Talk:List of Roman gladiator types

message: Is there a citation for this? I can't google anything on this type of gladiator.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.134.173 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little and most are foreign language websites. There are a few books which is where it came from originally. I added a source. Wayne (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this might be either a variant of paegniarii or its misspelling. The only internet sources for the praegenarii type (or misspelling) seem to be non-RS, unsourced or else circular - the ref-linked UNRV article isn't a reliable source. Google scholar offers nothing on praegenarii. But a search for paegniarii yields several results from reliable sources, and descriptions that match the existing list entries for both "types". In other words, there seems to be only one of this clownish, burlesque type, known as paegniarii.  Haploidavey (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praegenarii 

message: As presently written, the article states the retiarius was a development of the "Augustan era" (circa the time of Christ), while a picture caption shows the same type of gladiator fighting in "the fourth century BC". Which is correct? Mikedash (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Caption error, fixed. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating the retiarius 

message: I think the table should be broken down into sections. It consists mostly of description that's amenable to a normal prose paragraph, and not the kinds of stats or data that a table best represents. If the table were removed, problems of image layout could be addressed (the ad hoc gallery is particularly problematic), and an image could appear with the section that it illustrates. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: There's no listing for armaturae, and it can be annoying for users trying to look up the late Roman military units of the same title. 74.96.49.63 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[Armaturae]] redirect here? 

message: The Manica (armguard) article mentions another variety of gladiator, the "crupellarii", who wore a manica. Anyone have any other info on them? The Manica article appears to be mostly on the usage of it by legionaries. Allens (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crupellarii 

message: This article lists a lot of gladiators as wearing greaves. I was under the impression that ocreae were more akin to schynbalds than greaves as greaves enclose the entire lower leg but schynbalds do not. The Wikipedia article on greaves makes no reference to ancient leg armour covering only the shin and I suspect that every article referencing gladiators shares this. Hopefully this note will help the clarification propagate faster than I can do. Waerloeg (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocreae - greaves or schynbalds 

message: Yet another problematic section. Uncited speculation for and against the fighting capacity of mounted equites "in the field" as a basis for the role of mounted gladiators at ludi is unjustified inference. The army used a mix of mounted troops - including mounted infantry, "true", cavalry who fought from horseback, scouts, archers and whatnot - at various times; but that has nothing to do with the games, and thus nothing to do with this article, so I support its removal.
We also have "At the time of Isidore of Seville, the equites rode white horses and opened a day's program of fights (Origines 18.53ff.)" "Fights"? That's highly suspect, and might be WP:OR or WP:SYN. So is he talking about "gladiators" or simply a display preamble by a couple of horsemen? Who does he offer as his source? By Isidore's time, munera had long been banned. At the very least, we might have a problem of interpretation, which is why we should use primary sources with circumspection, if at all, unless through their citation in reliable secondary sources. 
That leaves only the Junkelmann 2000 citation, currently appended to the last brief para. I've no access to the work.
Several page numbers are given, which seems excessive for a smidgin of content; so did it originally also support the descriptions in the first two paras? Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equites