Something you never noticed in Gladiator. General Maximus: screen hero and historical prototype Description of the painting “Gladiator”

Errors in the film

Although at first glance Ridley Scott's Gladiator movie brings to the fore only the confrontation of hatred between the generals Maximus and the heir to the Roman Empire, Commodus, the background of the film is quite rich in memorable personalities. Gladiator does not give us a certain clear picture of the state in which the state is during the events described, therefore different characters stories in their own way complement the historical era with their stories. The key emotional motif that permeates the entire story of the painting is the theme of honor. All the main characters develop through the prism of its implementation.

The plot scales place the protagonist Maximus and the antagonist Commodus on opposite sides of the scales of personal qualities. In fact, Commodus embodies a range of contradictory and oppositional qualities to the general. Where our main character is ready to die in the name of honor, the new emperor destroys its remnants in himself, if there were any at all at the time the events began. One stands for his friends and protects the woman, while the other sees enemies surrounded and wants to enter into an unnatural relationship with his sister. While Maximus, with his head held high, looks into the face of death and his enemies, no matter how strong they are, the ruler of the Roman Empire cries and complains that he is powerless. Now the most famous gladiator defeats his enemies with superior numbers, and the young heir resorts to low methods to look better in front of the public.

Leaving behind the scenes the real story of the insane reign of Commodus in reality, we have an artistic antagonist, whose image is formed in a deliberately negative way. How the future emperor appears from the first scenes of the film Gladiator. While the war was going on, he traveled for a month under all conditions, under guard, and now he has come, as it seems to him, to receive power from his father. He practices sword fighting in the morning, but has no real combat experience except with specially trained servants. Has an inappropriate soft spot for his sister in a sexual context. And all this even before Commodus appears as the murderer of his own father, a liar, a false emperor, the sole judge for the Maximus family.

Commodus has little interest in the state of his army in Germany, since he is in a hurry to return to Rome and enter there as a conqueror. We are never given any idea of ​​why Commodus needs to be overthrown as a ruler in the first place, other than his personal qualities and history with the legacy of the title. A little later, it becomes clear that Commodus wants to usurp power in the empire, further strengthening the power and influence of the emperor. This contradicts the dream and last will of the beloved Emperor Marcus Aurelius. In this sense, the childish ambitions and thirst for power of the son are contrasted with the long-term wisdom of a philosopher and thinker worthy of a ruler. Marcus Aurelius conquered peoples, killed and robbed, but after a quarter of a century he got tired of this and makes it clear that he was a hostage of the system. Commodus on the contrary, he wants to rule and conquer everyone - from his sister in bed to the Senate and other nations.

One of the brightest scenes Gladiator, which nevertheless shows us Commodus as a ruler, turns out to be the first experience at hearings in the Senate. He looks bored while listening to the problems of his people, plays with a sword, and then threatens one of the most influential people's representatives. The plague in the areas of Rome is of little concern to the new emperor. In another scene after, he signs scrolls without really understanding the matter while he monologues about what he really cares about - his enemy.

Along with all his ambitions, as the ruler of the greatest power of his time, Commodus is forced to reckon with the opinion of the crowd. If he can send his armed troops to silence one of the senators, suppress the center of resistance in the gladiator camp and rein in his sister with the threat of reprisals against her son, the 50,000th roar of the Colosseum and the same number of pairs of eyes will cool Commodus’s ardor. That is, in fact, the antagonist in the film is not shown as an evil genius and a master of behind-the-scenes intrigue, who can radically change the world around him. Commodus is torn between his own fantasies, hatred of Maximus, obsession with his sister, and the opinion of the mob.

In the person of General Maximus, Gladiator movie presents us with a practically ideal protagonist of history. A character who on screen is devoid of the vicious qualities characteristic of his opponent. Changing status from military leader to slave, then to gladiator, and then to the man who challenged the empire, Russell Crowe's hero remains in general terms the same person. While Commodus upsets the balance of what we call the sense of justice and to which spectators are usually very sensitive, Maximus with sword in hand, paves the way to restore parity.

Unlike the power-hungry Commodus, Maximus does not strive for power. One can argue with this statement, since he became the most famous and respected commander in the empire, the right hand of Marcus Aurelius, enjoys the favor of the ruler’s daughter, and the attention of senators. The movie explains to us that the general serves for the good of Rome, no matter what that means. The whole point is that neither Maximus, nor Proximo, nor Commodus, nor the senators, nor even Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher and experienced ruler, can explain what Rome is and what it means to serve for the good of Rome.

