Bad Ancient: Gladiator II Q & A
As some of you may or may not know, I am the founder and lead editor of a history fact-checking website BadAncient.com. It is a project I have run for a few years now and it lets me help other budding public history writers hone their craft while also dispelling lots of pseudohistory on the internet - it’s a win-win situation!
Bad Ancient was recently approached by the online platform IFL Science to give some expert comment about the new Gladiator II trailer which was released. I took the opportunity to not only grab a nice bit of publicity for the site, but also to offer this as an opportunity for a few other historians to engage with the media and hopefully help them build a profile and platform for their own work.
Luckily for me, two of the most supportive writers for the site (which is entirely voluntary for all involved) also happen to be experts in Roman history, combat, and the gladiatorial games - Jo Ball and Alexandra Sills. They also both have a healthy love of historical fiction, so there was no second thought in my mind about what team I would bring together for our site’s response.
The answers they gave were in fact a bit too good. IFL Science decided to run the piece as an edited interview, rather than cherry pick a few choice quotes. You can read it by clicking here.
However, as is the way with editorial oversight, parts of our responses were not used. So I thought I would post the whole thing in full here for all of you lovely people! Enjoy, and if you are interested in some of the myths and misconceptions, make sure to check out our website for more information.
Bad Ancient interview responses: Jo Ball (JB), Alexandra Sills (AS), Owen Rees (OR)
What was your first impression on seeing the new Gladiator 2 trailer? What are you most looking forward to seeing play out in the film?
JB: I had been incredibly excited to see the trailer for the new Gladiator II film, and it did not disappoint, seemingly promising a spectacular visual feast – hopefully with some decent history thrown in! I am particularly interested to see the storyline of Pedro Pascal’s Marcus Acacius, who appears from the trailer to come to protest the endless conquests of Rome, and the human lives it cost – and seemingly to be punished for his views – with the humanisation of Roman generals and the army more widely a potentially interesting thread playing alongside the main gladiator theme. And, of course, sharks and rhinos in the Colosseum look amazing – I imagine only the severest historical pedants will not be impressed by the spectacle!
AS: It definitely looks like it will eclipse the first film in terms of pure spectacle. I'm excited to see what 24 years of CGI development can bring to a Roman arena. I'm also curious to see how the movie deals with the fact that the Republic hasn't been reinstated. That was the whole reason Maximus sacrificed himself in the first film, so will Lucius finish the job? We know that emperors continued to rule for centuries, so it's unlikely, but it will definitely be interesting to see whether the political angle is continued or dropped completely in favour of a personal revenge story. It's interesting that this movie is, like the original, released in a very interesting moment of modern politics, so that's what I'll be watching most closely. Also, no spoilers, but I am very excited to see what happens to Caracalla. If you know, you know.
OR: The original Gladiator is a film very dear to my heart, so my initial response was Why?! Why is there a sequel? But then when the cityscape of Rome came on the screen, that response just melted away and I became engrossed in the spectacle on screen. I can’t wait to see how they link this to the previous film and pick up the themes laid out – the glory of Rome, the desire for a quiet life away from the hub of power, the ideological beacon of ‘the Republic’.
Did anything immediately jump out as accurate or inaccurate/anachronistic eg events, clothing?
JB: Paul Mescal’s Lucius appears to have become a gladiator after being captured in a violent conquest of Numidia in northwestern Africa – but this area had been part of the Roman world for centuries by the time the film is set, and it is difficult to imagine scenes like those shown in the trailer playing out as a result of Severan political reorganisation in the region. Elements of the dress seem problematic, particularly the wristbands that seem to be compulsory for everyone who owns a sword! The accents are an interesting mix, but I actually quite like this, as it is a useful reminder that the ‘Romans’ were not a homogenous population, but came from an empire which stretched from Britain across Europe, the near east, and northern Africa – why people would be expected t have the same accents is beyond me (and even if they did, a modern American accent is no less accurate a representation than a classic British one!)
AS: Nobody is topless! Gladiators wore nothing to protect their torsos, because that would be seen as making the fight too easy. Pedro and Paul should also be carrying shields, because gladiators carried those instead of having chest armour. The cool thing is that the shield could be used offensively, almost like a second weapon, and it makes fights more interesting because both arms are in play. I can understand not putting famous movie stars in helmets that cover their face, but these guys should be showing a lot of bare chest. No doubt many in the cinema wouldn't mind, either... The characterisation of Caracalla and Geta (Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn) is a bit strange; they look and act more like Nero and Caligula stereotypes than the actual Severans. Also, they're conspicuously pale: both brothers were actually half Libyan, half Syrian. There were many people of colour in the Roman world, and it's a shame to whitewash emperors who we know had darker skin. I'm excited to see Denzel Washington in the cast though, his character seems really intriguing.
