Gladiator: How the Story Would Have Truly Unfolded

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is in many ways a disaster of historical context in and of itself. While it provides and entertaining romp through flashy scenes, it failed to actually represent itself in any way as a display of the culture that it put as its back drop. Despite the flashiness of the opening battle, and the well designed costumes, one could do themselves actual harm in terms of understanding history by using Gladiator as a basis for their assumptions. This harsh criticism comes not exclusively because of traditional historical deviations, as with any film, there will be inaccuracies for the sake of continuing the story. However, so long as the spirit of the original work is intact, it can usually escape criticism that is warranted for Gladiator.

For example, the film Glory, although taking several liberties or switching character dialogue, ultimately holds true to the overall story and feel of the atmosphere of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, taking them to their tragic end at Fort Wagner. Pains are taken to demonstrate the adversity, the slavery, the doubt, and the over all Civil War time culture.

Gladiator, however, takes no such attempts at preserving the atmosphere of the time period or the culture that it embraces, and instead juxtaposes modern stereotypes and cliches onto a time period that would not have so simply harbored them. Worst of all, it overly simplifies the politics of the time period to simple feelings of patriotic duty or a kind of feeling of fealty to the local monarch. For even a casual observer of Roman history, this is clearly as far from the truth as possible.

The film opens with a historically true event: Marcus Aurelius, one of Rome's least favorite but ultimately greatest emperors, is finishing the wars he started against the Germans, who, it is untold in the movie, have been assailing Roman borders for decades. Following the emperor's death with the arrival of his son, Commodus, a series of events transpire that involve the attempted assassination of the legions' commander, Maximus, as well as his family. It is revealed that this is because Aurelius had elected Maximus as his successor, as opposed to his own son.

All actual historical inaccuracies aside, the plot itself fails in this primary point. Have you ever wondered what would have truly happened if such a scenario had occurred in Rome as Ridley Scott told it? Rest assured, if the events of the film Gladiator presented themselves, and Ridley Scott had intended to stick to history, we would have had an incredibly different film.

First a brief background of the characters involved.

General Maximus commands what is known as the Felix (or Lucky) Legion, and has waged a brutal campaign against the Germans. He is seen with his dutiful right hand man, Quintus, and they both overlook a strewn battlefield waiting for a messenger to return with news of peace negotiations. The Romans are perturbed to find out that their negotiations have failed, and are greeted with this news by the decapitated body of their envoy.

Overseeing the battle is the emperor himself, Marcus Aurelius, who anachronistically finds himself enjoying remarkable popularity. From his own safe vantage point, he watches as the Roman legions decimate the Barbarians, also incredibly anachronistically, as the battle seen was handled sloppily at best in terms of history - the idea of Romans charging straight forward into hand to hand combat with much larger Germans without levying a few advantages first is laughable at best, absurd at worst.

Arriving at the battle are a pair of senators, who each have their own designs on Rome once the ailing emperor has died. One strictly advocates a return to Senatorial power, while the other appears supportive of the notion of Caesarian autocracy. The latter catches the ear of Commodus, the weak and effeminate son of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who arrives in time to see the mop up of the battle.

Among the first errors in terms of actual character interaction occurs in a simple post-battle meeting/party, where the senators sit and discuss politics with Maximus and Quintus.

"Where do you stand General, Emperor or People?" the Imperial supporting senator asks.

Maximus is warned about the other Senator, Gaius, by Commodus, who warns that he is a fierce Republican.

"Why not?" he retorts, "Rome WAS founded as a Republic." To this all men agree, apparently forgetting that Rome was initially a kingdom until the Republicans under Brutus ousted them. But I digress on this point - the dialogue here is important to focus on.

With Aurelius clearly on his last leg, and everyone suspecting his death, in Imperial Rome battle lines are being drawn. Senators are taking note of the fact that they may be able to sip a taste of the chalice of power again with the passing of a powerful, democratically sympathetic emperor and the advent of a potentially powerless and weak Commodus. For all intents and purposes, the movie represents Commodus as the heir apparent, meaning that Gaius has not ridden out to Germania with the intent of challenging the man face to face, but he should be getting an idea of how capable he is politically, and whether he represents a true and serious threat.

Gaius himself will not necessarily be alone - and it is also important to understand that considering the life time nature of a Senatorial position, he is not advocating an altruistic end, but is simply acting as a mouthpiece to a body eager to reclaim lost glory. The Senate has never actually stood as a voice of the People, as that is what the People's Assembly stood for. Therefore his defense of "Republic" is the same kind of partisanship that would divide any other parties vying for dominance.

This means that Gaius would be on his guard at best around Commodus, hardly declaring to the heir apparent his intents to dethrone him, such talk was an easy to find your throat slit in the night. (Ironically, later in the film, instead he has a poisonous snake slipped into his bed).

The next step to consider is that Maximus is correctly identified as an important party involved in this entire imminent succession struggle. In the Roman Empire, particularly in this time period, there was not much regarded for the sanctity of the Imperial throne. Maximus would represent the single most powerful figure in the entirety of the political gambit. With a victorious legion at his heel, Commodus would be absolutely required to woo him into his own support, particularly considering he is surrounded by 20,000 deathly loyal men.

The only thing that truly kept the legions of this time period loyal was a consistent pay check. With Aurelius on the out, and with the way legions were structured at the time, Maximus would be the primary funding for the legion. If Commodus had no practical way to actually replace Maximus in turns of funding, the entire legion would desert, Germania would be returned to the Germans, and now 20,000 armed bandits would be plaguing the northern country side.

Assuming Ridley Scott's vision of the events were to occur, there would be no hope for Commodus, in the middle of Germania, actually acquiring the throne. On the realization of Marcus Aurelius's death, Maximus would be the single power holder, and not by right of title, but by right of power. It was a simple practicality of martial strength, there were thousands of men with swords on Maximus's side, and very few on Commodus's.

With Marcus Aurelius offering the title of Caesar to Maximus, Commodus would be immediately detained, and most likely executed by the general, who would then turn to the Senators. If they did not support Maximus's own claims to the throne, they too would find themselves hastily executed - those that disagreed with Maximus's claim, such as the Praetorian that rode with Commodus, would be cut down, while the others would be integrated into the legion.

From then it would be a southward march straight to Rome, as contenders and claimants from across the empire rose and issued their own challenges for the throne. Ultimately, whoever reached the city first in the most force would be the emperor - not simply the one related to the Emperor. Titles were not given by birth in ancient Rome.