Female Gladiators?

I needed a quick blog this week and Facebook handed me a topic on a silver platter. A lot of false history hits our social media feeds, but women being gladiators - or gladiatrices to be exact - was not false. Let's dive in. 

A statue of a gladiatrice/gladiatrix - courtesy of Reddit

Keep in mind this blog won't go deep diving, thus you should dive deeper yourself if you are interested in the topic. I am introducing you to the topic because I wanted to find out if Facebook was correct. This is a quick history type of blog post. Feel free to research more. I didn't use all the information in my sources. Go ahead and peruse the links below. 

Gladiatrix or gladiatrices are women gladiators. Attempts were made to regulate it through legislation. It was not overly appreciated by Roman writers. It was criticized. Women participating in the games of Rome were not welcomed with open arms. Another name for them is Ludia (Ludi being a name for a female performer) or mulieres (women). Rarely are they named feminae (ladies). The term Gladiatrix was used in the 1800s. Despite all the controversy, there is evidence women were honored as much as the arena men. Their desires were probably for fame, money, independence, and remission of debt. 

Women's roles

Patriarchy is the word of the day. Women didn't write much in Rome and we don't have much about their experiences. Why? Because men wrote most of the history. Women were being restricted and shoved into the domestic box, with less freedoms than men and less choice. I imagine that the more conservative the home the less freedom there was. One source written by Sulpicia in the first century BC actually talks about how she was upset about not being allowed to make her own birthday plans because her uncle interfered. She still had more freedom than most women. Married women who competed were looked down upon. 

Yet, women could be gladiators? Legislation in 11 CE forbids freeborn women from entering the arena under the age of 20. This seems to suggest they could be gladiators and could make that choice for a while. In 200 CE women were outlawed from the arena entirely.  It apparently encouraged a lack of respect for women (crude jokes in the stands - some things never change). Septimus Severus also had a different motive, which was trying to discourage women from wanting to be in the Olympic games. Despite this decree, women still competed later in the third Century CE in Ostia, a port city. 

According to Worldhistory.org there was an interesting legal loophole. "The wording of the inscription specifies that Hostilianus allowed mulieres to fight, not feminae and so it may be that Hostilianus was able to get around Severus' law by some legal loophole whereby free born ladies of the upper class were still prohibited but lower-class women and female slaves could still participate in the games."

Women started in the games as fighting dwarves, sometimes at night by torchlight. Most women later moved on from this to be real gladiators. This was just the start. It was a new novelty. It got attention. Women fighting women was popular, to no one's surprise today. Nero even had women gladiators battle to honor his mother - the mother he murdered (remember, the guy that made human candles out of Christians and had garden parties to watch them suffer?).

Class had something to do with this. Again, most were slaves fighting. It made someone money to make their slaves fight. However, the elite also did the fighting. It was new and exciting. It was an act of defiance and a way to make some parents very upset. Wealthy women could afford all the training and had plenty of time to work out. Women were encouraged to be strong and do sports because they needed to pop out children. 

If you complained about the Zach Snyder Amazons, you are in for a shock. These women fought with nothing on top, helmets, shin protection, and a loin cloth. They fought people with disabilities, each other, and animals. I'm not surprised that someone noticed they got cat-called from the stands. They were an exotic show, something new and rare. The wealthy showed off by having them fight. The crude comments were one reason legislation took steps to limit their arena involvement. These women were marketed as Amazons, which is no shock based on the Roman beliefs. 

The Games Themselves

Would you believe this was a funeral-related activity? It was people re-enacting legends and life events as a tribute. Eventually, the funeral stuff fell off the agenda and people just liked it in general. Aristocrats running for office often sponsored games. This later included the emperor's birthday, coronations, and other large events. 

The first one was held in 264 BCE (funeral-related). Honorius outlawed the practice in 404 CE. Many died (animals and humans) for the sake of mere entertainment. That being said, most did not end in death. Convicted criminals may have been executed there, but most fighting were slaves, slaves trained so well they were valuable. Criminals of serious crimes were executed in the arena. Christians were thrown into the mix, too, but they were not trained and were sent there to die. 