OR: I mean, a guy is riding a rhino! But really the big one that stands out is the depiction of Caracalla and Geta. They seem to be a caricature of many ‘bad emperors’ rolled into one, and the choice to cast such pale actors is an interesting one in this day and age. But we shall see when the film comes out how their characters are fleshed out. It is unfair to judge it from a few moments in an advert!
Was the Colosseum ever filled with water and used to stage maritime battles?
JB: Absolutely – naumachia were popular and spectacular (if very expensive and logistically challenging) events put on to entertain the people of Rome on special occasions. Naumachiae were staged by the earliest emperors of Rome, although until the reign of Nero they didn’t take place in amphitheatres but on lakes or in specially-constructed basins. The Colosseum became a dedicated venue for naumachiae, and one even featured in its inauguration in AD 80 during the reign of the emperor Titus – but we have little idea of how they filled the arena with water for the battle, and it was probably done to the minimum level possible to make the ships float! They seem to have been particularly popular in the late C1st and earlier C2nd AD, in the first decades after the Colosseum was built; there are few descriptions of them in ancient historical sources after this date – but this does not necessarily mean that they stopped being held, only that people stopped describing them as an unusual phenomenon.
AS: Yes, this is absolutely true! The ship battles were called a naumachia, which is a Greek loan word literally meaning 'naval battle.' The first one was presented by none other than Julius Caesar, before the Colosseum was built. He constructed an artificial lake purely for one show! His heir Augustus presented them too, and they became wildly popular. Once they moved into the Colosseum, the naumachiae became much smaller, because the arena can only fit a few ships. It's a shame Ridley Scott didn't make this a prequel, because Augustus' naumachia had 30 ships! Paul Mescal's character wouldn't have fought in naumachiae though, instead of trained (read - expensive) gladiators, Romans used prisoners of war and condemned criminals, and we can deduce from this that few were expected to survive, if any. It's also worth mentioning that the naumachia of Claudius on the Fucine Lake was the only recorded instance of participants saying "we who are about to die salute you." Gladiators did not have to say this.
OR: I will leave that to the two experts! (But yes, and it is so cool)
Would gladiators have actually fought rhinos... or sharks?
JB: Roman audiences liked novelty in their beast shows, and there were few animals they would not consider putting in the arena – there was a lucrative trade in sourcing animals for this very purpose, and the more exotic, the better. The animals did not even have to be particularly ferocious as long as they were unusual – animals like giraffes also featured alongside more ‘classic’ wild animals such as lions or bears.
AS: Gladiators only ever fought other gladiators. But there were people who fought with or hunted animals in the arena; they were known as venatores and bestiarii. Their training was very specific and they even had their own separate school in Rome. It wasn't usual for a gladiator to face animals, just as you wouldn't want a pop singer to perform an opera. The notes may be in tune, but the style and technique is totally different. We do know that rhinos were presented in Rome. Pompey Magnus was the first known to import one. The emperor Commodus (portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in the first film) had one imported so that he himself could kill it in the Colosseum (he shot arrows at it from a platform so that he was never in any danger...) As for sharks, we're going into fantasy territory here. The Romans grew very skilled at collecting and transporting all manner of wild animals, particularly from Africa, but had no way of catching sharks, bringing them to Rome and keeping them somewhere before a Games. On the other hand, if they could have they undoubtedly would have and thought it was awesome, so maybe this is cinematic wish fulfilment for dead guys.
OR: Animals were seen in the arena, but it was not the same gladiators who did the fighting. Our term gladiator is an oversimplification for what the Romans had in the arena.
What are the most common misunderstandings, misconceptions or myths about Gladiators?
JB: There are a fair few – that the defeated gladiator was always, or even usually, killed is a major inaccuracy – acquiring and training a gladiator was an expensive business, and they had to feature in multiple fights for their owners to start recouping that money. Some gladiator tombstones mention how many fights they had been in, and many had draws and defeats in their records – losing a fight did not automatically lead to death. At certain times, games were held where many gladiators would be killed, but these were the exception rather than the rule, and generally held by an emperor as a spectacular event rather than as ‘normal’ gladiatorial business. Many gladiators actually won their freedom from the arena, sometimes after only a handful of fights – one tombstone records a gladiator who only fought 5 times before being liberated – it was not as unusual as the film suggests! Another big myth is that the signal to kill a defeated gladiator was a thumbs-down – we actually have little clear evidence on what gesture was used as many Roman writers simply refer to a ‘hostile thumb’ – but thumbs-up more likely meant death for a gladiator, not life.
