Medusa
-
Posts
171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Medusa
-
-
Bipennifera (female fighter armed with a two-edged axe)
Clavatrix (female fighter armed with a club)
Would leave this out in anything gladiatorial as the two edged axe and the club are not attested (gladiatorial) weapons of the Roman period
Falcifera (female fighter armed with a scythe)-
Go for the thraex with the sica, which is a similar weapon to a falx.
Funditrix (female fighter armed with a sling)
Slingers were not in a gladiatorial context only in the army!
Threissa, Thressa (female Thraex/Thrax/Threx/Thracian
-
Hoplomachia would be the fight as a hoplomachus like the naumachia being the sea battles. A female hoplomachus would be a hoplomacha because what ends on -us just becomes -a, it's not hoplomachius!
-
I wrote a review of this book for Ancient Warfare magazine which you could read here:
-
Will go this weekend to the Europ
-
I'm quite interested in this concept of a "Semi-Amphitheatre". On the face of it, that would just be a Theatre - which it clearly isn't. Tell us more . . .
I came across this amphitheater in Frilford in two books:
Roy Wilding
"Roman Amphitheatres in England and Wales"
Tony Wilmott
"The Roman Amphitheatre in Britain"
Wilding states it as an amphitheater with timber seating on continous earth bank, in his book a category 1a (pp. 88-89). Wilmott refers to recent excavations and claims this structure to be seen more in a religious context(pp. 130-132). Just this a very short summary from those two books.
-
Also from me
FELICES DIES NATALIS, NEPHELE!!!!
-
Unless you count Moscow as "The Third Rome" according to Tsarist propoganda, where I spent a few weeks as a student, I've never been to Europe. And The Roman never came to Pennsylvania, sadly.
But you could at least visit museums which have Roman antiquities in their collections. That might not count as a Roman site but at least as something Roman, right? ;-)
-
We will have our gig this weekend at the museum on the site where they found a Roman villa rustica in Bad Kreuznach (near Mainz). I look forward to see this place and hope to have some time between the gigs to have a closer look at the gladiator mosaic.
-
Has the winner been drawn yet? Will you announce it here or is it secretly? The deadline was 20th August, which is a week ago.
-
On my display there are no such buttons. It looks like this:
* UNRV.com
* Forums
* Members
* Calendar
* Blogs
* Gallery
* Search
* Help
Signed in as Medusa
* Sign Out
* My Settings
* My Profile
* Messenger (0 New)
* Manage Friends
* Manage Ignored Users
* Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Board Index
View the latest news: Inscriptions unearthed at Pompeiopolis
After that starts the forum itself.
-
I don't even have these buttons, they are not there at all!!!
-
I miss the "View New Posts" button, too. Where's this other button to be found? I can't find anything here at the moment.
-
Thanks for your b-day wishes. I had a nice time with my boyfriend (and fellow gladiator).
-
No. The object of this thread was discuss a possible gladiator graveyard so I've dicussed it from that perspective. I also think you miss the point of speculation. It's common in such fields of knowledge for people to become very conservative, to value what they've learned, and in some cases become overly proud of their accumulated knowledge that they become very dismissive of anything that disagrees with them. This usually happens in areas where nothing is known for certain, and individuals push their opinions forward not so that people understand the subject, but that they understand the speaker is more knowledgable than them. Social status in other words. We humans indulge in that rather a lot.
You focused on one point only in this discussion but did not see the other options which I have pointed out. I did not miss the point of speculation, instead I throw more options into the ring which you constantly ignored.
I agree with Melvadius to close this thread for now since there might be news re this cemetary.
-
@Mods: If possible, this post should stay in the actual thread about the York Cemetary.
