'The Roman games were cruel and degrading and cannot be justified.' How far do you agree with this opinion?

There is no doubt that heathenish and social understanding was in truth limited in the era of the roman prints. Ethics, living creature rights and punishment had not been veritable strongly enough to take on assertive judgements rough the games that provided so much entertainment for the bloody-minded society. I deal that the papistical games were brutal and degrading, but the communities at the time original them as amusement, encouraging solidarity amongst the masses. Before the Colosseum was reinforced the games took part in heavenss contact by muddy banks or by spectators sit drop on wooden piers envelop the performance area, so it is unmistakable they were happening over a number of centuries. One aspect of the roman games was the introduction of animals into the arena. In site to do this the animals had to be captured on hunts, often using nets with which to lying in wait them and beaters with torches to literally beat them into their cages. But the situation is, many of the animals died in exile or whilst they were being held in anticipation. Apuleius (born c. 125 CE) voiced this in The robbers tale (unit 5, vision stockpile 1, p 95), as the bears were attacked by a sudden epidemic and their numbers skip back to almost nothing. Life, be it human or animal, is then decreased to a vile state.

Perhaps, even the Roman citizens eyeshot that this was cruel as Cicero express in his Letters to his Friends (Unit 5, Resource Book, p. 97) that the handling of the herd of elephants brought pity from the crowd. The spectators reactions were a trace that this animal had something in vulgar with the human race. When we couple the aggregate of animals that have been killed whilst in the arena with those who died it amounts to a massive number... If you fatality to get a secure essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper