Books What would a Roman perspective on the Hunger Games be?

[Lord Sovereign]

I myself believe that whilst the Romans were a brutal people (they had to be, as they hailed from a brutal time), a crowd at the Colosseum simply wouldn't enjoy Panem's Hunger Games. As far as blood sports go, it is rather unimaginative. Yes there's some interesting traps but at the end of the day you are mostly (aside from the careers) throwing barely trained kids at each other in a massive arena where they can avoid each other for days. There aren't any unique classes of fighter, Retiarii, Samnites or Secutores to play off against each other, and none of them are really known to the public (so you can't root for them in quite the same way). Gladiators were god damn superstars (which is something the books sort of got right, except Gladiators remained mega-stars in-between their many fights). I also severely doubt the Romans would be delighted, if they got a favourite fighter, that the poor saps aren't even allowed to raise their finger in "missio." People forget that Gladiators, exceedingly valuable assets to their schools with a lot of money spent on them, weren't usually killed. Put up a good fight, which you would as a trained professional, and the crowd will let you live if it comes to it.

The aforementioned poor saps are also mostly kids, aside from the Careers whom the Romans would have little trouble with stomaching (full blown adults who've trained most of their lives for this? Two thousand sestertii on Cato!). As far as I'm aware, there aren't really any records of children being thrown into the amphitheater (feel free to correct me). As a people who deemed the Carthaginians barbarians for supposed child sacrifice, I don't think a Roman audience would be overly enthused watching a ripped eighteen year old gut a pleading, barely trained, spotty twelve year old.

And the gutting of these twelve year olds goes on for days. Disregarding all the rest, I think a Roman audience would simply get bored and leave. Given that they are used to mock naval battles, things might be a bit underwhelming.

I bring this up because Suzanne Collins was clearly trying to emulate Ancient Rome (the bloody President is called "Coriolanus") but I'm not entirely sure if she understood the society that produced Gladiator games (the effete Capitol doesn't seem quite martial enough to be really into blood sports). However, that is merely my opinion. What is yours?

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think while Rome was an inspiration, it was hardly the only one, and think of the games as a contemporary version of the gladiator games is missing the mark, they're more in with something like Survivor or a similar reality TV show.

Which is probably how they get around the really boring bits as well, people probably aren't sitting there watching the games all day. They're watching a highlights reel of everything actually interesting that happened that day.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I think while Rome was an inspiration, it was hardly the only one, and think of the games as a contemporary version of the gladiator games is missing the mark, they're more in with something like Survivor or a similar reality TV show.

But it is a blood sport, one that at the very least takes some cue from Gladiator games. Very specific cultures end up producing those, and in this case the books try to use Rome as a base to build on for that. However, as you have noted, for all the Latin names, the Capitol isn't much like Rome at all.

 

[JagerIV]

Well, you have to also remember that the primary purpose of the hunger games is not to be a blood sport per say, but an annual ritualistic equivalent of a decimation, where the rebellious districts as penance for their rebellion send representatives to be executed in their stead, with the added insult to injury that the rebels have to kill their own ex comrades. And then the winner gets rewarded with, I believe larger food rations, to hopefully further undermine any sense of unity between the districts.

So, the more direct example in roman history would be the treatment of Vercingetorix, the Gaul who tried to stand against Rome and failed. His fate, according to the wiki:

"to save as many of his men as possible, he gave himself to the Romans. He was held prisoner for five years. In 46 BC, as part of Caesar's triumph, he was paraded through the streets of Rome and then executed by strangulation."

So, instead of imagining the children as gladiators, imagine them first as ritualistic human sacrifices for the districts collective sin of Rebellion. An annual reminder of the execution of the previous rebels with a new execution.

Now, obviously this is counter to the general Roman method which seemed to prefer to use maximum amounts of violence up front (Ceasars treatment of the Gauls was not nice) but then try to somewhat normalize relations, at least as I understand things.

The Capital's relationship with the districts may be a bit more Spartan to be honest, with the Spartans apparently using a continuous reign of terror to keep their slaves in line.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

(Ceasars treatment of the Gauls was not nice)

That's putting it mildly.



However, the thought of some chad Capitol general putting down the Districts in this manner sounds somewhat badass.

The Capital's relationship with the districts may be a bit more Spartan to be honest, with the Spartans apparently using a continuous reign of terror to keep their slaves in line.

A Helot comparison is actually quite apt for the Districts's plight. Although, as far as we know (given the puppy kicking evil of the effete Capitol), Peacekeepers don't sneak out of their barracks in the night to murder District 12 coal miners for the shits and giggles.

 

[BlackDragon98]

[REDACTED]