Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Osprey Gladiators - Wisdom/McBride
#1
Just picked this small volume up today and see that's a 2001 publication date. Great book just for McBride's illustrations! Two things about metal manicae; the author is putting in an elbow plate, or 'couter', for flexibility. I have seen Matt's reproduction and he does not seem to have any trouble bending it. Is there any good source for this?<br>
Also, they postulate manicae that overlaps in two directions depending upon opponent; say, a stab from in front or below, and another from above, like a Dacian falx. Would the army have used both/either/or? Seems like a lot of work to equip several thousand troops unless you could turn the manicae upside down as needed. <p>Aulus<br>
Legio XX<br>
ICQ 940236
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#2
Ah, the usual Osprey inventiveness - until now my favourite had been those little shin protector things that somebody somewhere seems to have decided Roman soldiers wore. Evidence...? wot's that?<br>
<br>
None of the complete armguards that have survived (nor any of the depictions, come to that) show couter plates. They are simply unnecessary. Armguard plates always overlap upwards on surviving examples (even on those that aren't found corroded together, you can usually see the marks on neighbouring plates).<br>
<br>
The explanation for the differing directions of overlap sounds... fanciful, to be polite and betrays, I suspect, a misunderstanding of the armatura (and/or one too many viewings of Gladiator ;-).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#3
Hello,<br>
<br>
Actually I wouldn't recommend this volume to anyone. It is chock full<br>
of glaring errors. Some of them are even really funny. My favourite is<br>
the bit where he mentions a gladiator "fighting a wild bear" although<br>
the Latin [which the author evidently doesn't understand] clearly says<br>
the bear is playing a flute! He also puts Caligula in "the Colosseum"<br>
[presumably as a ghost], which made me smile too. In all I compiled<br>
a 12 page document listing all the mistakes in this volume. I get the<br>
feeling it was all done to a very tight deadline after minimal research.<br>
Quite the worst Osprey has ever done, in my opinion. Forget it.<br>
<br>
For a good basic intro to gladiators [and chariot racing, boxing, theatre<br>
and other Roman entertainments] I would suggest you get "Gladiators<br>
and Caesars". For an honest attempt at reconstruction [but beware<br>
of some of the "creative stories" presented as supporting theory],<br>
together with nice illustrations and an ace catalogue of surviving<br>
armour get "Das Spiel mit dem Tod" by Junkelmann.<br>
<br>
-- Susan ["Ferrum est quod amo"] <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Osprey books are known for their inventiveness. I buy them just for McBride's pictures. The other illustrators are definitely not in the same league.<br>
Some Ospreys are better than others. The one on gladiators is definitely not one of the best..<br>
I like the idea of time travelling Caligula in a Colosseum that wasn't built before Vespasian...<br>
Several are pretty good such as Gallic and British Celts, Sassanid Persians, Assyrians, Scythians (that one probably the best I've read).<br>
Some are appalling like Roman republican armies (the white flimsy looking legionary scuta are extremely funny) and late roman infantryman/cavalryman, because the pictures are not Mcbride's.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
<br>
I agree about the mixed nature of Osprey's offerings. I also<br>
adore Angus McBride's stuff. In fact I often buy Ospreys on<br>
subjects I have little real interest in just for his paintings.<br>
I particularly like the way he captures character. His people<br>
really look like who they are supposed to be! In my opinion<br>
he even blows away Connolly on that score.<br>
<br>
-- Susan <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Suzy.. a 12 page document on that little book? That probably rates up there with Matt Amt's thesis on Gladiator!<br>
Could you summarize the points and post them here?<br>
I happen to like Angus McBride's painting a lot, and would love to have an original. <p>Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/ </p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#7
Hello,<br>
<br>
Apologies for the long post.<br>
Here's an abridged list of the errors I found in "Gladiators".<br>