In a dialogue with Senator Grak, the general says that he is now driven only by the desire to kill Commodus. And having become the head of the army that will enter Rome and overthrow the emperor, he will not usurp power, but will simply retire. In fact, Maximus has nowhere to retire, since his house is burned down, his wife and son are dead. Commodus' life itself is a goal beyond which there is emptiness. Proximo says that he believes the word of the general, that he knows that he is ready to die for this word, for the glory of his ancestors, for the glory of Rome. Actually Maximus is the living embodiment of that unformed dream of Marcus Aurelius, which sounded like a whisper, it was so fragile. He is ready to give power to the people, as the wise late emperor wanted.

On his path to revenge, Maximus begins to pay attention to the people around him. The environment changed from purely military to rebellious, but this did not change the essence of the hero. He is ready to rally around himself a group of slaves, prisoners, deserters, rebellious senators and the emperor’s sister, who is not loyal to her brother.

Servant of Rome - Proximo

Unlike Commodus and Maximus, who practically do not change their own beliefs and values ​​between the beginning and end of history, the transformation of the slave trader and the owner of the gladiator school Proximo, takes place in the classical key of image development. For the first time, this character appears before us as a prudent businessman who does not put old acquaintances above business, just as he does not put human lives above the lives of giraffes, for whom he gives more money. Proximo is brutally honest, both with himself and with his charges, when he says that he is going to make money from their deaths. An invitation to return to Rome, after five years of being banned from fighting and wandering around the provinces of the empire, now brings him even more gold. Small arenas in the desert give way to the majestic Colosseum with its five ten thousand spectators and the emperor among them.

Once upon a time, Proximo himself was a gladiator, so legendary that he was able to receive freedom from the Emperor Marcus Aurelius himself. His hardened heart, as we see, does not burn with special empathy for the same slaves dying for his own enrichment. But the movie Gladiator by Ridley Scott carefully prepares us for the climax of the transformation of this image, which is death. Proximo is indignant upon learning of the uneven forces in the arena against his warriors. He believes that if you are a skilled warrior and know how to control a crowd, you can control your own destiny, just as he once did. He did not arrange fights when he worked in the provinces and gave all slaves a chance to prove themselves, which is what Maximus showed, becoming the “Spaniard” for the public.

Since the leitmotif of the entire film is the question of honor, and the image Proximo passed through the plot. He worries and rejoices for his gladiators during the first mass battle in the Colosseum. We are hinted that he is motivated not by fear and not only by profit, helping to organize a meeting between the general and the emperor’s sister, and then with Senator Grak. He respects the late Emperor Marcus Aurelius and calls him his friend. Perhaps the apogee of the change in his attitude towards what is happening is the dialogue with Maximus. At first, Proximo cites his status as a businessman and refuses to take part in the rebellion. But after he hears the phrase: “He killed a men who set you free,” the actor’s face expresses a real contradiction of emotions.

After this we see Proximo, who ignores the shouts of the imperial guard. We doubt for a second where he is going with the keys, until the moment we realize that it is to the general’s cell. Proximo says that Maximus’s friends know how to convince, allegedly again implying money. However, he is well aware that now the guards will break through the gate and his whole business will come to an end. Proximo understands that he has only a few minutes left to live, so in the last of them he acts according to honor. Even from the lips of a slave trader comes philosophical sayings that all this, in the end, and they themselves are just “shadows and dust.” Calmly accepting death from behind symbolizes the end of the journey of this charismatic hero, more important to the plot than it might seem at first.

The most powerful woman in the empire, respected by Maximus, in a perverse sense, by his brother, father Marcus Aurelius, and even members of the Senate. For all her pedigree, almost at the very beginning of the events of the film Gladiator, the heroine Connie Nielsen becomes a hostage to the situation. She understands perfectly well that her brother killed her beloved father, which he himself does not hide in conversation afterwards. In this sense, the scene where Lucilla slaps Commodus for what he did, and then kisses the imperial ring, admitting the hopelessness of the situation for her and her son, is very indicative and emotional. Then she still does not realize what danger Lucius faces from his uncle. Circumstances force her to remain silent regarding the fate of Maximus, whom she still loves and respects.