Executions were not the games, though. Not all ended in death. They were evenly matched and fought until one person dropped their shield and weapon to surrender (by holding up one finger). After surrender the sponsor would pause the fight. The up-and-down thumb comes into play here. It may be the sponsor would do the slit-throat gesture to say the loser would die. What the sponsor could do, though, was let the loser live. More were spared than killed. If the loser was declared to die the sponsor had to compensate someone for their slave. 

Evidence points to gladiators living years. It is possible that female gladiators were daughters of retired gladiators in some cases. There were schools for gladiators in Rome. The only catch is that your life is no longer yours. You were alive to fight and train, and only that. It doesn't seem likely they'd let women into the schools, though, so the idea is that maybe the retired gladiator trained the woman or daughter. 

Four types of gladiators were trained. Myrmillo wore a helmet with a fish crest and held an oblong shield and sword. Retiarius (usually fought Myrmillo) was lightly armed with a net and had a trident or dagger. Samnite held a sword, a visored helmet, and an oblong shield. Thracian held a curved blade and a round shield. The reward for making it big in any discipline was fame, fortune, and a lifestyle most women couldn't achieve. 

***********************************************************

I wrote a book! I am delighted to say that I have 5 five-star reviews up on Amazon now, which is amazing. I hope you like it, too. If you're interested in buying a paperback or ebook version go to my website link in this blog or click here to go straight to my Amazon page. 

Jack Thomas is running from a past case. He's hiding in Wrenville. Is his past case catching up with him? 

Find out in my first book, Wrenville, a stand-alone suspense novel.

Sources:

Did Women Fight as Gladiators in Ancient Rome? | HISTORY

Female Gladiators In Ancient Rome - World History Encyclopedia

Warrior Women: Who Were the Gladiatrices of Ancient Rome? | History Hit

Piracy and Privateers

Pirates are famous for terrorizing the high seas, but can you tell me the difference between piracy and privateering? After reading this post, you can. 

Courtesy of Moviesandmania.com

The movies don't often tell us there is a difference. There is even one pirate, Captain Kidd, who claimed to be a privateer at his trial. Years after the trial the paperwork that had gone missing showed up. He'd been screwed over on purpose. You see, the only difference between a privateer and a pirate is a piece of paper that authorizes you to attack your country's enemy. The government gets most of the profit in that scenario. 

Today we're discussing the life of a pirate and the life of a privateer. Let's pour the rum and begin. 

Pirates

Pirates, who do not have papers from their government, can be killed and hung as an example to others. They still exist today - just with speed boats and machine guns. They are also called corsairs or Bucanneers, depending on your location. Corsairs had a religious context, too, because of the war between Muslims and Christians.

Working as a pirate meant everyone split the money equally and had a vote. The Navy didn't give you that. Also, pirates were quite egalitarian, which means everyone got a vote, not just the men. It might be better working conditions than the Navy depending on what time you were in the Navy. There was also a code and committees that met. It wasn't mad chaos. Strangely enough, it was democracy that limited mutiny. 

The price paid for piracy in the mid-18th century was steep. It was death. Hanging someone in a human-shaped cage to hold the body together was a warning to other pirates. It deterred them for a while, then it continued. There were regular hangings in some towns. Another price paid was having to go hungry at times, mostly because a pirate can't stroll into town for supplies at will. You have a price on your head. In this blog post, I'll leave another Max Miller on pirates eating leather to survive. 

The pirate code is basically a contract agreement of who gets paid what and other ship workings. It is a work contract. It isn't all that complex or mystical. One of my sources will give you some examples of found codes, such as the requirement to keep your weapon in good condition and to not gamble on board. Privateers probably had this contract system, too. 

One pirate group you know of is the Vikings. Often trade routes were easy pickings for pirates and privateers alike. The reason for becoming a pirate today has to do with third-world countries in poverty. During the golden age of piracy (1650s-1730s) farmers were forced off land and didn't have all that much left to try. Poor seamen could gain control of their lives through piracy. You could get rich and exercise dominance, in other words.  