I have cut out some of the smaller things. In particular,<br>
whenever he uses a Latin or Greek word [even some<br>
English words too...], assume it's wrong; either wrong case, wrong spelling or wrong meaning.<br>
<br>
At my request, a friend sent this list off to Osprey with<br>
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.<br>
<br>
They also said to us that they had sent their book to an "authority on the subject" for proof reading before publication. Sure...<br>
<br>
Have fun,<br>
<br>
-- Susan<br>
<br>
<br>
Errata and comments on Osprey Warrior 39 "Gladiators 100BC – AD 200"<br>
=====================================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 7<br>
Chronology<br>
"29 BC Amphitheatre of Titus Statilius Taurus built of wood in Rome."<br>
Taurus’ amphitheatre was built of *stone*. Dio Cassius 51, 23:<br>
"theatron kunigetikon ...lithonon" ("...a hunting theatre [a Greek term for<br>
amphitheatre] of stone...")<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 15<br>
"fighting men"<br>
The skeletons are male. No more can be said. It is also apparent that the gladiatorial<br>
barracks were used at the time of the eruption as shelter by all and sundry. These guys could have been anyone.<br>
<br>
p. 16<br>
"...classical play The Satyricon"<br>
Satyricon is a novel (avant la lettre), not a classical play.<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 17<br>
"Uri, vinciri, uerberari, ferroque necari" ("to endure burning with fire, shackling with<br>
chains, to be whipped with rods and killed with steel")<br>
You must be consistent in the use of "u" as a consonant in Latin. The translation is too<br>
flowery also: "To be burned, to be bound, to be beaten, to die by the sword". Other<br>
attested versions of the oath leave out the reference to beating.<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 19<br>
"unctores (masseuses)" unctores means [male] masseurs. Masseuse in English implies<br>
female.<br>
<br>
p. 21<br>
"...a two metre-high (6½ ft) wooden post..."<br>
The stake is 6 [Roman] feet high which is only 170cm. The reference to stakes as<br>
gladiatorial training devices comes from Vegetius, "Epitome rei militaris." I,11<br>
"...pali defigebantur in terram...et sex pedibus eminerent" ("...they fix a stake in the<br>
ground...with six feet protruding")<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 23<br>
<br>
"In the arena the...retiarii [sic]...stalked the...myrmillo...the combats of the Thracian<br>
against the secutor"<br>
There is no evidence that retiarii ever fought myrmillones (as such). No pictorial<br>
evidence exists for such a match. It is argued whether secutores are just myrmillones<br>
since they are similarly armed but differ in only the helmet style worn. However, in<br>
contemporary evidence they do seem to have been regarded as something separate.<br>
Thracians certainly never typically fought secutores.<br>
<br>
"half-man, half-fish"<br>
This is nonsense. Myrmillones show no "fishy" attributes whatsoever. Your author’s<br>
"dorsal-fin shaped crest" is a piece of creative/associative thinking also. The piscine<br>
etymology of the myrmillo name does not rest on any firm evidence.<br>
<br>
"It does not seem likely that gladiators wore this garment under their tunics every day".<br>
Subligaculum was normal Roman underwear. It seems rather likely that they did wear it<br>
every day.<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 25<br>
"crupellarius...heavy armour, almost certainly padded fabric...The legionaries had to<br>
[use] military pickaxes"<br>
Three things speak against this assertion:<br>
1. "padded fabric" can scarcely be described as "heavy armour".<br>
2. One does not need a pickaxe to defeat "padded fabric" armour.<br>
3. Crupellarii are attested only in Tacitus who explicitly says that they wore metal<br>
armour. cf. Tacitus "Annales" III, 43: "[gladiatores]...quibus more gentico,<br>
continuum ferri tegimen crupellarios vocant, inferendis ictibus inhabilis, accipiendi<br>
impenetrabilis" ("[gladiators]... called crupellarii who, in the local manner, were<br>
entirely encased in iron and , although they were ill-adapted to inflict wounds, they<br>
were impervious to receiving them")<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 27<br>
"...it is said to have influenced the development of a similar armour issued to the legions<br>
in the field"<br>
