As much as I'd love to do this tour myself, I'd be quite willing to settle for a high resolution VR tour instead. Even better if it could be developed to have both an "on-rails" tour and a free-to-explore versions. (well, freeish, you have to limit where the data gathering camera goes when developing)
> It is not only the first time in 2,000 years that the area -- described as the "heart" of the building -- has been open; since the underground levels, or "hypogea," were where gladiators and animals waited before going into combat, this is the first time in the monument's history that the public has ever been allowed in.
> How many people died in the Colosseum? It is impossible to know with certainty, but it is believed that as many as 400,000, between gladiators, slaves, convicts, prisoners, and myriad other entertainers, perished in the Colosseum over the 350 or so years during which it was used for human bloodsports and spectacles.
it's a myth perpetrated by Hollywood movies that gladiators were slaves sent to die in the Colosseum, in reality they were trained athletes, much like football players in the US today
Of course 2,000 years ago society was very different, perhaps it was more violent, but Iraqi war killed at least 500,000 people in a few years.
More people died there over the next 15 centuries, when the Colosseum wasn't a battle arena anymore and the knowledge of what it was built for was lost, than during the Roman empires that used it also as a fighting pit.
All arenarii (those who appeared in the arena) were "infames by reputation", a form of social dishonour which excluded them from most of the advantages and rights of citizenship. Payment for such appearances compounded their infamia.[174] The legal and social status of even the most popular and wealthy auctorati was thus marginal at best. They could not vote, plead in court nor leave a will; and unless they were manumitted, their lives and property belonged to their masters.[175]
Very low social status, packed together with criminals... Not even close to American athletes who definitely have social status.
I think you're reading too much in what I've written
I've said "they were trained athletes" focusing on the trained athletes part, not on their status.
As I've said elsewhere they were mostly war prisoners forced into the fighting career. Of course war prisoners don't have the same rights of citizens.
But they were trained nonetheless, and could compete with modern american athletes in activities that require strength and resistance.
Also, we are discovering more and more evidence that are uncovering secrets or making us reconsider some.of the things we though we knew for certain about gladiators and ancient romans in general.
Coming straight from the Museum in Nîmes, France where there is an arena :
You could become a gladiator in one of several ways. Many
gladiators had been taken prisoner in one of the numerous wars
waged by the Romans. They gave the spectacles a multi-ethric
character. Others were ordinary slaves whose owner had sold
them to a gladiator manager. Some had been found guilty of a
serious crime. None of these people had any rights
Free men also became gladiators. These so-called auctorati
elected to become gladiators of their on free will. They signed
a contract relinquishing their civil rights for a given period. Mary
hoped it would make them rich or bring eternal fame and glory.
Among them were a number of high-placed officials, such as
senators. Emperor Commodus even liked to appear as a gladiator.
Gladiators lived in ludi, a cross between a training centre and
barracks. Each was trained to become a certain type of gladiator.
Life was tough. As a rule gladiators fought twice a year. Few
fought more than twenty battles in their career. Many didn't
survive beyond the age of thirty.
A gladiator was trained in the ludus by experienced former
gladiators. They trained both in the morning and in the afternoon
using heavy wooden weapons and a reed shield. Corporal
punishment was common practice. Research into the bones of
gladiator corpses reveals that they were fed a muscle-enhancing
diet consisting largely of barley and beans and rich in minerals.
>But they were trained nonetheless, and could compete with modern american athletes in activities that require strength and resistance.
Nutritional/sports science has come so far in the past few decades, check the world records of any sport to see the progress... There's absolutely no chance that a Roman age athlete could compete in speed or strength fields. Look at people like Hafthor Bjornsson, steroid fueled giants. These people could not exist in the Roman age
They might have said that they did such things, but i just dont believe the lion myth. Anyone who has been up close to a non-caged lion realizes the absurdity of the concept. Like all cats, lions are infintely more flexible than us.
There is no wrestling hold that would keep them from ripping a human attacker to shreds within seconds. You would have better luck wrestling jaws.
Even if you survived, those claws are not sterile. The inevitable infections would kill you.
It's about two steps away from telling people Atlas really carried the earth. The strongest man alive would be destroyed by a lion. 4 paws and a set of incredibly sharp teeth all perfectly capable of lacerating any of your INCREDIBLY ACCESSIBLE major arteries in your neck, wrists, upper arms etc...