If you want to know want Caldrail wants, perhaps you should ask him
No need to ask you via PM it became all very clear by your posts
What I want is to know the truth. I don't have the prvilege of access to original data nor the experience of forensic archaeology to make a definitive explanation. Therefore I must simply take what I understand to be the case at face value. If indeed the bones turn out to be noxii, then fine, that's how it was. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is explanations that are a little too convenient or dismissive. In any case, speculation is good for history. It really is. If all we do is repeat 'parrot fashion' everything we've learned, then we've understood nothing, and instead turn history into some form of religion where saying anything different is sacrilege. As long as speculation is seen for what it is, we can use the ideas to search for explanations of previous events in a new light.That all sounds a bit imprecise. It is. Because unless you place those speculations within context, they remain nothing more and may even distract us from accuracy. Ask any archaeologist. Context is vital to understanding remains discovered. And I notice the context of the remains at York does not conform to noxii at all.
Yes, it all is speculation so far, but speculation should include several options. You jumped always on the point that it must be gladiators without taking other options into consideration. In the media they said wide feet point to gladiators because they fought barefoot. You said yes, surely that must be a strong indication that those bones belonged to gladiators. You did not even think about other groups of people like slaves etc. like I did. If you have a look at the discussion which we led so far you always said that this or that points to gladiators but I pointed out that it could be also something else.
You said above that you want to know the truth. We might never know it in this case for certain but why don't you like to take other possibilities into consideration as well? Why are you so focused on these bones being those of gladiators and not of anyone else? This I now want to know from you because this does not become clear from your posts. Is it the sensationalist point against a "boring" point?
-
@Mods: Please seperate the discussion about Senecas saying and this post now from the actual thread as this has nothing to do directly with the discussion about what the bones of the cemetary in York might be:
Precisely. We do need to understand though that fifteen hundred years of swordplay leaves us with a body of experience to fall back on in studying the results of fighting. Whilst the gladiators were usually equipped with armour of some sort, that protection was designed to minimise injuries, not deaths. Some of their protection, such as the padding on the sword arm, is designed to prevent bruising against the shield edge and has nothing to do with combat injuries at all. What the Romans were doing was trying to ensure that if a debilitating strike was made, then it would be final. One thrust, one death.In reality of course the injuries from swordplay far outweigh the deaths, which is why the Romans evolved the ritual of asking for clemency if the wounded (or exhausted) gladiator could not continue.
As you like to keep on discussing the matter of Senecas quotes and other things related to gladiatorial things, OK then, here we go...
It is true that the limbs of gladiators were protected by some kind of body armor while the vital parts of the torso were not. This was to avoid to get invalids. The training and catering etc. of a gladiator was expensive. The aim was either to kill or to fight in a manner that one of the opponents might surrender. You do not need to be severely wounded to surrender but maybe also the lost of a shield or the entanglement in the net of the retiarius could think you of surrendering esp. if you would face the sure death if you do not surrender. When your show was good the chance was at least in the 1st century AD that the audience appreciated your display and the editor hence granted you the missio so you might have a chance to fight another day and then win.
Seneca would have observed this phenomenon as a matter of course. Please bear in mind he was not a naive innocent. He lived in Rome and obviously enjoyed the spectacle as much as anyone else, and he did choose to visit the arena that rather than being obliged to attend. For him to describe the event as 'sheer murder' is significant. Now I agree that doesn't mean that the gladiators on that particular day weren't thrusting with lethal precision, but given the average size of events and skill levels of Roman munera, it would be an unusual day indeed if the death rate scored a huge blip.Seneca however is unlikely to be describing executions. Those were not regarded as 'murder' by the population in any sense, and for that matter, neither were ritual coup de graces. These were deaths conducted in an expected manner, either as bloody or painful as possible in the first case, or with respectful immediacy in the second.
I regret having to repeat myself again: I have said that Seneca might have watched an execution which was not as fantasyful as expected and that the noxii just didn't defend themselves but were passive and hence were just slaughtered.
-
Yes, you could see it that way, but notice he was expecting something ordinary and saw something different. Further, his comment is not disparaging toward whoever was taking part nor does he infer any sense of justice. Also, if Seneca came in and saw executions, why was he expecting entertainment? If that was the case, surely he wouldn't be especially bothered by any bloodiness involved? Since when were Roman public executions swift and painless? They were always conducted in a manner to inspire fear of the consequences of misbehaviour and to demonstrate power. that last attribute is absent from Seneca's quote. In no way was he impressed. Then of course you could see it another way.
