As a historian who has spent years poring over ancient texts and artifacts, I find myself torn when it comes to historical films like Gladiator II. On one hand, it’s thrilling to see Roman history brought to life on the big screen, especially for those who might not otherwise engage with the subject. On the other, I can’t help but cringe at some of the inaccuracies that creep into these productions.
In Cher Horowitz’s words, fact-checking historical accuracy in a Ridley Scott film is as futile as seeking profound meaning in a Pauly Shore movie. It’s not an insult to his films’ enjoyment or overall merit – Scott just notoriously doesn’t concern himself with historical accuracy. During the promotional tour for 2023’s Napoleon, the filmmaker made several sharp comments directed at historians who were nitpicking perceived inaccuracies. As he put it in a New Yorker profile, “Get a life.” In another interview with the Sunday Times, Scott was more blunt: “When I have disagreements with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, buddy, were you there? No? Then keep quiet.’”
It’s not surprising that Scott’s new movie, Gladiator II, has sparked debate among professional historians and enthusiasts of Roman history. Ever since the first trailer dropped, critics have raised concerns over certain visual elements – for instance, a gladiator on a rhino! The film, running at approximately two-and-a-half hours, may not do much to alleviate these historical accuracy worries. Those merely seeking an entertaining cinema experience might find this debate as irrelevant as Scott himself. However, it’s intriguing to discuss the movie with a historian, despite the fact that – as Scott has noted – they weren’t present during that period in history.
To clarify truth from myth, I consulted Chris Epplett, a professor specializing in ancient Greek and Roman history at the University of Lethbridge, with a particular focus on the animal spectacles (venationes) in Roman arenas. His 2017 book, Gladiators: Deadly Arena Sports of Ancient Rome, makes him an ideal source for my queries, even though he hadn’t yet watched Gladiator II. Despite my mispronunciation of Roman names, he graciously listened to my explanations of crucial scenes and plot details.
Spoilers ahead for the film (and for ancient Roman history).
It seems that a common question about Gladiator II is whether there were ever sharks in the Colosseum. As far as I know, this isn’t accurate; however, during the early years of the Colosseum, it may have been possible to flood the arena floor for marine exhibitions. The Romans did have nautical events using ponds or man-made pools outside the Colosseum, but I don’t believe they ever had sharks in the Colosseum itself.
As a devoted marine explorer and enthusiast of underwater life, I must admit that the cinematic depiction of flooding was an impressive sight to behold. However, introducing sharks into the mix seemed like a stretch too far for me. In my real-life experiences, sharks have never made an appearance during my dives or research expeditions.
In the movie, many different animals were shown in battle scenarios. However, it seems unlikely that a gladiator would have ridden a rhino, as my understanding is that this hasn’t been documented historically. Rhinos did exist during the time of the Colosseum, but they were present before the Colosseum was built, with the first one appearing in Rome during the Late Republic, more than a century before the Colosseum was constructed. I haven’t found any evidence of someone riding a rhino, and given their temperamental nature, it seems plausible that controlling them in such a manner would be challenging.
Another intriguing creature that leaves a lasting impact is the scruffy baboon encountered by Paul Mescal’s character Lucius during his initial combat. Have you ever heard about baboons being utilized in such a context? To my knowledge, while Romans have been known to keep monkeys as pets, I can’t recall instances of them using monkeys in the arena, especially not in violent shows.
Indeed, it’s not too far-fetched to imagine that Emperor Caracalla, much like certain other Roman rulers such as Elagabalus, may have cherished a capuchin monkey as a beloved pet. After all, the ancient world was full of surprises!
Oh wow.
Elagabulus used to play a joke on his guests who stayed over at the palace after a night of debauchery. He would let his tame lions into their rooms at night so the poor people would wake up in the morning and the first thing they would see would be a lion staring into their face and, you know, frightening them half to death. It’s sort of like the bit in The Hangover when they find the tiger in their hotel room. So yeah, a pet monkey, in and of itself, wouldn’t be implausible.
