Watching it again led me to wonder...

Rating: Null/10 (3 August 2004)

...about the historical accuracy of the film. So, I did a few minutes of online research, and what I found was mildly distubing: the story borrows from history the names, dates and significant events (the conquering of Germania), but the plot is essentially fact-free, at least as far as what we know of Roman history can tell us.
I find this somewhat irksome because it's using just enough history to sound as though it's telling a fact-based story, when in fact it's fiction. Admittedly, there are others who take far more egregious liberties with the truth (Oliver Stone comes to mind) but the taking of names from history seemed pointless and a little misleading.
This is admittedly a nit against a tremendous film that deserved all the critical acclaim it received, but I do wish directors would be a little more discerning when it comes to blending fact and fiction.