He went there at the wrong time of the day or was hoping that the display would have been more interesting but at that certain show it was just simply killing without being set in a mythological context etc.
What if the fights were deliberately bloody? Normally an editor would make a big deal of fights to held to the death with prior advertising and gossip, because that would draw in the crowd. However, Augustus had banned fights sine missione and thus it was likely that Seneca was looking at a fight conducted in an illegal manner. In that case, he would be hoping that the extra blood and aggression would make his games memorable even if he couldn't get away with blowing his own trumpet. If that's the case, then in a way he succeeded.The ban of sine missione fights does not mean that a gladiator could not lose his life in a fight either by being killed directly during combat or by putting to death due to a bad performance. It was only forbidden to have fights which from the beginning implied that one of the combatants has to die that the fight has to go to the bitter end or that the one who surrenders knows that his life will be finished by surrendering.
I guess we should come back after this digression about Seneca's quote back to the actual point of discussion that is the discovery of a Roman time cemetary in York. I say it once more that the media (paper and TV) focused on this theory that the bones are those of gladiators and you, caldrail, seemed to like this theory only (because for it lurid part
), without having a look at the other theories which I had pointed out here and which are also in a much wider detail are listed on the website of the York Archaeological Trust. For all who have read only the online newspaper article or even have seen this TV documentary have a look here where different theories are presented:http://www.iadb.co.uk/driffield6/driffield6.php
Since this discussion which we had here was led by me and caldrail only I would say one last word: When reading the website of YAT it surely becomes clear that we do not know for certain to which kind of persons the bones belongs. Despite all aspects I have pointed out here, and that not by parroting the YAT site but by simply thinking about possibilies Caldrail wants them to be gladiator bones and nothing else while I favor that they were bones of noxii.
Maybe we should vote
But as long as we do not have a poll here you could cast your vote on this site:http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/headless-.../index.htm#menu
-
Now, as for thinking, since you kindly asked me to, I shall. We've already had a debate on the nature of theatre in connection with gladiatorial combat. Seneca provides us with a quotation that at first glance appears to confirm that. I don't have the correct wording, but he says something along the lines of "I stopped off at the arena hoping to see some entertainment, but it was sheer murder out there". You know the quote?
I very well know this lines of Seneca and interpret them that he went at the noon time to the AMPHItheatre and that he saw some mass executions and no gladiator fights and that he didn't like the way these souls were executed.
-
Plastic Roman writing short message to the Ice Cream Parlor:
"HELP! Need more ice cream. Got only cones left!"
-
In answer to criticism of points raised earlier - I'm relying on the opinions put forward by people better qualified than me, since I have no personal experience of forensic archaeology. Wide feet suggest someone who has spent most of their time bare foot -
This is another point where you parrot the so called experts. As I've said earlier, where you mentioned the wide feet, I said that not only gladiators ran around bare feet but others as well. These groups, e.g. slaves were not mentioned by those "experts" because that does not sell so good in the media as "gladiators". The online newspaper article which started this discussion was of course focused on "gladiators" instead of other groups to make the article more lurid. I had already back then pointed out my doubts. The TV documentation was on the same leve, LURID. The most neutral website which goes very much into detail about the excavation is by York Archaeological Trust which I state here once more:
http://www.iadb.co.uk/driffield6/driffield6.php
They mention the theory about gladiators but only among others. These other theories are not quoted by your "experts" on which you like to rely so much and hence parrot. I kindly ask you to think before you parrot any one. Thanks
-
Also, not all gladiators were taught to fight with either hand - that's myth. Otherwise, why would Commodus have been so proud of fighting in the left handed style, mentioned as being very rare? Large size might point to a diet of barley which has this effect on growth patterns. It doesn't necessarily indicate foreign extraction, although many of the remains at York did come from eastern europe (their data, not mine).
