“The Eagle”: Making a lot out of a little

The Eagle

Released: 2011

Starring: Channing Tatum, Jamie Bell

Period of history in focus: Roman Britain (specifically 140 AD)

I remember seeing the preview for The Eagle for the first time and giggling to myself.  Another terrible Roman epic was on the horizon.  Then, I promptly forgot the film and went about my business.  To my surprise, the film received decent reviews when it was released.  It wasn’t terrible?  This began generating my interest and for the past several months I’ve been interested in watching the film.  This might ruin my credibility, but: I didn’t hate it.  Yes, the acting is not great, and there are points of the plot the don’t work very well, but overall The Eagle has a solid premise and it’s executed fairly well.  This isn’t to say that it’s also historically accurate, because it’s not.  I’m willing to cut it some slack because it is based off a novel, but you know how I am about letting movies saddle people with inaccurate impressions.

Most people probably don’t know much about the Roman occupation of Britain.  Maybe you’ve heard of Julius Caesar and his conquests there.  This was in the 50s BC.  He didn’t actually accomplish that much, and certainly didn’t conquer the island.  Part of this had to do with the fact that when a Roman fleet of ships sailed across to the island, a storm whipped up before they were able to land and took most of the ships out.  Both sides saw this as an omen – although the Romans took it as a negative one and the Britons saw it in a more positive light – and the Romans more or less left Britain alone for awhile.  Other reasons they weren’t terribly involved: Britain is far away from Rome, Italy, the center of the empire; the Romans had to deal with rebellions in Gaul, which was closer to home; did I mention Britain is far away?  This didn’t dishearten the Romans completely, as they are a people who really enjoy their conquests, and sneaking into the 40s AD, they returned to make their conquest happen.

The main rebellions happened in the 60s AD, including the one you might have heard about: Boudica’s rebellion.  Following these rebellions, the Britons started to realize that they couldn’t win against Rome.  As ever, the Roman army was a well oiled machine and the British tribes that were trying to fight them off simply couldn’t unify or make a cooperative effort.  Rulers of various tribes at this time started to see the benefits of allying with the Romans, including increased social status and the agreement that the army wouldn’t kill their people and burn their villages.

I told you to give them fealty and agree to honor their gods, but YOU said we should maintain our independence.

The tribes in the north of Britain (or Scotland, if you prefer) always gave the Romans headaches and they never quite managed to establish themselves there.  But by the 100s AD and following, most of the big rebellions were quashed and soldiers largely had nothing to do.  That’s where we can begin to address the premise of this film.

There were three or four legions in Britain, keeping a hold on things.  One of these was the Hispania IX, or, Ninth Spanish legion (called the Ninth Roman legion in the film).  For awhile it was believed that this legion of men disappeared somewhere in northern Britain under mysterious circumstances – as if a legion of soldiers could disappear under mundane circumstances.  The reason for this is that records show the Ninth Spanish legion as being in Britain, taking up the fort at York.  They left York at around 108 AD, and a new legion moved in around 122 AD.  There aren’t really anymore records of them.  So what happened?

Both the anthologies that I read claim the idea that they somehow disappeared in Britain is not credible.  Perhaps they were disbanded and the men sent to other legions.  Perhaps they were sent away from Britain.  There are records from later years which might refer back to the Ninth Spanish Legion somewhere in the Netherlands.  It’s not really certain, but the big exciting mystery seems to be a fabrication.

Whatever the case, the disappearance or disbanding of this legion certainly did not serve as the catalyst for Hadrian’s Wall, as the film claims.  The opening narrative to the film informs the audience that the humiliating defeat of the Ninth Roman Legion caused Hadrian to build a wall so Rome could never face another embarrassing defeat, by separating the Romans from the barbarians.

Couldn't they just...climb over it?

The official story was that the wall would act as a barrier.  But, considering how far North the wall was, there were many thousands of native Britons living among Roman soldiers, building towns around their forts and in some cases making families with the Romans.  This, in effect, makes the wall kind of useless for separation purposes.  The more practical reasons for the construction of the wall have to do with boredom and travel.  As most of the major rebellions had already been over and done with for awhile by 122 AD, many of the soldiers didn’t have much to do.  Some of the forts had begun to slack in their duty, and when Hadrian visited Britain he noticed that parts of the army had gone sloppy.  Ordering a wall would serve as metaphorical border, but would also give soldiers something to do, and a reason to start whipping them into shape again.  The wall was intended to cross the width of the island, and with the forts and towers in the wall close to roads, it seems that the true purpose was to regulate traffic and movement north and south.

For these reasons the wall wouldn’t seriously be considered the end of the world.  Particularly because there were forts and roads occupied by Romans north of the wall.  Not to mention that Antoninus Pius built another wall twenty years later, even farther north.