And, far more often than not, lions have friends within earshot. Jaws at least hunted alone. Nobody has ever ene boasted about wrestling a pride of lions.
All of them were slaves, if they fought well they could buy back their freedom and become freemen.
The important part is that "they were not sent to die"
They costed a lot of money to their owners and matches were often just representations of battles, like modern wrestling, not real battles.
It wasn't uncommon to fix matches, they had to provide entertainment, not death.
But more interestingly, many gladiators trainers rented them to fight in the Colosseum and they had insurance policies on their lives, if the gladiator was injuried or died in the fight, there were penalties to pay.
Most of the games were paid for by low level politicians that wanted to make a name for themselves and rented the gladiators from the trainers.
Also the thumbs up/thumbs down it's also a myth, it never existed as a gesture, if the organizer decided to send some gladiator to death because the crowd asked for it, they had to pay the aforementioned penalties to the trainer.
Not surprisingly the organizer had the last word and often times they spared them.
Most of those that died were war slaves already sentenced to death.
It was games, like we intend them today, they also had a referee on the ground.
It was a very modern take on the matter at the times, to the point that we still use the same setup for sports entertainment.
While I can’t speak for OP, the way I see it is that the athletes were expected to kill each other, so the wording you dispute is just semantics.
Sure, trainers wanted their slave to survive, so they could win the prize money and influence with the king. But that still means they fully acknowledged that the majority of them would die.
> At a time when three of every five persons did not survive until their twentieth birthday, the odds of a professional gladiator being killed in any particular bout, at least during the first century AD, were perhaps one in ten. For a full year in Nero's wooden amphitheater in the Campus Martius, no-one died at all, not even criminals (Suetonius, Life of Nero, XII.1).
Honestly I don't, not in English, but I'll be back with some if you can wait a couple of days.
I am from Rome, live at walking distance from the Colosseum and visited it many times.
One of my closest friend is a tourist guide there and he's also an historian specialized in roman history.
That's were I gathered most of my knowledge.
A huge amount of people being slaughtered in a single location purely for entertainment is not really something you can offset by the amount of lives lost for the "benefit" of half a continent. It's a useless comparison.
Besides that, it isn't necessary to drag the USA into every bad situation that has ever occurred.
It's not necessary to drag USA, but it's just an example of how stupid these arguments are. Historical facts needs to be analysed with the lens of what was considered normal at that time not with the lens on what we consider to be normal today. As many slaves were used also to build the pyramids for example or to some extend modern slavery is a thing in some countries (look at how Qatar is handling the construction of the stadiums for the 2022 fifa world cup). Why aren't we offended by what happen today as we've the right sensibility to understand this things?
If that was not a great similitude is this a good one instead:
This are pretty much modern and new example, instead of paying so much attention to what happened 2000 years ago you should consider to fight in order to avoid this things to happen again. Instead of doing some empty consideration on pretty old facts.
Most of the people here will be aware of all the examples you link to, and are generally appalled by them. But the fact that the world is still not perfect does not somehow prevent us from looking at the past through the lens of today's moral standards.
Can you at least admit that we, as a species, have grown, because we no longer employ grand scale death pits?
Someone can be offended by both historical atrocities AND the Qatar situation. The first we cannot change, the second we can still have some influence on. I would argue this is something we do more because something like the colosseum exists to remind us, not less.
We're in the contemporary era and things that happened in the Nazi time are still relevant. While things that happened in the ancient era are, by definition, ancient.
So if you want speak about history a good start is to try to study it first.
Otherwise next time we're discussing on how aggressive were people in the Neolithic and how stupid were the law in the Code of Hammurabi
In the context of discussing the value of the colosseum I used the wrong word here.
The simple remark that started this was just someone expressing wonder over how many people must have died there, purely for the entertainment of the masses.
The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.
Surely there is some better word that covers both the amazement about countless colosseum deaths and feeling resentment towards modern day atrocities, but I can't think of one. The fact that these things are not really connected is actually the point I am trying to make.
> The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.
Please don't put word in my mouth
as I never said what you just mentioned.
If you want speak about history you need to consider the era that we are referring to. So yes, in the ancient time these things were commonplace (Romans, Greeks, Egyptian and Babylonian), in the contemporary era these are not.