Privateers

Privateers have papers saying they are working for the government and are authorized to go after only the enemies they are at war with. Some of them even get tasked with pirate hunting. Captain Kidd illustrated exactly what happens when everything goes wrong. He was a privateer according to documents later found - conveniently after his trial where he insisted he had papers to prove it. 

Above is a video that teaches you to make an alcoholic drink and learn more about this man. Only make this drink if you are of legal drinking age, please. Max Miller is excellent at presenting history and is always a fun time. He has a cookbook, too, but I digress. 

One thing to note about privateering is that it's shady. It takes manpower and resources away from the Navy because it pays better. Also, there were some cases where the lines between pirate and privateer were blurred. Pirates were sometimes encouraged, without paperwork filed, to pillage enemies in times of war. It's just really shady. Sometimes monarchs would take the gold in secret and keep it quiet.

In privateering, though, you didn't split all of it evenly, like pirates did, but instead gave a portion to whoever hired you. You can't have all of it. This may be why privateers did some side hustling to hit other ships outside the contract. We know they did that. They still made lots of money, though. Many leaders were charismatic, to the point of having a crew who would die for them. 

Modern Pirates

Since the early 1980s piracy has become a bigger problem. There is no authority to arrest pirates out on the open seas. Also, privateers still exist in the shadows, meaning some countries don't do anything to help the situation. 

Pirates have old tricks, like using another flag to hide themselves. Be aware of this in South and Southeast Asia, South America, and South of the Red Sea. Small-time pirates want your safe and to loot you. Organizations of pirates have connections, being one link in a criminal chain, and will attack. 

Modern pirates also have speed boats, machine guns, and illegal weapons in general. Yes, they kidnap, rob, and murder - only now they have technology to work with. Small cargo ships should beware. 

***********************************************************

I wrote a book! I am delighted to say that I have 5 five-star reviews up on Amazon now, which is amazing. I hope you like it, too. If you're interested in buying a paperback or ebook version go to my website link in this blog or click here to go straight to my Amazon page. 

Jack Thomas is running from a past case. He's hiding in Wrenville. Is his past case catching up with him? 

Find out in my first book, Wrenville, a stand-alone suspense novel.

Sources:

Pirates, Privateers, Corsairs, Buccaneers: What’s the Difference? | Britannica

Piracy and Privateering - Pirate Ship Vallarta - BLOG

Pirate Code - Rules and Code of Conduct for Pirates (thewayofthepirates.com)

The Golden Age of Piracy | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)

Modern Piracy - History of Piracy - The Way of the Pirates

Quiet - a review

I read Quiet. Here's my review of the book and why you should pick it up whenever you get the chance. I feel so seen as an introvert that I wish everyone would read this. 

Courtesy of Random House Audiobooks

This book is one woman's extensive research on introversion in an extrovert-focused world. I can't say it enough; everyone needs to read this. There is so much more in here I can't sum up everything without just handing you the book. 

For now, I'm reviewing Quiet in these categories - readability, credibility, and how likable the writer is. I don't often read the non-fiction genre (where this book falls). I still loved it. I feel incredibly understood as an introvert and I can't say enough about how good this book is. 

Readability

Readability is essentially asking "How easy is this to read?" I don't often read nonfiction. I said this earlier and I will prove it. I loved the book  Code Girls about women breaking codes, but it was a slog (despite my enjoyment of it). This book was no slog. Quiet was so easy to understand and read I could read half of it in about three to four hours. In fact, I did. It was worth my time and energy. It'll be worth yours. If I can read this nonfiction, you can too.

Credibility

Here we ask another question; is our source credible?  She is. You can look at her sources and check them yourself. You can also find extra content on how to raise introverts, how to teach introverts, and how to public speak as an introvert. These are all short and summarized in the back. It is part of her book at a glance if you need just a glance. It's nice. 

On top of all this, she has at least three to four studies in this book, as well as interviews she conducted herself. She dove into this topic with a passion. She gathered the stories, talked from experience, and got other peoples' experiences down on paper. She spent a lot of time researching this. She knows what she is talking about. 

Likable

The author's tone makes a difference in any book of any genre. Nonfiction tends to show someone's bias at some point. In a book about introversion, it is easy to make extroverts the enemy - especially when the world is run by extroversion, making it harder for introverts to feel okay with their own tendencies and themselves. This being said, our author never belittles extroverts. She suggests that extroverts and introverts work together to make the world a better place. We both have our own strengths and weaknesses. 

