'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 disposition was in truth limited in the era of the papistic prints. Ethics, animal rights and punishment had not been developed strongly fair to middling to make assertive judgements rough the games that provided so much sport for the bloodthirsty society. I deal that the Roman games were brutal and degrading, provided the communities at the time original them as amusement, encouraging solidarity amongst the masses. in advance the Colosseum was built the games took part in arenas surrounded by slapdash banks or by spectators sit down on woody piers enveloping the performance area, so it is obvious they were happening all over a number of centuries. One aspect of the Roman games was the entering 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, umpteen of the ani mals died in transportation or whilst they were being held in anticipation. Apuleius (born c. one hundred twenty-five 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 gage to almost nothing. Life, be it adult male or animal, is therefore lessen to a worthless state. Perhaps, even the Roman citizens thought that this was deplorable as Cicero said in his Letters to his Friends (Unit 5, Resource Book, p. 97) that the treatment of the herd of elephants brought pity from the crowd. The spectators reactions were a feeling that this animal had something in common with the human 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, instal it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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