Behind this mask of submission, however, lives a woman who is ready to overthrow her brother in order to get rid of the tyrant. These plans don't really take shape until Maximus is revealed to be alive. A man who is able to overthrow the emperor and unite people. Lucilla begins to act, almost immediately contacting the general. Even then she was putting herself and her son at great risk, because the same Proximo could have revealed what was happening to the emperor. We are given to understand that Lucilla and Gracus had already communicated closely before and she knew about the mood in the Senate, which just needed a spark, which was the appearance of a rebellious general and gladiator on the horizon.

While uncertainty hangs in the air, the main female character of the film is forced to endure constant threats and hints from her own brother. Hints that Commodus has an unhealthy relationship with his sister develop into something more. He first asks her for affection, and then completely admits that he sees her in his bed and as the mother of their future common child, who will inherit the great Roman Empire. The boy Lucius, in this situation, is only a pawn in a game of threats.

Although Commodus says that he does not know of other senators of Rome who would live as well as Gracus, this image fits well with the concept of reconsidering such a concept as honor. Yes, he is rich, owns servants and is popular among the people and the Senate. At the same time, the chosen one of the people draws the emperor’s attention to real problems, even the threat of a plague epidemic. As it turns out, Commodus begins to establish a dictatorship, gradually eliminating the influence of the Senate on what is happening in the country. He is ready to participate in the overthrow of the cruel young emperor, openly expresses criticism of him, but is also not ready to replace one dictator with another. Ultimately, Grak does everything for the glory of Rome, as this phrase is repeated many times in the movie Gladiator. In one moment he loses all his position and property, being imprisoned as a conspirator. But he is shown to us as one of those who will fulfill that very dream of Marcus Aurelius, which is too fragile to say out loud.

Quint represents an almost powerless image of a puppet of the system, which is forced to serve the orders that come. Without any doubt, he was ready to carry out any order from Marcus Aurelius, even criminal, because this is his emperor. The Guard swears allegiance to the ruler of the empire. At the beginning of the film, Quint and Maximus are shown as comrades and friends. It is not entirely clear what the head of the Praetorian Guard does in the heat of battle and why he controls part of the troops on behalf of the general, but these are questions of historical accuracy, and not the artistic value of the picture. Perhaps the most controversial character in the film, less responsible than the others for his own destiny.

The prospect of killing Maximus and, on the explicit orders of Commodus, massacring his family does not bring him joy. Quintus accepts the order dispassionately, as a faithful servant of his master's will. When the gladiator “The Spaniard” reveals his identity to the emperor, Quintus is also stunned. This undermines his position, because the order was not carried out, and he knows that Maximus killed the guards and disappeared. Perhaps his decision not to reveal the truth to Commodus conceals not only fear, but also the opportunity that he gave to his old friend. In the last scene, Quintus, which seems fantastic, refuses to save the life of his emperor and forbids the guards to give him a sword, as he himself does. Thus, by the end of the story, he also takes the path of honor, moving away from the dishonor of past deeds. He listens to the last words of Maximus and the will of Marcus Aurelius, frees the prisoners and helps carry the body of the fallen hero. Leaving his master's corpse to dry on the sand of the arena.

The costume designer for the film Gladiator once complained that the only thing audiences were usually interested in was whether she had seen Russell Crowe. According to her, no one understands what a colossal role costumers and designers actually played in the film. We will analyze the details of the clothing and image of General Maximus, which symbolically ran through the entire film. Maximus begins the film as a general and wears luxurious armor, emphasizing his high status in society. They depict the head of a wolf and Persian lions with wings - symbols of power.

Then he becomes a gladiator slave and enters his first battle in rags.

The armor had to be comfortable for Russell Crowe, so it was made from foam rubber. Disguising foam rubber under skin became another challenge for costume designers.

The costume designers had to make eight copies of each version of the armor. Four is for the actor. Four are for stuntmen: a stuntman in driving scenes and a stuntman in battle scenes. Three versions of the armor were needed for filming - clean, bloody and dirty. In total, more than 27 thousand armor elements were made for the film. After each victory, new elements were added to Maximus' armor. In the middle of the film, when a massive gladiator battle takes place, Maximus's armor features two Persian lions, two Spanish horses (in one scene, he jokingly names them Argento and Scarto) and a cypress tree.
The idea of ​​adding new elements after each fight belonged to Russell Crowe himself. He told director Ridley Scott about it, and he also thought it was wonderful. In the final scenes of the film, Maximus' wife and his son appear on the armor, symbolizing Elysium - a paradise for the pagan Romans, which Maximus dreams of going to.

All photographs are copyright Universal Studios.