Antoninus cheated to make himself look cool. His isn't even as long.

Now, this movie begins in 140 AD, which is two years before construction on the Antonine Wall began.  So I’ll cut it some slack for making business about Hadrian’s Wall being cooler.  However, we have Marcus Flavius Aquila (played by Channing Tatum and his abs) being transferred to Britain as a cohort commander somewhere in Roman occupied southern Britain.  Within his first several days he has to deal with the grain delivery being delayed, an assault on the wall, and then the patrol he sends out for the grain being kidnapped by yet another tribe and whipped by some over the top Druid.  This is exciting, but a little nonsensical.  If this is truly south of the wall, then this sort of thing seems unlikely.  Furthermore, I don’t know why this Druid is wandering alone.

First, from the limited amount I know about Druids, it seemed they banded together.  Secondly, back in the 60s AD when all the big rebellions were going on, Roman leaders noticed that the Druids were a threat.  They acted as enforcers of law as well as a potential focal points for the tribes around them.  Most dangerously, the Druids were literate.  The Romans moved in and destroyed their stronghold in Anglesey, which effectively helped them gain more control over various tribes.  Overall, I found the beginning of the film to be entertaining, but not very believable on a historical level.

Look at that army, Marcus. They are what's known as a "plot device."

The battle that follows just outside the fort looks like what you might expect by now from a film that involves the Roman army.  They march out together, and use their shields to create the turtle formation.  The difference here is that Marcus gets injured and is sent away, never to see the real fighting force of the Roman army for the rest of the film.  What the audience doesn’t get to see is history.

That’s okay.  I don’t have a problem with a film dipping into fantasy.  So long as you realize that Marcus and his slave, Esca, traveling north to retrieve that lost Eagle of the Ninth is mostly absurd.

From here on out, I have a few small issues I’d like to address.

North of the wall

The scenery in this movie is beautiful.  Most of northern Scotland would be gorgeous highlands and largely unoccupied areas.  However, as I already mentioned, Hadrian’s wall did not mark the end of Roman occupation.  Marcus and Esca would have passed some forts and settlements by Romans north of the wall, and probably would have encountered some roads too.  The soldiers at the wall would never have said something stupid like, “Don’t you know this is the end of the world?”  This really irked me.

The Eagle (or the standard)

This is actually a thing.  For anybody who has seen the television series Rome, you might remember a similar plot about retrieving the lost standard.  This was extremely important and a symbol of Roman honor, and the film actually hinges around an idea Romans would fight for.

Esca, I know you despise Rome and the Eagle represents Rome, but you'll still help me get it back, right?

Esca

I like the introduction and treatment of Esca throughout the film.  He is treated with proper disdain by most of the Romans around him.  For anybody who didn’t read my posts on Gladiator, slaves were reviled by the Romans.  As people who were forced to do labor and accept physical and verbal punishment, they were considered as lowly as someone could be.  I like the idea that Marcus grows to respect him.  What I would have liked more, was to see Marcus be more biased against him from the start.  He shouldn’t trust him, and should treat him worse to begin with to make their transformation into best bros more profound.

Another thing I struggled with was Esca’s role north of the wall.  I can believe that enough tribes speak a similar enough language to allow them to communicate, but we already know that the tribes warred each other as much as Rome.  Why do they all accept him?  Why doesn’t somebody try to kidnap him?  I found it dubious that the fierce tribe in the north accepts him as an honored guest.

All those dirty, unwashed barbarians are basically the same, right?

The size of the legion

An entire legion all told would have about 5,000 men.  What confused me was that Marcus said his father was in charge of the first cohort of the Ninth legion.  A cohort would be considerably smaller than a legion.  At the most basic organizational level of the army you had centuries.  Each century typically had about 80 men.  A cohort would be made up of six centuries, for a told of about 480 men.  The beginning of the film tells us that all 5,000 men of the Ninth legion disappeared, and everybody blames Marcus’ father.  But, in charge of a cohort, he would only have been responsible for 480 of those men, and therefore wouldn’t be the center of disgrace.  The numbers don’t really add up.

The survivors

Marcus and Esca run into a man from the destroyed legion who saved his own life by fleeing the scene.  He explains what happens by saying that four tribes converged on them and owned them heartily.  Why did these four tribes ban together?  Why do we only get to meet one of the tribes?  Also, why are they such huge dicks?

He's really just jealous that Marcus has better abs than him.

As for the survivors, they have all made lives and families with various northern tribes.  The guy we meet, Lucius Cauis Metellus, or Guern, even delivers a diatribe about how Roman expansionist policy is bad.  If these men now have families in the north and have grown to see what sucks about Rome, why do they fight to protect the standard at the end of the film?  Perhaps their Roman values are too deeply ingrained in them, or maybe they were moved by Esca’s plea to help save his best bro, but what kind of honor do they have to preserve if they have been operating off an entirely different system of honor for the past twenty years?

