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

There is no doubt that cultural and social reasonableness was in truth limited in the era of the roman letters prints. Ethics, animal rights and punishment had not been developed strongly decent to make assertive judgements rough the games that provided so much recreation for the bloodthirsty society. I deal that the Roman games were brutal and degrading, scarcely the communities at the time original them as amusement, encouraging solidarity amongst the masses. to begin with the Colosseum was built the games took part in arenas surrounded by swampy banks or by spectators sit down on woody piers enveloping the performance area, so it is obvious they were happening oer a number of centuries. One aspect of the Roman games was the penetration of animals into the arena. In target to do this the animals had to be captured on hunts, oft using nets with which to trap them and beaters with torches to literally beat them into their cages. But the fact is, galore(postnomina l) of the animals died in transportation or whilst they were being held in anticipation. Apuleius (born c. cxxv CE) voiced this in The robbers tale (unit 5, Resource reserve 1, p 95), as the bears were attacked by a sudden epidemic and their numbers cut tolerate to almost nothing. Life, be it tender or animal, is therefore fall to a worthless state.

Perhaps, even the Roman citizens thought that this was bestial as Cicero said in his Letters to his Friends (Unit 5, Resource Book, p. 97) that the intervention of the herd of elephants brought pity from the crowd. The spectators reactions were a feeling that thi s animal had something in common with the hu! man race. When we couple the amount of animals that have been killed whilst in the arena with those who died it amounts to a massive number... If you want to get a full essay, stray it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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