Booker Igor 04/11/2019 at 8:00

The Roman emperor with a name reminiscent of a piece of furniture is well known from the blockbuster movie Gladiator. At the end of the Hollywood film, he dies in the circus arena at the hands of the main character. That’s the whole grain of historical truth - Emperor Commodus was seriously interested in gladiator fights and even died, strangled by his sparring partner. Only the assassination of the emperor took place not in front of the public, but in the shadow of an alcove. Let's compare the prose of life and the poetry of art.

Contemporaries considered Commodus simple-minded and narrow-minded, subject to the influence of his associates. But he was the eldest son of the “philosopher on the throne,” as Emperor Marcus Aurelius is called, who left to his descendants his thoughts in the spirit of the Stoic school of philosophy. Lucius Aurelius received his name in honor of his father's co-emperor, Lucius Verus Commodus. Just in case, the emphasis is placed on the first syllable.

At the age of five (166) he was proclaimed Caesar, and when he turned sixteen (177) - Augustus. The son was his father's co-ruler until his death and after the latter's death he took the name Marcus Aurelius Commodus. In 180, Commodus became the sole ruler and first of all issued a “decree on peace.” He ends the war with the German tribes of the Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmatians, refusing to continue to seize new territories that were successfully begun under his father, reaching such an agreement with them that it satisfied even those dissatisfied with the peace treaty.

Having folded the praetorium - the commander's tent, the 20-year-old young man rushed to Rome, as the British historian Edward Gibbon believed, for pleasure. But returning from the banks of the Rhine to the Eternal City, Commodus almost received a blow from a dagger. And from whom? From a gang of murderers sent by his own sister Lucilla! The conspirators were executed, Lucilla was exiled to Capri, where she soon died. Envious people and colleagues, as in all times and among different peoples, slandered people who were not involved in the coup. The executioner was waiting for many.

Commodus abandoned not only the aggressive foreign policy pursued by his father, but also the reliance of Marcus Aurelius on the Roman senators. A holy place is never empty, and it was occupied by favorites and praetorian prefects. As if to reinforce the saying that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Commodus decided to rename Rome Commodiana, in every possible way encouraged the spread of Middle Eastern cults and was not averse to establishing an unlimited autocratic monarchy.

However, the death of the emperor was desired by his mistress (most likely not the only one) Marcia. She was joined by the freedman (libertus, libertinus - a slave set free) Eclectus and the praetorian prefect Quintus Aemilius Letus. This far from holy trinity accidentally found out that Commodus was ready to send them to their forefathers, the Lares, and decided to prevent such an unpleasant event for themselves. The ancient Roman mafia was supported by the senatorial fathers. They declared Commodus an enemy of the Fatherland and launched the process of exterminating the last representative of the Antonine family.

The pretext for the monstrous crime was the intention of Commodus, on the day of celebration of his assumption of the consular office, to enter the ceremony in the garb of a gladiator at the head of the procession of these despicable mortals. Alas, Commodus adored the exploits of the mythical hero Hercules and seemed to love to wrap himself in a lion's skin and carry a club, imitating this demigod. Inscriptions were minted on the coins of Commodus, where Hercules was proclaimed the founder of the former Rome - the “Colony of Commodiana” ( Hercules Romanus Augustus, Hercules Commodianus).

The athlete Narcissus (not to be confused with the “chocolate hare and affectionate bastard”), with whom Commodus trained during wrestling, strangled the emperor. While the crowd was destroying the statues of Commodus and destroying the inscriptions with his name, Prefect Leth secretly buried the body of the emperor he had devoted to the earth.

Hollywood has always given preference to historical films, which are a mixture of fiction and historical truth. "Cleopatra", which generally corresponds to the story, is rather an exception here. Even Spartacus is a complete fiction from a historical point of view, but it captures well the spirit of the late republic. The daily training routine of a gladiator school alone can easily excuse the historical incongruity of the events described. Among other things, “Spartacus” is still truly a work of art. Senate intrigues performed by Laurence Olivier and Peter Ustinov are not something you play with your biceps: the old English theater school means something.

From a historical perspective, Gladiator is complete nonsense from start to finish. Moreover, its artistic value is also questionable. Its success can be explained solely by special effects and crowd scenes.

Below I would like to analyze those historical blunders and inconsistencies, the huge number of which throughout the film did not leave me indifferent. Under no circumstances could the events described take place the way they were shown in the film. Moreover, it would not be an exaggeration to say that if Ancient Rome had been the way the imagination of the creators of the film “Gladiator” depicts it, the history of the world would have been completely different. So, in order.