You can't use modern time logic to fight against ancient times. Otherwise next time we can spend the afternoon to speak about the code of Hammurabi and how stupid these laws were.
A good start is to learn about the historic periods and understand how to put things into perspective before being offended by random fact far away
> Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned.
I didn't, I specifically wrote "appears to" to prevent doing that.
But where do you get this idea from that nobody is allowed to have any kind of opinion on past events, when that opinion is colored by modern day standards? This is not an objective historical essay we are writing here, it's just random comments on the internet.
Nobody is "fighting" anything, the Romans are long gone. Also, nobody is "offended" by what they did. As I admitted in another reply, that was not the correct word to use.
It is a bit confusing to me what the point is that you are trying to make, if it is not what I assumed it was.
I just said it multiple times just go and look at my replies.
Is not required to have an opinion on past events based on nowadays standards. Historian do that all the time, they look at the history with objectiveness especially when is far away to avoid to get trigger by random deaths that happen all the time (even nowadays).
So if you want understand the history the worst thing to do is to cry because someone died. You need to understand events and why these things happened and then maybe you can learn something.
I don't think is complicated to understand, but apparently seems to be the case.
If nobody is offended then why are we here discussing about how many people have died in the colosseum? Just enjoy the fact that now you can see more as compared as what we were able to see before.
Maybe you never been there, so just pay a visit and see the magnificence of it. After all, is still around after 2000 years and pretty well conserved.
So just because it is a long time ago, it is not allowed to be in awe of the staggering amount of deaths that occurred in one single location?
You appear to argue that there is only one valid attitude when it comes to historic artefacts; trying to understand everything, without any kind of emotional reaction.
That's not what I did when I was there. I'm not a historian nor a student of history. I prefer to be in awe.
> So just because it is a long time ago, it is not allowed to be in awe of the staggering amount of deaths that occurred in one single location?
You can from your individual point of view of course. But not to argue on historical facts.
> You appear to argue that there is only one valid attitude when it comes to historic artefacts; trying to understand everything, without any kind of emotional reaction.
Unfortunately that's not me, this is how history is analysed to many extend.
Your view of the history is subjective and by definition could be wrong.
Is not that you can't empathize with deaths that occured in the past, is just that you can't portrait your view as historical fact, is just your opinion as valid as anyone else. Since we can't commit to 7 billion different opinions, we've to use fact and logic to analyze history otherwise it will just be a mess.
Roman empire was not a place where people died only. Was a liberal empire, pretty cosmopolitan, high level of personal freedom (was ok to be gay for example) and it has shaped the entire ancient Europe with streets and reliques that some are still in use today (look at the Roman roman aqueducts).
On the other hands they used to enslave and kill people, like any other country and empire has done before and after that.
> 10000 people and 30000 animals in the first 100 days. I would guess that millions of lives were lost there.
Nobody was analyzing or defining history here. It was not a judgment on Roman moral code. It was just an observation of the remarkable death rate of one specific geographical area. "Millions" was probably hyperbole, but as far as I know, rigid historical accuracy is not a requirement for posting here.
And modern day ideology does not even play a part in it. I would guess many a Roman could experience a similar sense of amazement, if they ever stopped to think about it.
It's just a useless observation. Same as being an alien approaching our planet and saying "oh.... Look at this planet. Over the years billions of people must have died".
Well, while is true that many people died in the colosseum (so in the entire history of our planet) what's the point? If was not to analyze or judge their behavior?
If you look at the OP reply on one of my comments you'd see that his intention indeed was to judge their behavior with our lens. Which is wrong. That's it.
Well, we are talking about many killings in a single location over a relatively short period of time. We are also specifically dealing with a historic artefact that symbolizes these killings. Pointing out how bizarre this is, according to today's standards, is not pointless as far as I'm concerned. It serves to remind us of a more primitive past and of how far we've come.
Agree to disagree then. Seems like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.
The Colosseum was active for 400 years, you consider that a relatively short period of time? In total they estimated that 400.000 people died in there, in 400 years! That's 1.000 people a year. Even if you double or triple that number is nothing compared to the deaths of the slaves trade in the Americas (estimated to 5 millions and more, in the same timespan of 400 years - 1500 to 1900 - just before being capture or during the transit to America) or the number of native Americans that have died during colonization (which is estimated to be to the order of 100 millions with a decline in population of 98%)
If that's not even enough to give you another metric the Iraqi war killed 460.000 civilians in less than 20 years and it's pretty recent.