You're saying I can die for an empire I no longer believe in, or stay at home and live with my family? Hmmm...that's a tough one.

The lack of women

I think the only women in the film are the several we see in the village way up north.  One of the tribesmen attacks Marcus for looking at his sister.  At this point I realized that we hadn’t heard a woman speak the entire movie, and we didn’t get to from that point forward.  I understand the argument that a war focused movie might not have women, but there’s a chunk of time spent at Marcus’ uncle’s villa.  Maybe the senator we meet could have brought his daughter and her spout ignorant crap instead of whoever that guy was.  Then at least we’d get to hear a woman talk.

At it’s heart, The Eagle tries to be a buddy film.  It’s about the Roman Marcus learning that he should respect the Britons, and he does so by his alliance with the British Esca.  Both men realize the value in honor in both cultures, and although they return the Eagle to Rome, they end up blowing everybody off to go…well, we don’t know what.  My guess is hold hands.  This message gets lost as neither Marcus or Esca is allowed too much conflict within themselves or with each other.  The film is entertaining, but uses history as a fun backdrop to cause the drama of a specific man, rather than, you know, as history.

A surprise appearance by Donald Sutherland helps a lot.

SOURCES:

Guy de la Bedoyere. Roman Britain. This book covers the conquest of Britain and the years following in the first part and spends the rest of the time covering cultural aspects of Roman rule, such as money, governing, slavery, and religion.

Peter Salway. The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain.  This takes a chronological approach to things, following the early Romans in Britain up through the fourth century.

FOR NEXT WEEK:

I’m going to tackle Gettysburg.  This will likely take a lot of reading (the movie is based on a book which analyzes the battles). I will try to get this done in an efficient manner, but if I don’t then I might do a review of the first 3-4 episodes of The Tudors.  Before talking about Gettysburg specifically, I would also like to do a cultural post that talks about the start of the Civil War and some of the battles leading up to this big one.  Expect one of the following two schedules.

Plan A: Wednesday/Thursday – cultural post on Civil War, Saturday/Sunday – review of Gettysburg

Plan B: Wednesday/Thursday – review of some of The Tudors, following Wednesday – cultural post on Civil War, Saturday/Sunday – review of Gettysburg

“Gladiator”: Good drama, bad history

Gladiator

Release Date: 2000

Starring: Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen

Period of history in focus: Ancient Rome (specifically the Roman Empire, year 180 CE)

I wanted to look at Gladiator for several reasons.  For one, I think the movie is still largely popular and regarded as a great film (and it is still incredibly entertaining).  It won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Russell Crowe.  Also, it continued to spark the interest we have with ancient Rome.  According to one of my professors at school, the history department saw enrollment in the Rome-based classes rise after the release of the movie.  They were probably disappointed to learn that Gladiator paints a rather rosy picture of the world.

That’s not to say the movie isn’t good.  I like it.  It’s a fun watch.  But there are historical inaccuracies present throughout the film.  Upon researching the life of Commodus, I was surprised to discover that his life and rule were actually more interesting than the movie had painted them to be.  He managed to actually behave more outrageously than he did in the movie.  As a result of this discovery, I’ve divided my review into two parts.  In the first part, I’ll talk about historical inaccuracies in the movie, but not ones that I think would greatly affect the plot.  I just want you to know that they’re wrong.  In the second part, I’ll discuss inaccuracies that I think could have been made more correct and actually helped the direction of the movie.  You are free to disagree, of course, but portraying a more realistic Commodus on screen would have made for even more drama.

Oh, also, Maximus didn’t exist.  But we’ll ignore that.

Let’s start with these smaller points:

Maximus appears to be Christian

In a conversation he has with Lucilla (played by Connie Nielsen and sister to Commodus), Maximus learns that she prays for his family, proclaiming it with boldness, like she’s subversive: “Yes, I pray.”  Then, in the next scene, the audience is treated to Maximus praying for his wife and son, saying things like “Heavenly Father.”  Obviously, Christianity was around at this point (it’s 180 CE for anybody who forgot).  However, in Rome, it was still treated as more of a cult than anything else.  The state religion of Rome was bound to the gods and goddesses we all know from mythology, and Christianity was subversive to the state because it was so emotional and personalized.

Praying for the state was required of citizens.  Romans believed that they had succeeded and done so well in all their endeavors because the gods were appeased by their prayers and sacrifices.  This belief actually led to a stagnation of Roman religion, in which each family was instructed to pray every day and in the exact same way.  In your household you would have a set number of lines to say, and if you flubbed them then you could be partially responsible for a loss in battle.  Because religion had become so monotonous, many people did their routine and moved on.  You can imagine that having a personal connection with religion would seem really strange to them.

