A referee\'s error

[Jona Lendering]

This may be interesting.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

The referee may not at all have been at fault here, the last line is highly likely the families opinion and their perception of the fight which the referee deemed could continue, while the error of judgement might have been Diodorus' own...
The world is unfair...




M.VIB.M.

[Statius]

Sorry have come to this thread quite late. It's a fascinating find and epigraph, obviously intrepretation is difficult but the hypothesis put forward doesn't seem unreasonable.

From the armour and weaponary I take it that the two gladiators involved are Provocators. Two questions spring to mind which I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on:

1.) The Gladius portrayed are exceptionally short. This could just be the artists perspective yet everything else seems in proportion so could it be that they are fighting with Pugio in what is effectively a dagger fight with scutum? From my failing memory I seem to recall other representations on Provocator tombstones of very short short swords!!!

2.) The bindings on the left leg of the Gladiators -one on ankle other above knee- what purpose did they serve and is it leather or cloth (I know this was discussed briefly in a previous thread)but any further thoughts appreciated

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Avete Amici,

in the meantime the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera published an article which corresponds to the one of Live Science:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/11_giugn...ce31.shtml

Of course this Italian article led to a comment by Dario Battaglia of Ars Dimicandi who published on their homepage the following comment to this article:

http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00024a.htm

I summarize this article shortly as follows:

Battaglia makes two disctinctions of gladiator fights.

Ad iudicum: Fight until one opponent is disarmed or wounded. The audience could decide over missio or death. One fighter was not allowed to kill his opponent during the fight. Interruption of the fight due to loss of weapon etc. is allowed.

Sine missione: Audience could not decide over the outcome of the fight. The fight had to go until the death of one of the combatants. No interruption of the fight.

For Battaglia the fight between Diodoros and Demetrios was a sine missione fight. The geste of Demetrios indicates that he is well and wants to continue the fight. Diodoros was naive when he got into the possesion of Demetrios dagger/sword as well not to kill him instantly, because in the end the fight resumed and Demetrios had no scruples to finish Diodoros off.

How come that Diodoros (or his friend who set up the gravestone) blames the summa rudis? The answer is not clear, but Battaglia assumes that Diodoros gave Demetrios the dagger back and looked to the audience to beg for acknowledgement and wasn't ready to continue the fight when Demetrios took his chance to turn chances and kill Diodoros.

To me the definition of ad iudicum that there the opponent could not be killed sounds strange. As far as I have read so far in all other gladiator books if it is not a sine missione fight there would be three outcomes of a fight: (1) one gladiator manages it to kill the other during regular fight, (2) one surrenders and either (a) he is granted the misso by the editor of the games (who could rely on the audience), or (b) received a death sentence from the editor so the iugulatio was executed immediately, (3) both fought so well that it was decided it is a draw (stantes missi).

Unfortunately I don't have a translation of the inscription (only the Greek version which I can't read in the Louis Robert ad: ) so I have not much opinion what have happened after what is shown on the gravestone, how it came that in the end Diodoros was the loser.

What do you guys think about Battaglia's ideas?

[Statius]

Don't really understand Battaglia's argument (or perhaps it's been lost in translation).

Presumably Diodoras was aware that the fight was "Sine Missone" so he would be more than a little niave to give Demetrios his weapon back of his own volition in a fight to the death.

It only makes sense if the Summa Rudis prevents Diodoras from finishing off Demetrios contrary to the rules of the Sine Missone fight and that Demetrios subsequently loses the bout and his life. In this way we could quite easily see why the relatives of Demetrios would blame the referee for his demise!

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Don't really understand Battaglia's argument (or perhaps it's been lost in translation).

As far as I understand it, it is in the Greek inscription mentioned that after winning over and putting the adversary Demetrios to the ground Diodoros missed it to kill him immediatly.

For Battaglia only in a sine missione fight it was allowed to kill the opponent, in an ad iudicum fight you could only wound or disarm your opponent who then had to claim mercy from the audience. There should be no interuption through the summa rudis of the fight when sine missione, only when ad iudicum. This is Battaglia's interpretation.