> It serves to remind us of a more primitive past and of how far we've come.
This is what you fail to understand as well, they were not primitive by any means. Despite this games the society in Rome during the Roman empire was liberal (go read a book about it), we've killed and we continue to kill much more after the Roman empire and nowadays. The examples above should be enough for you to understand
> We are also specifically dealing with a historic artefact that symbolizes these killings.
It does not symbolize these killings only and was not solely built to host gladiator games. The Colosseum had multiple purposes. There were kind of games with wild animals (lions or African animals) vs man (similar to what nowadays people do in Spain during the Bullfighting) and was also used to stage battles, drama, composition, natural environment simulation and so on.
If your historical sources are Hollywood movies and TV series, of course you are missing something out.
It was a place or entertainment, similar to what today is a Cinema or a theater (indeed it's real name is Flavian Amphitheater)
Compared to your aliens, observing the entire history of earth, 400 years is relatively short.
You keep comparing the colosseum killings to events that transpired over large geographical areas, for different purposes than entertainment. As me and others here have pointed out repeatedly, what makes it special (to us, not to you apparently) is the fact that all those killings happened on a single location.
You cannot measure how primitive a culture is by the amount of people they kill.
To me (and, I would argue, most people), the monument symbolizes specifically those often pointless killings and nothing else. That is what it is famous for.
Unfortunately, your replies regularly border on the insulting. You keep pointing out how the arguments you present are things I "fail to understand" or prove my lack of knowledge of historical events, often telling me to "go read a book", like I'm some rambling child. Meanwhile, you have not told me anything I did not already know.
I'm done with this discussion, as it does not appear to go anywhere. Good luck with your opinions, I'll hold to mine.
> You keep comparing the colosseum killings to events that transpired over large geographical areas, for different purposes than entertainment.
I see, so enslaving, torturing, raping Africans and native American was not entertainment right? Was really required to kill 98% of the indigenous population. I understand, that makes sense indeed given your point of view.
> You cannot measure how primitive a culture is by the amount of people they kill.
Oh no? Then what's the metric let's see. You define what's primitive?
> To me (and, I would argue, most people), the monument symbolizes specifically those often pointless killings and nothing else
What do you think and your opinion is useless for the history. The monument was not symbolizing these killings give that was build before the killings happened and was not build for the sole purpose of killing people.
> prove my lack of knowledge of historical events
You proved that yourself I didn't need to do anything.
> Meanwhile, you have not told me anything I did not already know.
Meanwhile, your opinion is wrong even tho you've the right amount of information to understand that these games was normal.
It's like box, extreme sport or anything else like that. The difference is that the violence and the killings were well received by the population as these were normal back then.
Gladiators were not forced to participate to the games, they decided to do out of their own will. Which is totally different from other events where people were not given the choice. If you didn't want to participate to the games, was ok. No freedom for you. If you wished to do so, you had a chance to live free and a chance to die in the arena.
I agree that there is no reason to judge the past with their "moral lens". Of course the people in ancient Rome (in total) thought it was okay to kill people in the Coliseum - they were the ones doing it and watching it.
we totally should look at historical events with the current “lens”. That’s the only way preventing us from regressing.
Also, slavery is alive and well today. Just because it’s not called slavery does not make it okay. We are still killing people in mass - it’s just that it’s conveniently hidden from the “civilized” world
> we totally should look at historical events with the current “lens”.
No, there are things that Romans did better than us today, even looking at them with current lenses, but that are hard to replicate in our times given the complexity of our society, the conflicts, the political systems, and, last but not least, the vastly better education and influence the general population has.
We should learn from past mistakes though.
If we apply basic statistic, deaths/years of activity, in the Colosseum died ~1 thousand humans every year.
It's more or less the number of people shot and killed by the U.S. police every year.
That's what we should do better because, of course, we're not sending people to fight to death or against lions anymore.
If US police officers killed 1,000 people a year for four centuries, it'd be about 0.13% of the present population of the United States. If I'm reading this right, a single city forced the rest of the Roman empire to violently sacrifice an equivalent of at least 40% of the city's population (which peaked at 1 million iirc) for their own amusement. How is that comparable to the fatalities caused by law enforcement officers operating on behalf of over 320,000,000 people, in any lens?
