Unpacking the Hype: Gladiator 2’s Cinematic Daring vs. Historical Truth
Well, well, well, look what’s trotted back into the spotlight: Gladiator 2! A film that promises to drag us back into the sandy arena with a little help from virtual steroids. You know, because if a lion isn’t growling while juiced up to the max, is it even really a lion? And let’s be honest: If you’re looking for an impeccable cinematic reconstruction of history, you might as well be searching for a unicorn in Times Square at rush hour. But who’s actually surprised? After all, the Romans were more about blood and spectacle than historical accuracy. Oh, but we can’t forget those ferocious beasts: a real dietary disaster for the audience’s imagination!
Did Someone Say “Historical Accuracy”? Ain’t Nobody Got Time for That!
Now, according to historian Éric Teyssier – who not only reviewed the film but should probably get a medal for surviving it – there was a certain level of realism that snuck its way onto the screen. Apparently, Gladiator 2 occurred around the year 211 CE, which is approximately twenty years after the first installment. You’d think they’d at least manage to get the timeline right! Just like that old history professor who suddenly decides to become an archaeology re-enactor after watching a movie. I guess for some, the transition from boring economic history to fighting in an arena was just one popcorn bag away.
Make History Entertaining — Because Who Needs Actual Facts?
But let’s get down to the nitty-gritty: Are amateur historians clapping back at the screen? Teyssier mentions that the film pulls some rather absurd stunts, like trying to splash around with sharks in the Colosseum. What next? Will they throw a whale in there? A fight between a rhinoceros and a killer whale seems like the next Hollywood pitch. Why not? The Colosseum’s looking a bit bare, and we all know that any excuse for a CGI shark is a good excuse! Besides, wouldn’t crocodiles provide a little more authenticity? I mean, how can we recreate the thrill of history without the risk of losing a leg to an oversized gator?
Blood, Sweat, and Twice the Cheese
Speaking of gladiators, Teyssier dives into a beautifully messy blend of gladiatorial eras. You’ve got your slaves who battled it out because, let’s face it, the Romans needed to “destock” as it were. Those poor souls were basically a human meat pie for public entertainment—a little less glory, a little more grizzly. Honestly, the thought of gladiators stepping into the ring for applause while desperately craving for their Freedom Snack is too much. “Win five duels, and you might get a latte and a life sentence in that fancy gladiator villa!”
Animals, Emperors, and That Good Ol’ Roman Bloodlust
Then there’s our delightful tour through Roman politics. I mean, really? You think the lanists (those lovely marketplace gladiator merchants) could just waltz into power? Please! Can you imagine a butcher suddenly being named Prime Minister? That’d be like appointing the school lunch lady as the head of the FDA. And as for those rabid baboons and rhinoceroses tearing it up in the arena—good luck feeding that idea to an audience looking for their next popcorn crunch! The Roman emperors were more interested in blood lust than animal antics, anyway. You bet they’d much prefer a thrilling duel over watching a confused baboon swinging its fists.
So, What’s the Bottom Line?
In the end, Gladiator 2 might not win any awards for historical accuracy, but it could blossom through sheer entertainment. It leads us into a whirlwind where we can at least admire the oddities of Roman spectacle. Not every film needs to be a fact-check; sometimes, we just want to be entertained. Just don’t try to take this film as your personal guide to ancient Rome—unless your weekend plans involve battling in a replica Colosseum with questionable CGI sidekicks!
So grab your popcorn, sit back, and indulge in the guilty pleasure that is Gladiator 2. But remember: You might just need a reality check on the way out!
In good blockbuster that he is, Gladiator 2 is far, very far, from offering a fine cinematographic reconstruction of one of the most sulfurous and fantasized parts of the history of the Roman Empire: the gladiator. But who is surprised? And above all, who cares?
Yes, the film uses and abuses shortcuts, anachronisms and exaggerations of all kinds, particularly when it comes to throwing ferocious beasts stuffed with virtual steroids into the arena. But after all, its primary mission is to provide its audience with a great show. Nevertheless, Gladiator 2 sometimes depicts with a certain realism a period which, according to historian Éric Teyssier, is too rare in cinema (the plot takes place around the year 211, approximately twenty years after that of the first part). For Science and Futurethe author of Gladiators (published on October 30, 2024 by Glénat), who was able to see the film before its release, disentangles the truth from the falsehood.
Sciences et Avenir: Personally, what did you think of the film, eagerly awaited by the many spectators who loved the first Gladiator ?
Eric Teyssier: I must already tell you that I am one of these spectators, not to say absolute fans of Gladiator. This film even changed my life because at the time of its release, in 2000, I was a history lecturer on a completely different subject: the economic and social history of the French Revolution and the Empire. I loved the film so much that I got into re-enactment archaeology, which is an experimental discipline applied to gladiators.
I then ended up devoting my state thesis to these same gladiators with a view to obtaining my Habilitation to Direct Research (HDR, the highest level of qualification in the French university system, editor’s note). So it’s an understatement to say that I was waiting for this sequel.
Unfortunately, it didn’t thrill me as much, firstly because there was no longer the element of surprise from the first time. And there is no longer the exceptional Russell Crowe, even if the actors are good. I still had a good time because the film remains for me good entertainment which allows us to talk about history and especially about a period that we see too little in the cinema.
“A naval battle really took place at the Colosseum during its inauguration”
Ignoring, of course, the film’s historical aberrations specific to the Hollywood style, did any of its aspects strike you with its realism?
The arena had been filled with water via the city’s highly developed aqueduct system. But this could only happen this time because then the basement spaces dedicated to stage effects were developed. So why not this scene, but why use sharks? It’s stupid and a shame. They could have added crocodiles, at the limit…
Read alsoDachshund bones and remains of “snacks” found in the sewers of the Colosseum in Rome
How is the film about gladiators?
In fact, it mixes two eras of gladiatorial art. A first which lasted until the greatest slave uprising that the Roman Republic had known, between 73 and 71 BC, and of which the gladiator of Thracian origin Spartacus was at the origin. During this first period, the vast majority of gladiators were prisoners of war forced to fight in the arena. Moreover, these prisoners are so numerous that gladiator shows are a very profitable way of getting rid of them, of “destocking” as I say.
This sad condition will therefore be one of the reasons for the slave revolt of 73, and the emperor will realize that it is dangerous to keep thousands of men locked up with the prospect that they will kill each other for pleasure. of the people.
From there, gladiatorship will evolve. Gladiators are no longer prisoners and slaves but paid volunteers, the most successful – and the most famous – of whom are sometimes paid very dearly. They are hired, with supporting contracts, by lanists, or trainer in Latin, who are roughly merchants and owners of a troop of gladiators called a gladiatorial family.
They all train together, supervised by a “doctor” (doctors), term used to designate coaches. During these sessions, their weapons are fake because there is no question of being injured. The goal is to push their technical skills to the maximum and win fights just like boxers do today. The film is therefore a mixture of these two parts of the gladiatorial story.
Lucius is promised that he can regain his freedom by winning victories in the arena. Was this really a way for the forced gladiators to become free men again?
Unfortunately, we have less information on the period of forced gladiatorship, which I also call “ethnic”, than on the second. What we know is that the gladiators were shown there in their original equipment, that is to say in the combat outfit of the people to which they belonged. We thus found in the arena Samnites, Gauls, Thracians and even Germans, with all their paraphernalia. We also know that gladiator trainers also existed at this time, and that they had undoubtedly been talented gladiators themselves in the past.
In short, their lives had been preserved so that they could pass on their techniques to other slaves. So if they could not escape truly free from this condition, they could at least emerge alive. You know, the Romans were not looking for blood and death at all costs. Above all, they wanted to admire the technical gesture, the bravery and the courage. Hence the presence of coaches.
Read alsoDiscovery in Pompeii of the tomb of a rich patron who organized gladiator fights
“There were many human/animal spectacles (…): those of those condemned to death thrown to the animals”
How did you end up performing in front of the emperor at the Colosseum in Rome?
By having the best possible track record, quite simply. We will rarely put in the arena a gladiator who is starting his career against someone who already has 15 victories to his credit. The emperor had his own champions who fought against other lanist champions and sometimes things went wrong… Caligula for example was very angry when his foal was defeated by another, to the point that he poisoned the winner.
But other emperors played the game, let’s say they had “sportsmanship”. Vespasian, in particular, followed the people and often ended up supporting the one for whom the public was enthusiastic. This is a bit like what the phrase “bread and circuses” means. At a time in the Empire when democracy no longer existed, the only thing left for the people to express themselves was during shows.
In the film we see rabid baboons and rhinoceroses fighting in the arena. Were these animals really used?
Baboons this mad don’t exist, right? (Laughs). Here again, the film mixes things up. There were professionals who fought against animals, often wild animals. But gladiators fought between men. These two professions never mixed. On the other hand, there were many human/animal spectacles, the cruelest: those of those condemned to death thrown to the animals.
Regarding the fauna that may have ended up in the amphitheaters, it was a bit nonsense. In Rome, the emperor had the means to bring in just about anything he wanted, which meant lions, tigers, and sometimes, yes, rhinoceroses. We know in particular that a rhinoceros was one day attached to a wild bull to provoke their inevitable – and very sad – fight… In the provinces, less expensive animals such as bulls or bears were instead brought into the arenas. But just as capable of killing men.
Finally, let’s talk a little about the brother emperors, Geta and Caracalla…
Once again, what we see of them is half true. These brothers only governed together for a few months, probably at a distance from each other. Upon his death in 211 CE, Septimius Severus, their father, expressed the wish that his two sons would succeed him and rule together. Which, of course, was not viable, especially since Geta and Caracalla had never had the complicity that the film attributes to them.
They had always hated each other. Besides, they were terrified of being poisoned by one or the other. Caracalla, who was a real thick brute, ended up stabbing his brother in their mother’s arms. To be sure, Caracalla’s angry and cruel temperament is not exaggerated in the film. Geta was more gentle and level-headed.
We still want to ask the question: what do you think is the greatest historical inconsistency in the film?
Without hesitation, the fact that a lanist could seize power. This would have been simply impossible during the time of the Empire. Lanists are men with a troubled aura. They trade in blood and repel society in the same way that butchers and undertakers can be repulsed today, in certain aspects. Paradoxically, they are also admired as artists or great sportsmen. In any case, they have nothing to do with power.
Out any animal imaginable from the far reaches of the empire, including lions, bears, and even elephants for battles. However, the bizarre creatures seen in *Gladiator 2*, like rabid baboons, stretch historical credibility to the limit. The spectacles were grand, but they adhered to a level of realism that the filmmakers seem to have ignored in pursuit of visual spectacle.
It’s important to clarify that the actual gladiatorial games were primarily about human combat, with the audience drawn by the skill and valor of the gladiators rather than a menagerie of wild beasts. The mix of different elements in the film—like the anachronistic representations of ancient Rome—dilutes the impact of what could have been a nuanced portrayal of gladiatorial life.
Comparing Reality to Film
As much as *Gladiator 2* aims to entertain, it often loses sight of the rich history it could have drawn from. The gladiatorial games were complex social events that reflected aspects of Roman culture, politics, and social hierarchy. The film’s decision to include such fantastical elements may draw viewers in, but it also detracts from a deeper exploration of the era.
While some historical liberties are expected in epic storytelling, an accurate portrayal could add depth and intrigue that a purely sensational approach lacks. The story of gladiators is one intertwined with concepts of freedom, survival, and the very fabric of Roman society. By glossing over these themes in favor of exaggerated theatrics, *Gladiator 2* risks missing the opportunity to enrich our understanding of history while entertaining us.
Ultimately, when stepping into the arena for a viewing, remember that while the film may be a fun ride filled with action-packed sequences, the true essence of gladiatorial life remains a tale worth telling with authenticity and respect. So, enjoy the show, but perhaps pair it with a book or documentary for a more rounded grasp of what the past truly entailed.