Marcus Aurelius (the elderly emperor in the film) was truly the center of virtues both as a person and as a statesman. His son Commodus or Commodius took after his mother (who was entangled with slaves) and loved to live for his own pleasure. At the same time, Commodus had an attractive appearance, physical strength and dexterity in handling weapons. Commodus' other virtues are unknown. This is where the random coincidences between the film and the story practically end.

Here are the differences. The first part analyzes the actions of the heroes from the point of view of their possibility, the second - historical details.

PART 1

1. It was impossible to remove Maximus

The surest way for an emperor suffering from suicidal tendencies is to join a victoriously fighting army and remove the military leader (not to mention kill him). The guaranteed beheading of the imperial head would have occurred an hour or two after such an intention was announced. Even popular emperors (including Aurelius) faced serious attempts to usurp power by victorious generals. Unless Caesar, Octavian, Antony could perform such tricks, but, alas, they did not need them at all!

It is significant, by the way, that after the death of Commodus peace reigned in the Roman Empire. The popular general Septimius Severus wanted to become emperor, although, by the way, he had absolutely no rights to do so, and achieved his goal with relative ease.

So, already in the fifteenth minute of the film, Maximus should have become emperor to everyone’s joy, and Commodus, torn to pieces by the legionnaires, would lie in the dust (and rightly so - there is no need to behave like that!).

2. Stirrup

It is clear that the filmmakers are quite free with history. In their opinion, however, it is usually about little things. But, on the other hand, wow “little things”! They would also allow the heroes to wear electronic watches! If the stirrup had been invented during the time of Aurelius, it would have had no less impact on the course of world history than the creation of atomic weapons. The fact is that then the Roman Empire could well have survived, and now I will try to explain why.

Among other things, the fall of the Roman Empire occurred due to the fact that the citizens of Rome were not at all eager to join the army; they were quite satisfied with a free civil life. The barbarians, on the contrary, were ready to die in full force (which, by the way, often happened - just remember the Gallic chronicles of Caesar). Thus, the Romans could defeat their enemies only due to technological advantage and due to special successes in military science. Due to the progress of metallurgy, the advantage in armament of the Romans was not very significant; they gained mainly through military training, preparation and clear organization of the rear service (yes, it was the rear rats that ensured Caesar’s legendary victories over the barbarians!). The stirrup could facilitate a major breakthrough, it could indicate an area where, due to advantages in metallurgy and the general training of soldiers, the Romans could gain a significant advantage over the barbarian hordes. The fact is that the heavy cavalry of the Romans (in ancient history called cataphracts) could not be compared with the armored medieval knights. It was impossible to sit in the saddle with many tens of kilograms of weapons on oneself and to do this without stirrups. Acting with a heavy spear (and not a javelin) is even more so. No wonder it is believed that one medieval knight was worth a detachment of militia. His preparation took not only a lot of money, but, in fact, the entire life of a warrior - however, it was worth it. The Romans had a professional army, their resources were also available, so if they had stirrups, they could well become the creators of effective heavy cavalry, which would successfully compensate for their small numbers with training and superior equipment. The basis of the Roman army was heavy infantry, which could not ultimately defeat the hordes of barbarians, poorly trained and poorly equipped, but savage and despising death. An indirect confirmation of this statement can be the long existence of a fragment of the Roman Empire - Byzantium, which, despite its difficult (militarily) geographical position, existed for a very long time. The stirrup became widespread only 500 years after the events glorified in Gladiator and, apparently, was brought to Europe by the Alans (a tribe that lived in the Caucasus).

3. Democracy

The heroes of "Gladiator" tirelessly conduct long debates about the need for democracy, about the transfer of power to the Senate (!) and similar matters. In fact, the very fact of the existence of these debates is complete and ignorant nonsense; it is nothing more than a tribute to the purely American itch to teach the whole world about this very democracy. The “good” ones, in accordance with this principle, are naturally “for democracy,” the “bad” ones are “for imperial power.” It’s difficult to comment on any nonsense, not just this one. But I'll try anyway.

Firstly, making such speeches at the end of the 2nd century AD is about the same as today seriously discussing the restoration of the monarchy in Russia or advocating for the establishment of racial segregation in the States. This may be possible in principle, but in reality it is completely impossible and no one needs it.

Secondly, the power of the Senate is a typical example of an oligarchy, not a democracy. The first 400 years of Rome's existence as a large state (the period of the republic) were marked by the continuous struggle of the people against the oligarchs, i.e. Senate. So the words addressed to the Roman senator - “you were elected by the people” (the same ones uttered in Gladiator) can only cause one pathetic smile.

