Leone Morello
Is Gladiator a good representation of Roman History?
Gladiator tells the story of a Roman general named Maximus who becomes an enslaved gladiator when the new emperor of Rome, Commodus, attempts to get rid of him. It becomes Maximus’ goal to overthrow Commodus as a personal act of revenge as well as to restore the republic. The movie skims over some heavily underlying themes of the Roman Empire correctly, but not with complete historical accuracy. Gladiator provides some truth in its representation of the actual brutality endured as a slave-turned-gladiator as well as the violence and energy accompanying the combat sports, but it does not accurately delve into the historical reality of Roman gladiators or the real historical events and figures included in the film.
Violence and brutality are key elements made focus throughout the movie. Although the presence of these themes are what make the life-threatening combative fighting between trained slaves an entertaining sport for Ancient Rome, the movie exaggerated these themes to be overly gory and dramatic for the sake of entertaining cinematic audiences. Unlike in the movie, there were formal rules in place and all gladiators fighting against each other would have different weapons that would make their fight a struggle. Gladiators would not have any disadvantage against their opponents, but in the movie Maximus and his fellow gladiators were put up against those with the advantage of extensive armour and better/advanced weaponry. Drama fuels the plot of Maximus’ aim to achieve personal revenge on Commodus and to fulfil Marcus Aurelius’ request to restore the republic, however this plot is inaccurate to the mindset of Rome at this time in history. Gladiator is set at a time when restoring the republic would be an unfavourable decision. This is because under the empire, wealth was distributed more equally, expanding territory made the empire richer than the republic, imperial projects and construction provided entertainment and more services to the public, and Roman citizenship and rights were given to more people in all areas of the empire.
Maximus aimed to fight as a gladiator until he could get close enough to kill Commodus. Even if he managed to survive after killing the emperor, he would still remain an enslaved gladiator. The movie depicted a personal agenda that could change things for one or a few people, but in Roman history everything revolved around the big picture. For example, Spartacus was a slave who strived to crush slavery in Rome’s republic and he revolted and escaped as a gladiator. He soon after accumulated an army of 120,000 people and together they all fought against the republic and defeated many Roman legions in order to escape slavery. In the movie, Rome appears thrilled at Maximus’ flipped misfortune and vengeance on his enemy, which makes him famous and honourable. This is a lesson incorporated into the plot that states you can achieve greatness and freedom from slavery if you just fight for it. This hints along the lines of stoicism, but it was not reality for Roman slaves and gladiators who died and could not leave enslavement. Even Spartacus fought and became heroic, but he remained and died a slave. The lessons are untrue to the nature of Ancient Rome and are only relevant to the movie’s plot. On the topic of slavery however, a Roman general like Maximus becoming a slave in Ancient Rome would be unheard of. It’s true that Roman citizens could become slaves if they didn’t pay their taxes or if they owed borrowed money, but it wouldn’t make sense for someone like Maximus to become a slave. The fact that his home was destroyed and his family killed may be used as evidence to argue that he could possibly be enslaved as an unidentified person, but in reality it still wouldn’t make sense for that to make him automatically become a candidate to slavery by Roman procedure.
Maximus is a completely fictional character, yet his personality and morals accurately depict what it was to be a Roman citizen and noble of his time period: a stoic person committed in obligation to the empire and concerned over virtue and duty. Existing figures such as Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were emperors of Rome as well as father and son. The truth to their characters in the movie portrays Marcus as a great philosophical emperor and Commodus as a bad emperor hated by the senate, but their cinematic story is not like what it is in history. The real Marcus ruled solo for awhile before sharing his reign with his teenage son Commodus. Marcus was not murdered by his son, he had been ill for a few years and died of natural causes. Commodus’ struggle for power against Maximus in the movie never occurred outside of fiction, but the Roman Empire did experience many power struggles in its days as a Republic. Commodus did fight as a gladiator and his sister did plot against him with the senate, so some elements of the storyline had a certain degree of truth.
Despite exaggerations, incorrect information and the fictional storyline, the movie portrays a powerful and exciting collage of ideas that creates an understandable version of what Roman society and culture was like. It remains historically imperfect regarding Roman history, with the butchered timeline and the invented, ignored or tweaked facts of the past, but the film wasn’t a poor example of what the Roman Empire was like.
