Gladiator: The Real Story http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.

html

GLADIATOR:THE REAL STORY

This site provides historical insight into the actual characters and
events portrayed in Ridley Scott's film Gladiator. It discusses the
film's plot and ending, so if you have not seen the movie yet, you
may want to come back later! I would not want to spoil it for you!

contact the web master by emailing david(at)exovedate.com (note: replace

(at) with the @ symbol)

IS THE FILM GLADIATOR A TRUE STORY?

Yes and no.

While it is obvious that an impressive amount of historical and scholarly research was
undertaken by the filmmakers, much of the plot is fiction. The fiction does however,
appear to be inspired by actual historical events, as will be shown in the appropriate
sections below. In this sense, the film is perhaps best seen as a collage, or artistic
representation of ancient history, as opposed to an accurate, chronological,
reconstruction of events.

It also appears that Scott attempts to present not just a reconstruction of empirical
facts, but also desires to present to us his vision of the culture of ancient Rome, the
spirit of its time, and the psychological outlook characteristic of its period. In other
words, its zeitgeist, and for the psychology of the characters, their mentalite. On that
note, Ridley Scott, much to his credit, has gone further than any filmmaker before him.
Only Fellini, in The Satyricon, has attempted to do this before, and in so doing, Scott,
while historiographically imperfect, avoids many of the annoying anachronisms of
psychology present in such films as Spartacus, Cleopatra, and Ben Hur.

Clearly, director Scott, and screenwriter David Franzoni, understand that history is more
than a regurgitation of empirical data, and that to understand a society, one must be
able to do more than recite names and dates, one must also attempt to understand the
psychology and culture of its characters. Hence the film emphasizes Maximus's worship
of his family and ancestors, his obsessive compulsion for virtue and duty, and the
stoical elements ever present in his character.

WHAT WAS MARCUS AURELIUS REALLY LIKE?

Marcus Aurelius was, as well as emperor from 161 to 180 CE, a stoic philosopher. He
really did wage battles along the frontier as depicted in the film, and is remembered by
historians of his time as a competent ruler, whom they favour. His name in full was
Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, and these are the titles to which
he would have been referred, not the anachronistic "sire" and "my lord" as in the film.

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.

An interesting fact omitted in the film, was that his adoptive brother and husband to
daughter Lucilla, Lucius Verus, was made co-emperor with Marcus. In the time of the
Republic, Rome was not ruled by emperors, but rather by two consuls. These consuls,
with equal power, were to guard against dictatorship. So, perhaps Marcus really did
have Republican inclinations, as attested to in the film, or perhaps this was a
Machiavellian maneuver undertaken in an attempt to avoid the fate of the perceived
dictator Julius Caesar. This was the first time in history that the Roman Empire had two
joint emperors of formally equal constitutional status and powers, although in reality,
Marcus was clearly the ruler of Rome.

1 of 5 16-07-2010 7:56 PM
Gladiator: The Real Story http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html

WHAT WAS COMMODUS REALLY LIKE?

If the ancient sources can be trusted, Commodus was even more bizarre in real life than
he was in the film.

Commodus, whose full name was Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus
Augustus, was proclaimed Caesar at age 5 and joint emperor (co-Augustus) at the age
of 17, in 177 CE, by his father, Marcus Aurelius. Reality was very different than the film
in this instance. Commodus was, as depicted in Gladiator, present with his father
during the Danubian wars, and yes, this is where Marcus Aurelius died. As for the actual
circumstances of his father's death, see below.

Historians from the time of Commodus have not been kind to him. As aristocratic
intellectuals, they were not amused by his crude antics. Hence, our present day
historiography still reflects, rightly or wrongly, this ancient bias. His father, possessing
the virtues seen as noble by the literate aristocracy, was, and often still is, regarded as a
great man, while his son was hated by the Senate and ridiculed by historians. Yet it is
said that the army and the lower classes loved him. Cassius Dio, a senator and historian
who lived during the reign of both Commodus and his father wrote, in regards to the
accession of Commodus, that "our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to
one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day."

Indeed, some historians even question his sanity. Commodus, in his own time, was
accused of being a megalomaniac. He renamed Rome Colonia Commodiana, the
"Colony of Commodus", and renamed the months of the year after titles held in his
honour, namely, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus,
Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, and Pius. The Senate was renamed the
Commodian Fortunate Senate, and the Roman people were given the name
Commodianus.

Historian Aelius Lampridius tells us that "Commodus lived, rioting in the palace amid
banquets and in baths along with 300 concubines, gathered together for their beauty
and chosen from both matrons and harlots... By his orders concubines were debauched
before his own eyes, and he was not free from the disgrace of intimacy with young men,
defiling every part of his body in dealings with persons of either sex."

