Amazons vs gladiators?

[Ferrarius Magnus]

A recently published work on the Carthaginian army mentioned the presence of North African female warriors in its ranks and added that "mosaics in African cities of the [Roman] Imperial age often show fights between Amazons equipped with the bipennis axe and pelta shield, and other gladiators or beasts."(1)

Were the mosaics an artist´s fantasy or depictions of real shows? May anybody provide additional information or pictures on this issue?

(1) Andrea Salimbeti and Raffaele d´Amato: The Carthaginians, 6th–2nd Century BC (Oxford: Osprey, 2014), p. 21.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Female gladiators fought against other female gladiators only. Their fights of course could happen during a regular show where also male gladiators fought, unfortunately it's not known at which point of the gladiatorial part of the show (since Augustus' reform: beast fights e.g. beast vs. beast or beast vs. venator in the morning, public executions around noon time, gladiators in the afternoon. This applies to big shows of course, provincial shows might not have contained all three but e.g. gladiators only or beasts only).

Axe and pelta shield are no common gladiatorial weapons.

Amazons are mythological figures, at least we don't know for sure who might the real amazons and what they looked like. So the mosaic might depict a mythological scene of a battle and not a scene from a gladiator show. Do you have a picture of this mosaic in question?

[Ferrarius Magnus]

Thank you for your comments, Medusa. Unfortunately, Salimbeti and d´Amato´s work doesn´t include any picture.

Actually I wasn´t thinking of standard "munera", but those extravaganzas that turned executions into a mythological or “historical” enactment. The "amazon" would be a condemned woman compelled to fight (with a dull weapon and no training) against a real gladiator.

Another explanation for the mosaics could be that who commissioned them had a fetish for gladiators. Nonetheless, the quotation in my first post suggests a fad in that part of the empire. Therefore, it doesn´t sound implausible to me that the "editores" presented such a display from time to time.

[Alanus]

Amazons are mythological figures, at least we don't know for sure who might the real amazons and what they looked like. So the mosaic might depict a mythological scene of a battle and not a scene from a gladiator show.

Could simply be a mythological depiction. Actually, we do have a fairly good idea of what Amazons looked like. They were painted, quite popularly, on Greek vases. Judging from artistic rendering of their dress and weapons (cupid bows and typical sagaris), they were Scythian and Massagetae women. So in a sense, Amazons actually existed. But Amazons in Africa?

[Dan D'Silva]

Or it might be that the image of Amazons was adapted to resemble Steppe peoples because they were the nearest model at hand for societies that had significant numbers of female warriors.

Amazons are deeply entrenched in Greek mythology. I like to think that if they're based on any real source, it goes back to the Bronze Age.

[Alanus]

Or it might be that the image of Amazons was adapted to resemble Steppe peoples because they were the nearest model at hand for societies that had significant numbers of female warriors.
Amazons are deeply entrenched in Greek mythology. I like to think that if they're based on any real source, it goes back to the Bronze Age.

Good point, Dan
But if the Greek's Amazonian model was based upon some Bronze Age society, it would still be a steppe culture. ;-)

[Gladiatrix]

Medusa:

I'm replying to your comment about the Gladiatrix only fighting other Gladiatrix.

In my studies, I've read in all conquered lands, people that were taken were often made to fight in their own style. It allowed the Roman populous to learn about the defeated culture, and for the legion how to later fight them. In some cultures, women were warriors right alongside their men, and at times even lead armies of their own, like Boudica. If the Roman Army had come up against women taking on men, which there are a few stories of just that happening, wouldn't it make sense that at some points in Gladiator history such shows were reenacted?
I can see where you are coming from of why it wasn't as common. Even our own Ludus, we often have more booing for a women defeated by a man, while they become very excited when a Gladiatrix kills a man. Mostly though, folks really enjoy the show, and I'm not sure why if people of today enjoy it so much, why prior to the outlawing of the Gladiatrix, why these fights might not have taken place back then (it could have even been part of how it got outlawed perhaps). The people of Rome were so easily bored and shows had to become more and more over-the-top just to keep them placated. It truly was an almost, "anything goes" culture.
However, if you have any information I can look into that would contradict my theory, please share it. I'm still rather new to this.

