This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
Thanks for the work on this article, but it needs more content not less. Indeed some primary sources need to be matched with secondary/modern sources, but that is no reason for removing them. The See also section points to relevant articles which don't point back (yet). I don't think it should be removed. I would appreciate if you write your toughs and suggestions here before making major changes. Out of courtesy, it is always recommended to notify article creators and/or major contributors before major changes. Thanks and regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No discourtesy was intended. I assumed the article would be on both our watchlists. We've argued our respective cases via edit summaries. My changes were bold, you've reverted some of them and now we're discussing things in more detail. Per common courtesy and policy, I think we've established a positive editing environment.
Yes, more content would be good. Unfortunately, there's very little to be had from reliable scholarly sources; essentially, the introductory paragraph as it stands seems to summarise current scholarship, which for the most part is speculative. That's hardly surprising; the "Ludus Dacicus" is barely attested and its background is far from transparent. It could have been a private establishment taken over by the state, or rebuilt, or renamed, or moved from elsewhere, or built from scratch. and named in a stereotypical form of Roman triumphalism, as a permanent memorial to Rome's subjection of a remarkably determined "brave barbarian foe". (Actually, I clean forgot about the Ludus Gallicus, which seems to buck the possible triumphalism of "Ludus Dacicus"). But there are problems. Even if the first gladiators at the ludus were Dacian captives from any of the two major wars, at some point they would have been "used up" or retired. So not all gladiators at the school would have been ethnically Dacian, or even Thracian. And perhaps more to the point, those at the Ludus Dacicus could not all have fought as "Dacian-Thracians" because in training, as in public performances, gladiators were seldom (if ever) pitted against their own "type".
A "gladiator" was a school-trained fighter. On Dacian prisoners-of-war, post Antium, and primary sources; yes, I completely see the need to provide further background and narrative, if possible. But we're using English translations of ancient texts, and must take care to avoid extrapolations and generalisations. The source simply says that Dacians and Suebi were made to fight each other. This was standard practice as part of a larger victory-celebration that went on for several days. It doesn't make these captives "gladiators".
Anyway, that's all I have to say. Life being short, and myself being old, increasingly damaged and rather tired by even the simplest of debates and conflicts, I'll edit the article and comment here only if invited by yourself or other interested editors. Regards, and the best of luck. Haploidavey (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for so much for taking the time to add all this detail. I think to cover most of the important points and I fully agree with all of them. Indeed there is no "Dacian-type" gladiator that I know of and I am sure there were others in this Ludus. Also I am not aware of correlation between Thraex gladiator and the Dacian gladiators, even though there are many Dacian-Thracian connections and they shared some of the weapons and warfare technologies. But I am very interested to learn more about this. Regarding sources, the article at dracones.ro is really great and was planning to use it to investigate further. Unfortunately is in Romanian but you could use Google Translate to get most the info. Among other things it talks about Ludus Dacicus being in region II or III, about Forma Urbis Romae and five gladiator schools: Ludus Magnus, Ludus Gallicus, Ludus Matutinus, Ludus Aemilius and Ludus Dacicus. It also makes reference to Samuel Ball Platner, 1929, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome and a number of other sources which I was planning to investigate.
The paper from Elisabeth Bouley that you added looks great and if you can read French (mine is getting rusty), I certainly invite you to contribute from it. At the first look in Elisabeth Bouley's paper, she seems to note that Dacians volunteered for gladiator games in Tomis and Salona. I read that in other sources as well, but need to find them (ideally in English).
Regarding the primary sources, I was planning to double those statements with citations from secondary/modern sources like I always do. I think they are relevant for the subject as Dacians seem to have been involved in gladiatorial games before this ludus was created.
Good. Slow and cautious does it. By the way, I'd completely forgotten about the Ludus Gallicus, set up to train "Gallic gladiators", whatever that really means - more interpretational problems, is all. Anyway, I've committed the penultimate sin and changed my previous text; not sure what the ultimate sin would be...
I ran the page at dracones.ro through google translate (perish the thought, but that probably is the ultimate sin) soon after you created this article. I'm not sure of its scholarly credentials and I doubt that google translate did it full justice but it seems to contain most of what's known. Ludus Aemilius is usually omitted in modern sources, for sound scholarly reasons whose nature I forget pro tem. If you're interested in Roman social and cultural psychology, and the nature and meaning of the "foreign" in Roman Imperial policy, the Bouley article has a great deal to offer. Haploidavey (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Dracones.ro by itself is not WP:RS but points to sources which are. I wouldn't cite from it but most of the articles I've see are well documented and with sources. Sot it does well as an external link. I just added an interesting external source from Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project. I'll do my best to read Bouley's work and refresh my French ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
