This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Retiarius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Retiarius is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2009. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wearing a tunic (or a subligaculum, for that matter) and a shoulder guard is not exactly "completely naked", isn't it? The difference to most other gladiator types was that the retiarius did not wear a helmet. The ancient artwork is relatively consistent on how those men were dressed and equipped. -- 62.143.121.135 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to attribute that one: spongia simply means "sponge", though there is recorded use of spongia pectori tegumentum ("sponge covering the chest") to mean a coat of mail, I'd imagine you'd need something similar along with spongia to refer to a shoulder covering (spongia alae tegumentum?). 67.101.119.99 ( talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Spider Man is a modern day Retiarius. Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes dates are given using "CE", sometimes using "AD" and sometimes nothing at all eg, "2nd century". Should they not all have the same format? -- BodegasAmbite ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they should, -if- an identifying era abbreviation is needed. Once you use it a couple of times, it becomes superfluous. As to CE versus AD, it is AD that is proper. Since Dionysius Exiguus came up with the concept of dating years from the birth of Jesus Christ, and since that idea's adoption, we have as a world come to use this dating method. The Jewish calendar, Roman, Muslim... none came into widespread use, or fell out of use. Today, anno domini dating is the accepted standard for dating, as much as the kilogram is for weight.
The failure of CE to compare to AD is plainly obvious, and occurs on several fronts: it is confusing, both as to its own meaning (Christian or Common, or something else? one might ask); it does not enjoy widespread oral vernacular usage; it technically dates from no time, thus owing its contrived existence to the identical era designated as Christian; it is redundant and cumbersome, for the immediately preceding reason; and its usage was and is fostered, by a minority, not for the purpose of accurate or uniform dating and record-keeping, but to exist as an opposing force to AD in the misguided and unsupported belief that the latter is somehow offensive, exclusive, or biased in favor of religion in general, or of Christianity in particular. No such belief is held by society, the great majority of which believes in some Supreme Being.
Strong support of continued AD (and BC vs. BCE) usage and its replacement of CE wherever the latter occurs... John { talk) 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesium 133 ( talk • contribs)
Doesn't the image at top show the retiarius with some type of footwear? It's small and hard to tell, but looks like straps over the ankles. The Zliten mosaic below clearly shows protection over the feet, evidently without a sole, but footwear nonetheless. The famous four-panel mosaic seems to show Kalendio with shinguards in the bottom panel that extend over the top of the foot, but different straps around the ankles in the upper panel. (Then again, I have rather poor vision.) The relief is hard to see. The article mentions ankle-bands. I'm curious about this because at first glance (hasty, I admit) I don't see anything in the techniques section about the relative (dis)advantages of fighting barefoot, or why the tops of the feet were protected and not the soles. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. Just letting you know that after your edit to the Talk:Retiarius Talk page, I've had to removed the Category {{WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing}}, as it's inappropriate to the article. If you meant to add a different Category, please redo your edit, selecting the appropriate category that you intended to add. Cheers, Trafford09 ( talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I gave this article a rating based on the Martial Arts WikiProject guidelines. It is a featured article, so I rated it class FA. Feel free to object. Ryt 007 ( talk) 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've got to go after this one too. I don't buy it--I can't find any specific references to an item called a "balteus" being used by retiarii. In fact though balteus is a cognate of English "belt", I think the closer cognate is 'baldric', which is in fact how balteus is most commonly described--a strap worn diagonally, typically holding up a sword or shield: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Balteus.html, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dbalteus.
I would argue that while there are still no specific references I can find, the more common "cinctus" is more likely--at least it goes round the right part of the body.... 67.101.119.99 ( talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with the description here of a manica either: "This mail covered the shoulder and upper chest." The cognate of manica is "manacle", as it has to do mainly with the arm. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmanicae suggests "armlet" or "gauntlet" as glosses, but "armored sleeve" seems more likely given the images . Even wikipedia's own description of this item http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_manica describes it--properly--as an "arm guard" (though I'll note that calling this a "lorica manica" strikes me as wrong as well, but I'll deal with that later). 67.101.119.99 ( talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The Scissor is mentioned in that article as being theorized to have a weapon similar to that the Secutor of the Eastern Roman Empire is stated to have used in this article. Should something about this be mentioned, in one or both articles? (Or, for that matter, in the Secutor article, which doesn't mention anything about the Eastern Roman Empire form?) Allens ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Bold text-- 68.100.196.198 ( talk) 22:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This article cites Andivius Hedulio as its source for its statement about the odds of a Retiarius vs. a Secutor. But that book is a work of fiction, it is not an actual historical account from a real roman. I think a new source for this bit of information should be found, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.21.220 ( talk) 03:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute about whether the retiarius was considered the most demeaning class of gladiator. Commentary on the Cambridge University Press edition of Juvenal says there is "no evidence of this".
In the article the claim is uncited but seems to come from MJ Carter's work.
Themarblemiracle (
talk) 04:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)