VIOLENCE IN GAMES - CALIGULA DEATH MACHINE (37 - 41AD)

      Whilst researching how Vikings used violence in games (next post), I was told by a tutor about the 70's period film Caligula, a film that covered the famously unhinged Roman Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (known as Gaius), ruler from 37AD to 41AD. He'd created a Death Machine, especially designed to decapitate neck deep buried prisoners that he wanted dead. Back in that century execution was nothing unusual, but I've never seen anything even close to this scale before. It's frightening! As a further interesting note, this was used for entertainment, both for the unhinged Gaius and an upper class audience. Just look at the video and you'll know what I'm talking about.

    If you look at the deleted scene (which says something important in itself about how culture perceives violence as entertainment) from Caligula that shows this Death Machine in motion, there isn't much difference from violence in games nowadays - just it's medium. There are enemies (Prisoners), a means to cause violence (Death Machine), and players entertained by the results (Gaius and audience). Incredibly interesting when the topic is concerned!

I watched the video below and to be honest, it actually scared me. That wall is seriously intimidating!

       

     Obviously, Gaius had psychopathic tendencies (I read somewhere he was cannibalistic), and was the founder of this 'game' of execution, so this Death Machine is the anomaly of the research I've done so far (and probably until the end). However, it still says a lot about how violence was treated back in them days, as this event was still entirely entertainment.

     It's weird to think that back then, the officials and the upper class treated violence as an entertaining sport, but now, the upper class criticize it and it's supposed negative influence on society. Is this a sign that cultural morals have overpowered a possible primal instinct? Is it cultural evolution? I'll have to look at the psychological side of violence in an future post.

    It's quiet interesting to see how violence was a common and larger part of society than it's frowned upon image nowadays. A pattern I am seeing, considering the year jump from the last post, is how violence in 'games' was used as a method of not only entertainment, but as a means to resolve conflict. Back then, violence was literal as both a solution and as a source of entertainment, now, violence is literal in digital form as a source of entertainment. The only explanation I can see as of yet, is that culture is primary influencer in this difference. 

    The questionable difference between how violence was once perceived and how we perceive violence now, can only be answered by analysing the stark contrast the two cultures - again, a future post.

    So far, the two posts I have written recording past accounts of violence in games, is leading to two incredibly indicative topics - psychology and culture. Maybe these two topics can prove the passive focus of the timeline  Are these two directly to blame for how why violence is games and how violence is in games?

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIKINGS: TUG OF WAR (SKIN PULLING) 1000AD

VIOLENCE IN GAMES: MASOAMERICAN BALL GAME (1500BC)

      Going as far back in history as I possibly can at this point (I'll most likely find earlier recordings), I have come across the insane sport named the Masoamaerican Ball Game - a central / south american ball game. It's actual goals and rules arent that bizzare when looked at as a closed system (in fact, theyre quiet similiar to ball games of today), but when looked at as a cultural system, the cultural importance and abnormalities reveal themself.

MASOAMERICAN BALL GAME - 1500BC
In-Game Illustration

     Yes, the game has teams, yes the game has a ball and yes, the game has goals, but what's important is its tendancy to become violent, as the Masoamerican Ball Game often served to faciltate cultural conflicts in the dawn of war (isolated or expansive).

    What I find interesting about this is it is clearly a 'game' in th eliteral sense at its core, but it serves to resolve conflict, rather than to purely entertain. It's cultural importance cannot be understated - it's a reflection of the values (honour, culture) of the civalisation's time. The striking detail I learnt, is that in some cases, sacrifices were made to gods before game - mental!

    It's crazy that the act of violence to win a 'game' determines which side is superior, both in-game and in cultural hierachy. But to be honest, it's not too disaimlar to modern games when you consider players use violence to succeed in a modern game to earn rewards, progress and feel strong adn 'awesome' (Gun Fire, Sword Fights etc). Violence in ancient games (blood sports) seems to highlight culture on some level and real life conflict while modern games use violence as entertainment and a means to feel 'cool'.

    Maybe this is a pattern I shall see in future reseach - the clear contrast between the and and now. Does  violence in games directly reflect culture and ideologies? Has its use and meaning changed? I'll find out as  trod down the timline until the present day.

For future reference, here is a quick over of this common game that has violent tendacies prompted through conflict.

The specifics of the ominously-titled “Mesoamerican Ballgame” aren’t well-known, and frankly, don’t matter that much. Two Central or South American teams would try to keep a ball in play in a long alley flanked by walls. Later, hoops would be added to the walls to serve as goals. The ball was moved with the Mayan players’ hips, but later their forearms or feet.

The game often served to resolve disputes in lieu of war, so the matches were taken VERY seriously. So seriously, in fact, that human sacrifices were made to the gods before games.

REFERENCE LINK

NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIKINGS: TUG OF WAR (SKIN PULLING) 1000AD