How accurate is Gladiator 2? True history explained

As a cinephile with a keen interest in historical epics and a penchant for scrutinizing the veracity of films set in the past, I must admit that I approach Sir Ridley Scott’s latest offering, Gladiator 2, with a mixture of excitement and skepticism.

(**WARNING: Contains some spoilers for Gladiator 2**)

While Sir Ridley Scott frequently explores the historical epic genre and seems passionate about history, it’s important to note that he doesn’t prioritize historical accuracy above everything else in his work.

In response to critics who highlighted factual errors in his movie “Napoleon” released in 2023, he didn’t shy away from expressing his displeasure, famously telling the nitpickers to focus on something more meaningful – essentially telling them to move on. This same pattern has been observed with his latest film “Gladiator 2,” now screening in UK theaters, as he remains undeterred by those pointing out supposed inaccuracies.

Just like the initial movie, it won numerous Oscars such as Best Picture and Best Director for Scott when it premiered in 2000. The subsequent film unfolds a fictional tale, using the grandeur of the Roman Empire as its setting, while also weaving real historical characters into the plotline.

How closely does the movie reflect the reality of the Roman Empire, and in what ways does it deviate from historical facts?

Read on for everything you need to know.

How accurate is Gladiator 2? True history explained

The first thing to bear in mind is that, although certain things and characters depicted in Gladiator 2 are based in historical fact, the story itself is intended as a fictional tale.

Instead of scrutinizing every minute detail and plot point, it could be considered a pointless endeavor. Yet, it’s thought-provoking to examine the parts where the movie accurately portrays the historical era and those instances where creative freedom is taken.

Regarding the main characters depicted in the movie, it’s a blend of fact and fiction since some are inspired by actual historical figures. For instance, the characters Geta and Caracalla, portrayed as ruthless co-emperors (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger), are indeed based on real individuals who reigned during the time period depicted in the film.

Initially, in reality, the duo governed together with their father, Emperor Septimius Severus. However, after their father’s demise, they often clashed, leading to a power struggle. Eventually, Caracalla met his brother’s fate through assassination.

In the film, certain aspects of the narrative align with reality, but the method of the murder and the portrayal of events following it are entirely fictional. In truth, Caracalla survived for six more years after Geta’s death, and there’s no historical record suggesting that his cherished pet monkey held a position of power second only to him.

How accurate is Gladiator 2? True history explained

A person named Macrinus subsequently took his place as Rome’s first African emperor, although he bore little resemblance to the character portrayed by Denzel Washington in the movie.

In the portrayal of various characters such as Lucilla and Lucius, they share similarities with real individuals, but it’s crucial to note that these resemblances are not exact. For instance, while Lucilla did have a son named Lucius, this young Lucius tragically passed away at 12 years old, so he was never a gladiator like the character played by Paul Mescal in the film.

Meanwhile, other characters, including Pedro Pascal’s Marcus Acacius, are completely fictional.

If you’re the type to find flaws, there are numerous other aspects in the movie that could be questioned: for instance, the opening scene depicts a fight in Numidia, but by the era portrayed in the film, Numidia was already under Roman rule, so such a battle wouldn’t have occurred.

The movie’s portrayal of gladiator attire varies from historical truth; in reality, they didn’t don body armor, rather they used shields for protection.

Were there really sharks in the Colosseum?

Among the points that stood out, and apparently sparked controversy among history purists upon the release of the movie’s trailer, was a scene showing gladiators battling sharks within the Colosseum.

Although this is a fabrication, it’s not quite as far-fetched as you might imagine. The Romans really did flood the Colosseum with water on occasion – indeed, some sources say that the opening of the iconic arena actually saw the recreation of a naval battle.

As a film enthusiast, I can’t help but wonder if certain aquatic creatures might have been part of the grand spectacle on screen. However, even though Scott himself vehemently denies it, it seems rather improbable that sharks were among those animals.

Regrettably, it seems not to match the accuracy of past records, but it certainly provides an entertaining show regardless.

In my perspective as a movie critic, I find myself questioning the authenticity of warriors riding rhinos in the colosseum, yet it’s worth noting that various exotic creatures were often featured in gladiatorial contests. Lions, bears, and even magnificent giraffes were not uncommon spectacles within these grand arenas.

Historian Estelle Paranque stated during an interview that it’s clear the movie did not include any sharks,” was one way to paraphrase the original statement in a natural and easy-to-read manner.

2024-11-15 18:35

How accurate is Gladiator 2? True history explained

Were there really sharks in the Colosseum?

Read More