Talk:Retiarius

"Completely naked"?
Wearing a tunic (or a subligaculum, for that matter) and a shoulder guard is not exactly "completely naked", isn't it? The difference to most other gladiator types was that the retiarius did not wear a helmet. The ancient artwork is relatively consistent on how those men were dressed and equipped. --62.143.121.135 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Spongia = Shoulder Guard?
You'll have to attribute that one: spongia simply means "sponge", though there is recorded use of spongia pectori tegumentum ("sponge covering the chest") to mean a coat of mail, I'd imagine you'd need something similar along with spongia to refer to a shoulder covering (spongia alae tegumentum?).67.101.119.99 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Source are cited for the term, so please check those for more information. Junkelmann is a good place to look. — Dulcem (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dug deeper for the primary source: it's from Tertullianus' De Spectaculis: "Poterit et de misericordia moueri defixus in morsus ursorum et spongias retiariorum. Alain Vassileiou explores this in Les éponges des rétiaires Mythe et réalite, saying that this highly ambiguous reference in Tertullianus is the only instance of spongia being used in relation to the retiarius. He goes on to examine various explanations, including that some have connected it to the phrase I quoted in my earlier post, attempting to extend the idea to shoulder armor (note that "shoulder" is never mentioned in Tertullianus' usage--others seem to have inferred it simply because retiarii wear no other armor). It has also been claimed to refer to the net, which seems slightly more plausible but still lacks attestation. Vassileiou concludes that it's probably a simple editorial error and that the word punctas ("thrusts", i.e., with the dagger or trident--both emblematic of retiarius equipment, and one can see how the two words could easily become confused in a somewhat poorly-written or damaged copy) was likely meant instead, which, if nothing else would make for better parallelism with the preceding phrase, morsus ursorum ("the bites of bears").67.188.246.241 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry; I've been away from the Wiki for a while so I just saw this. This is good information and probably deserves to be in the article. Can you provide a full source citation for Vassileiou? Rather than simply removing references to the spongia, we should probably discuss the controversy in the article. Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is here: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/dha_0755-7256_1992_num_18_2_2019 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.119.99 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern Day Equivalent
Spider Man is a modern day Retiarius. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent date formats
Sometimes dates are given using "CE", sometimes using "AD" and sometimes nothing at all eg, "2nd century". Should they not all have the same format? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be good now. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should, -if- an identifying era abbreviation is needed. Once you use it a couple of times, it becomes superfluous. As to CE versus AD, it is AD that is proper. Since Dionysius Exiguus came up with the concept of dating years from the birth of Jesus Christ, and since that idea's adoption, we have as a world come to use this dating method. The Jewish calendar, Roman, Muslim... none came into widespread use, or fell out of use. Today, anno domini dating is the accepted standard for dating, as much as the kilogram is for weight.

The failure of CE to compare to AD is plainly obvious, and occurs on several fronts: it is confusing, both as to its own meaning (Christian or Common, or something else? one might ask); it does not enjoy widespread oral vernacular usage; it technically dates from no time, thus owing its contrived existence to the identical era designated as Christian; it is redundant and cumbersome, for the immediately preceding reason; and its usage was and is fostered, by a minority, not for the purpose of accurate or uniform dating and record-keeping, but to exist as an opposing force to AD in the misguided and unsupported belief that the latter is somehow offensive, exclusive, or biased in favor of religion in general, or of Christianity in particular. No such belief is held by society, the great majority of which believes in some Supreme Being.

Strong support of continued AD (and BC vs. BCE) usage and its replacement of CE wherever the latter occurs... John {talk) 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesium 133 (talk • contribs)