Rome was an empire that extended from Atlantic Ocean to the middle east, from England to Egypt, it wasn't just Rome.
and existed 2 thousand years ago, one would think that we learned something during the looooong period that separate us from ancient Romans, don't you think?
Wanna look at history with modern eyes?
Why don't we look at modern times with history eyes as well?
The Roman empire didn't have television or powered transportation that allowed millions of people across the empire to visit the capitol for a weekend. This wasn't entertainment broadcast to the entire empire, it was a single arena with a little more than 50,000 seats - the vast majority of which were allocated by social class and only accessible to the residents of the city. The only relevance the rest of the empire has is as a source of sacrifices for the bloodsport.
I'm looking at history through the eyes of basic arithmetic and logic, a skill mastered by the Greeks well before Rome was founded. Comparing 400,000 deaths among a city of 1,000,000 to 400,000 deaths in a country of 320,000,000 is ridiculous, regardless of each respective groups' motivations and moral context.
There's a fundamental problem with comparing arena deaths to police killings which is that they aren't like kinds. In other words, it's not like the Romans only killed people in arenas and their law enforcement never killed anyone.
I highly doubt Roman methods of law enforcement killed fewer per capita people than modern methods. Not to mention things like crucifying slaves.
These blood sports were a political show of force as much as entertainment for the people. Showing the world that you could afford to sacrifice, or risk, the lives of expensive, highly trained slaves for entertainment tells would be adversaries a lot about your resources and relentlessness.
> The Roman empire didn't have television or powered transportation that allowed millions of people across the empire to visit the capitol for a weekend.
That's where you are wrong.
Roman empire was as globalized as ours today, if not more, given the means of transport of their times.
> This wasn't entertainment broadcast to the entire empire, it was a single arena with a little more than 50,000 seats
2 thousands year ago.
still there.
a building in Miami collapsed few days ago. Built in 20th century.
Maybe it isn't simply "an arena with little more than 50,000 seats" but a marvel of human history...
Anyway, shows went on for days, sometimes weeks, all day long, so that anyone could attend them.
So counting the seats in the Colosseum is not the right way to measure how popular the shows were.
> 400,000 deaths among a city of 1,000,000
in 4 hundred years (actually the games lasted for a thousands year, but the peak period is shorter).
mostly slaves brought back to Rome from countries defeated in war.
I've specifically talked about police killings because police is supposed to protect people, not kill them.
What will future historian think of that in your opinion?
If you wanna talk about fatalities in ancient history, you should also take into account the general mortality rate.
Of course in a battle arena people died, but it was probably much less dangerous to fight in the Colosseum than living in Caledonia, on the other side of the Hadrian's wall.
We shouldn't argue of what we don't know. It's an exercise in futility.
«the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history»
edit: to make it clearer why counting bodies is misleading: gladiators became freemen after 6 years on average, 15-20 fights in total. They earned a lot of money and were popular figures, some of them were immensely popular (think about Spartacus). As free men many of them had enough saved to become owners and trainers and earned a respected position in the society. It wasn't uncommon for a gladiator to stay on the job after becoming a free man because it was an highly rewarding activity. They knew their fate, but they decided to keep fighting anyway.
Now fast forward to 2021 and think about Mike Tyson going back on the ring at the age of 54, even though it could kill him. Would you consider the people watching the match savages because they are paying to watch 2 men punching each other in the face?
Yes is still alive in many places US included. But this comment is just stupid, everybody knows what happened in the colosseum so does everybody knows that major civilizations were build on top of genocides. North and south America, Australia are just a few recent example of the great British empire.
You don't want to consider it an historical relique? That's ok, but then don't bother to visit countries that have been aggressive since inception
I’m always hesitant when new places in historical sites open to tourists. It is funny how the attention of the world has a tendency to destroy the things that it focuses on. On the one hand, how cool is it to see these amazing historical places. On the other, what beautiful things are ruined by being shared?
The Coliseum was used pretty much as a quarry for centuries: during the Middle Ages it was considered a symbol of the persecution of the Christian rather than an archeological site, as such it was OK to destroy it in order to collect precious marble to build churches.
Right now it's pretty much at the center of a roundabout...
There are lot of things in Rome that were studied and them left underground because it made no sense to expose them in a museum or just to the elements. The Coliseum, on the other hand, has always been above ground.