There is not a scrap of evidence for this assertion of influence (either way). All you can<br>
observe is that gladiators and soldiers wore similar pieces of armour.<br>
<br>
p. 28<br>
"The manicae may have been made in two separate ways"<br>
All evidence for how Roman arm-guards were constructed shows that the lames<br>
overlapped upwards. There is nothing to substantiate this "two separate ways" assertion.<br>
<br>
"The manicae...horizontal threat"<br>
This entire passage is unsubstantiated speculation. It is based on no contemporary<br>
evidence and its premises and conclusions are only barely supportable in this context.<br>
The categorization of the directions which various weapons threatened from is particular<br>
nonsense.<br>
<br>
p. 29<br>
"perhaps they acted as a visual scorecard"<br>
This is pure imagination on the author’s part. This fact should be acknowledged in the<br>
text.<br>
<br>
p. 32<br>
"Without his net, the retiarius was probably doomed"<br>
This is nonsense. The retiarius also has a dagger, and practical experiments have shown<br>
that the trident is a very formidable (not just "effective") weapon when wielded in both<br>
hands.<br>
<br>
"The ivory grip" The grip is bone, not ivory.<br>
<br>
p. 41<br>
"The essedaria [sic] fought from the essedium"<br>
It should be essedarii and the existence of chariot fighting gladiators is now largely<br>
discounted. No pictorial representations at all of these are known (save for one, in which<br>
a venator is driving) although they are spoken of in literary sources (where, however, the<br>
context could just as easily also refer to venationes).<br>
<br>
"They may also have faced wild beasts"<br>
The only pictorial evidence for a chariot fighter in the arena is one in which beasts are<br>
being fought.<br>
<br>
"A mosaic...shows"<br>
It is an engraved glass cup, not a mosaic.<br>
<br>
p. 42<br>
"The helmet...found in a Smyrna grave"<br>
No gladiatorial helmets have been found in graves in Smyrna.<br>
<br>
"dressed as Hermes Psychopompus"<br>
There is no conclusive evidence of this at gladiatorial contests.<br>
<br>
p. 43<br>
"The bodies of criminals ...were cut up...to feed to the wild animals"<br>
The bodies of criminals were either buried [there is archaeological evidence of this at<br>
more than one site] or thrown into rivers [the traditional Roman disposal technique for<br>
the bodies of executed criminals]. The cutting up is mentioned only once [by Suetonius]<br>
as an extraordinary and remarkable thing which Caligula ordered.<br>
<br>
"round shield" Square shield.<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 44<br>
"gladiatorial shields may have been provided simply for decoration...no reason to<br>
assume that gladiatorial shields would be any different in construction"<br>
In this passage the poor author seems to be completely unable to make his mind up what<br>
he thinks! The notion that the shields were "provided simply for decoration" is too utterly<br>
ridiculous to even bother going to the effort to. The author here is clearly over indulging<br>
in idle and unsubstantiated speculation.<br>
<br>
"would make a combat either very long or very dull..." ...or rather would force the<br>
combatants to exert themselves and use skill to circumvent it. This was the whole point of<br>
the matching of different equipments and styles of fighting in contests!<br>
<br>
"29 doomed gladiators"<br>
These men were condemned Saxon prisoners of war, not professional gladiators.<br>
<br>
p. 48<br>
"...the faceless myrmillo fish creature"<br>
This "fish-creature" metaphor is far too much overplayed in the book.<br>
<br>
"The Hollywood image of thumbs down for death is a purely modern notion invented by<br>
film directors..."<br>
Actually the evidence indicates only that a "turned thumb" indicated death. An upturned<br>
thumb (called pollux infestus) was an insulting or bad luck symbol to the Romans (I<br>
understand it is still such in parts of Italy today). The "turned thumb" to indicate death in<br>
the arena was called pollux versus. This is attested in Juvenal Satires 3,36: "munera nunc<br>
edunt et, verso pollice, vulgus cum iubet, occidunt populariter" ("now they give munera<br>
and, with a turn of the thumb, win favour by slaughtering in accordance with the whims<br>
of the mob"). So it is clear that "turning one’s thumb" indicated death for a fighter.<br>
Whether the "turning" is merely the act of extending the thumb or of turning the hand in<br>