This makes the author a likable, compassionate, and loving human being. She does not villainize extroverts, nor does she overpraise introverts. While she is an introvert herself, she doesn't say "I'm perfect" or say that introverts need to rule the world. Bias comes into play when she speaks (same for me, same for you), but it doesn't taint her message. She can objectively look at research and come to a logical conclusion. That conclusion is simple; let's work together to understand each other and love each other. 

Conclusion

At the end of the day (and this blog post) I feel understood by this book. There is nothing wrong with introversion - no matter how many times you were called "shy" and put in environments that didn't allow you to thrive. There is nothing wrong with extroversion either. 

This book is for everyone. I want every professor who demands "participation" in class to read this and understand that it might mean more than vocalizing to participate. I want elementary teachers to read this book and understand you might be emotionally damaging your students to shove them in front of an audience while demanding they perform. I want parents to read this, students to read this, and I want extroverts to read this. I think this book can speak to everyone. This is a five-star read for me. 

Let me know what you think of this book in the comments. I would welcome any suggestions on what books I should review next. Cheers!

***********************************************************

I wrote a book! I am delighted to say that I have 5 five-star reviews up on Amazon now, which is amazing. I hope you like it, too. If you're interested in buying a paperback or ebook version go to my website link in this blog or click here to go straight to my Amazon page. 

Jack Thomas is running from a past case. He's hiding in Wrenville. Is his past case catching up with him? 

Find out in my first book, Wrenville, a stand-alone suspense novel.

overview of Lonesome Dove book series

Have you ever watched the miniseries Lonesome Dove, Streets of Laredo, Dead Man's Walk, or Comanche Moon? Did you know it had books to go with it? Let's dive into it. 

Courtesy of missmoss.co.za

Lonesome Dove is a miniseries and a novel. There are four novels in that series. They can be read as standalone novels or as a series. The series itself is about two Texas Rangers. It starts in 1840 and ends in 1890. This blog may be spoiler-heavy. If you wish to read these books blind, not knowing what is coming at all, don't read this blog until you are done reading the novels themselves. It will be a hot second, as they are thick books. 

Now that we all know that there are spoilers and the people who don't want them have left (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) we'll keep going. Again, spoilers ahead. 

The Writing Style

The writing style of Larry McMurtry is worth talking about. He can talk about gory events and rapes without me having to put down the book. This is worth noting. I am a sensitive soul and can't normally read that. The writing style makes it possible for me to read this storyline without having to vomit or otherwise be scarred for life. 

Yes, this book has a lot of death in it, as well as rape, sexual assault, attempted murder, suicide, and some torture. Yet, how can I read it? The writing style. When he describes a rape he describes the lighting, not the sexual act. He knows his readers will do the majority of the picture-making. He uses this to his advantage and uses lighting and minimal description to get his point across, without losing the serious nature of the scene. I couldn't read Game of Thrones, but I could read the entire series of Lonesome Dove. 

Sex is not focused on unless it is necessary and most of it is prostitution, rape, or married people. McMurtry doesn't really put focus on sex, yet sex is quite clearly on the minds of other characters. Sex scenes are a mere three sentences or one paragraph long. Sexual references? Yes, but not innuendo and jokes. Most women in the West are in prostitution or married, and women out in the West are few. To be real, most of the references are prostitution and rape (lots of it). There is one male rape in here, a man too tired to fend off a woman who sat on his manhood in the early hours of the morning. Most women are objectified by the society around them in this book series. They don't trust most men. Maria, a Mexican woman, holds her daughter at one point and hopes she will never know the darkness she knew. Sadly, I still find that action relevant. Most of the rape involves native american captives, as well. 

The Overall Storyline

As stated above, you can read these as a standalone novels or a series. Chronologically, you read it in the order below. Beside every book title I will briefly describe the events that take place. 

