One might be able to say that those who created “Gladiator” completely disregarded history and facts to create a sensational, bloody, massively inaccurate film about Ancient Rome. This would not be entirely correct, as the film does get some facts and depictions correct. However, to look at this movie as a Classicist is to judge it as one. To be sure, there are numerous inaccuracies, not to mention its vast goofs in setting, visible equipment, wardrobe, and weaponry. It seems highly improbable that this film won the Best Costume Oscar, as well as an award for best editing and 43 other film awards if a Classicist had been judging. To judge a film at all is to look at its plot and story and characterization. From a completely uneducated standpoint, “Gladiator” is a very good movie about standing up for your beliefs in the face of all odds. From the view of a Classicist who is familiar with Roman history and life, the movie failed in many respects. However, one must consider what is achieved for classics through a presentation of the life and times of Ancient Rome.
           Primarily, it is difficult to look past the obvious flaw that the story in the movie did not happen. Some minor details were correct, but the overall arc of the story is nowhere to be seen.  The real story is even somewhat more sensational, though not as uplifting. Could the film have shown Commodus skillfully hacking his way through 620 alleged gladiatorial battles? Could it have accurately described his life and death, his ridiculous reign over Rome which scholars suggest sent Rome down the toilet? In reality, Emperor Commodus was co-emperor with his father for a time before Marcus Aurelius’ death. He also helped in the battles, despite the movie’s implication that Commodus was absent from the fighting.  After his ascension to the throne, Commodus proceeded to give many lavish games at the expense of his treasury and his senators own pockets, which explains the tension between the two sides. He himself fought in the arena against gladiators, much to the cynicism of nearly everyone.  His personification of Hercules to the extent of wearing skins and carrying a club is absent from the film, despite its entertaining qualities. The film hints that Commodus is a bad man, but does not show the depths to which he was a bad Emperor. He renamed the months after himself and even the great city of Rome. He re-founded it with himself as head of religion, life, and politics. He was not killed in the conspiracy of his sister, but lived on many years and was finally assassinated in the baths. This story is even more sensational and entertaining than the one the film presents, but less motivational because modern audiences want the same thing the ancient arena audience did: blood, guts, and glory. Maximus gives all of these things, as well as the message of personal perseverance and the American idea of pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps. American audiences love a good underdog, and the idea of a slave overthrowing the oppressive ruler is the epitome of this.
              Aside from the storyline, a number of purely technical mistakes are blatant. These detract from the movie only insofar as from a Classicist’s point of view. Does it matter that the weapons and attire are not correct? That the armies would have first thrown their pila instead of merely holding them does not make the battle less exciting. Even if the Roman army would have been far better trained at holding their formation instead of breaking apart at first contact, it does not change the fact that the army in the movie still won, just as the historical army did.  Despite the fact that a Roman soldier would not have readily gone to man-to-man combat with the superior Germanian soldiers, Rome is portrayed at winning so gloriously. These flaws could have easily been fixed with more research into the weapons and wardrobe actually used by the Romans in the time. If one can find a 7th century Saxon helmet for a 1st century gladiator to wear, could it not have been just as easy to find a replica of the real helmet that would have been used? The fighting style is standard and perhaps even easier to fix, though it does not give as many insights into the delightfully glorious Maximus as having him singlehandedly defeat so many opponents. These mistakes are trivial, yet these should have been the easy things to get right. If nothing else in the movie were correct these easily could have been without taking anything away from the entertainment value of the film.
           Within the construct of the story, there are some accuracies to be commended, despite the plethora of inaccuracies. For instance, the film’s creators captured the essence of the Coliseum (though it would not have been called such at this time). The raw brutality and swooning crowds are depicted faithfully. The plot against the life of Commodus by his sister did actually occur (though in history it failed rather than succeeding and his sister Lucille was executed). Commodus was accused of incestuous relationships (though oddly with every sister but Lucille). The movie did show Commodus fighting in one-to-one gladiatorial combat, which is historically accurate. Marcus Aurelius was a good emperor and the last beacon of hope in the empire. He is considered the last of the five “good emperors” and was as studious and philosophizing as he is depicted. Commodus was as well loved by the mob as he was hated by the senate. The creators illustrated how fickle the mob was, that they loved the blood and horror of the arena and adored those who distracted them with brutal games.  However, these few correct items hardly detract from the overwhelming number of fallacies in the film.
         Many of the mistakes in the movie seem quite purposeful and have reason. For instance, it is clearly a mistake that the wooden sword of Proximo says “MARCUS AURELIUS FECIT” instead of “MARCVSAVRELIVSFECIT” as it should. However, a modern audience would not understand that there was no “u” in the Roman alphabet at this time, nor would they be able to understand that all the words would be crammed together.  Moreover, the average moviegoer does not read Latin either, so it shouldn’t matter whether the words are discernable.  Saddles and stirrups would not have been used, yet these were put in place for safety purposes. This is excusable but does not explain why the horse onto which Maximus leaps after destroying the chariot it was pulling would have a saddle. Indeed, it must be considered that some creative liberties must be granted to those who entertain. The purpose of this film was to entertain and classicists are as entertained by this film as the arena mob was by their own gladiatorial show.  “Gladiator” gives to modern audiences what real gladiatorial fights gave to ancient ones, entertaining violence and bloodshed.
       The character of Maximus exists nowhere in history, yet for modern audiences he represents what is good and right about Rome. He sought, not personal glory, but the glory of Rome.  He fought and died that Rome could thrive. This is the attitude which prevails about Rome, that the glory and honor and vitality of Rome are somehow greater than anything those living today could experience.  This aids the classics in that if people continue to believe that Ancient Rome was the Golden Age of humanity, the study of it will continue. Indeed, scholars reflect that the popularity of this film perpetuated new interest in classics which opened the doors for more funding, classes, books, and materials. Indeed, one must consider that despite its many failings, “Gladiator” helped the area of Classics to continue to survive in an increasingly modern world.