[Condottiero Magno]

Amazons are mythological figures, at least we don't know for sure who might the real amazons and what they looked like. So the mosaic might depict a mythological scene of a battle and not a scene from a gladiator show.

Could simply be a mythological depiction. Actually, we do have a fairly good idea of what Amazons looked like. They were painted, quite popularly, on Greek vases. Judging from artistic rendering of their dress and weapons (cupid bows and typical sagaris), they were Scythian and Massagetae women. So in a sense, Amazons actually existed. But Amazons in Africa?

Outside the period, but the French had a tough time fighting against the Dahomey Amazons.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Medusa:
If the Roman Army had come up against women taking on men, which there are a few stories of just that happening, wouldn't it make sense that at some points in Gladiator history such shows were reenacted?

Reenactments of mythological scenes took place in the noontime program where noxii were executed. But the main point of a gladiator fight is that it has to be equal, so both parties should have the same chance to win. For professionals it would be very unlikely for a woman to win against a man due to the physical conditions which we unfortunately cannot change, e.g. muscle mass. That's nature.

Even our own Ludus, we often have more booing for a women defeated by a man, while they become very excited when a Gladiatrix kills a man. Mostly though, folks really enjoy the show, and I'm not sure why if people of today enjoy it so much, why prior to the outlawing of the Gladiatrix, why these fights might not have taken place back then (it could have even been part of how it got outlawed perhaps). The people of Rome were so easily bored and shows had to become more and more over-the-top just to keep them placated. It truly was an almost, "anything goes" culture.
However, if you have any information I can look into that would contradict my theory, please share it. I'm still rather new to this.

We do the gladiatura as a hobby, none of us is a professional athlete, at least not in our ludus. I do fight our men of course but it's much harder than against women do to the physical conditions. If I win over a man it's due to the lack of their ability. But if both, men and women are equally trained it's nearly impossible.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

Am I correct when I say that women vs. Women were novelty fights that were usually for private functions, and occasional crowd-drawers?

I have read that if there were female bouts (rare), they were just after the noontime executions. I forget my source, but I have read that fights were ordered by importance (i.e. two tiros fighting to two primus palii [forgive my latin-im just a barbarian :wink: ]). I have also read (the source escapes me) that female gladiators were occasionally used in executions due to the fact that in Rome's absolutely patriarchal society, being executed by a woman was a final insult. If one of you who are much more learned than I would comment, I would appreciate it. I have sources to find. :unsure:

[MagnusStultus]

How much if any of the statements about the Gladiatrix here are based on the primary sources?

I have some problems with a lot of Gladiatrix explanations, and here is why.

1. Domitian was said to be fond of female gladiatorial combat. Although one of the more tyrannical emperors he was in no source a sexual degenerate so this would indicate watching women fight did not have any taboos.

2. Medusa I respect your abilities; but I don't think what a Roman would want to see was neccessarily a fair fight. Amazons lost in actual mythology and I have no doubt that Romans would want to see that. Achilles? Victorious. Hercules? Victorious etc. etc. Not all Gladiatorial games ended in death and I think we overlook the possibility of female vs male as a reliving of mythology with the female spared. A Roman I think might want to see you enter the Trojan War and be unable to overcome Achilles. This is of course pure speculation.

3. Anthropological evidence of weapons in women's tombs, and evidence of women having good tombs doesn't mean they fought; we have the tomb of Caecilia Metella it doesn't mean she was an empress.

4. Beware when anthropology goes a bridge to far. Scythians appeared after Amazon legends already began. What is more important is the fact that there are other explanations for weapons in tombs besides the tombs being that of warriors. Weapons had a great deal of meaning in all iron age culture; and valuing women doesn't mean putting them in combat. Putting women in combat would indicate male/female equality.

