Talk:Naumachia

++Lar: t/c 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"First known Naumachia"

It should be noted that naumachiae were actually held first during the First Punic War, though they served more as demonstration and practice for the (then inexperienced) navy. I don't have any sources to back this up though. Would anyone know more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.210.238 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Water in the Coliseum

FWIW, I watched a program on the History channel a couple of months ago, the focus of which was a chemical study of the makeup of the plaster used in the Coliseum, and examination of the flooding and drainage facilities the Romans had built into the coliseum.

The program concluded that the plaster used contained small, but notable amounts of the substance that the Romans used in aqueducts for waterproofing, but not enough that it was designed to be a permanent feature of the arena. It also concluded that the coliseum could have been flooded overnight, and that it was probably built with it being flooded shortly after completion- but not again after that- in mind.

I can’t find (in the brief search I’ve just done) anything I can cite, so I’m not going to put it into the article yet… but I’d say that the section relating to the flooding of the coliseum is probably slightly out of date. Barnas 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what the article implies - naumachias in 80, but converted during Domitian's reign. Would be interesting to have results of latest studies in Rome - they were doing some work in that direction in the late 1990s but I don't recall ever seeing the results - perhaps this show came out of that.Bridesmill 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Suetonius

"We know precisely, from Suetonius": most classicists agree that Suetonius was the tabloid historian of the ancient world. Perhaps using him as a definitieve source isn't so prudent. Maybe change this sentence to read, "Suetonius states in Lives of the Twelve Caesars (Claudius, XXI, 12­14), that the naumachiarii saluted the emperor before the combat with the famous phrase Morituri te salutant ("those who are about to die salute you")" or something similar. Suetonius is important in this entry because the only known occurrence of that very famous phrase is in his work, but at the same time, his accuracy shouldn't be overemphasized. --Livius 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted that was a bit hyperbolic for English language tastes; OTOH to characterize Suetonius as Most classicists agree would be, well, tabloid journalism. He was a bit of a hack, but not quite in the league of News of the World, and I don't recall hearing any classicist refer to him as such.Bridesmill 16:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thyrreneans

This is more likely to be an alternative spelling of Tyrrhenians than to mean "people of Tyre"... AnonMoos 23:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the people of Tyre - not a good adjective, not sure what the adjective for them is, so just calling them people of Tyre for now.Bridesmill 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Most likely "Tyrians"... AnonMoos 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Translated from French Wikipedia article

Most of this article is acknowledged (by a now-retired user [1] in the long-ago article history) as a straight translation from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the material is good, so the original is probably OK. The English version's pretty low on reliable sources; but the French version might be worth going through for French-language sources. Maybe English language sources too. Haploidavey (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for the Flooding of the Colosseum

I'm a bit concerned about the sources for the colosseum flooding contained in here. Suetonius, for both Titus and Domitian, explicitly says that the Naumachia took place in a purpose built artificial lake. Martial says nothing about naumachia specifically in the colosseum, and in fact the implication of epigram 28 is again that it was a separate arena. Cassius Dio actually states that the games of Domitian were in a separate arena, again specifically not the colosseum. This means that we have only one reference to naumachia in the colosseum, and that we are taking the word of Cassius Dio over that of two authors who lived much closer to the time and specifically state the opposite. Is there further evidence to corroborate this or should the article be amended? Classics Will WJ (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We should not be taking any of the primary sources at face value. We should be citing scholars who have weighed the primary sources and archaeology on this question. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand that we shouldn't take them at face value, but equally we shouldn't dismiss them out of hand without good reason. Especially considering there are no scholars cited here for the presence of naumachia in the colosseum. At any rate, the sources that HAVE been used here do not actually say what is currently claimed. Classics Will WJ (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Haploidavey's comment in the section previous to this one notes that this article was largely translated from French WP without transferring the sources. Glancing at it, that appears to be one issue. Compound the problem if what you're saying is true: that the sources don't say what's claimed. I don't doubt that, because I find it in almost every article I work on or attempt to verify. I find it hard to salvage articles that have problems like this, even when the information is sound, because the work of retracing the sourcing is more tedious than just rewriting it, or sections of it, from scratch. Bon chance to anyone willing to take on that task. I encourage you to edit the article to address this point in particular. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)