You can argue that Lucilla feels so subversive because she’s Christian, and Maximus didn’t grow up in Rome, so maybe he is too.  However, the imperial family would be certain to buy into the state religion, and it wasn’t until Constantine more than a hundred years later (in about 312 CE) that a Roman emperor would officially become Christian.  Lucilla being Christian seems almost absurd, and if she’s talking about praying for the state religion, well, there’s no reason to act so edgy about it.  Maximus is almost certainly Christian in order to create a connection with the audience.  My guess is that a man so deeply steeped in the Roman army for so many years, Maximus would buy into the state religion as well.  What else would help him win so many battles?

Dear Jupiter, Give me the strength to win this battle. Also, a pony.

From Germania to Spain to Northern Africa to Rome

The geography in this movie confuses me.  Now, this could just be my ignorance, but I have at least looked at a map.  The movie starts in Germania, and according to history, Marcus Aurelius was fighting around the Danube River when he died on campaign.  Throughout the movie, everybody keeps referring to Maximus as “Spaniard”, so I assume that his farm is located in Spain.  (By the way, there wasn’t really a Spain at this time.  It was Iberia or Hispania, as well as collection of other names that would refer to tribes.  The term “Spaniard” does not make sense in historical context.)  So, after the failed assassination attempt in Germania, Maximus manages to take two horses and hoof it home in a matter of days – as it appears to us.  That seems a bit farfetched.  His farm is a long ride, and even if the montage is supposed to represent weeks, he doesn’t have any food or supplies.

After discovering the bodies of his family, Maximus collapses with grief.  He is almost immediately found by a roving band of traders who take him to Zucchabar.  For anyone playing at home, Zucchabar is located in North Africa (also, it is incorrectly called a Roman province.  It was part of a province, Mauretania Caesariensis).  That means these traders would have had to cross water at some point, and all we get are shots of sand dunes and camels.  Not only that, but Zucchabar is located in western North Africa, which means a long journey and more sea time to get to Rome.  The timeline simply doesn’t make sense.

The dark red part is Mauretania Caesariensis. Everything else is the Roman Empire.

The battle of Carthage in the arena

This battle is now known at the Battle of Zama and took place to seal Rome’s victory in the Second Punic War against Hannibal.  The announcer lets audience know that the Carthaginians are the barbarians.  Fair enough, they would have said that.  So why do the gladiators posing as the Roman army come riding out in tricked out chariots, wearing gold armor, and at least one leopard print cape?  The fact that the faux Roman soldiers include women and black people doesn’t matter, I don’t want to quibble about that.  I just don’t get why they would portray the Romans as frankly more exotic than the “barbarians” who had simple togas, Roman shields and short swords.  If I had never seen the movie and somebody turned on this scene for me, I would have assumed the guys in the chariots were from Carthage.

A quick note about chariots: Roman chariots would not have been so large and decorated and fitted with blades.  The platform was smaller and lightweight so that the horses could pull it without getting tangled up or slowing down.  Riding a chariot took some amount of skill, so you didn’t go tumbling off – that’s what made chariot races so thrilling and so dangerous.  Maybe it battle they would take a little more time to beef the chariots up, but for a bunch of gladiators in the arena?  Don’t forget, everyone fighting in that battle is a slave, not just Maximus and his friends.

The Colosseum?  Oh, you mean the Flavian Amphitheater.

One of the senators in the movie claims that the beating heart of Rome is not in the senate or the mob but “in the sands of the Colosseum.”  They would have called it the Flavian Amphitheater, or perhaps Caesar’s amphitheater.  The name we use today game about hundreds of years later.

Roman naming systems

When Maximus reveals himself to Commodus he makes a big scene of it: “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.”  Roman naming conventions worked somewhat the same way they do in the US, except there was an added name.  Your praenomen, or first name, was your given name – such as Lucius, Publius, etc.  Your nomen, or second name, was your family name – Cornelius, Julius.  Your cognomen, or third name, was the nickname people gave you to distinguish you from relatives with similar names, especially because there were a set number of available first names.

Take Gaius Julius Caesar (yes, that Caesar).  His first name, Gaius, is like Eric or Sally.  His second, Julius, is his family name, as he was part of the Julian tribes.  His last name, Caesar, is a nickname that basically means “hairy” (think about that the next time you eat a Caesar salad).  Or maybe Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus.  His given name is Publius.  His family name is Cornelius.  His nickname was originally Scipio – ironically, these are exact three names his father had, making his nickname really bad at distinguishing him – but after he helped win the Second Punic War he was granted the additional “Africanus” for winning battles in Africa.