[diegis]

This is a very interesting topic indeed, and best regards to the reenactors of the female gladiators, I think is very cool and admirable, and for sure something to watch (as the ancient Romans would probably had a guilty pleasure to watch as well)
From what I read there are quite few primary sources talking about women as gladiators (or at least training themselves as such, full gear and all), including sometime even free women (as it was the case with free men citizens as well), possibly doing it just for the thrill.
I think Juvenal mention something about this (in a negative tone, as something not cool for the conservative and patriarchal Roman society) and the Senate or some emperor had make a law that said that free women and men under some age (20 or 25 if I remember correct) were not allowed to participate as gladiators in fights in arena.

I doubt as well that female gladiators (who were probably not very numerous anyway) would have been normaly put to fight one on one against a professional or trained male gladiators, or at least that would have been some exceptional event.
Even at equal or close skills the man will be most of the time significantly stronger so have an advantage from the start, and I do think Romans wanted a balanced enough fight (executions of prisoners and such are a different matter).
I am not saying is impossible (and some women can be quite strong as well, physically speaking, and very skilled) but I doubt it would have been something common.
I forgot that article I read, not sure how close to reality was, however it was said that most probably female gladiators were fighting against male gladiators during group fights, when two groups representing opposing armies or units/troops fight eachother. And women (included in one or both groups) more then probably would have use bows and arrows (maybe riding a chariot) as primary weapons (like the mythological Amazons).
I imagine that at some point they may come to sword fights too vs male gladiators during the fight, but not as intended from the start.

Women warriors were not that unheard in ancient times, beside the (half) mythological Amazons (I do think the myth have a real base, even if probably was then at least a little exaggerated by later authors imagination) there were other examples.
Like the poetess Telesilla and the women of Argos who defeated a Spartan invasion, but yes, these were not common things.
As someone mentioned here there was an entire female army corp in Dahomey (in XIX century Africa, true), and they were quite renowned for their military prowess, so I think is not impossible to exist some similar custom in ancient Africa as well.

[MagnusStultus]

This is a very interesting topic indeed, and best regards to the reenactors of the female gladiators, I think is very cool and admirable, and for sure something to watch (as the ancient Romans would probably had a guilty pleasure to watch as well)
From what I read there are quite few primary sources talking about women as gladiators (or at least training themselves as such, full gear and all), including sometime even free women (as it was the case with free men citizens as well), possibly doing it just for the thrill.
I think Juvenal mention something about this (in a negative tone, as something not cool for the conservative and patriarchal Roman society) and the Senate or some emperor had make a law that said that free women and men under some age (20 or 25 if I remember correct) were not allowed to participate as gladiators in fights in arena.

I doubt as well that female gladiators (who were probably not very numerous anyway) would have been normaly put to fight one on one against a professional or trained male gladiators, or at least that would have been some exceptional event.
Even at equal or close skills the man will be most of the time significantly stronger so have an advantage from the start, and I do think Romans wanted a balanced enough fight (executions of prisoners and such are a different matter).
I am not saying is impossible (and some women can be quite strong as well, physically speaking, and very skilled) but I doubt it would have been something common.
I forgot that article I read, not sure how close to reality was, however it was said that most probably female gladiators were fighting against male gladiators during group fights, when two groups representing opposing armies or units/troops fight eachother. And women (included in one or both groups) more then probably would have use bows and arrows (maybe riding a chariot) as primary weapons (like the mythological Amazons).
I imagine that at some point they may come to sword fights too vs male gladiators during the fight, but not as intended from the start.

Women warriors were not that unheard in ancient times, beside the (half) mythological Amazons (I do think the myth have a real base, even if probably was then at least a little exaggerated by later authors imagination) there were other examples.
Like the poetess Telesilla and the women of Argos who defeated a Spartan invasion, but yes, these were not common things.
As someone mentioned here there was an entire female army corp in Dahomey (in XIX century Africa, true), and they were quite renowned for their military prowess, so I think is not impossible to exist some similar custom in ancient Africa as well.

I am trying to be constructive but the examples you cited have some holes in them.