some direction is not known for sure (and is disputed). Some believe that a merely<br>
extended thumb was not demonstrative enough and expect a hand movement to be<br>
involved too. Their stance is reinforced by the notion of "turning", which does not seem<br>
to fit the action of merely extending a thumb. It is also suggested that the thumb<br>
symbolized the sword (for reasons to do with the shared phallic symbolism of the two<br>
objects in the Roman mind) and that a movement was made to mimic the action of<br>
dealing the final blow, which was typically downwards. This "downwards mimicking<br>
gesture" is, however, conjectured and is not corroborated by any evidence. In the total<br>
absence of any sort of pictorial evidence, more than this cannot be said except that the<br>
notion that "thumbs down meant death" cannot, in the face of what little other evidence<br>
there is, be dismissed quite so lightly.<br>
<br>
"The winners (vincit)"<br>
vincit does not mean "winners". You need to use the word victores<br>
<br>
"Carcopino states..."<br>
"Carcopino" is not listed in the bibliography, and in any case you cannot use the assertion<br>
of a secondary source as an authority like this.<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 49<br>
"Ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus"<br>
This form of the "salute" is of course inaccurate. The "salute" is taken from Suetonius’<br>
"De vita Caesarum" XXI, 6: "Sed cum proclamantibus naumachiariis: ‘Ave imperator,<br>
morituri te salutant!’ respondisset: ‘Aut non’"<br>
<br>
<br>
"2,000 combat soldiers"<br>
They were prisoners of war and condemned criminals. Not "combat soldiers"<br>
<br>
p. 50<br>
"the now famous gladiatorial salute"<br>
There is no evidence that this was ever used by gladiators. It is attested once only [in<br>
Suetonius. "De Vita Caesarum" XXI, 6] spoken by condemned men at a naumachia (as<br>
your author rightly says). However, condemned men (noxii) are not "gladiators" in the<br>
technical sense of the topic of this book. The evidence in fact shows that it is wrong to<br>
equate gladiatorial combats with death and sacrifice and so the use of such a salute is<br>
actually rather unlikely to have been used by gladiators. For both these reasons, it is<br>
therefore incorrect to call it a "gladiatorial salute".<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 51<br>
<br>
"[tickets] would have been distributed free"<br>
Actually tickets for the shows were not free. The evidence pertaining to ticketing and<br>
seating arrangements in amphitheatres is complex. Some small number of tickets were<br>
given away free to the upper classes (this was a survival of the traditional republican<br>
practice), but other blocks of seating were owned by groups (guilds and associations)<br>
who hired them out and others (the majority) were for sale. On occasions on which they<br>
were given away free for all (for example once by Caligula as recorded in Dio and once<br>
by Claudius as recorded by Suetonius) it was unusual enough to excite comment (and<br>
people camped out all night to be at the front of the queue to get them). There are also<br>
inscriptions which explicitly mention "money derived from entrance fees to gladiatorial<br>
shows"<br>
<br>
Locarii are not "they who give a location" in the sense of performing the offices of an<br>
usher. They are actually "ticket-scalpers"; people who buy up seats and sell them on at<br>
an inflated price. The only attestation of locarii in the context of [amphi]theatres is in<br>
Martial’s Epigrams: V, XXIV, 9 "Hermes divitiae locariorum" ("Hermes [a famous<br>
gladiator] darling of the ticket-scalpers") . Locarius is defined in analogy to locarium<br>
which is "money paid to hire space to pitch a market stall".<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 52<br>
"Caligula’s, now infamous, orders in the Colosseum"<br>
The Colosseum was not built until 40 years after Caligula died!<br>
<br>
"even at the highest, poorest status seating. The audience could see the battle clearly"<br>
Actually from the back rows of seats the combatants in an arena appear vanishingly<br>
small, even at modestly sized amphitheatres like Pompeii, Trier, Nimes or Xanten.<br>
I know, I’ve been to all of these.<br>
<br>
p. 54<br>
"Assuming...criminal classes"<br>
You do not need to "assume". The edicta munerum at Pompeii often clearly state that<br>
