08-06-2014, 05:57 AM
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.
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.
Dan