Applying all of this to the movie, we get Maximus Decimus Meridius.  It seems that Maximus serves as more of a cognomen, or nickname, meaning roughly “the largest.”  Meridius means something like “from the South.”  Then we have Decimus, which could be a given name.  That still leaves us without a family name.  From what I can tell after reading movie trivia, you get to hear the name Aelius Maximus at one point.  If we take Aelius to be his family name then his name should look like this: Decimus Aelius Meridius Maximus.  OR Decimus Aelius Maximus Meridius.  It would depend on which his family gave him and which is army buddies gave me.

What did Commodus look like?

Another small thing.  According to Herodian, “he was in the prime of youth, striking in appearance, with a well-developed body and a face that was handsome without being pretty.  His commanding eyes flashed like lightning; his hair, naturally blond and curly, gleamed in the sunlight as if it were on fire…”  He goes on to make note of the rumors that he rubbed gold dust in his hair to make it look even shinier.  Considering that Commodus was 19 when his father died and he became emperor, the guy sounds a little more like Apollo than Joaquin Phoenix – not saying that Joaquin Phoenix isn’t attractive when he’s not playing creeps or growing gigantic beards.

The face of royalty, ladies and gents.

This covers a lot issues with the movie that wouldn’t necessarily bother anybody but a historian.  However, when you start looking into the life and times of Commodus, the movie diverges much more radically.  I think that if they had tried to stay closer to history as we know, the story might have even been better.  So, let’s start with the opening of the movie.  Marcus Aurelius was on campaign in Germania when he died.  He did die in 180 CE.  That’s about where it all starts getting crazy:

1) Commodus did not kill Marcus Aurelius

He didn’t really have a reason to do it.  Marcus called for his son to join him on campaign when Commodus was about 13, gave him the honor of full manhood at this time, and had pulled enough strings to make him consul by the time he was 16.  Commodus was obviously being groomed to take over when his father died.  He did not have to scheme and plan and worry about succession.  Furthermore, he was in battle or in camp with his father for years, not joining him at direct request and traveling in luxury.  In fact, Commodus was the first Roman emperor who was raised in royalty and succeeded his father.  All emperors before Marcus Aurelius had appointed men for other reasons than relation by blood.

(I should clarify here – thanks to a commentator! – that Commodus was not the first son to take over the position after his father.  He was the first “born in the purple” or born while his father was Emperor.  Conversely, Vespasian had two sons become emperor, but they were both born and raised by the time their father earned the title.  Also, I’d like to note that of the “five good emperors” Marcus Aurelius is the only one who had a natural son he could make emperor.)

Furthermore, Marcus Aurelius died when Commodus was only 19.  Not only he did he have the promise of all the power and position, but he was still young.  Why would he kill his father when he could still spend his time without as much responsibility?  It’s easy to make him out as the villain because Marcus was so beloved and Commodus is commonly considered one of the worst emperors in Roman history.  Let’s give him at least some benefit of the doubt.  He didn’t kill his father.  Also, he was young and inexperienced when he took over, and according to Cassius Dio his lack of guile and lack of great intelligence meant that his older advisers could manipulate him.  What if the movie had started with Commodus as a good looking younger man with a great deal of potential?  The first sign of trouble could be his pulling away from battle and returning to Rome.  The historical Commodus ended his father’s campaign – he could even make a rational argument that he wanted to help soldiers return home.  This way, he gains the support of the army, is thoughtful, but maybe also a coward for retreating from battle.

Could he at least TRY to look like less of a douche?

Maximus could still be a solider – not a general though, he should fly under the radar – who gets forced into slavery for some reason.  Perhaps he fights for the other side and gets captured by soldiers.  A prisoner of war being sold into slavery would not be unusual.  He could now have a great deal of resentment against Rome and want to get back to his family.

2) The Roman Senate did not work “for the people”

One common assertion in the film is that the senators are elected from the people and for the people while the emperors are blue-blooded aristocrats.  In truth, particularly in the early days of the Republic, you only had a chance of being in the senate if you were part of the aristocratic patrician class.  If you were a normal person – a plebian – then your political career didn’t have much of a chance.  The senate was comprised of elected magistrates.  Once you became a magistrate, you were in the senate for life.  There was only one position for magistrates that dealt directly with the people, and even then they dealt with the Council of Plebs.  This council consisted of roman citizens who were male.  If you were a woman or not a citizen, then you had no voice in politics.

Senators largely looked after their own interests, and as the Republic continued they got more corrupt and self-centered.  Men who tried to fight for the “common man” were ousted or killed.  Part of the reason Augustus was able to set up the Empire in the first place was because the senate had created so much infighting and instability in Rome that the people didn’t care who was in charge.  Emperors brought them peace?  Bring on the Emperors!

