Common Historical Misconceptions Clarified: (just the facts, ma'am)

Rating: 3/10 (27 December 2000)

ESSENTIAL TO THE PLOT and you might want to know:
Commodus did indeed fight gladiators in the arena. Sort of a fixation thing. Needless to say, he arranged to win -- yes, *every* time. Insane emperors were dicey. *Stupid* emperors simply did not go the distance.
Roman citizens were *never* enslaved within the empire (this includes Spain), no matter what they did. Never. They were executed in Rome (for major treason) or banished (for anything less). Stray slavers did *not* just pick up tired or wounded folks left on the road. Any Roman citizen would 1) have on a ring of citizenship to proclaim his inviolability or 2) be given every courtesy once declared. Citizenship was precious and worth many lives -- you did *not* mess with Citizens of Rome. This was *not* a democracy. Maximus would *never* have been enslaved on such a ridiculous pretense. Sheesh.
Make no mistake: The ARMY was the *real* power in Rome. --They had the swords-- *Not* the unarmed populace (this is laughable). *Not* the solitary emperor. Proof? The entire Roman Empire was auctioned to the highest bidder by the Praetorian Guard (the only armed troops within the city) 1 year after Commodus and his shortlived successor were murdered. Beyond the guard, the greatest threat was a successful general with a vast and loyal following in the legions. And the army outnumbered the Praetorians. By a LOT. So just imagine Maximus getting hauled away for execution within sight of his vast, victorious and worshipping army. WITH Commodus in the camp. Ridiculous. 'Might' wins every time. Commodus would never have been so idiotic as to have even approached his camp. His father, yes. He did actually attend this battle. He was secure. But Commodus? Ridiculous.
Roman generals were quite politically sophisticated. This was part of the job as the upper eschelon of Roman power. NO Roman general would have so annoyed an 'emperor elect' as Maximus did when he refused to shake hands with Commodus. No Roman general could have been so politically inept. No Roman general would have expected this rebellious gesture to be ignored. And where are the Preatorians (right here near the emperor!) and where are the army (10 feet away)? This is not only a tactical, but a strategic event. Think here! It's what generals do best. Give EVERY successful Roman general credit for his survival instincts. ANYone (even a slave) at this juncture would have done the required thing (shake hands) and then MET HIS ARMY to engineer a coup. He needed his (vast, victorious, worshiping) army to acquire power. No Roman general (no human being!) would have been so dense as to make a damning futile gesture when his power base was only 10 feet away celebrating a major victory, just waiting for him to make his move. Sheesh.
EXTRANEOUS TO THE PLOT, but you might want to know (the credits clearly state this movie is fiction):
You were hoodwinked if you thought that battle scene was realistic. The Roman army was primarily effective because of its supremely structured and disciplined front *line*. Barbarians fought as a mob and were often defeated even if outnumbered several to one--simply because they could not break that line. The chaotic beginning battle scene is straight out of the Middle Ages and has *nothing* to do with Rome. You saw a classic 'free-for-all' (or 'melee') out of the age of knights. Fun, but not Rome. Romans would have held their line and moved foward as an intact, solid unit, thrusting ecnomically upward with their short swords (never meant for this wasteful barbarian 'swinging' business) as they went.
Romans fought only to secure Rome and make some denarii. Glory was *not* part of the program. Forget that. Remember: Barbarians overran Rome in the end--they never stopped being a threat, esp. the Germans. AND Romans became *very* venal once conquest began. GREEDY and SCARED. That about does it. Skip that glory bull. They sure did.
Regarding Maximus fighting hand-to-hand in the beginning battle. Julius Caesar occasionally fought so when his troops needed some fortitude (granted as infantry, not horsed). We remember this because it was unusual. Perhaps Maximus was unusual also. (?)
The Republic was so long and so deeply dead that it is *comedy* to suggest that Maximus (or even Jupiter) could bring it back. Senators had been merely pawns since Octavian. It could not have been brought back 200 years earlier, either. It was also *not* a democracy--not by a long shot. This is pure Hollywood playing to your emotions. Slavery was so part of the infra-structure that the revolt of Spartacus (in Julius Caesar's time) ended with 6,000 slaves crucifed every 1,000 feet on the major road out of Rome (the Appian Way). Not exactly democratic. Think about it. You going south for a vacation this summer? Nice view.
Romans did not kneel to pray. They stood and covered their heads with their toga. And their idols were *not* tiny little figures of their immediate family. The idea would be shocking to a Roman.
Marcus Auraelius named Commodus as his heir when his son was 5. Commodus reigned for 12 years. Indeed, he was *not* a nice person.
Skip the stirrups. They arrive much later.
Above? just the high points. Read others in this list for more.