Influences
[edit]
Historical
Marcus Aurelius as played by Richard Harris.
Commodus as portrayed by Joaquin PhoenixThe Roman emperors portrayed in the movie are Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris), who ruled AD 161–180, and his son, the deranged Commodus, who ruled between 180–192, and scandalized Roman society by appearing in the Colosseum as a gladiator, and spent most, if not all, of his time as Emperor in staging gladiatorial combats, seemingly obsessed with the sport. The film's characterization attempts to reflect Marcus Aurelius's reputation for wisdom but does so by placing a modern democratic slant to his actions and beliefs. The representation of Commodus is extremely watered down, as the (possibly biased, senatorial) sources such as the Augustan History present Commodus as far more insane and bloodthirsty than he appears in the film. While Commodus was the only Roman Emperor to fight as a gladiator (discounting reports of Caligula having done the same, as there is no record outside of Suetonius that he ever did so), he was killed by a gladiator, but not in the arena, as the film suggests.
Lucilla was Commodus’s sister and was married to Lucius Verus (mentioned in the film as the dead father of her son Lucius Verus, but not mentioned as co-emperor or seen), her father’s co-emperor until his death in 169. The incest, or attempted incest, in the movie is not historically accurate. Lucilla was in fact implicated in plots with members of the senate to kill her brother. In 182, following an assassination attempt on Commodus, Lucilla was exiled to Capri and subsequently executed on her brother’s orders.
Gladiator also implies that "Rome was founded as a Republic" and that it returned to republicanism upon the death of Commodus. Rome did not revert to republicanism after the death of Commodus and Rome was not founded as a republic but as a kingdom, becoming a republic after the last King of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was deposed in 510BC.
The opening battle most likely is intended to depict the last fight of the Marcomannic wars. Nearing the end of the battle, Maximus inexplicably raises the cry 'Roma Victor,' meaning 'Rome, the Conqueror.' (Greco-Roman culture often anthropomorphized aspects of civilzation and nature in order to depict them as gods/goddesses to be recognized. Case in point: Rome as a [female] entity and/or deity.)
The city of Rome is seen in all of its glory, and the Colosseum (then actually called the Flavian Amphitheatre) is accurately seen as the stadium for the Roman people, though the topography, views and ground plan of ancient city-centre Rome around it are entirely fictionalised and owe much to Leni Riefenstahl.
The character of Maximus is entirely fictional, though he is similar in some respects to the historical figures of Narcissus (the character's name in the first draft of the screenplay and the real killer of Commodus), Spartacus (who led a significant slave revolt), and Cincinnatus (the saviour of Rome who wished nothing more than to return to his farm).
2006-07-10 06:26:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
My Roman history professor in college did entire lectures on the historical inaccuracies in that movie. It doesn't mean that it's not a great movie, it's just that it shouldn't be a history lesson.
As far as I know, there was no Maximus. And the emperors of Rome definitely kept power in their hands until the empire fell apart. An idealistic senator didn't step in and recreate a republic, as the end of the movie seems to imply.
2006-07-10 06:28:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by poohba 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Commodus was an Emperor who actually existed and considered effete. Marcus Aurelius also existed and wrote a couple of texts still in print. This is a movie. Movies are unreliable. That's why they're for entertainment. Not necessarily instruction. Both existed at about the time Rome was about to go into sharp, irretrieveable decline.
2006-07-10 06:58:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by vanamont7 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My professor in ancient Roman history says that Maximus was a merely a fictional character in the movie "Gladiator" and didn't really exist.
2006-07-10 07:00:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by chrstnwrtr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I dont know if you would call me "related" but here is my connection: my moms cousin's (also my cousin's) step-grandfather was samuel morse! I always thought that was a cool connection! Hope I helped ya out! xoxo ;) Also, my grandfathers realtives, i think his great-grandfparents, were very famous artists in Europe and made many famous paintings, including painting pictures for the king and queen of england at there wedding (there were no cameras). His name was Agostino Masucci. You can look him up on the link below... :)
2016-03-26 23:50:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rebecca 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hector I believe. The young kid called him Hector reborn or possibly Hercules.
Hector of Troy I would assume.
2006-07-10 06:25:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by 49er 2
·
0⤊
0⤋