"What about the...poor people? AHAHAHA, oh Quintus, you're such a card."

3) Make gladiator fights more realistic, and attitudes toward them

I know that popular portrayals of gladiators are more violent to drum up audience interest.  But the speech Proximo gives early in the film about buying slaves to profit from their deaths?  Straight up lies.  Anyone who owned or sponsored gladiators had to put in time to train them, to feed them, to give them medical attention.  If they died in the first battle, you lost out on the profit you could gain from seeing them fight time and again.  Not to mention, that these early fights outside of Rome would have been less bloody in history.  By this time, gladiator fights that ended in death were largely banned outside of Rome, and sometimes the contestants would fight with wooden weapons to prevent death.  The movie could give Maximus the chance to prove himself by winning fights, as this nobody from another army.  Commodus could still call for more gladiators from outside Rome.  While he didn’t hold 150 days of games when he took the throne, he did throw a lot of spectacles, and would need a lot of people.

The historical Commodus was obsessed with games, particularly gladiator fights.  When he first became emperor he would participate in practice fights in privacy, but as the years wore on he began to insert himself into the arena.  This had mixed results.  His ability has an archer in killing animals impressed the Roman people, they ate it up.  When he actually fought in the arena against men?  That would be far more dubious.  Only slaves were debased enough to be forced into entertainment, and someone of the aristocracy fighting in such a manner would have been humiliating to some degree.  Still, we can’t deny that it entertained the hell out of the people.  In the film, they could have had Commodus participating in multiple fights rigged so he wouldn’t be harmed because that’s what he actually did.  They could slowly show him growing more unstable.  There’s at least one account of him being so jealous of a popular gladiator that he had the man killed.  Maybe Maximus is too popular for Commodus’ tastes.  The turning point of horror in the film could center around Commodus entering the arena as Hercules (something else he actually did).  In one historical account, Commodus had men in Rome without feet, or otherwise handicapped, chained together and made them costumes to turn them into the monstrous giants of mythology.  He then clubbed them to death as Hercules saving the people.

The historical Commodus was approximately 1000x more horrifying than the movie version leering at his sister.

4) Get rid of the incest, PLEASE

If Commodus had actually tried to seduce his sister, then fine.  But as far as we can tell, he didn’t.  A bunch of guys who hated Commodus and wrote really nasty things about him never even suggested it, so don’t put it in the movie.  I feel like the writers were afraid people wouldn’t think he was a horrible enough emperor, even after his own father denounced him as an amoral man who must under no circumstances have power.

I thought he might have good reasons for killing his father, but NOW I know that he's a creep.

In truth, about two years after Commodus became emperor, Lucilla devised a plot to assassinate him.  Unfortunately, they hired an aspiring actor for the job who not only revealed himself with knife waving around but who yelled something like,  “See!  This is what the senate has sent you!”  Yelling dramatically is a good way to give bodyguards the chance to take you out, and that’s what they did.  Not to mention, that the senate had nothing to do with the plot to kill Commodus.  That didn’t matter to the young emperor, who subsequently grew to hate and distrust the senate more than he already had, and began a murderous campaign against them to oust everybody who might not like him.  You could say that this attempt made Commodus even worse than Lucilla already thought he was.

Oh, he also exiled his sister and had her killed.  Can you imagine this woman being set up as a key player in the movie only to have her killed partway through?  It would certainly help turn the audience against Commodus, probably even more than they were when he asked her to spend the night with him.  Seriously, get rid of the incest, put in the failed assassination.

5) Add more roles for women

Commodus had another sister besides Lucilla, as well as his wife – Bruttia Crispina – and a number of mistresses, although his favorite was Marcia.  Put these women in the mix, let them learn how terrible he is and begin to start their own plotting.  They could meet with Maximus in secret and start up a plan, and take on proactive roles in trying to keep Commodus from becoming completely amoral.

I like this approach because it gives more women the chance to act.  In the version we have now, Connie Nielsen is the only one who really gets to talk, aside from the prostitutes.  With more of the historical women, we now get a good three or four roles of women plotting and manipulating the scene.

Also, it gives Marcia the chance to be awesome.  In one explanation for why she decided to help assassinate Commodus, she found a tablet on which he had written the names people he wanted to kill.  She was at the top of the list.  When she saw this, Marcia apparently said:

So, Commodus, this is my reward for my love and devotion, after I have put up with your arrogance and your madness for so many years. But, you drunken sot, you shall not outwit a woman deadly sober!

How fantastic is that?  I am on the Marcia bandwagon.  Let the ladies get in on the death and assassination.

6) Make Commodus die in secret

I know this if far less dramatic, but Commodus was actually killed by being strangled in a bathtub.  Marcia attempted to poison him, and when he vomited up most of the poison, they sent in a wrestler by the name of Narcissus to finish him off.  Perhaps instead, Marcia could sneak Maximus in to kill him if we are intent on having Maximus carry off the final heroic act.