4. Arrival of Commodus in the active army

In the film, feeling that he is dying, Aurelius calls his son to him, to the theater of war. In fact, the emperors chose their successor not when they felt the end was approaching, but much earlier. Therefore, usually the future emperor was the actual co-ruler of the “departing stage” emperor in last years his life. And since one of the most important activities of the emperor was war, Commodus had to personally command the armies during important military operations (which, by the way, was actually the case with the historical Commodus).

5. Maximus' Reluctance to Become Emperor

If he wanted, Aurelius could indeed make Maximus emperor. The practice of adopting worthy patricians by the emperor was widely used, with further complete transfer of control of the entire empire to the latter. By the way, this once again indicates that the Roman placed duty to the fatherland above everything, including above family ties. But, be that as it may, the most incredible thing is Maximus’s refusal. Firstly, military and political career were synonymous for the Romans, the statement “I am, supposedly, a soldier, not a politician” is highly ridiculous, it is incredible for a patrician. Secondly, the very opportunity to serve the fatherland in the best possible way was the true meaning of life for noble Romans. So, it turns out that Maximus is not a Roman?

6. Massacre of Maximus's family

Very unlikely and meaningless. More likely, Commodus would have bought or “sold” the court decision, but for some reason he engaged in mediocre arbitrariness (a familiar picture, isn’t it?). Still, the wife and son of not the last patrician - people like them usually had strong support both in the Senate and among the people. Emperors who flagrantly flouted the law usually ended badly. Sulla (even though he was not a de jure emperor), of course, killed his enemies freely and boldly, but only if there was a hunter for the property of the person being executed. In this way Sulla created support for himself. Caligula, after he finally went crazy and rode into the Senate on horseback, lasted only two years. On average, emperors who wanted to live longer, in such cases adopted something like laws about insulting the greatness of the Roman people and the person of the emperor, thus legitimizing their arbitrariness.

7. Maximus' Slavery

Almost unbelievable. It's not just that he's a Roman citizen. The phenomenon of the longevity of the Roman Empire lies in the fact that it brought law to its territories, and therefore was largely beneficial even to the conquered peoples (at least traders and artisans). The Roman order impressed everyone because it was impossible to just grab anyone (especially a patrician) and drag them into gladiators. Of course, even now you can end up as slaves to the Chechens, but this is still the exception, not the rule.

8. Maximus actually renounces his fatherland

In Gladiator, after the events he experienced, Maximus destroys his tattoo - that is, if I understood the filmmakers correctly, he symbolically curses his Roman citizenship. Even among ordinary soldiers, participation in the “Roman idea” was almost the meaning of life. One of the strong incentives for residents of the Roman province to join the army was precisely the acquisition of citizenship. For people like Maximus, the idea of ​​the Roman Empire and duty to the fatherland were absolute values; nothing could shake faith in them. For this faith, the Romans died with a smile on their lips, glorifying the title of legionnaire. And speaking of tattoos, legionnaires wore tattoos “legia – patria nostra” (“legion is our fatherland”), and each legion had its own tattoo.

9. Commodus in the circus arena

An emperor fighting like a gladiator is, to put it mildly, nonsense. Commodus actually entered the circus ring. But this caused contempt for him not only from the Senate, but also from the common people! Imagine your reaction if it becomes known that one of our politicians, say Gennady Seleznev, starred in a porn film. The Roman people assessed the “exploits” of Commodus in the same way. However, in the film this stunning fact is presented as something taken for granted. By the way, it was precisely these tricks of Commodus that led him to his natural end - he was strangled with his bare hands by a Roman fighter in his own bedchamber.

PART 2

1. Command of the army

1.1. Aurelius was a fan of peace, not war, but as fate would have it, he spent almost his entire life as an emperor in war and was an experienced commander. If present at the theater of military operations, he would certainly take personal command of the army. The popularity of the emperor in those days sometimes saved the empire, but it was impossible to earn it by statically observing the progress of the battle.

1.2. The number of legion infantry alone, without auxiliary troops (cavalry, light infantry) is 5,000 people. Maximus, commanding a detachment of five thousand, thus does not even qualify for the title of legate, let alone general (commander of a formation of several legions).