1. The Amazons lose; there is no way around it. We have taken the amazon idea from the Greeks and made it our own; but the Greco-Roman idea of the amazon always loses to Greeks. This doesn't indicate that one of the exceptions you cited could be a basis for the inspiration because if it is shouldn't they have some victories? An Amazon queen is given by Hercules to his friend Theseus as a gift to be his bride. It is also interesting that Achilles and Ajax are unimpressed by another Amazon Queen and treat the duel as over before it began; and that Achilles has genuine remorse for killing her as if he could have spared her (which would indicate a massive gap in abilities). The always losing factor indicates to me if there is an origin in reality of the amazon myths it isn't one of the rare exceptions of women going into battle; it is in married life being tough but the husband has to fight and prevail (ancient Greek opinion not mine at all).

2. I don't know of any evidence for Mycenaean contact with West Africa; Dark Age Greece is called Dark Age essentially because trade links and writing ends during it; and by Archaic Age it is far too late for anything from then on being an inspiration.

The reason I am pointing this out isn't to try to ruin amazons to people on the forum; it is to try and give back context to an Amazon vs Gladiator fight.

The mythological actual record of Amazons leaves room for a fixed rule of don't kill the Gladiatrix; but allow a professional gladiator to face her otherwise unhindered. The point of the games wasn't to kill gladiators it was to entertain a crowd and showing the abduction of Antiope by Hercules would have been entertaining.

About the sources you mention keep in mind that Domitian was not one of the deviant emperors so the fact that he enjoyed female gladiators indicates it wasn't considered a threat to patriarchy in Ancient Rome.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

As for all the sources we used to have a thread here were I already had them all listed based on an article by Stephen Brunet. Just check out this thread:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/12-ancient-...=15#126824

Women gladiatorial bouts definitely were much rarer than male bouts of course but with the same seriousness. They were a kind of novelty, e.g. the inscription from Ostia points this out. But at what point among a gladiatorial show they took place nothing is known. If they are a novelty I wouldn't put them right at the beginning of the show, usually tirones had their fights with wooden weapons at the beginning, followed by the less known or less experienced gladiators and the best ones at the end. Depending on the women, if they already have fought before and also have become a bit popular I would put them somewhere in the middle of the show.

What we have to keep in mind in this thread is what we are talking about: gladiators or mythical enactments during the noontime program which were executions. At the mythical enactments it was from the beginning clear who had to die whereas at a gladiatorial bout the outcome was open. It could have even been a draw like shown on the relief of Amazon and Achillia.

BTW talking about this relief, the name Amazon doesn't mean that she fought in the gear of what Romans believed Amazons had but same as Achillia it was just an arena name after a mythological figure. Male gladiators also picked arena names after mythological figures (or had them picked by their trainer or lanista).

[MagnusStultus]

As for all the sources we used to have a thread here were I already had them all listed based on an article by Stephen Brunet. Just check out this thread:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/12-ancient-...=15#126824

Women gladiatorial bouts definitely were much rarer than male bouts of course but with the same seriousness. They were a kind of novelty, e.g. the inscription from Ostia points this out. But at what point among a gladiatorial show they took place nothing is known. If they are a novelty I wouldn't put them right at the beginning of the show, usually tirones had their fights with wooden weapons at the beginning, followed by the less known or less experienced gladiators and the best ones at the end. Depending on the women, if they already have fought before and also have become a bit popular I would put them somewhere in the middle of the show.

What we have to keep in mind in this thread is what we are talking about: gladiators or mythical enactments during the noontime program which were executions. At the mythical enactments it was from the beginning clear who had to die whereas at a gladiatorial bout the outcome was open. It could have even been a draw like shown on the relief of Amazon and Achillia.

BTW talking about this relief, the name Amazon doesn't mean that she fought in the gear of what Romans believed Amazons had but same as Achillia it was just an arena name after a mythological figure. Male gladiators also picked arena names after mythological figures (or had them picked by their trainer or lanista).

But does it follow that Romans wanted a fair fight?