Talk:List of Roman gladiator types

Praegenarii
Is there a citation for this? I can't google anything on this type of gladiator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.134.173 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is very little and most are foreign language websites. There are a few books which is where it came from originally. I added a source. Wayne (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this might be either a variant of paegniarii or its misspelling. The only internet sources for the praegenarii type (or misspelling) seem to be non-RS, unsourced or else circular - the ref-linked UNRV article isn't a reliable source. Google scholar offers nothing on praegenarii. But a search for paegniarii yields several results from reliable sources, and descriptions that match the existing list entries for both "types". In other words, there seems to be only one of this clownish, burlesque type, known as paegniarii. Haploidavey (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating the retiarius
As presently written, the article states the retiarius was a development of the "Augustan era" (circa the time of Christ), while a picture caption shows the same type of gladiator fighting in "the fourth century BC". Which is correct? Mikedash (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption error, fixed. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

table
I think the table should be broken down into sections. It consists mostly of description that's amenable to a normal prose paragraph, and not the kinds of stats or data that a table best represents. If the table were removed, problems of image layout could be addressed (the ad hoc gallery is particularly problematic), and an image could appear with the section that it illustrates. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Scissor, Secutor, Retiarius - tubular/conical arm-shield with blade?
Hi. The Scissor article, unlike this one, suggests them to have used a weapon that seems rather similar to that the Secutor used in the Eastern Roman Empire according to the Retiarius article (which is not mentioned in the Secutor article, unfortunately). Any reliable sources regarding links between these (does Junkelmann mention the alternate possibility that what he thought was the Scissor was actually a variant Secutor, for instance?), the suggestion as to the weapon used by the Scissor in this article (uncited, unfortunately), etc? (My curiosity regarding martial arts causes me to inquire as to whether anyone's tried testing the practicality of either the variant Secutor weapon or the Scissor weapon from this article...) Thanks! Allens (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether the reconstructionists have tackled this or not, but some time back, I downloaded what seems the most exhaustive modern treatment of the arbelas "type" (as in, was he or wasn't he), in the form of Michael Carter's "Artemidorus and the ἀρβήλαϛ Gladiator", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 134 (2001), pp. 109-115. It's relevant to your query and deserves more than the cursory reading I've given it thus far. It's at Jstor, if you've access. Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it's very interesting - I just managed to get access via Jstor using my wife's account. Relevant sections, with editing for fair use (such as by removing the citations, needed for a scholarly work; sorry for problems formatting the Greek letters...); feel free to edit down/further paraphrase if I've posted too much in your judgement:

"In 1957, Roger Pack [...] noted again that both manuscripts on which the text is based seem to support this word. Although ἀρβήλαϛ is otherwise unknown, the obviously related noun APBHAON is attested and denotes a semi-circular knife used especially in leather-working: the semi-circular blade provided a long, straight cut (Fig. I)." The figure and use makes the knife seem most similar to a ulu - a hopefully pardonable bit of OR for illustrative purposes. Pack also noted a further significant point. The Etymologicum Magnum states that an APBHAON, while primarily a shoe-maker's knife, could also be a weapon [...] Pack, therefore, proposed that the word ἀρβήλαϛ was not corrupt but instead represented a noun of agent to signify someone who used the ἀρβήλαϛ-knife. He suggested that Artemidorus' ἀρβήλαϛ was a gladiator who used such a weapon, and that the ἀρβήλαϛ should be added to the list of known gladiatorial types. The above is from page 112. Further sections of interest: "Several relief sculptures from the Greek East depict a gladiator holding a semi-circular weapon that matches the description of an ἀρβήλαϛ-knife - the weapon of Pack's arbelas-gladiator. For example, a relief, probably from the Greek East and now in the Louvre (MA 154), depicts a gladiator named Myron [...] He wears a spherical helmet with a simple semi-circular crest and a quilted tunic belted at the waist." Said "quilted tunic" looks at least as much like scale armor to me, but Carter does give reasoning later on for why it should be considered this. I'll see if I can copy the pictures/figures in question (this and those mentioned below) into Commons - it qualifies as PD-Art; the reader can thus judge for themselves. (It's possible that Figure 1 qualifies as a simple enough diagram to be PD as well.) He carries a dagger in his right hand and has a strange, semi-circular weapon attached to his left hand (Fig. 2). Other relief sculptures from the East depict comparable gladiators, such as Neikephoros from Beroia, in Macedonia, and Rhodon from Satala, in Asia Minor. I note "from the East", and that the alleged variant Secutor was from the Eastern Roman Empire. I have to wonder if the "attachment" is actually a manica or similar plus an arbelas-knife, with the sheath/tube form being a later development and the initial form being only the knife, unfortunately not depicted in any work (perhaps due to lack of success of it in test matches at ludii (sp?), until the additional armor was added). Further: "A relief from Tomis depicts a similarly equipped gladiator in combat with a retiarius." Tomis was apparently a Greek colony, present-day Constanța in Romania. He wears a spherical helmet with a semi-circular crest and a quilted tunic also belted at the waist. In the right hand he holds a dagger, but his left hand and forearm are bare. On the ground at his feet, however, [is] an object very much like the weapon worn by the gladiator Myron [...]. It consists of a sheath or tube, which the gladiator probably wore over his left forearm, and a projecting semi-circular instrument, which matches perfectly the description of the ἀρβήλαϛ-knife [...].

