Essays | Book Reviews | | Equipment Reviews | | Essays |

Osprey Gladiators 100BC - 200AD Stephen Wisdom, ISBN - 1841762997 On the surface of things Stephen Wisdoms addition to the prolific Osprey book series is a concise precise of gladiators during the 100BC - 200AD date. However it is unfortunately riddled with small mistakes which can often leave the reader with little more than a nice collection of Angus McBride illustrations. Sadly the a book which could have added a great deal of popular coverage to the subject of gladiators, which I am sure it may have done, will more than often mislead new comers to the subject through misplaced dates, translations and information. Whilst I do not doubt that the book will be useful to catch the eye of the book shop gladiator it will do little to properly inform them of the subject. In places it seems to be a little more than a rehash of Michael Grants earlier work, Gladiator. It is wonderfully illustrated by the now near legendary Angus McBride but misses the mark in almost all other places. Below is a complete list of the errors found within the book written by Suzy, you can find the full details of this discussion on the Roman Combat Sports Forum. Hello, Apologies for the long post. Here's an abridged list of the errors I found in "Gladiators". I have cut out some of the smaller things. In particular, whenever he uses a Latin or Greek word [even some English words too...], assume it's wrong; either wrong case, wrong spelling or wrong meaning. At my request, a friend sent this list off to Osprey with a covering letter. They said they were "concerned to hear" that we had found errors and "promised" they would fix the book up at "reprint time". Yeah, we'll see. They also said to us that they had sent their book to an "authority on the subject" for proof reading before publication. Sure... Have fun, -- Susan Errata and comments on Osprey Warrior 39 "Gladiators 100BC – AD 200" ===================================================================== p. 7 Chronology "29 BC Amphitheatre of Titus Statilius Taurus built of wood in Rome." Taurus’ amphitheatre was built of *stone*. Dio Cassius 51, 23: "theatron kunigetikon ...lithonon" ("...a hunting theatre [a Greek term for amphitheatre] of stone...") p. 15 "fighting men" The skeletons are male. No more can be said. It is also apparent that the gladiatorial barracks were used at the time of the eruption as shelter by all and sundry. These guys could have been anyone. p. 16 "...classical play The Satyricon" Satyricon is a novel (avant la lettre), not a classical play. p. 17 "Uri, vinciri, uerberari, ferroque necari" ("to endure burning with fire, shackling with chains, to be whipped with rods and killed with steel") You must be consistent in the use of "u" as a consonant in Latin. The translation is too flowery also: "To be burned, to be bound, to be beaten, to die by the sword". Other attested versions of the oath leave out the reference to beating. p. 19 "unctores (masseuses)" unctores means [male] masseurs. Masseuse in English implies female. p. 21 "...a two metre-high (6½ ft) wooden post..." The stake is 6 [Roman] feet high which is only 170cm. The reference to stakes as gladiatorial training devices comes from Vegetius, "Epitome rei militaris." I,11 "...pali defigebantur in terram...et sex pedibus eminerent" ("...they fix a stake in the ground...with six feet protruding") p. 23 "In the arena the...retiarii [sic]...stalked the...myrmillo...the combats of the Thracian against the secutor" There is no evidence that retiarii ever fought myrmillones (as such). No pictorial evidence exists for such a match. It is argued whether secutores are just myrmillones since they are similarly armed but differ in only the helmet style worn. However, in contemporary evidence they do seem to have been regarded as something separate. Thracians certainly never typically fought secutores. "half-man, half-fish" This is nonsense. Myrmillones show no "fishy" attributes whatsoever. Your author’s "dorsal-fin shaped crest" is a piece of creative/associative thinking also. The piscine etymology of the myrmillo name does not rest on any firm evidence. "It does not seem likely that gladiators wore this garment under their tunics every day". Subligaculum was normal Roman underwear. It seems rather likely that they did wear it every day. p. 25 "crupellarius...heavy armour, almost certainly padded fabric...The legionaries had to [use] military pickaxes" Three things speak against this assertion: 1. "padded fabric" can scarcely be described as "heavy armour". 2. One does not need a pickaxe to defeat "padded fabric" armour. 3. Crupellarii are attested only in Tacitus who explicitly says that they wore metal armour. cf. Tacitus "Annales" III, 43: "[gladiatores]...quibus more gentico, continuum ferri tegimen crupellarios vocant, inferendis ictibus inhabilis, accipiendi impenetrabilis" ("[gladiators]... called crupellarii who, in the local manner, were entirely encased in iron and , although they were ill-adapted to inflict wounds, they were impervious to receiving them") p. 27 "...it is said to have influenced the development of a similar armour issued to the legions in the field" There is not a scrap of evidence for this assertion of influence (either way). All you can observe is that gladiators and soldiers wore similar pieces of armour. p. 28 "The manicae may have been made in two separate ways" All evidence for how Roman arm-guards were constructed shows that the lames overlapped upwards. There is