Medusa

I use my profile name "Medusa" in many (Roman) fora because it is my arena name. I chose this name because names from Greek mythology were common as arena names of gladiators and Medusa of course is more catchy than Penthesilea or something else. I didn't want to take one of the two names attested of gladiatrices Amazon or Achillia though Amazon is my avatar.

gladiator = gladiatrix (leave the "o" out) Same of course for all male versions ending on -tor become -trix in the female version.

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.

Would leave this out in anything gladiatorial as the two edged axe and the club are not attested (gladiatorial) weapons of the Roman period Go for the thraex with the sica, which is a similar weapon to a falx. Slingers were not in a gladiatorial context only in the army!

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: http://www.ludus-nemesis.eu/aw4-1_p54.pdf

Will go this weekend to the Europ

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!!!!

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).

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. No need to ask you via PM it became all very clear by your posts 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: 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. 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.

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. 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

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!"

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

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.

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.