A rhinoceros fighting gladiators? Sharks in a flooded Colosseum? A woman who aspires to celibacy? The movie Gladiator 2 just released in Franceseveral days ahead of the United States, and is already provoking controversy among historians. who have identified historical errors.
Ridley Scott, returning to 3rd-century imperial Rome 24 years after his first cult opus, probably has no qualms about historical plausibility. His previous film, Napoleon, irritated many experts on the famous French despot. At the time, the director’s statements demonstrated that his lack of historical knowledge and his contempt for discipline.
Paul Mescal against a rhino rather than historical truth
Already highly implausible in many respects, the first Gladiator is a cult film for an entire generation, and an undeniable popular success. It is also a work that has inspired many subsequent creators, bringing a new look to the world of cinema. the peplum genreto win the Oscar for Best Picture in 2001. By the way, most peplums of the heyday weren’t really concerned with historical plausibility either.
I’m convinced that you can make a historically sound show entertaining,” explains Laure Barthet, director of the Musée Saint-Raymond in Toulouse, and “I’m also convinced that you can make a historically sound show entertaining. passionate about historical re-enactment. But historians and archaeologists are also fans of pop culture, and of films and series that talk a bit rubbish about a historical period…”
So we can agree: it’s highly unlikely that a rhinoceros fought in an arena in Rome. It’s impossible that sharks swam in the Colosseum (which was not designed to host naumachia, re-enacted naval battles). And no, Romans didn’t read the newspaper while drinking coffee. Nevertheless, we’re all keen to see Paul Mescal as a gladiator facing off against a rhino…
Diversity in question
Thus, if the first criticisms of Gladiator 2 are generally positive, none of them dwell on the historical plausibility of the plot. And yet, the links between historical reality and the quality of the screenplay are well and truly present. “There are things in Gladiator which are very well received,” says Rafaella Gafà, Project Manager at Romanesque Museum of Nîmes. For example, the protagonist of the first film is a high-ranking officer from Spain. This is entirely plausible and indicative of the way the Roman Empire functioned at the time of its greatest expansion. In the cities, and throughout Roman society, there are people who come from all over the Empire.”
So, if the diversity visible on screen in Gladiator may have been criticized by racist commentators, it is historically well-founded. Latin was spoken with a wide variety of accents in Rome at that time, just as you can hear very different English in New York today,” comments Rafaella Gafà. The Pax Romana, which had been in place for several centuries, allowed very free circulation.”
The spring of discrimination
The presence of black characters both among the slaves and in the highest spheres of Roman society in Gladiator (Denzel Washington plays the wealthy Macrinus) also raises the question, controversial among historians, of racism in ancient times. There was undoubtedly discrimination against certain populations,” notes Rafaella Gafà. Black populations, especially Moors, were represented in an exotic way, with codes that were as many clichés. But the most discriminated-against population are the Greeks, perceived as soft, lazy and obsessed with pleasure, which is not a quality in the Roman mentality. But was there systemic racism, as we hear it today? It’s hard to say.”
Being a victim of discrimination is a comfortable dramatic springboard for a screenwriter, so it’s exploited in Gladiator. But the real situation of discriminated populations was more complex than the film is willing to show. “These societies were based on slavery: any defeated population could become a slave of the Romans. Rome had a huge number of Greek slaves, some of whom were highly educated. There were medical slaves, for example. These people led more or less pleasant lives, depending on the role they played in Roman society. They weren’t free, but they may have had a decent life.”
A good gladiator is a living gladiator
The heart of the film Gladiator and Gladiator 2 is the subject of a historical study: gladiatorial combat. Ridley Scott turns them into cursed heroes, with moral correspondences to our contemporary times. But historical reality can also be used to create dramatic situations that make for a good film. Real gladiatorial combat would probably not be spectacular enough for a cinema 2024 viewer,” admits Philippe Normand, in charge of stunts for a historical re-enactment show in the Saintes arenas. It’s a long, slow fight, exhausting for the body and codified. Those of Gladiator correspond better to today’s taste, with improbable plot twists, suspense, athletic superhero performances… “
Even so, “real” gladiatorial combat would have something to enthrall today’s audiences on a moral level. Historically, these fights accompanied funerals,” recalls Rafaella Gafà. Death was present from a symbolic point of view. Gladiators were athletes whose training cost their owners dearly. They were raised, cared for and fed, so it was rare for them to die in the arena. There was blood, however… “
Anachronistic feminism
Gladiator uses another historical reality linked to Gladiator fights: their use by Roman rulers to curry favor with the populace. “It wasn’t just gladiatorial combat that was part of these very popular spectacles. For example, there were massacres of exotic animals, “venatio”, which were destructive to wildlife…” And here, we can sense that Ridley Scott thought that the viewer of 2024 would not appreciate the violence of animal slaughter. Just as the pagan religious dimension has been erased.
Finally, the director accommodates historical reality regarding the social status of gladiators… and women. So Gladiator doesn’t show that fighters could have been free men “who chose to make a career of gladiating.” On the contrary, the film shows female characters taking charge of their lives, choosing celibacy, getting angry and rebelling against the established order. And yet, while Roman women played an important role in society, they did none of these things.