nothing to substantiate this "two separate ways" assertion. "The manicae...horizontal threat" This entire passage is unsubstantiated speculation. It is based on no contemporary evidence and its premises and conclusions are only barely supportable in this context. The categorization of the directions which various weapons threatened from is particular nonsense. p. 29 "perhaps they acted as a visual scorecard" This is pure imagination on the author’s part. This fact should be acknowledged in the text. p. 32 "Without his net, the retiarius was probably doomed" This is nonsense. The retiarius also has a dagger, and practical experiments have shown that the trident is a very formidable (not just "effective") weapon when wielded in both hands. "The ivory grip" The grip is bone, not ivory. p. 41 "The essedaria [sic] fought from the essedium" It should be essedarii and the existence of chariot fighting gladiators is now largely discounted. No pictorial representations at all of these are known (save for one, in which a venator is driving) although they are spoken of in literary sources (where, however, the context could just as easily also refer to venationes). "They may also have faced wild beasts" The only pictorial evidence for a chariot fighter in the arena is one in which beasts are being fought. "A mosaic...shows" It is an engraved glass cup, not a mosaic. p. 42 "The helmet...found in a Smyrna grave" No gladiatorial helmets have been found in graves in Smyrna. "dressed as Hermes Psychopompus" There is no conclusive evidence of this at gladiatorial contests. p. 43 "The bodies of criminals ...were cut up...to feed to the wild animals" The bodies of criminals were either buried [there is archaeological evidence of this at more than one site] or thrown into rivers [the traditional Roman disposal technique for the bodies of executed criminals]. The cutting up is mentioned only once [by Suetonius] as an extraordinary and remarkable thing which Caligula ordered. "round shield" Square shield. p. 44 "gladiatorial shields may have been provided simply for decoration...no reason to assume that gladiatorial shields would be any different in construction" In this passage the poor author seems to be completely unable to make his mind up what he thinks! The notion that the shields were "provided simply for decoration" is too utterly ridiculous to even bother going to the effort to. The author here is clearly over indulging in idle and unsubstantiated speculation. "would make a combat either very long or very dull..." ...or rather would force the combatants to exert themselves and use skill to circumvent it. This was the whole point of the matching of different equipments and styles of fighting in contests! "29 doomed gladiators" These men were condemned Saxon prisoners of war, not professional gladiators. p. 48 "...the faceless myrmillo fish creature" This "fish-creature" metaphor is far too much overplayed in the book. "The Hollywood image of thumbs down for death is a purely modern notion invented by film directors..." Actually the evidence indicates only that a "turned thumb" indicated death. An upturned thumb (called pollux infestus) was an insulting or bad luck symbol to the Romans (I understand it is still such in parts of Italy today). The "turned thumb" to indicate death in the arena was called pollux versus. This is attested in Juvenal Satires 3,36: "munera nunc edunt et, verso pollice, vulgus cum iubet, occidunt populariter" ("now they give munera and, with a turn of the thumb, win favour by slaughtering in accordance with the whims of the mob"). So it is clear that "turning one’s thumb" indicated death for a fighter. Whether the "turning" is merely the act of extending the thumb or of turning the hand in some direction is not known for sure (and is disputed). Some believe that a merely extended thumb was not demonstrative enough and expect a hand movement to be involved too. Their stance is reinforced by the notion of "turning", which does not seem to fit the action of merely extending a thumb. It is also suggested that the thumb symbolized the sword (for reasons to do with the shared phallic symbolism of the two objects in the Roman mind) and that a movement was made to mimic the action of dealing the final blow, which was typically downwards. This "downwards mimicking gesture" is, however, conjectured and is not corroborated by any evidence. In the total absence of any sort of pictorial evidence, more than this cannot be said except that the notion that "thumbs down meant death" cannot, in the face of what little other evidence there is, be dismissed quite so lightly. "The winners (vincit)" vincit does not mean "winners". You need to use the word victores "Carcopino states..." "Carcopino" is not listed in the bibliography, and in any case you cannot use the assertion of a secondary source as an authority like this. p. 49 "Ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus" This form of the "salute" is of course inaccurate. The "salute" is taken from Suetonius’ "De vita Caesarum" XXI, 6: "Sed cum proclamantibus naumachiariis: ‘Ave imperator, morituri te salutant!’ respondisset: ‘Aut non’" "2,000 combat soldiers" They were prisoners of war and condemned criminals. Not "combat soldiers" p. 50 "the now famous gladiatorial salute" There is no evidence that this was ever used by gladiators. It is attested once only [in Suetonius. "De Vita Caesarum" XXI, 6] spoken by condemned men at a naumachia (as your author rightly says). However, condemned men (noxii) are not "gladiators" in the technical sense of the topic of this book. The evidence in fact shows that it is wrong to equate gladiatorial combats with death and sacrifice and so the use of such a salute is actually rather unlikely to have been used by gladiators. For both these reasons, it is therefore incorrect to call it a "gladiatorial salute". p. 51 "[tickets] would have been distributed free" Actually tickets for the shows were not free. The evidence pertaining to ticketing and seating arrangements in amphitheatres is complex. Some small number of tickets were given away free to the upper classes (this was a survival of the traditional republican practice), but other blocks of seating were owned by groups (guilds and associations) who hired them out and others (the majority) were for sale. On occasions on which they were given away free for all (for example once by Caligula as recorded in Dio and once by Claudius as recorded by Suetonius) it was unusual enough to excite comment (and people camped out all night to be at the front of the queue to get them). There are also inscriptions which explicitly mention "money derived from entrance fees to gladiatorial shows" Locarii are not "they who give a location" in the sense of performing the offices of an usher. They are actually "ticket-scalpers"; people who buy up seats and sell them on at an inflated price. The only attestation of locarii in the context of [amphi]theatres is in Martial’s Epigrams: V, XXIV, 9 "Hermes divitiae locariorum" ("Hermes [a famous gladiator] darling of the ticket-scalpers") . Locarius is defined in analogy to locarium which is "money paid to hire space to pitch a market stall". p. 52 "Caligula’s, now infamous, orders in the Colosseum" The Colosseum was not built until 40 years after Caligula died! "even at the highest, poorest status seating. The audience could see the battle clearly" Actually from the back rows of seats the combatants in an arena appear vanishingly small, even at modestly sized amphitheatres like Pompeii, Trier, Nimes or Xanten. I know, I’ve been to all of these. p. 54 "Assuming...criminal classes" You do not need to "assume". The edicta munerum at Pompeii often clearly state that noxii (sometimes cruciani = cruciarii ie. crucifixions) will be part of the programme. p. 55 "lorarii" is wrong here. You must use lora ("whips"). Lorarii are "people with whips". "The current view is that fist and thumb jabbing upward...meant kill him" See my notes to p. 48 "...the thumb down meant weapons to the ground" seems rather too contrived (even more so than the suggestion that the thumb gesture mimicked the fatal sword thrust) and in any case is not based on any contemporary evidence. Glossary ======== Balteus technically means a sword belt [cf. Quintillian 11, 3,140 Dict Antiq. Also Varro, Servius and Caesar] and is also used in poetry to mean a woman’s girdle. The word you should really use for a man’s belt around the waist is cingulum. Fasciae is plural yet your definition is singular. Meridiana is wrong. It is meridiani Noxii "condemned criminals forced to fight to the death" "condemned criminals executed in various ways in public in the arena" would be more strictly accurate. They did not always have to fight each other. Praecone The correct singular form is praeco Tirone The correct singular form is tiro Vellarium The correct spelling is velarium Illustrations and captions ========================== p. 4 "scisorores" is wrong. It is scissor p. 5 "Taiamonius". On the original mosaic the gladiator’s name is clearly Talamonius. He also has a sword in his left hand (not a spear shaft as the illustration shows) and is clearly not a retiarius as the caption asserts. He has a greave on his left leg and his right arm is armoured. But for his helmet he is, in other words, dressed exactly as the secutores on the mosaic. The actual retiarii on the mosaic also wear a galerus on their left arms. p. 7 "...the secutor Belurefons." On the mosaic his name is clearly Bellerofons p. 9 "Podium fighters" There was no such thing as a "podium fighter" p. 10 "Dwarf gladiator in bronze...wears the equipment of a hoplomachus" The figure is quite clearly not dressed as a gladiator! He is clearly wearing a muscled cuirass with pteruges and an open faced helmet. He is obviously dressed as a hero or a general or something similar. p. 17 "retiarius (Knendio)...secutor Astinax" On the original mosaic the combatants’ names are clearly Kalendio and Astyanax p. 18 "Fighting...a wild bear...Flamma won his freedom four times" He is not fighting a wild bear! On the original it clearly says "Ursus tibicen" ("The flute- playing bear") beside the bear and "Pul[l]us cornicen" ("The horn-blowing chicken") beside his companion. They are [most probably] the band dressed as animals. Not only is the caption horrendously wrong but it also misses a chance to introduce the Roman’s love of vulgar burlesque and pantomime of which this is an excellent example. I shall pass over the fact that it is also most unlikely that this is the same Flamma who kept returning to the arena. p. 27 The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [Arch 66 at WLM Stuttgart]. I suspect that the author just made this himself quickly from clay then photographed it. The original of this is relatively elegant and shows the griffon crest of the thraex clearly. The copy does not. p. 29 "Vestorious" It should be Vestorius "...these two myrmillo fighters" The figure on the left in this painting is very clearly a thraex. The author