Modern Ludus Rules and Regulations

[caiusbeerquitius]

Though both examples you give might or might not have happened, but the question remains if these should be considered the rule rather than the exception.

Yes, it would seem so. First we should find out, however, if there actually was "a rule", respectively a normative. If it were so, we would need to find evidence for that. I would rather expect that what the ancient audience got to see was very versatile. The displayed fights may rather have varied strongly from ludus to ludus, from time to time, from place to place. I do not think that we should expect a normative gladiatura in antiquity.

Your argument was, and correct me if I am wrong, that using wooden weapons in a display of Prolusio is a more authentic display of Gladiator combat as a fight with blunt metal weapons would be in a display of Gladiator combat.

No, to break it down, my argument was that it is more authentic to display a prolusio (with wooden weapons) than to try to display what we think would be an actual fight (with blunted metal weapons). There is a layer less of modern interpretation to the prolusio.

My argument is, that regardless of the simulator used, as long as it looks and behaves like the training and combat weapons we assume to be Gladiatorial, the behaviour of the combatants in the fight itself is the key.
Of course I cannot prove that a trained Gladiator would not fight a little more careless and less defensive in a Proluiso, as he would know that the fight would not end in a life or death decision for him.
What we do know however, is that Gladiator combat was supposed to show martial skill, so it would be odd if a Gladiator would forget or disregard his skill and training just because he is only fighting with wooden weapons. Especially if the Prolusio was supposed to be an opportunity to showcase and gauge the skill level of a Gladiator before the life steel fights.

A am not convinced, as I said, that the main purpose of the gladiatura was to mainly show the skill level of gladiators. Again, I think that this is a way too normative interpretation. There are many arguments one could bring up to similarly explain the existence of gladiatorial fights, e.g. religious reasons, entertainment, economical, political etc. We do not know to which extent the fights were "staged", or influenced by, say, bets. I see in your argument a quite idealizing picture of gladiator fight, which rather might be a very modern interpretation based on modern standards, or in the tradition of arguing in a classicistic (klassizistisch) way.("Everything the Ancients did was great and wonderful in some way"). I think this narrows down the debate very much, and excludes a more objective approach to the topic.

Maybe we should try to find some sources on the Prolusio to see which function they had in the context of a Munus.

Yes, maybe. It probably is just a semantic question. The suggestion of the prolusio is to keep the display a bit more abstract for the viewers, and to avoid telling them that what they see might be some sort of realistic, which it of course is not, and cannot be, as there is, as I said no causal chain between ancient gladiatura and its modern interpretation.

I agree that you cannot just take techniques shown in later fencing manuals and apply them to Gladiator combat, as you have to view these fencing manuals not only in the context of the weapons and armour used but also in the context of the morals and fashions of the time they were developed.
But there are certain basic truth about mortal combat that can be found in all of them - or at least in those that deal with mortal combat and not fencing as a sport.
These truth apply to any form of combat and concern keeping the right distance to an adversary, advancing and attacking under cover, defence before offense and so on.
Since we have very few textual sources describing fights in the arena, the wealth of Iconography is our best source of finding ot how the Gladiators regarded these basic truth and if they might have actually chosen to disregard some of them.

One might think, but as I said, I do not think that this is possible at all. It is nothing but pure speculation. Also the "basic truth that applies to any form of mortal combat" is apparently there, yes, but we still do not know if there were or were not other reasons which outweighed thes "basic truths". In short: It is impossible to "reconstruct" behaviors.

The very long and narrow Sica from Augst, does not look like anything we have in Iconography and is most probably, just as the London trident, wrongly attributed.
To me it could just as well be a furnace hook or other household tool, though I am not an expert on this topic.

Hm. Well, yes, that´s the problem with objects. Even the nice X gladiator helmet from Pompeii may have actually never been used for fighting but as a mere decorative piece in the arena or during the pompa.

It should also be noted, that Junkelmann did not consider the Hamburg helmet as necessarily Gladiatorial.
Typological it is a Boetian helmet with cheek pieces, and can just as well be considered as an early cavalry helmet.
If it is of Gladiatorial origin it is most probably an Equites helmet, as this Armatura is displayed with this kind of military helmet in early Gladiatorial iconography.

That´s the good thing about it, it think. It may be used in several ways and contexts. :-)

The three specimens currently residing in North America however do stand apart from any helmet shown in a military context, but do resemble at least two items of early Murmillo Iconography very much.
Also they are typologically a lot closer to the later Chieti and Pompeji helmets then the Hamburg example.

Absolutely. But again objects without context. They may have equally been used by the bodyguards of an eccentric Roman senator with bad taste somewhen the late Republic, or by a band of crazy mercenaries, or during the show of a comedy by Plautus in the theatre. ;-)