As it stands, having a slave kill an emperor in the arena is too ridiculous.  No matter how much the people hated Commodus, they would never have reacted to his death like they did in the film.  His sister would not have failed to pay respects to his dead body.  It just wouldn’t happen.  I understand the uplifting ending.  After all, if the movie followed history too closely, after Commodus died, more emperors like him would take his place and continue the path to absolute and autocratic rule.  Let’s at least try for the conspiracy angle.  Maximus gets his revenge and changes the face of the Empire, but most people just remember him as a lowly slave.

It’s a possibility.

One more note on the film: Ridley Scott made the Colosseum larger than it actually was because he wanted to show off the dramatics.  In an attempt to kill off Maximus, Commodus could move him from the arena to the Circus Maximus, to the far more dangerous chariot races.  If Commodus stooped so low as to participate in a chariot race?  The people of Rome would be absolutely scandalized.

Overall, I like this film.  Like I said, it is entertaining.  I  just think that creating more historical accuracy concerning Commodus could allow the audience to watch him slowly slip into madness and terrifying homicidal rages that would make the drama more complicated than simply: Maximus is good and fights for the people.  Commodus is bad and has few morals.

I leave you here, because this is getting ridiculously long and there is more I could say.  Before you go though, would you mind scrolling down and voting on the poll for which movie you’d like to see done next?

Sources:

Primary

Joann Shelton, As the Romans Did.  Like I said before, this is a fantastic compilation of primary sources that cover all aspects of Roman culture.

Cassius Dio, Roman History.  Epitome of Book LXXIII.  A contemporary of Commodus, he has a good account of what happened.  Unfortunately, he only have the epitomes and not full lengths of his text, but a good primary source.

Herodian, History of the Roman Empire since the Death of Marcus Aurelius.  Specifically books 1.4-1.17.  Professor Garrett Fagan calls him “dubious and moralizing” but he still acts as a solid ancient source, and is more reliable than the Augustan Histories.

Augustan Histories.  Supposedly, after reading this the screenwriter decided to focus the movie on Commodus.  There’s a lot of stuff in here that’s propaganda, but it’s definitely worth a look.

Secondary

Professor Garrett G. Fagan, Emperors of Rome.  Lecture 24: Marcus in the North and Commodus.  The lecture is only half an hour long, but does serve as a good summary and backs up some of the ancient sources.

David Potter, Emperors of Rome: Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the last emperor.  Not specifically great for Commodus, but a nice summary of life in the empire and the various men in charge for someone wanting to learn about Rome.

Mike Duncan, The History of Rome.  Series of podcasts about Rome that begin with the foundation of the city and have currently worked through the reign of Constantine.  Listen to episodes 95-97 for more about Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

FOR NEXT WEEK:

Are you not entertained?

This week, I present Gladiator!

Ooh boy.  This post is acting as a little teaser, but also to give you a little bit of background about the nature of Roman gladiatorial matches as well as a couple tidbits about the movie.  On Tuesday or Wednesday, I will post the full review of the film.

So let’s start with an image that encapsulates everything.  This painting was done by artist Jean-Léon Gérôme is titled Pollice Verso (which in Latin translates to “with thumb turned”) and shows a gladiator waiting to see if his instructions are to kill the man he has defeated.  It’s a fitting portrayal of what we think gladiatorial matches are, and supposedly served as the inspiration for Ridley Scott to work on the film Gladiator itself.

Imagine the hissy fit Russel Crowe would have thrown if he had been forced to wear that fish helmet the entire movie.

The costume and setting are actually both pretty well done (apparently the artist did a little bit of his own research) while the actual situation is a little more questionable.  Historians have been debating about the thumbs up/thumbs down business for awhile.  Did this actually ever happen?  Some historians believe it happened but that we have the directions wrong.  A thumbs up would actually indicate the man should be killed, as if you are jabbing your thumb at your throat to say: “Finish him!”  A thumbs down could indicate that you should instead stick your sword into the ground, or more of a general “No violent bloodshed today, thanks.”  Whatever the case, the pollice verso does make for a great bit of drama.  I like the idea that a film go with the alternate version of the event, so the first time an emperor gives the thumbs up, the audience thinks, “Oh good, he’s going to make it out of this – WHAT IS THAT I THOUGHT HE WAS OKAY!?”

