The Romans are often portrayed as a civilization given over to debauchery and decadence, a once-great empire gorging itself on food, alcohol, and sex while watching people fight to the death in the gladiator arena. In fact, Roman society was based on a strict rule of law, which, although not democratic, took account of the rights of ordinary Roman citizens.
.jpg)
Citizens were expected to live their lives according to a moral code, mos maiorum, which set out the virtues expected of them—including integrity, frugality, sincerity, perseverance, and public service.[1]So who can we blame for this misconception? Kirk Douglas? Hollywood just loves a man in a toga, and historical accuracy is optional, right? Here are ten things you thought you knew about the Romans that are just plain wrong.
They Didn't Build Vomitoriums So They Could Eat A Lot
According to popular myth, vomitoriums were purpose-built rooms added to the side of feasting halls where guests could go to vomit when their stomachs became too full, thus making some room and enabling them to return to the table and carry on eating, which, when you think about it, it ludicrous.
Who would want a special room for throwing up? The Romans did have vomitoriums. Lots of them.[2] And they were often attached to the side of feasting halls. So what were they? They are anterooms, a room into which crowds leaving the main hall may “spew forth.” In other words, vomitoriums were lobbies, exits, and passageways.
The Colosseum in Rome had 80 vomitoria. That should have been a clue. For future reference, just because a word in one language sounds a little bit like another word in a different language, we should not jump to conclusions. And although the Romans certainly did have elaborate banquets, there is no evidence that they habitually made themselves sick during them. And if they did, they probably used the bathroom.
Thumbs Up/Down Was Not A Thing
There is a widely held belief that when gladiators fought in the arena, the emperor, or sometimes the crowd, would decide the fate of the defeated man. Thumbs up, he lives. Thumbs down, he dies. Who is responsible for this misconception? Kirk Douglas? Or was it Joaquin Phoenix in that other film about a gladiator?
In Rome, the thumbs down meant “swords down,” or “stop fighting,” which meant that the losing gladiator would live to fight another day. In fact, fighting to death rarely occurred. The gladiators were highly skilled and had undergone intensive training. Killing them regularly would have meant that a lot of time and money had been wasted. Most commonly, the gladiator fight was one of endurance. Wielding those swords is tiring, after all.
As long as one gladiator was the clear victor, either because the other was wounded or exhausted, the fight was decided. Very occasionally, sponsors would pay extra for a death match and would have to pay compensation to the trainer on the losing side for lost income. Despite the obvious risks, gladiators were celebrities. Slaves could win their freedom, and those who made it to the end of their career in one piece could earn a good living as a trainer.
In 2007, archaeologists found the remains of a gladiator graveyard. Some skeletons showed wounds that had healed, showing that they had been treated afterwards, though others suffered lethal blows from swords and tridents. Those skeletons with hammer blows to the head are thought not to have received their injuries in the ring but to have been badly wounded and thus put out of their misery later.[3]