Commodus went so far as to declare himself the new founder of Rome, a "new
Romulus". In attempting to boast a new "Golden Age" of Rome, he was clearly
emulating his father. But the effect was to make him the laughing stock of the
aristocratic class.

DID COMMODUS REALLY KILL HIS FATHER?

Maybe.

Some sources suspect that he did. The fact that he was present at the time, made a
hasty peace with the enemy, and a quick retreat back to Rome in a victory triumph, has
fueled speculation. The official story is that Marcus Aurelius died of plague.

DID COMMODUS REALLY FIGHT AS A GLADIATOR?

Yes!

In this case, the truth is even stranger than the fiction. Commodus claimed to be

2 of 5 16-07-2010 7:56 PM
Gladiator: The Real Story http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html

descended from the God Hercules, and even began to dress like him, wearing lion skins
and carrying a club.

The historian Herodian wrote that "in his gladiatorial combats, he defeated his
opponents with ease, and he did no more than wound them, since they all submitted to
him, but only because they knew he was the emperor, not because he was truly a
gladiator."

He also fought wild beasts. Dio Cassius wrote that Commodus killed five hippopotami
at one time. He also killed two elephants, several rhinoceroses, and a giraffe "with the
greatest of ease".

Herodian tells us further that Commodus had a special platform constructed which
encircled the arena, from which he would display his skills as a hunter. He is recorded
to have killed one hundred leopards with one hundred javelins. As a theatrical treat, he
would slice the heads off of ostriches with crescent-headed arrows, which would then
run around the amphitheater headless.

Dio Cassius reveals that Senators were made to attend these spectacles, and that on
one occasion Commodus killed an ostrich and displayed the severed head in one hand,
his sword dripping with blood in the other, thus implying that he could treat them the
same way.

DID COMMODUS REALLY DIE IN THE ARENA?

No.

However he was assassinated, and, by an athlete. There were numerous plots and
attempts upon his life, but the one which finally succeeded was carried out by a wrestler
named Narcissus, while Commodus was in his bath. The plot was orchestrated by his
closest advisors, and apparently even included his mistress, Marcia.

It occurred on the last day of the year 192. It was believed that Commodus planned to
kill the consuls-elect, and be sworn in as consul himself. This he reportedly was going
to do dressed as a gladiator, in his lion skins. This was the final outrage. His fate was
sealed.

Commodus ruled for 12 years, a much longer period than alluded to in the film. Dio
Cassius wrote that Commodus was "a greater curse to the Romans than any pestilence
or any crime."

WAS THE REPUBLIC RESTORED AFTER THE DEATH OF COMMODUS?

No.

The film is wrong on this count. A republic is a system of government which does not
have a hereditary monarch. An emperor is a monarch. The United States is a republic,
and England is not.

Rome was not founded as a republic, as was stated by a senator (who should have
known better) in the film. Legend has it that Rome was originally ruled by Etruscan
kings. The first king was Romulus. The kings were overthrown in a revolution, which
was sparked by the rape of Lucretia, in 509 BCE, by Sextus Tarquin, the son of the
seventh and last king, Tarquinius Superbus.

Dictators and kings were thereafter despised by Romans, hence, the ideological
adulation of a republican system of government, which was a central theme of both
Roman history and the movie.

After Commodus was murdered, the Senate met before daybreak, and declared sixty-six
year old Pertinax, who was the son of a former slave, emperor. Pertinax thus became
emperor on January 1st, but he was murdered by a group of soldiers the following
March, after less than three months in power.

3 of 5 16-07-2010 7:56 PM
Gladiator: The Real Story http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html

WHAT WAS MAXIMUS REALLY LIKE?

Maximus Decimus Meridius (his full name is stated only once in the film) is a fictitious
character!

Although he did not exist, he seems to be a composite of actual historical figures. In the
film, Maximus was Marcus Aurelius' general. There was in fact a general by the name of
Avidius Cassius, who was involved in the military campaign shown in the film, and,
upon hearing a rumor of Marcus Aurelius' death, declared himself emperor. He however,
was assassinated by his own soldiers. It is true that there was, in the later Empire, a
General by the name of Maximus who appears to have had revolutionary intentions. He
is most likely an inspiration as well.

Maximus also reminds one of the emperor Diocletian. Remember that in the film, Marcus
Aurelius names Maximus as his heir. Diocletian, who ruled Rome from 284 to 305 CE,
was born in the lower classes, like Maximus. He eventually became his emperor's
trusted favourite and bodyguard, and later became a general. Finally he was named heir,
and thus became emperor.