In the movie, Lucius undergoes gladiator training from a character modeled after Macrinus, who, historically, was not portrayed as African-American but rather of Berber descent and held a high position in the Roman Empire. This character served as Caracalla’s Praetorian prefect, responsible for overseeing the Praetorian Guard, an elite force tasked with protecting the emperor, similar to the Secret Service and the U.S. President. However, it is important to note that the Praetorian Guard was more known for their role in assassinations than in protection throughout history.
By Macrinus’s time, the Praetorian Guard had expanded their roles to include managing many legal matters. They essentially functioned as the emperor’s deputy, a position that Macrinus held when he orchestrated Caracalla’s assassination in 217 C.E. However, his reign was brief, just a few months, before he was deposed by Caracalla’s relative Elagabalus. To clarify, Macrinus was not a typical emperor.
In the movie, the character ascends from a lowly position to become the one in command, starting off as a non-senatorial Roman citizen with equestrian status and provincial origins. However, it’s important to note that Macrinus himself was not a prisoner of war in real life.
I’m curious about social mobility during Imperial Rome, specifically if there were instances similar to the period after the Severan dynasty collapsed around the 3rd century. This was a time when the rule of the empire was often taken by military leaders, from Caracalla’s reign onward, for approximately 50 years (235-284). These men, typically coming from modest backgrounds and outside Rome itself, rose through the ranks of the military to claim power, as their troops supported them. So, it seems there were instances where individuals from lowly origins could ascend to imperial power in Imperial Rome, but not necessarily due to any political positions they held within Rome.
In simpler terms, the movie portrays Macrinus in a manner that’s almost accurate, but it exaggerates his rise to power. It’s not entirely true that he was a prisoner of war or came from the very bottom of society and climbed all the way to emperor. This depiction seems to be somewhat sensationalized.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=Ts0N8swyWFI
In addition to the portrayal of Macrinus in Gladiator II, there’s speculation about a scene that was allegedly left out, involving a kiss between him and another man. Despite this omission, the characters in the movie seem quite open-minded, hinting at what we would now call bisexuality or pansexuality. However, it is important to note that the Romans had a significantly different perspective on sexuality compared to today. While a man kissing another man might not have been as scandalous in ancient Rome as it could be in certain modern circles, it’s crucial to remember that our understanding of sexuality during this period primarily comes from the upper classes. Therefore, it is challenging to say definitively whether such fluidity was common among everyday Romans.
In many Roman studies on ancient sexuality, it’s noted that they didn’t have a specific term for what we now call “homosexuality.” Instead, societal perceptions of a person as “effeminate” were largely determined by their role in relationships – roughly equivalent to whether they took the lead (top) or followed (bottom). Even if their partner was of the same gender, a person who assumed the dominant role would generally not be considered effeminate.
In your question, you’re discussing the aristocratic class and bring up an instance where Caracalla appears to be affectionate towards a man, which some might suspect is his lover. My query is whether such public displays of affection were common among emperors or if it varied depending on the ruler. For instance, emperors like Nero and Elagabalus were notorious for their extravagant actions that Romans with more traditional values found distasteful. However, most emperors, like Marcus Aurelius, who is often admired for his virtues, would likely avoid openly showing affection towards their lovers in public.
In the film, Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger portray characters who, though not actually twins in reality, shared a close resemblance in terms of their ages.
In the movie and historically, they shared emperorship, but this kind of joint rule wasn’t a common occurrence. It tended to happen based on unique circumstances. For instance, Augustus, Rome’s first emperor, made his stepson Tiberius co-emperor the year before he passed away, essentially to confirm him as his successor.
During the initial phase of his rule, Marcus Aurelius collaborated with Lucius Verus on the administration, demonstrating that power-sharing was not an unusual practice. On occasions like these, this method was employed primarily to alleviate the complexities involved in governance.
Regarding Geta and Caracalla, it’s evident they harbored intense dislike for one another according to all accounts. I believe their father intended this as a strategy to maintain harmony between them. However, unfortunately, this effort at reconciliation proved unsuccessful.
