There is a suggestion by some that gladiators did not strike one another blows to the head due to some form of fight illegality. It is the authors belief that gladiators did attack one anothers heads and more so that it was an integral part of their tactics and training.

When pressed to defend the position of such attacks being illegal, responses tend to fall into one of the following three categories or a combination of each:

• Attacks to the head were illegal because Romans believed the head sacred.
• Attacks to the head were illegal because of the expense of the helmets.
• Attacks to the head were illegal because of the helmets manufacture.

Taking each one in turn we will examine why the claims cannot stand. We will move onto examining evidence that suggests attacks to the head were in fact allowed.

Before moving on however, it is important to define the word gladiator for the purposes of this essay. Unless stated otherwise the gladiators under examination here are professional fighters either slave or free from the First and Second Centuries AD.

A Sacred Object.

The foremost argument sited in the defence of the position of the illegality of the head as a legitimate target is that the head was considered sacred by the Romans and as such it was out of bounds for the gladiators to strike there.

In the concerns of Nero to avoid decapitation at his potential capture, we can see an under current of sympathy that suggests violently losing your head was a terrible thing to Romans beyond the obvious horror of death. Many a noble figure feared the possible ritual corpse abuse that could be done to their body after an unsuccessful time in office. Also it is true that the Romans found the ears of the human head attractive and as such would not want to see them mutilated.

However, to counter weight this argument and tip the scales we must remember the social status of the gladiator was infamis. Privileges enjoyed by others were not to be found by the gladiator, this status legally placed him lower than a slave. He was a person with no legal rights in the eyes if Rome, its law or its people.

The Expense of the Helmets.

The manufacturing costs of helmets is sited as another defence to the possibility that attacks to the had where illegal. It is true that the gladiatorial helmets were expensive, of all Roman helmets lefts us from the period in question a few of the gladiatorial helmets carry the most exquisite of all decorations and design. Whether these specific helms would have found there way into the arena is a separate argument from here.

However, not all helmets were made to such fabulous designs, a great many were stock equipment, owned by a Ludus and handed down from gladiator to gladiator. This though is not the main portion of our argument against this preposition.

Expense does not seem to have been a concern for many of the games editors. Many is the time that expense is thrown to the wind as people of standing competed with one another to ensure their place in the hearts of the people. Julius Caesar once had his gladiators fight in silvered armour with silvered weapons, gladiators enjoyed the best medical attention available with their training barracks situated in some of the most pleasant and healthy locations, coloured sands were imported to cover the arena floors, some gladiators enjoyed rewards of villas and vast fortunes and finally in the end Marcus Aurelius placed a cap upon the cost of gladiators as they were changing hands at ridiculous prices, even so this conservative cap represented the better part of ten years wages for the average soldier of the time.

When considering this extravagance against the complaint over the expense of the helmets there can be little defence found for it. After all, the very sand the gladiator fought on cost more than all the helmets present and the gladiator himself was potentially worth even more, yet both would eventually be lost in the games.

The Helmets Manufacture.

Of all arguments to defend the position of the illegality of head attacks this one makes the least sense. The question must be asked, why defend the head at all, if attacks to the head are illegal? The thickness of the armour and the helmets practical design offer no sense unless the head was a legitimate target.

Evidence for head attacks.

After seeing that the evidence for the illegality of head attacks is flimsy at best we must now look to show that they did happen. For this I will be using three points listed and examined in turn:

• The helmets design demonstrates head attacks may have happened.
• The shield and helmet defence.
• Contemporary writings.

The helmets design demonstrates head attacks may have happened.

A weakness of the helmets is the eye holes. To defend against attacks to the eyes the holes were either made smaller, in the case of the secutor, or covered with a grill in almost all other cases. Development of the eye covering can be easily traced with any children's book illustrating gladiatorial helmets through the ages. By the time in question almost all helmets had a removable grill eye cover. Interestingly, the tiny eye holes of the sector helmet make it almost impossible for a trident to gain purchase however, a normal helmet would guide the trident points into the face. Again a strong argument for the legality of head attacks in these differing solutions to potential harm to the head.

