Is there any way during Victorian times, that the British Empire could've setup some sorta gladiatorial arena in say London, some other big British city or even a major city somewhere in the Empire. then pitted captured members of warrior tribes defeated by the redcoats (Zulus, Maoris, Aborigines etc), against each other ?
Victorian-era gladiatorial games
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Keenir
Banned
this would've been an extension of the (sometimes underground) pugalistic contests....heck, they had women fighters at times - always one-on-one, though.
it's at least halfway plausible...I'd be interested to see it. (not to fight in it, mind you)
Interesting, but I don't think in proper Victorian taste. The goal was to civilize the "savages" (their term, not mine); not butcher them. Nor would such bloodshed or violence be viewed as civil.
Wolfpaw
Banned
I suppose if Queen Victoria or Albert were to witness a fight between two "savages" (perhaps a Zulu warrior versus a Rajput?) and just find it a damned enjoyable spectacle, they could set a new style. For the aristocracy at first (private bouts in the garden or private amphitheaters) then maybe the general public (in Royal Albert Hall, say.)
It could speed up (or perhaps be the result of sped up) scientific racism.
It could speed up (or perhaps be the result of sped up) scientific racism.
Keenir
Banned
maybe not by the upper classes, but the lower classes wouldn't be shocked by it - it was right up their alley even in OTL.
It's just dystopian enough to intrigue me greatly. Like some extreme Dickensian degeneration of the upper classes into getting their entertainment by watching their inferiors murder each other for a pittance.
Sadly, Victorian morality would probably prevent the Late Roman practice of noble attendees openly masturbating at Colisseum Games from taking place.
Probably...
Darkies vs. Lions at 11!
Sadly, Victorian morality would probably prevent the Late Roman practice of noble attendees openly masturbating at Colisseum Games from taking place.
Probably...
Darkies vs. Lions at 11!
At first I thought 'how horrible!'.
Then I saw everyone talking how it was apparently plausible.
Then I thought, again, 'how horrible!'
Then I decided to give in and just see what you all come up with.
Then I saw everyone talking how it was apparently plausible.
Then I thought, again, 'how horrible!'
Then I decided to give in and just see what you all come up with.
Well, the Victorians DID stage dog fights, after all. I could them see getting into full-blown blood sports.
The bit about killing each other would be completely illegal and therefore probably not possible until after ten p.m. and only gemntlemen of good character admitted. I doubt many people would want to go see a fight guaranteed to end in death, anyway.
However, a lot of Victorians made good money putting natives on display, and these events frequently included both staged combat scenes and one-on-one demonstrations of fighting techniques. Death or injury was not part of the plan - importing savages cost money, and these impudent beggars expected to be *paid* as well - but it happened. I could easily see this becoming a more central part of such displays. Victorian law would not see a big problem in people running that risk voluntarily, and since the loss of fighters would be significantly less than in Roman-style munera, the business model could remain profitable.
I'd love to know where that particular bit of Roman lore originates...
However, a lot of Victorians made good money putting natives on display, and these events frequently included both staged combat scenes and one-on-one demonstrations of fighting techniques. Death or injury was not part of the plan - importing savages cost money, and these impudent beggars expected to be *paid* as well - but it happened. I could easily see this becoming a more central part of such displays. Victorian law would not see a big problem in people running that risk voluntarily, and since the loss of fighters would be significantly less than in Roman-style munera, the business model could remain profitable.
I'd love to know where that particular bit of Roman lore originates...
Am I wrong but wasn't the victorian era during the great awakening. If so I don't see how any blood sports would get along with an overarching religious movement which was trying to christianize the world. Who also held great sway in parliament. But then again you could pit a missionary against a Zulu tribesman and watch them battle to the death. Entertaining, but probally not plausable.
As far as I know, yes. Running great risks for pay was one thing, but setting things up deliberately so that someone got killed was against the law.
so, no fights to the death, but fights until one guy stays down/gives up, that could be done then?
How about a scenario where a noble staging such fights finds out 10 minutes before the this evenings entertainment that his prize Aboriginal has come down with something and is barely able to stand. To save the day (and the much needed income) he sends his giant of an Irish stablehand into the ring.
People are outraged at first.
A white man fighting a savage for sport?!?!
But hey, it's only an Irishman.
With events progressing from there, could we eventually come to a Victorian version of ultimate fighting with anyone, not just 'savages' being allowed to partake?
How about a scenario where a noble staging such fights finds out 10 minutes before the this evenings entertainment that his prize Aboriginal has come down with something and is barely able to stand. To save the day (and the much needed income) he sends his giant of an Irish stablehand into the ring.
People are outraged at first.
A white man fighting a savage for sport?!?!
But hey, it's only an Irishman.
With events progressing from there, could we eventually come to a Victorian version of ultimate fighting with anyone, not just 'savages' being allowed to partake?
I think it's quite unlikely you'sd see noblemen involved. It's the kind of thing that would appeal to the entertainment circuit - big tops, noisy, red-faced men and garish posters for sixpenny seats and the shilling balcony.
And if it ever takes off, you'd see crossovers in no time at all. Just wait until Shawn 'Mastiff' O'Toole gets into his cups and tells the world in general (and everyone in the pub) that he can take that black painted savage Kamematangi with one hand tied be'ind 'is bleedin' back!
Flocculencio
Donor
The Victorians actually tended to be quite sordid. The thing is that you could do whatever you wanted to so long as it wasn't openly done.
wasn't the victorian era the time when more and more noblemen started getting into financial trouble, being unable to maintain their huge homes and stables and gardens and conservatories
That's why I figured there'd be non too high up noblemen who'd try to generate some extra income by organising fights like this.
Maybe ditch their horses and convert the stables into living quarters for their exotic fighters.
Early on, I mean, later, when it becomes acceptable/commonplace we start seeing the stuff you describe.
Flocculencio
Donor
Socially this wasn't on, though. As a member of the Victorian upper classes, some things were just unacceptable. Basically almost anything to do with recieving money for services was unacceptable- to give an example, look at the difference between barristers and solicitors. Solicitors received fees from their clients and briefed barristers. Barristers technically did not receive fees from solicitors- the money they received was officially just a token gift and theoretically if a solicitor did not pay a barrister for his services the barrister wouldn't be able to seek action against him because, technically, the barrister was a gentleman, not actually working for money. What's the difference? A barrister's daughter could be presented at Court. A solicitor's couldn't. In the same way, no gentleman could stoop to actually openly organising sporting events for money and hope to retain any face.
A situation like you describe would be par for the course during the Regency but not during the Victorian era.