AS: I think the myth that every fight ended in death is fading now, so I'll say that the biggest misconception for me is that the Games were just a mindless bloodbath and that spectators were bloodthirsty psychopaths. In the trailer we see Pedro Pascal dispatch a handful of opponents in a matter of seconds, and in the first movie Russell Crowe kills 6 gladiators in 36 seconds. Romans would have absolutely hated this. They liked to watch one-on-one combats that were very evenly matched, that lasted 10-15 minutes. They liked to watch skills and tactics rather than a massacre. There were also rules and referees who would pause the fight if a rule got broken. Think about it this way; they were just as interested in seeing how a skilled fighter could prevent their own death, as well as how they could cause one. Strategies and signature moves would then be forensically debated in the tavern afterwards with their friends. Blood wasn't spilled indiscriminately to please the public; gladiators were experts who provided a people obsessed with warfare with demonstrations of combat.
OR: The thumbs up-thumbs down signal. This is a modern attempt to depict very vague Latin expressions – turn of the thumb, and a hostile thumb - which suggests the thumb was used in some way. But we don’t really know how. The other one is definitely the gladiator’s salute (‘We who are about to die salute you’). This does not appear in our evidence for gladiatorial bouts because, as Jo and Alexandra say, gladiators would rarely expect to die. The only known instance of the expression being said comes from a mock naval battle where all the combatants were condemned criminals. So not your usual gladiators at all.
What about common myths/misconceptions about the Romans in general?
JB: One big one – repeated in the Gladiator II trailer – is that the Roman world was colourless, when we know that statues and buildings were garishly painted in a range of bright colours. Buildings such as the Colosseum and the statues set into its niches would have been a riot of reds, blues, yellows, and more – but they are always shown in the pale tones they have faded to in the modern day. Also, the idea that Rome attempted to ‘Romanize’ every population it came into contact with across its empire, to make everyone live in the same way as Rome did – in reality, as long as you paid your taxes and didn’t cause problems for the administration, Rome had no problem with provincial populations living in the ways they had done before conquest; in many of the frontier provinces, particularly in somewhere like Britain, archaeology shows that life changed very little for rural populations across the pre-Roman and Roman periods. And also, that they only drank wine, not beer – records show the latter was very popular, particularly among soldiers!
AS: Tying in to their mythical lust for blood, is the misconception that they spent all their time at feasts and orgies. The Romans got a bit of a collective character assassination by early Christian writers, who were admittedly very prudish, but also had a habit of exaggeration. Christian writers had a clear motive for making pagan Romans look like the bad guys, so we should take what they say with a pinch of salt. Sure, Roman attitudes to war and sex are different from ours today, but they're definitely not as debauched as early Christians would have you believe. Apart from the odd emperor, of course.
OR: A lack of colour on the buildings and artwork is definitely one of them. Another would be the idea that Romans are a specific ethnicity. By the height of the Empire, to be Roman could mean coming from anywhere between northern England to Morocco, or from Spain to Syria. That is why I like the use of different accents that Gladiator II seems to have. While many may find it jarring (historical authenticity is about the audience’s perceptions rather than accuracy, after all), it could highlight the varied cultures and languages within the Roman Empire.
Do you have a favorite myth about the Romans or a biggest bugbear/misconception?
JB: That Roman soldiers did not get married! Legally, until the Severan era (around the time Gladiator II is set, actually!) Roman soldiers below a certain rank were not legally allowed to get married, and a lot of previous scholarship has assumed that they followed this law – but in reality, soldiers had families that were technically illegitimate in the eyes of the law, but genuine in every other way, they just ignored the law!
AS: For me, it's that the Roman army was some kind of invincible juggernaut. The Romans were at war a lot, and invested heavily in their military, but they were defeated on many occasions and sometimes pretty catastrophically. In fact, some of their greatest defeats lead to the most fascinating chapters of their history.
OR: That everyone spoken Latin, all the time. Some of our best evidence for this period comes to us in Greek, written by ordinary people just getting on with their lives. And of course local languages and dialects continued to be used as well.
What did you think of the original Gladiator movie?
JB: I absolutely adored the original Gladiator film – I went to see it in the cinema with family, and loved it so much I went back a few days later to watch it by myself! It isn’t an entirely historically-accurate film, but it did an amazing job of capturing the emotion of the gladiatorial experience, and demonstrating the dangers that came with a bad emperor on the throne – and the German battle scenes at the start are just a classic piece of cinema that should be watched by everyone with an interest in the Roman army!
AS: I've seen it more times than I could count, which should answer the question. It's very much historical fiction, and the sequel even moreso from what I can tell, but you can't deny that Gladiator was a cinematic event. There are obviously anachronisms in the plot, the costumes, the set... but it is nonetheless epic and truly evocative. It captures the sense of scale in ancient Rome. The ruins there today only hint at how truly monumental the buildings in the city were, so seeing them recreated is an absolute treat.
OR: Awe inspiring. Epoch defining cinema. A perfect example of how historical fiction can be done to breathtaking effect. It struck an important balance between presenting an alien world in a way that we, the audience, could relate to. It is the only historical film I have ever seen where the masterful storytelling and cinematography overwhelm the historical inaccuracies, to such an extent that I have yet to meet an ancient historian who moans or even comments about the errors when it comes up.