Dimachaeri Help!

[jbd_29349]

Can any one out there with this type of gladiator? It is the Dinachaeri. The only thing I can find out about them is that they fight with two swords, one in each hand.

My questions are:

Did they fight with helmets? If so what style of helmet?

Did they wear armour of any kind (manica/s, greeves)?

When did they appear in the arena?

What are they modeled after?

[Tib. Gabinius]

You ment the DiMachaer(i)us.
We dont know much about them, they are just mentioned in the sources two times and one inkonographic (tombstone of Diodoros) is interpretated from different scientists as a dimacherus.

IF (!) it is real one, he seemed to be bare headed or with a provocator helmet, pectorale (breast plate), half length leg guards and one manica (arm protection) .

He fought in pompeji (if he really existed) and the only traditioned enemie was the hoplomachus. So they were present in the amphitheater with the other gladiatores in the show after the pause, that means in the afternoon.

[jbd_29349]

Thanks!

Do you have a link or the picture of that tombstone showing the dimachaerus?

[Tib. Gabinius]

I can scan it in and send to you email, you ve just to pn me your email adress.

[Conal]

I have a very bad picture of that from a book cover so would appreciate a scanned copy please ?

[email protected]

cheers

[Pegasus]

Hi , We dont have that Type of Fighter in our group yet but if you visit the website of Collegium Gladiatorium they have pictures of their Foghters and Iam sure they have what you are looking for , Give them a try .



Verus .

[Martin Moser]

Here's in short what M. Junkelmann says about the Dimachaerus (Das Spiel mit dem Tod, p.127):

-2 epigraphic evidences (Lyon, Pompeii), the Pompeii might (!) reprot a fight hoplomachus vs dimachaerus, but the reading is controversial

-one relief from Amisos (gladiator w/ 2 short swords) was identified as D. by Drexel in 1924, but that was refuted by D. Faccena (1959): both gladiators wear the same (provocator) equipment, both have lost shields and helmets, and the winner might simply hold his adversary's weapon in his other hand, especially as the losing gladiator does not have a weapon anymore. Also the 2 shields contradict the D. theory - what would a D. hold a shield with? Ville (1981) follows this opinion

My own 2 cents: if you want to go Hollywood & the more the merrier style with your show, feel free to include a Dimachaerus (but at least tell the peole watching that nothing conclusive is known about this fighter), if you want to stick to what is known for (somewhat) sure about gladiators, leave him out.

[Tib. Gabinius]

To go more explicit:
Junkelmann dosnt say that he (Faccena) refused it, he told that he link to his arguments more than those of the fans of the dimachaerius theorie.

For me theres no doubt that these styled gladiatores existed, but i have my doubts that the tomb show it, but its also possible in my eyes.
The interpretation of this stone can be argumented by both side very detailed.

[Martin Moser]

To go more explicit:
Junkelmann dosnt say that he (Faccena) refused it, he told that he link to his arguments more than those of the fans of the dimachaerius theorie.

even more explicitely ;-) ) , Junkelmann wrote:

Faccena contradicted this [=identifiying one of the gladiators in the Amisos relief as a Dimachaerus] with convincing arguments.

("Dem hat D. FACCENA (1959, 40f., Anm.7) mit überzeugenden Gründen widersprochen." Junkelmann, Marcus. Das Spiel mit dem Tod. Mainz: 2000. p.127, 2nd column, lines 14-16 ;-) ) )

The Dimachaerus may of course well have existed (at least I won't argue for or against it). All I meant to say is that for me personally the decent thing to do if you do show a Dimachaerus, would be to enlighten spectators that representing this type of gladiator, his equipment, pairing and way of fighting is very much conjectural in comparison to other, much better documented types ...

[Tib. Gabinius]

On the eductional presentation of gladiatores its always sensefull, to take a little view in the show to the way we got our knowledge and what is known for sure and what not. In this point i totally agree.