It’s quite clear in Gladiator II that Emperor Caracalla orders the execution of Geta, a portrayal more direct than historical accounts suggest. Later, Caracalla himself is assassinated by Macrinus, an act depicted more directly in the movie than through manipulation by another party. These films certainly give the impression that being emperor was a perilous occupation! Yet, one could argue that these were simply tumultuous times or perhaps emperors during this period were particularly unstable.
During the era of the soldier-emperors in the third century, you encounter not just the usual issues with the Praetorian Guard, but also numerous armies stationed at the borders declaring their commanders as emperors. This makes the third century, or a large portion of it, quite perilous. The period of Caracalla and Geta, which comes before the fall of the Severan dynasty, is an exception since they didn’t have to contend with army usurpations. Instead, they faced internal threats, one of which was that each brother had to be constantly wary of their sibling.
As a history enthusiast, I’ve delved into the life of Emperor Caracalla, and while I haven’t encountered the theory about gonorrhea causing his instability, it is widely acknowledged that he was indeed a tyrant. The cruelty he displayed is evident in various accounts, such as his coins and surviving statues, where his facial expressions are portrayed as harsh and unforgiving. Unlike many emperors who preferred to be depicted with a stoic or placid expression, Caracalla’s portraits exude an unmistakable air of cruelty. This is one piece of evidence that suggests his tyranny.
It’s clear that he had a cruel side, and the incident with his brother vividly illustrates this – a brutal act carried out in their mother’s presence, which I’m sure you recall from your reading. [In Gladiator II, the assassination of Geta is depicted differently, but the actual story is just as gruesomely violent as anything Ridley Scott might conceive.]
One account from historical sources depicts Caracalla as quite compassionate during his childhood. However, as he ascended to the throne, he discovered that as emperor, he could essentially act without consequence. His decrees were absolute law. Consequently, this source suggests that Caracalla transformed into a tyrant, much like earlier Roman emperors such as Caligula and Nero are known to have done.
I’m curious about something related to emperors, specifically the gladiatorial games depicted in movies. They often show the emperor giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down signal to decide the fate of a losing gladiator. Is this historically accurate, or is it more of a modern interpretation?
Historically, some believe that our understanding of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down gestures may be reversed. They propose that the neutral position of the hand is with the thumb pointing downward. Thus, turning the thumb upward could originally signify a threatening or kill gesture. For instance, when people mimic slitting their throat with their fingers or thumb, they are making the ‘throat-slitting’ gesture. In this context, thumbs up might have actually meant to end someone’s life, while thumbs down could have been a signal to spare them and lower your weapon.
I’ve been pondering the historical accuracy in Gladiator II quite a bit and was wondering about your thoughts on such movies. Specifically, do you find it more frustrating when there are many inaccuracies or exciting because people show an interest in Roman history?
Regarding minor details, I’m okay with a bit of creative freedom – for instance, the scene featuring someone on a rhinoceros. I find it amusing rather than something that would upset me. I prefer not to be overly strict about these matters since I understand that the primary objective of Hollywood producers is entertainment, while they leave historical accuracy to documentaries.
Read More
- SUI PREDICTION. SUI cryptocurrency
- Destiny 2: A Closer Look at the Proposed In-Game Mailbox System
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- Clash Royale Deck Discussion: Strategies and Sentiments from the Community
- Jennifer Love Hewitt Made a Christmas Movie to Help Process Her Grief
- „People who loved Dishonored and Prey are going to feel very at home.” Arkane veteran sparks appetite for new, untitled RPG
- Naughty Dog’s Intergalactic Was Inspired By Akira And Cowboy Bebop
- Critics Share Concerns Over Suicide Squad’s DLC Choices: Joker, Lawless, and Mrs. Freeze
- ICP PREDICTION. ICP cryptocurrency
- EUR IDR PREDICTION
2024-11-22 00:54