The shield and helmet defence.

In most images of the gladiators they have adopted the classic stance (for a full examination of this read 'The Classic Stance' by the author). In this stance it is the aim of the gladiator to give his opponent little to attack. The shield is held high into the base of the helmet, the gladius arm pulled back and out of harms way and greaves block fool hardy leg attacks.

Against a moving target, attacks to the scutum are useless and leg attacks almost suicidal. The head however, presents an obvious target. In the heavy helmets of the gladiators though, a gladius attack to the head would never be fatal. If though it was made of the thinner military equivalent and have no eye guards it might prove otherwise very easily. Hence the progressive helmet development to heavy, shielded helmets.

Contemporary Authors, Images and Equipment.

The weight of evidence is such that these attacks must have happened. Firstly are three quotes from Seneca, Juvenal and finally Prudentius.

"By chance I attended a midday exhibition, expecting some fun, wit and relaxation … Many persons prefer this programme to the usual bouts by request. Of course they do; there is no helmet or shield to deflect the weapon. What is the need of defensive armour or skill?" Seneca the younger.

"This dear boy had begun to shave a long while ago, and one arm, wounded gave hope of retirement; besides, he was frightfully ugly, scarred by his helmet, a wart on his nose and his eyes always running. Gladiators though look better than any Adonis…" Juvenal

In this first writing we gain some idea that armour was worn defensively, particularly the helmet and the shield. In this case the helmet and shield are seen as something to ward and deflect blows, to be worn as protection. This writing is a direct discussion of a noon day fighting witnessed by Seneca during the reign of Nero.

In this second quote, we come across a biting piece of comedy and social comment by Juvenal. Juvenal, no stranger to making comments on the games turns his wit to the problem with Rome's women as they pursue, in this case to her social suicide, gladiators. He paints an image of an ugly, scarred and suppurating gladiator who the women leaves her senator husband for. This gladiator is wounded about his head by wounds received from his helmet. Presumably the helmets of the time were not deliberately made to cause injury and harm to the wearer so, we can safely say that these wounds would have been the result of direct pressure given during an attack to the head.

In his slight against the Vestals at the Munera in the Flavian Amphitheatre, Prudentius, accidentally casts some more light on our subject showing that attacks to the head did happen in the bouts at the feet of his target. He writes of the Vestals, "... sitting in the better part of the (Flavian) amphitheatre they look closely at the bronze-covered face, smashed by repeated casts of the trident ..."

Roman images exist of Murmillo helmets with a plate rivitted across the left eye guard of the helmet. This plate has been drilled with small holes. Presumably, because this extra protection is over the left eye it is designed to stop weapon points being thrust into the eye protection of the helmet. The left eye would be the closest eye to your opponent for most of the combat.

A painted contest between a Murmillo and a Hoplomachus depicts the Hoplmachus launching an attack with his spear point upward into the eyes his enemy, and another images shows a different Murmillo being lead away from the field of combat with blood pouring through his fingers which he holds over his left eye, the onlooking victorious Hoplomachus is armed with a spear.

Why attack the head?

Firstly, we have read a contemporary account of wounds being caused by the helmet. So attacks to the head, however non lethal would have caused some injury. From personal experience attacks to a properly made, well fitting helmet still can result in heavy bruising, concussion, neck injuries and light cuts.

A heavy attack to the gladiators helmet might be all that would have been required to disorientate him for long enough to break the fight and defeat him. The noise caused by a decent knock to the helmet can be deafening and can cause you to easily loose sight of your opponent. It is little wonder that complaints were made against the standard of some gladiators as they blinked when weapons were brandished in their faces.

Summary.

It can be seen from this brief essay that arguments for the illegality of head attacks do not stand casual scrutiny. In opposition contemporary writing, helmet design and experimentation show that the attacks to the head would have happened and were a needed tactic to break the shield deadlock early on in a fight.

The author invites comment, criticism and discussion upon this writing. Due to the brevity of the article much has been summarised so further discussion is encouraged.