
| implying that the generally accepted version doesn't tell
| the real story).
| [deleted]
| greatpatton wrote:
| It is also funny to note that many other roman arena and theater
| are still used today for shows. From concert to bull fighting.
| bamboleo wrote:
| One must note * across Europe. No bullfighting in Italy.
| greatpatton wrote:
| And in Switzerland this is Swiss Cow fighting (combat de
| Reines)
| wdb wrote:
| Note that's two cows fighting one other
| hertzrat wrote:
| I didn't realize that bull fighting happened in Italy, I
| thought it was an unfortunate Spanish thing
| lou1306 wrote:
| Tauromachy (bullfighting) is a very ancient ritual: the
| spanish one is just one of its most recent formalisation.
| _Venationes_ (hunting games) were common practice in Rome.
| The picture of gladiators fighting lions in the Colosseum is
| iconic, but bulls were also used.
| orange_tee wrote:
| I think he means Roman era amphitheatres in Spain.
| baron816 wrote:
| > "The arena will be used for high culture, meaning concerts or
| theater," Russo adds, "but no gladiator shows."
|
| That's a shame. Simulated gladiator shows would be a HUGE draw.
|
| Right now, the Colosseum isn't much to look at, just a bunch of
| rubble. But imagine if they had actors recreate some of the
| battles they had there. Maybe throw in some holographic lions.
| Every young boy around the world would be demanding to visit
| Rome.
|
| I would argue the recreated Globe Theater in London is a better
| tourist attraction than the Colosseum, on account of it being a
| more immersive experience.
| saberdancer wrote:
| I have to ask what is impressive to you if you call Colosseum
| "just a bunch of rubble".
| ThalesX wrote:
| I was recently thinking about this as they built a state of
| the art office building nearby.
|
| It has around 15 floors, looks amazing, it appears well built
| based on what I could tell.
|
| It's going to house hundreds if not thousands of humans, will
| be perfectly equipped to handle climatization, waste
| disposal, cleanliness. This is an amazing feat, and one that
| I personally did not really give proper thought.
|
| Basically what I'm arguing is that any modern office building
| is so much more impressive than the colliseum was, maybe even
| at inception. More specifically, to answer your question
| directed at OP, I'm hard pressed not to find anything modern
| that's less impressive than the Colosseum.
|
| I'm interested in what you find so special about the bunch of
| rubble that warrants lack of intervention?
|
| Edit: really I had no idea this would bring me to negative
| points. Would love someone explaining what I'm missing in
| these downvotes.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Let's see if that "modern office" builidng is still
| recognizable as a building in 5000 years
| ThalesX wrote:
| If that is our definition for a building being
| impressive, sure, modern office buildings will not hold
| the test of time without maintainance as well as the
| Colosseum...
| sfblah wrote:
| Isn't at least part of that because an amphitheater, by
| the nature of its shape, is more likely to survive for
| millenia than an enclosed, rectangular office building?
| gpderetta wrote:
| Stone will last much more than concrete and steel.
| bonzini wrote:
| Reinforced concrete isn't really meant to last.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| True. On the other hand, Roman concrete is pretty damn
| amazing stuff.
| chadash wrote:
| _> really I had no idea this would bring me to negative
| points. Would love someone explaining what I'm missing in
| these downvotes._
|
| I downvoted you and I'll give some insight as to why.
|
| - _" I'm hard pressed not to find anything modern that's
| less impressive than the Colosseum"_. Yeah, if we judge the
| colosseum by today's standards, it's not impressive. What's
| impressive is that it is 2000 years old.
|
| - _" I'm interested in what you find so special about the
| bunch of rubble that warrants lack of intervention?"_ It
| isn't a pile of rubble. It's a full standing building in
| reasonable shape. There are plenty of piles of rubble that
| are 2000 years old and they simply don't get much
| attention, because they are piles of rubble.
|
| - When you go to the colosseum, you get a sense of what
| life was like 2000 years ago in one of the greatest empires
| the world has ever known, and the one upon which Western
| Civilization is built. The historical value is probably
| more remarkable than the technical achievement.
|
| - There are very few structures of this scale that are this
| old and in reasonable shape.
|
| - I've been to the colosseum and it isn't even my favorite
| ancient building in Rome. That honor goes to the Pantheon,
| which I think is a far more impressive technical
| achievement. I've also been to Petra, the Pyramids, Hagia
| Sophia and the temples at Luxor and I personally like all
| of those better. But that doesn't make the colosseum bad or
| meaningless.
|
| - The 15 floor office building in your neighborhood is
| unlikely to last 2000 years without much maintenance. It is
| certainly not a huge achievement _for it 's day_. It
| probably has little cultural value compared to other
| buildings in your city.
| arcticfox wrote:
| Regarding your edit, since the rule is to assume good faith
| on HN, I'll try my best:
|
| - the Colosseum is a remarkable building for its time, only
| a handful of large buildings of that age are still standing
|
| - even by modern standards, the remaining architecture is
| striking IMO
|
| - objectively, 7 million people per year visit the
| Colosseum, making it one of the most popular sites in the
| world. So even if _you_ don 't think it's special on at
| least some metrics, you're wrong by definition.
| wdb wrote:
| Personally, I prefer the older buildings as most new
| buildings at least here in London are soulless and bluntly
| said ugly. Disrupts the skyline
| Fargren wrote:
| Not the OP. I found the Palatino ruins to be extremely
| impressive, and the Colosseum to be a "just a bunch of
| rubble". It's just not a good looking building, and the areas
| that are open don't let you see anything that I found
| particularly interesting. It's big, and well built, and it's
| interesting how similar it is to a modern day stadium. But
| it's just a stadium. Vising the Forum and the temples on the
| other hand has fascinating, and made think about how life in
| antiquity would have been.
| ThalesX wrote:
| I feel the same way, the most fun experience at the
| Colosseum was enjoying a glass of wine and a sandwich in a
| park nearby.
|
| Rome on the other hand is an amazing city, one of the top
| in the world if not a bit crowded.
| koolba wrote:
| > That's a shame. Simulated gladiator shows would be a HUGE
| draw.
|
| And real ones would be a HUGER draw!
|
| I bet UFC would pay them top dollar to rent it out for a night.
| lou1306 wrote:
| On a similar note, during the 1960 Olympics in Rome,
| wrestling competitions were held at Massentium's Basilica
| [1]. If Rome ever gets to host another edition of the Olympic
| Games, the Colosseum would make for an incredible setting.
|
| [1] https://www.rerumromanarum.com/2016/08/olimpiadi-di-
| roma-196... (in Italian, but it has pictures)
| rantwasp wrote:
| oh wow. really?
|
| as someone who has actually visited the Colosseum I can tell
| you that it's so much more than a "bunch of rubble".
| ThalesX wrote:
| I feel like people have been missing your idea due to the
| 'rubble' statement, which for some reason everyone is taking
| literally.
|
| I agree with you. I happen to live in a country with castles
| here and there, and I would love for a more interactive
| experience when I go there.
|
| Also, having visited Rome and the Colloseum multiple times, I'm
| always more impressed at other buildings or some hidden corner
| than by this particular attraction.
|
| The Colloseum, reworked in its original spirit and form, used
| as an entertainment arena, would be heaps more entertaining
| than it is now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-03 23:00 UTC)