 * strong oppose of edit-wars Please may I quote Wikipedia's Manual of Style:
 * "Year-numbering systems:
 * Either CE and BCE or  AD and BC can be used — spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.".  Trafford09 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No footwear?
Doesn't the image at top show the retiarius with some type of footwear? It's small and hard to tell, but looks like straps over the ankles. The Zliten mosaic below clearly shows protection over the feet, evidently without a sole, but footwear nonetheless. The famous four-panel mosaic seems to show Kalendio with shinguards in the bottom panel that extend over the top of the foot, but different straps around the ankles in the upper panel. (Then again, I have rather poor vision.) The relief is hard to see. The article mentions ankle-bands. I'm curious about this because at first glance (hasty, I admit) I don't see anything in the techniques section about the relative (dis)advantages of fighting barefoot, or why the tops of the feet were protected and not the soles. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of category
Hiya. Just letting you know that after your edit to the Talk:Retiarius Talk page, I've had to removed the Category, as it's inappropriate to the article. If you meant to add a different Category, please redo your edit, selecting the appropriate category that you intended to add. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe so? A Retiarius is a gladiator-style derived from fishermen, so would seem to be related to fishing. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm - ok, I see the point. Personally I think the link is historical and hence tenuous, but if you add the category back in, I will leave well alone.  You might want to add a section into its Talk page, though, to seek to dissuade others from considering removing the category.  Best regards, Trafford09 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose replacement of tag; I also find the connection tenuous; there are no fish involved. If the fish were weapons, I'd probably agree, but if it is within project fishing, then it's probably within WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject Arts and hundreds more. For further discussion on this 'excess project tagging', see WikiProject reform.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be within Fashion... the designs of the uniforms are for artistic reasons. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Martial Arts WikiProject rating
I gave this article a rating based on the Martial Arts WikiProject guidelines. It is a featured article, so I rated it class FA. Feel free to object. Ryt 007 (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Balteus
Sorry, I've got to go after this one too. I don't buy it--I can't find any specific references to an item called a "balteus" being used by retiarii. In fact though balteus is a cognate of English "belt", I think the closer cognate is 'baldric', which is in fact how balteus is most commonly described--a strap worn diagonally, typically holding up a sword or shield: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Balteus.html, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbalteus.

I would argue that while there are still no specific references I can find, the more common "cinctus" is more likely--at least it goes round the right part of the body....67.101.119.99 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I don't own a copy - and wish I did - the Junkelmann reference supplied (probably by Dulcem, who seems occupied elsewhere) seems the likely source. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Junkelmann has already proven unreliable in terms of his use of Latin (see "spongia", above).67.101.119.99 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking up Junkelmann, he is apparently a historian and "experimental archaeologist" (whatever that means), so deferring to him as a scholar in those fields might be appropriate, but he's neither a Latinist or linguist, so I think my skepticism of his use of terminology seems well placed.67.101.119.99 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems fair comment. His work seems valued especially by re-enactors, reconstructors and the like. I've never read it (I'm in the UK) - the British Library doesn't even carry the English version and even if they did - well, my Latin's non-existent. Haploidavey (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There being no objections, move to strike, and use the more common description of a manica as well! 67.101.119.99 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Manica
Not sure I agree with the description here of a manica either: "This mail covered the shoulder and upper chest." The cognate of manica is "manacle", as it has to do mainly with the arm. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmanicae suggests "armlet" or "gauntlet" as glosses, but "armored sleeve" seems more likely given the images. Even wikipedia's own description of this item http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_manica describes it--properly--as an "arm guard" (though I'll note that calling this a "lorica manica" strikes me as wrong as well, but I'll deal with that later).67.101.119.99 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Scissor?
The Scissor is mentioned in that article as being theorized to have a weapon similar to that the Secutor of the Eastern Roman Empire is stated to have used in this article. Should something about this be mentioned, in one or both articles? (Or, for that matter, in the Secutor article, which doesn't mention anything about the Eastern Roman Empire form?) Allens (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold text--68.100.196.198 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Andivius Hedulio is a work of fiction
This article cites Andivius Hedulio as its source for its statement about the odds of a Retiarius vs. a Secutor. But that book is a work of fiction, it is not an actual historical account from a real roman. I think a new source for this bit of information should be found, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.21.220 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Effeminacy
There's a dispute about whether the retiarius was considered the most demeaning class of gladiator. Commentary on the Cambridge University Press edition of Juvenal says there is "no evidence of this".

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Juvenal_Satire_6/dhhvAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=were+retiarius+stigmatised&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover

In the article the claim is uncited but seems to come from MJ Carter's work.

Themarblemiracle (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)