I've visited the Flavian Amphitheatre with my kids a few years ago, and we walked over the Palatine Hill. It's an incredible site. It's also very well protected, they have spent many years preparing these areas for access to ensure they are preserved.
These are incredibly valuable cultural artefacts, but their value is in their ability to inspire and educate. That can only be done through access. Restricting that access, limiting who is allowed to be educated and inspired inevitably means limiting it's value to society. This is our heritage, not just that of a small privileged elite.
Preservation. Research. Also, it's not that beautiful, it's basically large crumbling catacombs without a ceiling. Visitors could already walk directly above them and see most of it.
as someone who actually visited the Colosseum: I’m not sure we should glorify a place like this. 10000 people died there during it’s inaugural 100 days. it’s barbaric. we should be better than this nowadays. I don’t really care what the gladiators saw or did before dying. It’s sad AF
Are we glorifying the Colosseum because many slaves were put to death there? I would guess no. Further, I am almost certain that very few people's take-away from visiting the Colosseum is "dang, slaves killing each other for sport rocks".
Any Roman building has historical significance, which I would argue is worth glorifying.
i don’t think that the takeaway is that “killing rocks”, but I do think the focus should be on preservation not on commercially exploiting it into the ground
Not really. Preservation creates job and history inspires people, especially when it can be experienced directly like this. I seriously doubt it inspires many to build their own though.
as someone who actually lives in Rome: it's an important historical monument in one of the most important cities in western history. People go there to learn about the past and to view an incredible piece of architecture which is nearly 2,000 years old. It doesn't stand today as a glorification of bloodsport and I'm not sure how you can really come to that conclusion after visiting.
If the fact a lot of people died there is "sad AF", you're probably better off not visiting any sites which were active over 1,500 years ago.
I was there a few weeks ago and in the Vatican's church. Both are big and impressive buildings but the only relevance they have is for tourism purposes, especially the Colosseum, the vast majority are people on a weekend trip shooting a couple selfies.
You have people illegally selling water bottles, artifacts and a couple layers of scammers offering you entry or bootleg tickets, unless the military or police are patrolling. All of them pestering you to buy anything, spoiling the experience.
The only good take away from the Colosseum should be how to not treat humans in the future. It's a skid mark of human history used as a pedestal of the flamboyant and decadent formerly powerful. From what I read the city inhabitants did not really work, slavery and war based economy, society degenerated to these "games" being the highlight of it's culture. A sad state of affairs. Would you go and see the WWF wrestling arenas of the 80s? Anything to learn from that?
If you wanna pay to see what is essentially a ruin(check online for representations of how it looked when new, it was deformed from earthquakes as well),do yourself a favor and make sure to book a ticket online, do not try on the site.
Rome and Italy as a whole have much more to offer than a slaughterhouse ruin.
I’m not quite sure what you were expecting from an arena which had its last show 1500 years ago.
Learning about the past doesn’t mean we think the practices that existed back then were good. For most people it’s about curiosity and understanding how the world of today came to be (and Ancient Rome is an important part of that story in the western world).
So we should glorify a place like United States of America which was built on top of one of the worst genocide of the history? Where slavery was the norm till 1863 and since the end of world war 2 it has been involved in numerous wars around the world
The current mood in the wealthy coastal elites does not look like glorification of the US at all, more like "constant self-flagellation" precisely over the topics that you mention.
You seem to be somewhat pushing at an open door with your comment.
IMHO you cannot change the past but you can definitely shape the future. There are very few things that are worth “glorifying” once you go behind the curtain and see/know how the sausage is made
One point is to look at the far last (2 thousands years ago) and one point is to see the recent and contemporary history.
We have countries like the US that have been bullying and fighting wars around the world since the end of the world war two, yet we're here to discuss how many gladiator and lions were killed two thousands years ago
As always you can't feel how smelly is your breath but you're easy to spot a small dot in someone's eye
I'm here to show how empty these arguments are as compared as what happened next in history or even on how we treat people in some war zone nowadays
So said, is not that hard to understand that the article was about showing something that was hidden before and now is available to everyone to visit. Nobody is hiding or denying what happened there, every Italian school teaches it without propaganda.
Yet, many comments here are about "how so many people died let's not go to visit it". Like this is not even the sense of the article?
These comments brought the political consideration into picture and I'm just showing how weak these are.