Commodus, in reality, was not murdered in the arena by Maximus. He was however
murdered by a wrestler. So the character Maximus, while fictitious, is not that
far-fetched. He appears to be collage of other, real, historical figures.

As for his personality, he was definitely a stoic, as evidenced by his sense of obligation
to the state, and concern for duty and virtue. This makes sense, given his admiration for
Marcus Aurelius, who was a stoic philosopher. One difficulty is, even though many
Romans (and not just Christians) believed in an afterlife, stoics usually did not. So this
is problematic with regards to his character in the film.

DID SENATOR GRACCHUS REALLY EXIST?

No.

The ideology which he represents is however, somewhat authentic. Senator Gracchus

appears to be based upon Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. During the Republic, these two
brothers, were, one after the other, plebeian tribunes (not senators). They were
champions of the common people, and paid the cost with their lives.

Tiberius Gracchus was elected tribune of the people in 133 BCE, and fought for reforms
of benefit to the plebeians. He was murdered by opponents. His brother Gaius was
elected tribune of the people in 123 BCE, and attempted the continuation of popular
reforms. He was also murdered. It is problematic that in the film Gracchus was a
senator, in the sense that it was the senatorial class which opposed Gauis and Tiberius,
and even participated in their murder.

The political infrastructure of ancient Rome evolved over time, and was actually more
complex than portrayed in the film. Other important political entities, along with the
Senate, were the Plebeian Tribunate, as well as the Comitia Centuriata. These, along
with two Consuls who would rule jointly, are the basic Republican institutions so
cherished by Romans, and which emperors would claim to restore.

DID LUCILLA REALLY PLOT AGAINST HER BROTHER?

Yes.

Commodus really did have a sister Lucilla, and she hated her brother. Lucilla was at one

4 of 5 16-07-2010 7:56 PM
Gladiator: The Real Story http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html

time married to Lucius Verus, as her son tells Maximus in the film. What is not said is
that Verus was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius. Lucilla conspired against Commodus,
and attempted to have him assassinated in 182 CE. Commodus banished Lucilla to the
island of Capreae as punishment, and ordered her execution shortly after. So, unlike the
film portrayal, Commodus actually outlived Lucilla.

Incidentally, it was his other sisters, not Lucilla, that he reputedly had sexual relations
with.

DID WOMEN REALLY FIGHT IN THE ARENA?

Yes.

Some criticism by film reviewers has been levied towards Scott for having a female
gladiator. However, the ancient sources are clear; they did in fact exist. Tacitus, for
instance, wrote that Nero staged "a number of gladiatorial shows, equal in magnificence
to their predecessors, though more women of rank and senators disgraced themselves
in the arena". Petronius, in The Satyricon, wrote of female charioteers. Dio Cassius
explained how some women performed as venatores, that is gladiators who fought wild
beasts. The Emperor Domitian staged games in which women battled pygmies.

Women were forbidden from gladiatorial performances shortly after the time of
Commodus, by the emperor Alexander Severus, in 200 CE.

WHAT'S WITH THE TATTOO WORN BY MAXIMUS?

S.P.Q.R., the letters of the tattoo worn by Maximus, was an abbreviation for an oft used
Latin phrase whose English translation is "the Senate and People of Rome".

The Latin word for "tattoo" was stigma, and our modern meaning of stigmatize, as a
pejorative, has clearly evolved from the Latin. It was slaves, gladiators, criminals, and
later, soldiers, who were tattooed, as an identifying mark.

Upper class Romans did not partake in tattooing, which they associated with either
marginal groups, or foreigners, such as Thracians, who were known to tattoo
extensively. The emperor Caligula is said to have forced individuals of rank to become
tattooed as an embarrassment.

In late antiquity, the Roman army consisted largely of mercenaries, they were tattooed in
order that deserters could be identified.

The sixth century Roman physician, Aetius, wrote that:

"Stigmates are the marks which are made on the face and other parts of the body. We
see such marks on the hands of soldiers. To perform the operation they use ink made
according to this formula: Egyptian pine wood (acacia) and especially the bark, one
pound; corroded bronze, two ounces; gall, two ounces; vitriol, one ounce. Mix well and
sift... First wash the place to be tattooed with leek juice and then prick in the design
with pointed needles until blood is drawn. Then rub in the ink."

The Christian emperor Constantine, ca. 325 AD, decreed that individuals condemned to
fight as gladiators or to work in the mines could be tattooed on the legs or the hands,
but not on the face, because "the face, which has been formed in the image of the divine
beauty, should be defiled as little as possible."

In 787, Pope Hadrian the First prohibited tattooing altogether, due to its association
with superstition, paganism, and the marginal classes.

5 of 5 16-07-2010 7:56 PM