Would Lucius (the son of Lucilla) become Nero in several years after the film?
2006-09-23 05:16:32 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No. The story takes place at the death of Marcus Aurelius, Circa 180 AD.
2006-09-23 05:24:54 · answer #1 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
ok the old man at the start of the movies was emperor at macus aruleius who reigned from 160 - 180 and was general agreed to good emperor and philosopher you can still read his book his son commodus was the next emperor 180 - 192 he was bad emperor was indeed obessed by the game he assinated by wreastler while he watched the games (he had been druged first) there then followed one of more shameful moment of roman history where empire was auctioned of by guard to highest bidder needless to say the winner did not enjoy the empire for after some fighting the empire was rule the emperor septimus servus till about 216 he was another short live dynastry hewas creul as he was effective and so it goes on. Nero was totally different era he reigned from 54 - 68 if you want to know who he parent were look to answer to the question was nero the spawn of satan!
2006-09-26 15:14:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Franky its so historically inaccurate I would not worry where on earth it comes in the scheme of things buthistorically I am pretty sure Nero is a bit before Marcus Aurelius who is the Emperor (played by Richard Harris) The period shown in the film is (allegedly) at the brginningof the period when Rome begins to fall - Nero was before that. By the time you get to the bit of history protrayed in the film Christianityhas beenestablished and is being resisted and that is definitely preNero
2006-09-23 14:58:46 · answer #3 · answered by JANE F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Umm, the story is fictitious. It is made up and not real. It was set in a true historic setting but there was never a Maximus that killed a Roman Emperor. And a Lucius did not become emperor or restore the Republic after the real Emperor Commodus died.
ahve a nice day.
2006-09-24 13:29:20 · answer #4 · answered by mjtpopus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's straight history you want, look to a library, not Hollywood.
Nero was the last of the Julioo-Claudian line, and he was long in his grave before the time of Marcus Aurelius, who is also known as the Philosopher Emperor. You can even find modern translations of his book, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
2006-09-23 17:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Chrispy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reign of Marcus Aurelius. The Roman empire started its decline after his death & succession by his son, Commodus.
2006-09-24 10:20:56 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not really true considering in the end of the movie the republic came back but in reality that never happened. however it was based as everybody during the reign of marcus where they sucessfully invaded germany. a few bad rulers later, rome fell dark ages came
2006-09-23 13:30:27 · answer #7 · answered by gets flamed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No films are quiet a recent thing and were not around in the Roman era.
They just used to bath!
Hope that helps!
2006-09-23 12:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by coulditbemanilow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one answer i have for you is there is another part of the maximus story being made so a gladiator 2 will b on the way soon
2006-09-23 12:22:33 · answer #9 · answered by joyenergizeruk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
certain aspects of the film are historically relevant/accurate and others are completely wrong. it is sketchy when it comes to accuracy.
2006-09-23 15:30:06 · answer #10 · answered by christy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