Keeping in mind then that to every rule there are exceptions we can begin to try and understand something of the main stocks for the gladiator schools. In a society built as heavily upon slavery as Rome was it is no surprise to find that a good number of gladiators where slaves of one for or another, it is with these that we will start.

Social Status

By definition a gladiator would have received a slightly lower status than a normal slave they would have been known as infamis which left them with almost no rights and certainly not any we would recognise today. The phrase that forms our right hand banner on the web site 'uri, uinciri, uerberari, ferroque necarii' is believed to have been recited by people joining a ludus gladiatoria. The statement means that they would agree to be 'burnt with fire, shackled with chains, whipped with rods and killed with steel'. It is doubtful though that all people who ended up in a gladiatorial school would have said this oath, prisoners of war and criminals condemned the death in the arena are unlikely to have said it as their status is such within Roman society that these words would have been a forgone conclusion.

Slaves could be bought by lanistae specifically for gladiatorial instruction and combat. The slave markets of the Imperial Age were filled with peoples from foreign lands which Rome had invaded and subdued. At the time of the invasion of Gaul satires have been found commenting upon the shortness of the Roman soldiers when compared to the native Celts, it would have ben good money for a lanista if he could claim to have some of the more 'exotic' peoples of the subjugated world within his troupe. Failing this a good deal of gladiators, foreign to Rome or not, would have been drawn from the slave markets.

Prisoners of war would have been made to fight within the arenas as gladiators. The earliest gladiators where often named after a people that Rome had fought in some way, for example the Samnites and the Thracians saw stereotypes of themselves within the walls fighting. There is evidence that POWs would often deliberately not fight as their racial equivalent within the arena. As the games matured many of the country definitions of the gladiators where dropped for more correct terms for example the Samnite became the Murmillo and Secutor. This being said though some popular forms of fighter kept their roots such as the Thracian. There does not seem to be any pattern as to which gladiator type dropped their roots in favour of a more 'politically correct' name just that some did and some did not. At the height of the Imperial Expansions many gladiators where drawn from the almost unlimited supply of POWs available to Rome, the Jewish Zealots particularly seemed to have fared worse of all with almost all that where captured and escaped immediate death being sent to the arena.

Volunteers?

There is a good amount of evidence to support the idea that many volunteered for the arena, reasons behind this are many and varied. Firstly mortality within the large cities (and most of the Empire) was very high. Most of the male lower classes could expect to be dead by the time they were only 30. Today in the first world most people are given the chance to 'grow into death'. The situation for a Roman citizen living within the cramped conditions of the capitol or in the potentially war torn borders of Rome was very different, at 20 most men could look forward to another ten or 15 years until he died, facing death with dignity was something it is believed the ancient Romans all wanted to do. The arena gave them this opportunity among other things, to face a man in single armed combat was to face death itself and then either emerge victorious or die a hero with dignity. While this is true the arena was not filled with men with a death wish but a good number of volunteers would have come from this stock.

Another form of volunteer would have come for the money. A successful fighter might well emerge with a few months or occasionally a few years salary, when compared with a legionary, for just a single fight. A story of the 1st Century AD tells how two brothers after having lost their money in the city win 10,000 sestersi in a prize fight against a gladiator in a port market, when we consider the average age of a legionnaire at this time was 250-500 sestersi we can see that good money was to be made in the arena. Occasionally rich editores would be known to be very generous to victorious gladiators and supplement any prize money with precious stones and even retail estate. Although the risks where high a successful gladiator might be able to only volunteer for four to five years and then buy hid freedom and still have enough money to live on for the rest of his life. When compared to the option of poverty and early death the arena may not have seemed such a bad option.

Another fringe benefit of being a gladiator would have been the three square meal a day diet and good medical care that was often offered. A lanista would have made little or no money from undernourished, medically unfit gladiators. Current evidence seems to show that although a gladiators life could be and often was brutal at the hands of his masters it was also one in which a professional gladiator could be well looked after, evidence and common sense seems to suggest that the better at fighting you were the better you would have been looked after.

Conclusion.

It is difficult for us to truly understand why people would volunteer for the, more often that not, fatal lifestyle of a gladiator, indeed we must remember that for many ad ludum was not a choice but a death sentence. Virtually everyone reading this document would not be able to explain what it is like to own a slave or to be one, yet in Rome high unemployment was partly caused by the huge slave population. Gladiators lead harsh lives, yet to some a harsh, but brief, time in the 'celebrity limelight' was worth the risk and the fringe benefits could have be very tempting for most young, fit men of the time that might be considering the other alternatives.