Gladiator: It cannot be that true, Can it?

In Hollywood’s brief history of making movies, it has re-written history more than once. It is not that Hollywood intentionally meant to mislead the public or deliver false historical information. It is merely that a good story sells, and depending on the mood of the “people” at the time they maybe had to alter the facts a bit to provide an entertaining movie that the public would buy. In my research I found that while there were non-factual parts of the movie Gladiator was based on older movies such as Ben-Hur. Gladiator, “Is old, but it has a new twist” (Ressner).

Many aspects of the movie, Gladiator, were both factual and fictional. According to the begging of the film the time was 180 AD and the current emperor was Marcus Aurelius. This is a fact that Caesar Marcus Aurelius was emperor from 161AD-180AD in Rome, and he did have a campaign against Germania, or the barbarians as they are referred to in the film. However, Marcus Aurelius was not assassinated, as the movie depicts. Instead he died of natural causes. His heir to throne was in fact his son, Commodious, as the movie depicted and there was no indication that Marcus Aurelius intended to hand over his throne to just anyone.

There was one area that I could find that glaringly deviated from the truth. That was in the area of relationships. Commodus was not a single child he also had a sister, she married Luscious Veras both were children to Marcus Aurelius’s. And although killing each other was part of the Caesar history, the idea that Commodus killed his father is pure fiction. Historians generally agree that, “Marcus Aurelius died of the plague in Vienna on March 17, 180AD” (www.nmia.com). It is also untrue that Marcus found his son unfit to rule. He had Commodus named Caesar when he was 5 years old, and named Commodus as his successor when he was seventeen. As a Roman father he undoubtedly loved and spoiled his son terribly.

The Roman legion depicted in the movie was true to fact. The core of the, “Roman legion consisted of heavily armored infantry” (Ward). Disciplined and well trained, these soldiers fought in closed ranks. At every level the men of a legion fought together toward ultimate victory. In contrast, most of the armies Rome faced were warrior based where each man fought for personal glory. This combination of superior organization and disciplined armored infantry gave the Romans a tremendous advantage in battle. The idea of what the Roman armies could accomplish was seen in the opening fight seen of the movie.

Unfortunately, the movie was quite accurate in its portrayal of Commodus. While most historians depict him as he appears in the movie, vain, evil, dictatorial, and insane, there is also evidence that in life as in the movie he was popular with the “people”. Commodus spent hours:

In a seraglio of three hundred beautiful women, and as many boys, of every rank, and of every province; and, wherever the arts of seduction proved ineffectual, the brutal lover had recourse to violence (Auchincloss).

He was very generous to the lower classes and gave them money and other gifts. He held lots of extravagant games in the Coliseum and he liked to participate in them. This delighted the “people” but the senate hated him for it. During his time as Caesar, several attempts were made on his life. It is not rue though, that he died in the arena but he was strangled to death as he bathed in his bath.

If you got the impression from the movie that Marcus Aurelius was a “good” Caesar you would be right, at least as far as Caesars go. The movie accurately portrayed Marcus Aurelius as a ruler who was tired of war and bloodshed. In real life he was probably not suited to fill the role of Caesar. History remembers him as the “philosopher king.” “His work The Meditations, although more a compilation of existing stoical thought than a work of great originality, remains a highly readable classic in philosophy”(www.exovedate.com). He was a man who was much more comfortable with peace and intellectual pursuits than with wars. During his reign the Pax Romana which was a long period of peace in Rome failed and as shown in the movie he found himself locked in endless wars with the Germanic people. The Germanic tribes had been hard to conquer. Here again the movie takes liberties with the truth because he died before he completed his conquest of Germany. His reign as Emperor had been long and difficult. And the Caesar who was more suited to peace than to war finally got to rest.

As for the main character of the movie, Maximus, he never existed. Maximus was based on Luscious Veras who was a general. But that is not to say a relationship much like theirs would not have been possible. There was great loyalty to good leaders in Rome and Marcus Aurelius was considered a “good” Caesar. I then wondered if it was possible for a Spaniard to become a “general” in the Roman army. The answer was yes. By the end of the First century the Roman colonization of Spain was complete. The people of Spain spoke Latin, used Roman institutions like slave labor, and traded with Roman money. Spain provided Rome with some of its greatest writers, orators and politicians and soldiers (Marcus Aurelius was born in Spain). Rome had granted the Hispanic population citizenship and had given many of them land to farm. Roman soldiers married Spanish women and their children were Roman citizens.

The movie quite accurately describes the Roman army. It used swords, shields, and bows and arrows as weapons. It depended mainly on its artillery regiments to do the fighting and in large campaigns the army used catapults. The Romans did have a love of horses but they rarely saw battle. The uniforms and armor of the soldiers were amazingly, quite historically correct. The movie also portrayed the true meaning of a gladiator. A gladiator was, “professional fighter who performed in spectacles of armed combat in the amphitheaters of ancient Rome” (Spodek, 169).

So often in Hollywood’s epic historical movies they don not pay all that much attention to the clothing of an era. This did not happen in Gladiator. The soldiers, emperors, noble women and children as well as the common citizens were dressed to perfection.

As I watched Gladiator I felt like I had been given the opportunity to time travel back to the “glory that was Rome.” From looking at images of ruins and recreations of Ancient Rome on the Internet (www.iei.net/~tryan/walk.shtml), I knew that the movie maker had been faithful to this ancient city. The Coliseum was especially impressive. From its magnificent size and underground chambers where the gladiators and exotic animals were kept, to the trap door in the Coliseum floor, the architectural details were very factual. The citizens of Rome loved their games and the Coliseum could seat as the stated, “50,000 people would come and watch these games at this amazing palace” (spodek, 172).