Gladiator matches generally started out on a smaller scale and were far less elaborate than the spectacles they would become.  Traditionally paired with animal baiting (the practice of killing animals or forcing them to fight each other to the death), gladiator fights were categorized as munera which translates to “duties.”  A wealthy man would organize a fight to commemorate his dead father or uncle, proving his loyalty and upholding the memory of a great man with more death.  On the other side of the coin you at the ludi, which translates to “games.”  This mostly include chariot races, which were the all star sport of ancient Rome.  If you take ancient Rome as the current day America, then chariot races would be NFL football, while gladiator matches would merely be the MLB.  Still beloved, but not quite as rabid.  Chariot races were funded by the state and planned by magistrates, who might throw in their own money.  On days when the ludi were held, the city shut down for a holiday.

The Roman people loved spectacle.  As senators realized that their home-thrown gladiator matches helped gain them favor (and votes) the fights began to grow in spectacle and cost until they basically became synonymous with the ludi.  This would be around the time the amphitheaters were built, the most famous of which is the Flavian Amphitheater, or as it is more well known today, the Colosseum.  This arena could hold approximately 40-60,000 spectators, roughly similar to smaller football stadiums.  (To give you an idea of the crazy popularity of chariot races, the Circus Maximus in Rome could hold about 150,000 spectators.  That’s a big place.)

Did I mention the Romans also invented concrete and the archway as well as multiple military tactics? They had no time for paltry philosophy.

With an intricate series of tunnels underneath the floor of the arena, they could move gladiators and animals alike to where they needed to be, as well as propel them up through trapdoors.  Oh, and if they were feeling bored one day, they might plug everything up and flood the arena floor to recreate a naval battle.

The floor the spectators would have seen is gone, so we can see all the pathways.

Most people get the idea that gladiators were slaves.  They were either captured in battle, or slaves to the city, or one of several other ways people could be forced in subjugation.  However, they were not immediately shipped into the ring for death.  Gladiators were sponsored by patrons and sent to schools where they learned the basics in fighting.  Depending on their skills and size they would be assigned to a specific type of fighting.  Generally, there were gladiators with less armor, who could move about nimbly to attack and dodge.  Others had more armor and heavy weapons which protected them, but made it hard to keep up.  My favorite is the Retiarius or “net man” who had basically no armor, a net to tangle up his opponents, and a trident.  Other types include the Murmillo or “fish” named for his crested helmet, and given a rectangular shield and short sword (called a gladius, which you can safely assume helped give these slaves their title); the Provacator or “attacker” who was the most heavily armed and therefore the slowest; and Hoplomachus and Thraex, based on the Greek hoplite and Thracian soldiers respectively.

Despite being slaves, gladiators were well fed and tended to with good medical care.  This is not to say that they were treated well, but their patrons were interested in keeping the men around for as long as possible.  Because of the amount of money it took to train and feed a gladiator, most matches did not deliberately end in death.  Blood might indicate the end of a match.  Not to say that there would be a day of ludi where no one died – that would be absurd! – but you can assume that fewer than half of the gladiators participating in a day’s battle would die.

The popularity of the ludi did not mean that people valued the lives of these men.  Yes, they were a great source of entertainment.  The more popular fighters might sponsor products or be invited to dinners with the rich and powerful people in the city.  But Roman culture dictated that men did something with their lives of value (such as war or politics), something that would contribute to the city.  They loved entertainment, but it didn’t propel Rome forward, and an entertainer should not be held in high esteem.  Also, the fact that gladiators and chariot racers were slaves meant that they were not in charge of their own persons.  A freedman in Rome would be looked down on, not for his race or lack of money, but because he once been a slave and had allowed people to talk down to him and beat him.  A free person would never allow that sort of indignity.  Therefore, slaves were far beneath a free Roman citizen.  Very few boys would grow up hoping to participate in the ludi, and their parents would certainly never encourage them to do so.

That’s a quick look and background into the movie Gladiator which will also get into some other issues, such as real historical figures and Roman naming, but I want to leave you with a thought.  Juvenal once said the people of Rome would be happy as long as they had panem et circenses, or “bread and circuses.”  If the city provided them food and spectacle, then who cares what the senate or the Emperor did?  The overall tone of these games was violent and bloodthirsty, with people rejoicing in the deaths of slaves and animals in the name of entertainment.

What does it say about us that the gladiator fights we recreate are even more deadly and bloody than the ones that took place in Rome?  Are we as desperate for blood and entertainment as the ancient Romans?

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?" I bet Terrell Owens could take Russell Crowe in a fight.

See you soon for Gladiator!  I’ll be doing some live tweets as I watch the film.  Follow me @hhistrionics.  Or click on the Twitter feed you find on the main page.

Source: Check out Joann Shelton’s “As the Romans Did.”  It’s a primary sourcebook, which contains tons of little scraps of writings, bits of graffiti, etc. used to help illustrate a comprehensive portrait of Rome.  The entire book is wonderful, but her sections on gladiatorial matches, chariot races, and slavery are really excellent.