here misses a chance to draw attention to a contemporary image of a gladiator wearing embroidered trousers. p. 43 The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [MA 4492 in the Louvre]. The "copy in private collection" label is rather pompous and presumably is there for verisimilitude. In this case by neglecting to copy the inscription they miss the opportunity to mention that this is a monument dedicated to the fallen by his widow. p. 45 In my opinion, this picture is a totally irrelevant "space filler". p. 54 In my opinion this photo is entirely irrelevant to the topic. The corridor in the picture is not even anywhere near the amphitheatre (although it is quite near the gladiatorial barracks). I have been there. p. 56 "...the pairing of retiarius and secutor was most common" It is actually the only pairing in the context of the pons which is attested in any of the sources. p. 59 The gladiator’s name is M[arcus] Attilius, not "Mattilius" p. 61 The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [Brit. Museum. Inv nr.GR 1965.1—11.1]. I suspect that the author just made this himself quickly from clay then photographed it. p. 62 "close inspection reveals a square plate on the elbow of the manica" I have personally inspected the original closely and saw no such thing [or at least I am not convinced enough to get excited about it]. What is, however, interesting about this representation is that the retiarius is a left-hander and it is one of the very few representations to show a retiarius actually holding his net. Why was this not mentioned in the caption? Plate A The use of uniformed and armoured regular soldiers to guard gladiator schools is not attested anywhere. Much more likely are private "civilian" security guards. Plate A description p. 61 "Legionaries" [see comments above] Plate B description p. 61 "The trainer holds a stick to encourage reticent fighters into action if their nerves are lacking" This use of the stick is overplayed in the book. There is no evidence that the rudis was used [or at least intended] for anything other than signalling or enforcing order during the refereeing of matches. "...armed as a Thracian and a secutor" The pairing of thraex and secutor is not attested in contemporary sources. The opponent is therefore a myrmillo (albeit without his armour). Plate C Small comment; is it really necessary to draw a "headband" for us? Plate C description p. 62 "The pugio dagger (shown tucked into his waistband)" I do realize that the artist takes liberties with hard reality to show items to their best advantage but note that the retiarius typically seems to have carried his dagger in his left hand. Numerous contemporary pictorial references show this. Plate D The secutor should more typically have a small greave on the left leg only. The thraex should typically have either trousers or fasciae. Gladiator types with small shields seem normally in [detailed] contemporary representations to have had comprehensive leg protection. Plate D description p. 62 "the blade being unsuitable for slashing moves due to its thin cross section" The gladius is perfectly capable of being used to slash. There are many historical [and archaeological] references to the remarkable, and horrible, efficiency of the weapon when used like this. The "thin cross section" assertion is nonsense. The short sword is likely to have not been used to slash much in gladiatorial engagements, but that is due to its short length making it harder to apply in a slashing movement especially against opponents with their limbs comprehensively protected. Gladiator swords do appear to have become progressively shorter after the turn of the 1st Century BC when purely military style weapons seem no longer to have been used (but the evidence for gladiatorial hand weapons is admittedly sketchy). However that is a quite different story from asserting that slashing movements were not used due to technical or structural weaknesses in the equipment. Plate E Elsewhere the author asserts that the helmet the myrmillo is wearing was for display only. Why then is he portrayed here in a combat stance? Actually the assertion that these decorated helmets (with their reinforced brims, full face guards and visors) were for display only is strongly contested. They are actually stronger than military helmets which were indisputably intended for combat. The balance of opinion seems to favour the notion that these were used in the arena. Plate E description p.63 Plate F The pairing of hoplomachus and provocator is not attested in any surviving pictorial evidence. In particular provocatores normally fought only provocatores. Only one representation of an [apparent] provocator [although it could alternatively be a secutor] engaging a myrmillo is known to me [on a pottery bottle now in Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz] Both figures also appear to be wearing modern belt buckles. Plate F description. p. 63 "no existing examples of exactly this style are known today" In fact two complete examples, one skull and several fragments were discovered at Pompeii. The helmet bowl from Hawkedon [Brit. Mus. Inv 1966. 6-5,1] is also thought to be a provocator helmet. Plate G Chains are extremely unlikely as attachment devices for greaves. Plate H A Roman would not have written "Gladiatores Astinax". That is very clumsy Latin. It should be rather "Gladiatores Astinagis" ("The Gladiators of Astinax") ========================= To order this book from Amazon click here. Graham Ashford.