Courtesy of Amazon - From the movie Dead Man's Walk

Dead Man's Walk (early 1840s) is the story of Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call joining the rangers. There is only one plotline to follow here. McCrae and Call first go on a trip with Major Chevallie and get chased around by Comanches. Part two follows a new leader who wants to take Santa Fe, then after things go south and several people deserted, their ex-pirate leader gives them up to Mexican officers. The next part is the whole group going across Dead Man's Walk - a portion of land with no resources. I can sum up the events of this book by saying everything is going badly except the last part. The book itself is good, but the rangers don't hit any of their objectives except the last one. The next part comes after they have crossed and are being held in a leper's colony. Here they come across Lady Carey, who asks for their help in escorting her and her son and servants home. This is the best part and you'll have to read it to understand why. I won't spoil it. 

Comanche Moon (1850s - 1860s) is the book where McCrae and Call get the title Captain, after their Captain had his horse stolen and left them in charge of taking everyone home. The basic plotline of this one goes in three directions. The first major event is Captain Skull's horse being stolen by a Comanche warrior who wants to present it to Ahumado (a dangerous man who likes to torture people). Skull then follows and learns the ways of a tracker. That tracker splits and doesn't come back before Skull reaches Ahumado. The second plotline is finding Captain Skull, who is now being tortured and kept by Ahumado. This prevents the rangers from effectively protecting the community from the third plotline of this book - the Comanche Raid that went across the west with reckless abandon (a last hurrah, if you will, for the Comanche who were fewer and fewer). Many subplots come up in between. I'll let you explore those. 

Courtesy of Zavvi

Lonesome Dove (mid-late 1870s)features Captains McCrae and Call running a ranch and taking cattle to Montana (from Texas) on a whim. That is the first plotline. The other plotline is Loreta (a prostitute) going west with Jake Spoon and getting taken by a long-time enemy of the Captains (Blue Duck) and rescued. This derails their cattle for only a brief while. The third plotline is the journey of July Johnson, who is going after Jake Spoon and trying to find his runaway wife (who is pregnant in secret and leaves the baby with another woman). All these plots cross like nobody's business the whole book. Again, subplots abound. 

Streets of Laredo (1890s) is the last book in the chronological series. I hate to inform you, but only Captain Call is alive by the end of the previous book. Call is now hunting bandits for the railroad, this time a Joey Garza who is infamous for being dangerous. That is our main plotline. The next one is the hunt for a man thought dead, Mox Mox the manburner, who does what his name suggests and targets children. Call ends up going after him, too. The third plot is Maria, mother of Joey Garza, doing her best to help her son who hates her guts. It was predicted she'd die at her son's hands. It comes true and her children go home with the remaining expedition members (Pea Eye Parker, Captain Call, and Loreta Parker). Call has one arm and one leg by the end of the book. Garza does die, but not at Call's hands. Call's career is dead. 

Something To Note

I will say this down here, in case you haven't noticed the content is not your kids' bedtime story. I would recommend this book for high school age or above. I truly think this shouldn't be in a young child's hands, and for more reasons than suicides, gore, torture, and death. I think a young child will not understand the books. I think you have to understand what is going on and be able to know what sex is to truly enjoy the plots of these books. They are not shy about sex. They don't censor. They are not in the kid's section of your library. I will admit that several paragraphs made me glad I wasn't eating lunch at that moment. 

That being said, I highly suggest reading this series. I love it. I don't expect everyone to have the same taste that I do, but I love it. I give all of them five stars. The characters grow throughout the books, which is great because static characters wouldn't work here. Our two main characters are especially great to follow, given their banter and friendship. By the end, you also see what became of several other characters in past books. I suggest reading them in chronological order to truly see all their character growth and every side character's growth. Some of them die in the course of the series or live only one or two books. I'm sad to say that Gus McCrae lives through three of the four books. 

Courtesy of myfavoritewesterns.com

***********************************************************

I wrote a book! I am delighted to say that I have 5 five-star reviews up on Amazon now, which is amazing. I hope you like it, too. If you're interested in buying a paperback or ebook version go to my website link in this blog or click here to go straight to my Amazon page. 

Jack Thomas is running from a past case. He's hiding in Wrenville. Is his past case catching up with him? 

Find out in my first book, Wrenville, a stand-alone suspense novel.