In addition to these more obvious depictions of gladiators with the ἀρβήλαϛ-knife, we may also add a recently published epitaph from Patras in the northern Peloponnesus for the gladiator Kallinikos That would likewise be in the East. "Beneath the inscription are depicted the paraphernalia of a gladiator: a dagger, a spherical helmet, and a rectangular object with a semi-circular attachment. This strange object appears similar to the object on the ground in the relief from Tomis and [the attachment] matches the description of an ἀρβήλαϛ-knife." He dismisses the alternative suggestion of a provocator gladiator. The above are from page 113. Further: These depictions also suggest why Artemidorus associated the [...] arbelas with the dimachaerus, for both of these gladiatorial types carried a weapon in each hand, rather than a dagger in one hand and a shield on the other arm [unlike other "heavily-armed" gladiators, according to Carter, although I am unsure as to his classification of heavily-armed - and what about the retarius?] Given the uniformity of their armament, it is probable that these arbelas-gladiators formed a standard and recognizable armament classification, just as retiarii and secutores, for example, were distinct types. [...] Pack suggested that the ἀρβήλαϛ was the technical name for this newly identified type of gladiator [...] Yet, by qualifying the term the way he did [...], Artemidorus himself indicates to his reader that ἀρβήλαϛ is not the proper, technical term for this type of gladiator. Rather, it is perhaps a colloquial word used by the Greeks. Unfortunately, no relief depicting the gladiatorial type now tentatively identified as the arbelas-gladiator provides a Latin, technical name.

The weapons of the "commonly called arbelas" suggest that this gladiatorial type was ideally suited to fight against the retiarius, as the gladiator from Tomis is in fact doing [...]. In place of a cumbersome shield [that could have been caught by the next of a retiarius] the arbelas-gladiator instead wore this unique weapon on his left arm with which he could have hooked the net [or cut it] and pulled it away from the retiarius before he had a chance to cast it [again]. Moreover, since the ἀρβήλαϛ-knife was on an extension, he could also have used it to lift [or cut] a net off of himself if he had been caught in it. Furthermore, his helmet has only a simple, semi-circular crest and no [...] attachments liable to [...] become entangled in the net.