2. Number of troops

2.1. If 5,000 people were all that the Roman Empire could field in a decisive battle, then it would not have existed until the birth of Christ. With such a scale of deeds, it had no more influence on history than the legendary Atlantis. In one of the most crushing defeats of Roman weapons, the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, 20,000 legionnaires were not enough to successfully confront the Germanic tribes. In reality, Aurelius was forced to recruit gladiators, slaves and robbers into his army - there was not enough strength. Moreover, the regular units consisted of dozens of legions.

2.2. In terms of the number of combatants, the battle that appears in the film is nothing more than a minor border skirmish. The presence of the emperor in such an insignificant combat episode "in reality" would be completely excluded.

3. Battle

Causes laughter due to its blatant absurdity!

3.1. Disposition of troops.

3.1.1. Archers were never placed behind heavy infantry. Someone slightly familiar with military history could cite the opinion of authorities to justify the possibility of such an arrangement. To this I can object that even the great commanders (Xenophon, Napoleon) were openly delusional in their theoretical discussions on the topic of placing riflemen behind the formation. They could be mixed with cavalry (usually light), but never placed as shown in the film “Gladiator”.

I (and history, I think, too) know of one (!) case of such an arrangement. A certain Thrasybulus in Athens, with a small detachment of warriors on the slope of a steep mountain (in my opinion, near some temple) relatively successfully used such tactics against the enemy, who was advancing in a very deep formation. The steepness of the slope and the formation of the enemy in 50 ranks made it possible to realize this idea.

3.1.2. The infantry was never built in 4 rows (and in the film there is even an episode where the depth of the formation is 2 (!) people). Such a formation would lead to the fact that the Germans would break through the formation in one place and go to the rear of the Romans with a clear ending to the battle. The minimum formation depth that can be encountered in serious battles is 8 people, and then only for the Greek phalanx, which was extremely difficult to break through head-on (it’s easier to cover it from the flank). The Roman legion was built in 15 rows, and the legions could stand behind each other! In the Battle of Cannae, the Romans were built in 70 rows (although here the Romans overdid it and this was one of the reasons for the defeat!).

3.1.3. The advantage of the Romans on the battlefields was based on manipulative tactics, in which the Romans were built in separate units - maniples. At the same time, there were small gaps in the formation in a strictly fixed order. This gave elasticity to the formation and made it possible to repel flank attacks - the real curse of the Greek phalanxes. Individual maniples could quickly turn their front in the direction of the flank threat, which a continuous formation could not do. The final battle of Caesar and Pompey at Pharsalus illustrates this point best. The success of Pompey's cavalry on the flank turned out not to be a victory, as always happened, but a defeat. And all this - thanks to the quick maneuver of 6 cohorts of Caesar, who turned the front 90 degrees.

In Gladiator, the Romans stand in some kind of incomprehensible formation - it is a mixture of the classical formation of the Greek phalanx and the chaotic formation of the barbarians of the “heap is small” type.

3.2. Progress of the battle

3.2.1. In the film there are archers in huge numbers (which did not happen in reality, but more on that below). There were about 10 times fewer lightly armed - velites (that is, archers, slingers, dart throwers - peltasts) than heavily armed ones (in the film - equally).

3.2.2. The cavalry absolutely could not operate in the forest. The plain was ideal for cavalry, because even hills reduced its effectiveness! In Gladiator we see how it is in the forest that the Roman cavalry delivers the decisive blow. This is probably the reason for the miraculous appearance of stirrups - otherwise the injury rate for stuntmen would have been much higher!

4. Praetorian cohorts

Behind Aurelius, one of the military badges clearly reads “PRETORIAN”. Meanwhile, the praetorians sat in Rome and kept order in the capital. They did not go to military operations. And their number was twice as large as Maximus’s troops.

5. Death of Aurelius

5.1. Just a plague! At the same time, he even forbade Commodus to say goodbye to himself, so as not to infect him, so that the race would not be interrupted! So the speculation of some historians that Aurelius wanted his son to die is an exaggeration. Apparently Aurelius said something like that in his hearts, but his intention to make his son emperor was quite conscious. However, here artistic exaggeration would be forgivable.

5.2. The film claims that the Germans were completely conquered by the time of Aurelius' death. In fact, everything is completely different. The success of the Roman troops was significant and, developing it, the Romans could have captured the territory of the modern Czech Republic and parts of southern Germany. But Commodus concluded an unfavorable peace with the barbarians in order to quickly return to Rome (which caused discontent in the army) - that is, he did approximately what General Lebed did in Khasavyurt.