You did not understand what I was saying: I said the handling of sword and shield involves both hands to a nearly equal basis as I can tell you from my own training. I as a right hander hold the sword in the right hand and the shield in the left one. I do not mix this around not even for training purposes. But I have to use both hands.
If you have a look on immages of gladiators you will see that all types of gladiators hold a weapon in one hand and something as a defence in the other hand. In the case of the retiarius he wields the tridents with both hands once the net is thrown. Before that he usually holds and throws the net with his fighting hand (i.e. right hand when a right hander, left hand when a south paw) and holds the trident in the other so that he is still able to at least block attacks by the secutor with the trident.
The people so called experts who claim that the gladiatura requires the strength of only the weapon hand and that therefore this arm is more developed simply DO NOT know what they are talking about and you parrot them. In connection with my impression as gladiatrix I've read tons of books about gladiators and practise beside the gladiatura as reenactment other Martial Arts. So I know what I'm talking about. One kind advise: Please read carefully what I've written before so we do not repeat certain points of the discussion again and again. Thanks.
-
Since York was a major Roman station, it does seem odd that some sort of permanent amphitheatre wasn't present, even at that far flung part of the empire. Such places weren't particularly big in Roman Britain. The one in Cirencester, one of the largest towns of that period, is quite modest. The amphitheatre in Londinium was discovered by accident only recently, so there's hope for York yet.
this is the only point where i agree with you: it's very much likely that a place like york had an amphitheater like cologne and mainz whose amphitheaters also still remain undiscovered. nonetheless we should always bear in mind that spectacles in the provinces were always on a much smaller scale than the emperor's games as i have already pointed out.
-
Forensic examination of the finds shows evidence of gladiatorial lifestyles. Healed injuries, wide feet, large size, unequal arm length, and so forth.
i guess i have to repeat myself again: the uneqal arm length DOES NOT point to gladiators as i can tell you from my own training. in one hand i carry a heavy scutum in the other a sword. even for the other types of gladiators, you definitely train both arms.
wide feet may point to persons running around barefoot a lot, but gladiators weren't the only ones with barefeet, what about slaves, poor people...?
large size points to a non-italic origin, but we are talking about britain and not the italian motherland. also many of the conquered peoples like celts and germanic peoples were sold as slaves. also the people inn the gaulish and germanic provinces remained taller than italians even though they adopted the roman life style. also there were some roman volunteers signing up as gladiators. there was no minimum size to become gladiator, unlike modern boxing and martial arts there were no weight categories. so the size of a person does not tell you anything about his or her profession.
good healed injuries may point to gladiators or the military but a beheaded person coul have been a deserter having been catched and put to death in a spectacle warning all soldiers better not to desert...
-
You may well be right. However, the remains with head injuries caused by hammers were buried at the same site as skeletons identified with features consistent with trained gladiators. Since the two would not be mixed, the conclusion that Charun was used as an execution figure publicly in connection with gladiators - in the area of York for a while at least - is hard to deny.
if you had followed my previous post you will surely have noticed that i doubt than any of the bones found in york were of gladiators. i strongly believe that all of them belong to condemned criminals. this means there would have been no mixture between gladiator graves and those of noxii at all.
House of the Gladiators collapses in Pompeii
in Archaeological News: Rome
Posted
The "House of Gladiators" which is mentioned in this article is the former ludus (gladiator school) before the quadriproticus behind the theater became the new ludus because this old one became too small. The "House of Gladiators" is located in Region V 5.3. According to Luciana Jacobelli in her book "Gladiators at Pompeii" this building was used in the 1st century BC as a residence and between the reign of Augustus and Claudius it was converted to a ludus. Graffiti made by the gladiators were found there.
The "Schola armaturarum" is found in Region III 3.6 on the via dell'Abbondanza and built after the earthquake of AD 62. It was considered first being a kind of boarding school for the Pompeiian youth but more recently thought that it's a depository of gladiatorial armor because of the paintings on the facade which bears gladiatorial iconography.