There is attested in the West a gladiatorial type known as a contraretiarius or contrarete, a gladiator who fought specifically against a retiarius. I note "in the West". "The contraretiarius has generally been thought to be a synonym for the secutor, a gladiatorial type which was often pitted against a retiarius." However, it's in the East that the secutor is said by the retiarius article to have used such an odd weapon. But such equivalence is by no means certain, especially since other heavily armed gladiatorial types [...] are also known to have been pitted against the retiarius. If, however, we assume that the contraretiarius was a distinct gladiatorial type, then he ought to have distinct weapons and a distinct fighting style. Unfortunately, we have no depiction identifying a gladiator specifically as a contraretiarius. But if this arbelas-gladiator was intended to fight primarily against the retiarius, then ἀρβήλαϛ may have been the colloquial Greek name for a contraretiarius. [...] Why Artemidorus uses a colloquial Greek name only for the contraretiarius and not for any other is uncertain. [...] But it may [...] be that he and other Greeks could not bring themselves to transliterate "contraretiarius" or "contrarete" into Greek. Artemidorus had at the [start of the work] expressed his considerable discomfort with the use of technical, Latin terms from the gladiatorial arena The above is from pages 114-115. Further from page 115: "That these gladiators signified to Artemidorus an ugly wife might have been because they wore a simple, quilted tunic and did not have any bright, shiny armour - the reason [some?] other types [with such armor] signified a beautiful and wealthy wife." What did Artemidorus think of the retiarius in terms of signification of wealth/beauty, sneakiness, etc? Allens (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, an additional piece of info regarding the scissor, from another article :

"gladiator (? tayo^evo? ap?rjXac) these last two lumped together by Artemidorus (Onir. 2.32). The ἀρβήλαϛ was armed with a dagger in one hand and a semi-circular arbelos-knife on the other arm. It seems sensible to follow Junkelmann and equate the ἀρβήλαϛ with the Latin scissor: 'slicer'; see: Junkelmann 2000a, 110-112; cf. Ritti and Yilmaz 1998,469-479 (nos. 6 and 7) and Carter 2001, with earlier Neppi Modona 1962,1185. Cf. Petron. Sat. 36.5 for the scissor (carver) named Carpus, who carves the pig with his carving (cutting) blade."
 * I'll have to see if there are any articles by Junkelmann on the subject that are in English, since I don't know German. Allens (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does Armaturae redirect here?
There's no listing for armaturae, and it can be annoying for users trying to look up the late Roman military units of the same title. 74.96.49.63 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Armaturae is Roman Latin for armoured. Thank you for asking.Telecine Guy (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crupellarii
The Manica (armguard) article mentions another variety of gladiator, the "crupellarii", who wore a manica. Anyone have any other info on them? The Manica article appears to be mostly on the usage of it by legionaries. Allens (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just Wanted to Say Thanks
I am doing a project on this topic, and this article is very helpful. (Even though everybody says to not trust wikipedia.) Maybe you should also have a small side category on what animals were fought in the Colesium?

Ocreae - greaves or schynbalds
This article lists a lot of gladiators as wearing greaves. I was under the impression that ocreae were more akin to schynbalds than greaves as greaves enclose the entire lower leg but schynbalds do not. The Wikipedia article on greaves makes no reference to ancient leg armour covering only the shin and I suspect that every article referencing gladiators shares this. Hopefully this note will help the clarification propagate faster than I can do. Waerloeg (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Equites
Yet another problematic section. Uncited speculation for and against the fighting capacity of mounted equites "in the field" as a basis for the role of mounted gladiators at ludi is unjustified inference. The army used a mix of mounted troops - including mounted infantry, "true", cavalry who fought from horseback, scouts, archers and whatnot - at various times; but that has nothing to do with the games, and thus nothing to do with this article, so I support its removal.

We also have "At the time of Isidore of Seville, the equites rode white horses and opened a day's program of fights (Origines 18.53ff.)" "Fights"? That's highly suspect, and might be WP:OR or WP:SYN. So is he talking about "gladiators" or simply a display preamble by a couple of horsemen? Who does he offer as his source? By Isidore's time, munera had long been banned. At the very least, we might have a problem of interpretation, which is why we should use primary sources with circumspection, if at all, unless through their citation in reliable secondary sources.

That leaves only the Junkelmann 2000 citation, currently appended to the last brief para. I've no access to the work. Several page numbers are given, which seems excessive for a smidgin of content; so did it originally also support the descriptions in the first two paras? Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Have checked through the history; originally, the whole entry was a single para, supported by the Junkelmann cite, but has since been reworded and otherwise tinkered without due care. I see no reason not to restore the original, which was imho better written and more cautious - apart from the Isidore bit, which I'm removing because it raises more problems than it solves.Haploidavey (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)