noxii (sometimes cruciani = cruciarii ie. crucifixions) will be part of the programme.<br>
<br>
p. 55<br>
"lorarii" is wrong here. You must use lora ("whips"). Lorarii are "people with whips".<br>
<br>
"The current view is that fist and thumb jabbing upward...meant kill him"<br>
See my notes to p. 48<br>
"...the thumb down meant weapons to the ground" seems rather too contrived (even<br>
more so than the suggestion that the thumb gesture mimicked the fatal sword thrust) and<br>
in any case is not based on any contemporary evidence.<br>
<br>
<br>
Glossary<br>
========<br>
<br>
Balteus technically means a sword belt [cf. Quintillian 11, 3,140 Dict Antiq. Also Varro,<br>
Servius and Caesar] and is also used in poetry to mean a woman’s girdle. The word you<br>
should really use for a man’s belt around the waist is cingulum.<br>
<br>
Fasciae is plural yet your definition is singular.<br>
<br>
Meridiana is wrong. It is meridiani<br>
<br>
Noxii "condemned criminals forced to fight to the death" "condemned criminals<br>
executed in various ways in public in the arena" would be more strictly accurate. They<br>
did not always have to fight each other.<br>
<br>
Praecone The correct singular form is praeco<br>
<br>
Tirone The correct singular form is tiro<br>
<br>
Vellarium The correct spelling is velarium<br>
<br>
<br>
Illustrations and captions<br>
==========================<br>
p. 4 "scisorores" is wrong. It is scissor<br>
<br>
p. 5 "Taiamonius". On the original mosaic the gladiator’s name is clearly Talamonius.<br>
He also has a sword in his left hand (not a spear shaft as the illustration shows) and is<br>
clearly not a retiarius as the caption asserts. He has a greave on his left leg and his right<br>
arm is armoured. But for his helmet he is, in other words, dressed exactly as the secutores<br>
on the mosaic. The actual retiarii on the mosaic also wear a galerus on their left arms.<br>
<br>
p. 7 "...the secutor Belurefons." On the mosaic his name is clearly Bellerofons<br>
<br>
<br>
p. 9 "Podium fighters" There was no such thing as a "podium fighter"<br>
<br>
p. 10 "Dwarf gladiator in bronze...wears the equipment of a hoplomachus"<br>
The figure is quite clearly not dressed as a gladiator! He is clearly wearing a muscled<br>
cuirass with pteruges and an open faced helmet. He is obviously dressed as a hero or a<br>
general or something similar.<br>
<br>
p. 17 "retiarius (Knendio)...secutor Astinax"<br>
On the original mosaic the combatants’ names are clearly Kalendio and Astyanax<br>
<br>
p. 18<br>
"Fighting...a wild bear...Flamma won his freedom four times"<br>
He is not fighting a wild bear! On the original it clearly says "Ursus tibicen" ("The flute-<br>
playing bear") beside the bear and "Pul[l]us cornicen" ("The horn-blowing chicken")<br>
beside his companion. They are [most probably] the band dressed as animals. Not only is<br>
the caption horrendously wrong but it also misses a chance to introduce the Roman’s love<br>
of vulgar burlesque and pantomime of which this is an excellent example.<br>
I shall pass over the fact that it is also most unlikely that this is the same Flamma who<br>
kept returning to the arena.<br>
<br>
p. 27<br>
The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [Arch 66 at WLM Stuttgart]. I suspect that<br>
the author just made this himself quickly from clay then photographed it. The original of<br>
this is relatively elegant and shows the griffon crest of the thraex clearly. The copy does<br>
not.<br>
<br>
p. 29<br>
"Vestorious" It should be Vestorius<br>
<br>
"...these two myrmillo fighters"<br>
The figure on the left in this painting is very clearly a thraex. The author here misses a<br>
chance to draw attention to a contemporary image of a gladiator wearing embroidered<br>
trousers.<br>
<br>
p. 43<br>
The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [MA 4492 in the Louvre]. The "copy in<br>
private collection" label is rather pompous and presumably is there for verisimilitude. In<br>
this case by neglecting to copy the inscription they miss the opportunity to mention that<br>
this is a monument dedicated to the fallen by his widow.<br>
<br>
p. 45<br>
In my opinion, this picture is a totally irrelevant "space filler".<br>
<br>
p. 54<br>
In my opinion this photo is entirely irrelevant to the topic. The corridor in the picture is<br>
not even anywhere near the amphitheatre (although it is quite near the gladiatorial<br>
barracks). I have been there.<br>
<br>