When the Pax Romana failed, the Republic failed with it. The people were once again faced with wars and barbarians. The city had become overcrowded and there were riots and plague. The games were used by the government to appease the masses. The games gave the people who had lost their personal power a chance to feel powerful again. They held the power of life and death in their hands; at the games anyway. The games were the biggest popularity contest in history. According to the movie, if the crowd liked you, it gave you thumbs up and you lived. If it did not like you, you got thumbs down and you were then sacrificed.

The games also had a political purpose, “they entertained the masses and kept them distracted from the harsh realities of their own lives” (Spodek, 179). They eliminated huge sectors of undesirable people from their population like unwanted slaves, criminals and prisoners of war. Since gladiators were on a fight for survival there were levels that could be achieved:

A successful gladiator received great acclaim; he was praised by poets, his portrait appeared on gems and vases, and patrician ladies pampered him. A gladiator who survived many combats might be relieved from further obligation. Occasionally, freedmen and Roman citizens entered the arena, as did the insane Emperor Commodus. (Encarta Online).

No one really knows why the “people” liked the blood and gore so much; there is only speculation. Maybe the brutality of the games made their own lives seem easier. Maybe they had become so desensitized to killing and wars and battles that “playing” at war seemed mild in comparison to the real thing. The fact remains that no matter how repulsive the idea seems to us, the Romans loved their games and the games gave them something they desperately needed.

There in no denying the greatness of Rome and its vast contributions to the development of Western Civilization. I think the movie; Gladiator comes very close to telling the truth about the lives and times of the Ancient Romans. I can honestly say that because of this movie and the research I have done, I found a lot of compassion for the people and understanding of the history of the Roman Empire. I also realized that in the making of this movie I was pleased to see that, Hollywood although glorified the events of Rome in this era, it maintained a level of historical accuracy. From the research I have done on this film, I have learned what and who true gladiators were and how the directors tried to perceive their accuracy in this film. The Director Scott Rideley used the knowledge of history professors from Harvard University to try and make this movie as historically accurate as possible. This movie allowed people to see somewhat accurately the lives of the Roman people and the life of a gladiator. Although this movie was glorified and twisted towards the viewing public, it allowed us, the viewers to be apart of such an amazing part of the worlds history, the time of the gladiator, in the Roman Republic.

Gladiator. Dir. Scott Ridley. Perf. Russell Crowe. DreamWorks and Universal Studios, 2000

The movie is about a general from the Roman army who was captured. The general was later forced to fight as a gladiator to keep himself alive. By fighting, the general eventually fought to his death but in turn freed Rome from an unjust emperor.

References

• Gill, N.S. “Gladiator: The DreamWorks Movie or Commodious was not named for a toilet and other misapprehensions”. Ancient/Classical History powered by The History Net 5 Nov. 2001 Copyright 2000 This article explained what people thought while viewing the movie, Gladiator. The article explained what the common person thought of the movie. It stated what the people were thinking to be either true or false. An example of this is, “’As if an Emperor would ever get into an arena’ which was not an uncommon idea” (Gill). This article allows me to understand the thoughts of viewers when they watched this movie.

• “Gladiator, an overview of the movie (opinionated)” online posting 5 Nov.2001 http://www.plur.ch/LHS/GLADIATOR.shtml This website was a review of the movie, Gladiator. The posting summarized the move in a coherent manner. The summarization allowed information to be processed and obtained easily. The article made a strong emphasis on the amount of gore and action in this movie.

• “Gladiator,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com copyright 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved The article of the encyclopedia gives a definition of what a gladiator is. It also explained the role of the gladiator and its significance towards Rome. I felt this would be important for my paper because it would give insight on what the true gladiators were. According to this, a gladiator is a, “professional fighter who performed in spectacles of armed combat in the amphitheaters of ancient Rome” (Encarta Online). This information will be of great use for my paper.

• Ressner, Jeffrey “The Empire Strikes Back: Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott breathe vibrant new life into the Roman-history film.” Time 8 May. 2000 v155:19p83+ This article explains why the movie has such an appeal to audiences of today’s people. It gives a summary of the movie and also compares it to pervious “gladiator type” movies. It states, “Every movie pitch is a variation of ‘It’s old, but it’s new’” (Ressner). Agreeing with the idea, that this movie is an old idea with a very new twist.

• Auchineloss, Kenneth “When in Rome, Do as the… ‘Gladiator’ is a big hit, but is it historically accurate?” Newsweek. 22 May. 2000 v135:21p71 This article explained and sorted the factual and fictional areas of the movie, Gladiator. It made the reader ask themselves questions of the movie and the article provided answers. An example of this is, “Did commodious fight as a gladiator? Surprisingly, Yes” (Auchinclass). I feel this article will be of use when explaining the accuracy of this movie.

• “’Gladiator’ a comparison to other such movies online posting 6 Nov. 2001 www.nmia.com/~pslock/r_glad.htm This website had an opinionated essay which compared similar “sword and sandal” movies to Gladiator. A simple example of how this article can help in seen in a quote, “If you took part of Ben-Hur, then added some Spartacus and a dash of The Fall of the Roman Empire” (www.nmia.com). This essay explained how these movies relate to each other. I feel this essay would be useful for providing a background of how the movie Gladiator, is similar to these other movies.

• Neelin, David “Gladiator: The Real Story” 9 Nov. 2001 copyright 2000 www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.shtml This website provided me with an essay that explains to what the director of the movie is trying to do which is to present the viewer, “a vision of the culture of ancient Rome, the spirit of its time and the psychological outlook characteristic of its period”(Neelin). This website breaks the movie down into easily understandable sections. It was broken down by scenes such as Commodious fighting a gladiator. This article will be very useful towards writing my paper.