6. Weapons

6.1. The film's characters famously wear full-metal armor both on and off the battlefield. They even manage to sleep in them! For non-believers I can lend my copy of the plate armor, the original of which is kept in Leeds. I'm afraid that even basic everyday activities (not like sleeping) are not possible in this inconvenient design.

6.2. The archers in the film are dressed in Babylonian-style armor - chain mail and a pointed helmet. The lightly armed warriors of Rome used leather armor, but if you stand behind the infantry line, they are not needed at all! Well, the Romans did not use helmets of this shape at all.

6.3. The gladius (legionary's sword) is a good replica of the real thing, with the only differences being that the real gladius was primarily used for stabbing rather than slashing (like in the movie) and was much shorter. But the cavalry sword, which was mainly used for chopping, was different.

6.4. The Romans almost did not use the bow, preferring the dart and sling. In the film, on the contrary, among the lightly armed, there are only archers.

6.5. The pilum (spear - dart) was copied well, but it was used in a completely different way. It was not wielded like a spear, it was only thrown. The long tip made of soft metal was intended to dig into the wooden shield and make it (the shield) impossible to use. Actually, the gastu was used as a spear - an old-style spear, exactly the kind that Maximus’s gladiators were armed with in battle with chariots.

6.6. The way they use shields in the film also makes me smile. Despite the good external resemblance, the legionnaires hold it... along and not across!

In the chariot fight scene, you can see how inconvenient it is to use such a shield with such a grip. And if you consider that the shield was made of wood, the thickness of which was 2-3 cm, then it is generally not clear what kind of strength and endurance you need to have in order to somehow defend yourself with it. And of course I would like to ask a malicious question - how could the Romans, with such fastenings of shields, build the famous turtle? In fact, in shape and grip, Roman shields resembled police shields, the same ones used to disperse demonstrations.

6.7. In the film, characters often wear a helmet without a liner. Imagine the sensations of a warrior who received even a glancing blow to such a helmet! Most likely he will be severely stunned, so the value of such armor is questionable. Balaclavas were made of dense material, usually felt. And where are they, you ask?

7. Camp

The Romans had two advantages that ensured their dominance on the battlefield - manipulative tactics and camp development. In Gladiator we see the same vaunted Roman camp - a long chain of tents bought in a supermarket and placed in an open field. In fact, the Roman camp resembled more of a square-shaped fortified fortress, which they managed to build everywhere, even in the desert.

8. Circus Arena

Gladiators most often fought naked; their use of armor was extremely limited. An exception could be cases when the semblance of historical battles was staged in miniature (the film also contains such a moment). True, Maximus and his comrades, equipped like Roman legionnaires (if you exclude helmets), for some reason symbolize...barbarians, and the warriors on chariots (which were never actually used by the Romans) symbolize the Romans. In general, nations familiar with military science first-hand refused to use chariots due to their high cost and ineffectiveness.

9. Attempted coup

Five thousand people are clearly not enough to seize power in Rome, as Maximus planned. The number of praetorian units guarding the capital (and these were elite warriors!) amounted to 10,000 soldiers. By the way, here Commodus had the right to execute Maximus, although the Roman soldiers still would not have followed the former gladiator - this profession was considered despicable among the soldiers.

From an artistic point of view, "Gladiator" is also of dubious value, reminiscent of a rather average Mexican series. The best thing on display is Phoenix's performance as Commodus. Quite well, from my point of view, the style of government and behavior of this degenerate is conveyed. Everything else is a popular print painted with bright colors. However, it is probably unfair to reproach Crowe for his weak acting - his role is very linear and stupid according to the script.

It is a sad but obvious fact that since the times of “Cleopatra”, “Spartacus”, “Vikings” and “Dacians” there has been an obvious degradation of historical cinema. This is most likely due not to the ill will of directors and screenwriters, but to the undemanding nature of the consumer himself. If we step aside from historical films, then, from my point of view, the sensational "Titanic" if in any way surpasses the domestic "Crew", it is only in budget, and therefore in stunts and special effects.

And in conclusion, I would still like to say a few life-affirming words. For all its shortcomings, a beautifully painted popular print still generates interest in the subject. In this regard, we can expect an increase in interest in the history of Ancient Rome. Which, generally speaking, is gratifying. By the way, one of the most authoritative historians of the ancient world, M.I. Rostovtsev is our compatriot. His works enjoy enormous prestige all over the world (alas, except for Russia). So we have something to be proud of besides ballet and satellites in space.

Publication:
XLegio © 2001