p. 56<br>
"...the pairing of retiarius and secutor was most common" It is actually the only pairing<br>
in the context of the pons which is attested in any of the sources.<br>
<br>
p. 59 The gladiator’s name is M[arcus] Attilius, not "Mattilius"<br>
<br>
p. 61<br>
The "copy" is a crude travesty of the original [Brit. Museum. Inv nr.GR 1965.1â€â€Â
Reply
#8
I'm impressed! another scholar in our midst. <p>Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/ </p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#9
Hello all<br>
<br>
A few points about this that I thought I would share.<br>
<br>
1. Suzy, what an incredible post, I would love to read the 12 page version of this - would you be willing to send it to me. Are gladiators a particular interest of yours or do you know this amount on other Roman topics?<br>
<br>
2. The book was produced against a tight dealine as has been guessed at in this post. When I first heard that Osprey where producing a book I hoped that it would be one of their better ones, unfirtunatly though it wasn't.<br>
<br>
3. Suzy, have you considered submitting your errors list to Osprey?<br>
<br>
Cheers all<br>
<br>
Graham <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
Hello,<br>
<br>
The 12 page document doesn't contain much more than this. The majority of the material I cut out for the post was all the linguistic howlers and more "nit picky" things.<br>
The post contains all the main points.<br>
<br>
Regarding your questions.<br>
<br>
1. Yes, gladiators are a particular interest.<br>
<br>
2. It looks to me like it was done over a weekend! Or at least the "research" for it was. I bet I could even tell you the two or three books that the author used to "research" from [I'll probably get into trouble for saying that, won't I?]<br>
<br>
3. The list was sent to Osprey. They say they'll consider revising it at "reprint" time, but in my opinion the wretched thing needs a complete rewrite from scratch, not just a "revision".<br>
<br>
-- Susan <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#11
Suzy,<br>
I don't have access to my books at the moment but I thought the 'gladiator salute' was first used by a group of gladiators to the emperor Claudius and that his glib retort caused them to withdraw in protest from the fight (at least temporarily). I'll go back and look up the source and get back to you. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#12
<br>
See my note to p. 50 in the post.<br>
<br>
-- Sue <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#13
<br>
Sorry. It isn't clear. The passage from Suetonius comes<br>
indeed from the life of Claudius. In fact Suetonius leaves it open to doubt whether what these noxii said on this occasion was the normal custom for gladiators. However, based on a consideration of other evidence and other factors I am led to the conclusion that it was rather unlikely.<br>
<br>
-- Sue <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#14
<br>
Sorry again, I'll rephrase:<br>
<br>
The passage cited in Suetonius does not allow one to draw any conclusions about whether or not this phrase spoken by these noxii [condemned criminals] was normal for noxii to say, or was also normal for proper gladiators to say.<br>
It is therefore a massive stretch of the evidence to call this a "gladiatorial salute".<br>
This is the *only* time such a thing is reported in *any* of the sources [which are admittedly sparse]. Note also that the one and only time it is recorded was not in an amphitheatre, not at a Munera Gladiatoria and not spoken by gladiators.<br>
<br>
If anyone is really interested I could possibly prepare an article on why I concluded based on other considerations that this is unlikely to have been a traditional "gladiatorial salute".<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Susan<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#15
Suzy<br>
<br>
Could you drop me an email at home please on [email protected] <br>
<br>
I would very much like to chat with you about gladiators and run a few things past you, but I don't want to steal this thread away.<br>
<br>
My thanks for any time you can spare.<br>
<br>
Graham <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Angus McBride color plate : can you identify this ? Theodosius the Great 8 2,216 02-21-2008, 09:41 PM
Last Post: Theodosius the Great
  for Angus McBride fans Anonymous 0 820 08-27-2002, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: