Ridley Scott’s Gladiator takes place during the second century AD of the Roman Empire. It begins during the reign of the Emperor-Philosopher Marcus Aurelius, a sickly man fighting the Germanic barbarians hounding the extensive borders of the empire. Wishing to see Rome return to the purer days of its republic rather than give his son Commodus the title of Emperor, Marcus designates his favorite general, Maximus, to see that Rome is given back to the Senate. Commodus, hearing of the plan to oust him, murders his father and sends Maximus to be killed. But, the general escapes, wounded, and ends up in a slave market in an African province of Rome. It’s there that he is bought by a Gladiator trainer. Desperate for his revenge, Maximus is determined to work his way up in Gladiatorial fame that so that fate would one day place him side by side with the Emperor Commodus. Then, he could seek revenge. Within this intricate plot of murder, betrayal, and revenge, how good is the film Gladiator from a historical standpoint?

The Roman Empire is portrayed, as much as a film can portray anything with pictures instead of words, as a massive body of land so large that it’s made up of a variety of people and places that would otherwise have no connection with one other. To understand the power of the Roman Empire is to know how large and encompassing it was. Scott shows the extent of Rome through the varied locations his scenes take place in. The movie begins in the unpopulated forest lands where a war with the Germanic people is being fought. Then, there is the glorious capital with tall buildings and the famous Colosseum. Stretching the empire even further, the film takes the viewer to Africa, to a place so unlike the capital yet still a part of the same empire, and to farmland in Spain. This gives scope to the true size of the empire, which serves to reflect the majesty of its time.

But to tell the story, Scott did have to sacrifice a lot of fact and history. The plot would not have run so smoothly, or been as interesting if he had not done so. For example, the film begins with a major battle between the Germanic barbarians and the Roman troops. The Emperor sits on the sidelines watching. In reality, no major battle such as this took place before the death of Marcus Aurelius. But, the film-maker could hardly stick to historical accuracy and show a series of small battles. It would have nothing to do with the plot, stretch the movie out in time, and no doubt bore many viewers. Instead, Scott made a compromise between history and entertainment, and condensed it all into one action packed scene that served the purpose of informing viewers that Rome was, in fact, having trouble with outside barbarians. It also expressed Rome’s constant quest to expand itself, and show the differences between the Roman army and others of the time. It was short, sweet, encompassing, and effective. Real history, unfortunately, would not have been.

Scott also sacrifices history in his characterizations. Maximus is an entirely made up character. That the plot centers around him automatically means that the plot is also highly made up of fiction. But Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are real figures in Roman history. Just as the movie portrayed him, Marcus Aurelius is a philosopher who fought the Germanic barbarians to preserve his empire. And Commodus was a youth that loved the blood and sport of the gladiator arena. These are truths. But, Scott took license with his depictions of these historical figures. Marcus Aurelius never wished to see Rome return to the Senate. Also untrue to history, Commodus didn’t kill his father to become Emperor. He had ruled jointly with him from the age of 16. But once again, true history had to be compromised for the sake of entertainment. It suffices simply to describe Gladiator’s versions of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus as characters loosely based on real people, but characters of their own.

What about the film’s center focus of action, the gladiator battles themselves? The spirit of spectator sport was captured perfectly by the film-maker. People cheered on the gladiators before and during the battle, and packed in the massive Colosseum, where they received bread and entertainment. He shows the brutality of the gladiator sport, which is effective in itself, but this is not a completely accurate picture. It would seem that Roman’s are bloody thirsty people who cheer as men are slaughtered, but Scott fails to convey that Roman’s took pleasure in the skill of the games, and enjoyed that more than the blood and gore that came along with it. Gladiator battles were organized events with specific costumes, weapons, and pairings. The average viewer watching the film is hardly interested in the fine details of costume and organization. The point is that they are caught up in the action. And, Scott does redeem himself by showing the wide variety of games that the Roman’s could attend: one-on-one battles, group battles, chariots, and beasts.

It is important to remember that the point of Gladiator is not to tell a story about Rome, but to use Rome as a loose context for a story only partially based on truth. Gladiator is not a movie meant to teach, but to entertain, and therefore should not be used as a tool to teach history. Ridley Scott is not trying to say anything about Rome itself in the film, and he focuses his perspective on aspects of human nature. Gladiator finds its merit in the same place most other historical movies finds theirs in: the fact that these movies help develop an interest in history. And, at least knowing something about Rome, albeit a little lacking in historical fact, is better than knowing nothing at all. Perhaps the little taste of Rome that Gladiator provides is enough to inspire people to go out and seek the truth.