Differences in the Movie Gladiator from the Real Life and Reign of Commodus - Essay Example

Not Based On a True Story: Differences in the Movie “Gladiator” from the Real Life and Reign of Commodus The 2000 hit movie “Gladiator”, starring Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, is an exciting adventure for fans of action movies, but is not at all an accurate depiction of the history of the reign of the Roman Emperor Commodus. To be fair, recounting the events of the entire 12-year period of Commodus’ rule in a little less than three hours would be difficult. Nonetheless, the true story is nearly as interesting as the fictional movie version, perhaps more so because of the character of Commodus himself. Far from being the incestuous, mentally-unbalanced villain portrayed in the movie, he was a complex personality who was actually quite popular with the Roman people for much of his reign. The movie tells the story of a fictional Roman general, Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe), a trusted officer of the aged and dying Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Shortly after defeating an army of Gauls, Maximus is asked by the Emperor to take temporary control of the Empire, return to Rome, and re-establish rule by the Roman Senate. The Emperor’s indolent and jealous son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) kills his father upon hearing of the offer and attempts to enlist Maximus’ loyalty. Maximus refuses and narrowly escapes being executed, but upon returning to his home in Spain discovers that Commodus has had his wife and son brutally murdered. Captured by slave traders, Maximus is forced to join a band of gladiators in Africa, where he quickly gains popularity for his skill as a fighter. Maximus and his gladiator companions eventually are brought to Rome to perform in the games held by the new Emperor Commodus. Commodus discovers that Maximus is still alive, but dares not have him killed outright because of the gladiator’s enormous popularity. Maximus learns that his old legion is near the city, and conspires with Commodus’ sister Lucilla and a Senator named Gracchus to overthrow Commodus and have his revenge. Commodus learns of the plot and has Maximus arrested, and decides to settle the matter by personally fighting Maximus in the arena. To give himself an advantage Commodus stabs Maximus with a dagger and orders the wound hidden, but is defeated and killed by Maximus anyway. Mortally wounded himself, Maximus orders his gladiator companions released and directs Senator Gracchus to take control of the government, thus honouring the Emperor Aurelius’ wishes, then passes away to join his wife and son in the afterlife. (IMDb, 2008) The events that establish Commodus as the “bad guy” in the movie were his late arrival to the scene of the decisive battle, and his subsequent murder of Marcus Aurelius. History records that Marcus Aurelius died in March 180 at an encampment called Bononia, which is probably the modern-day Bulgarian town of Vidin along the Danube River. (Wikipedia, 2009) He was not, however, murdered by his son, but most likely died of the plague. Commodus was not present at the time, which had caused some to suspect him of having something to do with his father’s death, but was probably out of fear of catching the same illness rather than any plot on his part. As it happened, Marcus Aurelius declared Commodus his successor and commended him to the care of the army before his death, thus eliminating any question of his son’s legitimacy. (Birley, 1987) Commodus entered Rome in triumph in October 180 after ending the long-running war with the Marcomanni along the Danube through negotiation rather than battle, which was the beginning of his strained relationship with the Roman Senate. The move was popular with the army and the lower classes, however, and revealed a certain shrewdness in Commodus; the treasury and the Empire’s manpower resources had been strained by the conflict, and ending it was not only popular but practical. (UNRV History, n.d.) So too was his reputation for generosity, which he had cultivated from a very young age and which manifested itself in frequent hand-outs to the lower classes as well as an ambitious building program. (Quinn, 1999) The contemporary historians of Rome who depict Commodus as a sadistic, profligate ruler of low morals were all members of the patrician class – the same class of people who filled the Senate that hated the young Emperor. This description from the Historia Augusta is typical of the contempt with which the historians regarded Commodus: “For even from his earliest years he was base and dishonourable, and cruel and lewd, defiled of mouth, moreover, and debauched. Even then he was an adept in certain arts which are not becoming in an emperor, for he could mould goblets and dance and sing and whistle, and he could play the buffoon and the gladiator to perfection.” (“The Life of Commodus”, 2007) Thus it is a bit difficult to separate fact from fiction concerning Commodus’ true character; just as the movie “Gladiator” seems to embellish on history, so do the original historians. There are some parts of the Commodus legend depicted in the movie that are apparently true. Many histories record that he was fond of the gladiatorial games and did in fact personally participate in them, something which was considered a bit unseemly for an Emperor. The reason for this was his personal association with the god Hercules – many statues of Commodus wearing a lion-skin in the fashion of Hercules were made – and besides whatever personal enjoyment he took from combat in the arena, his performances served to embellish the idea. (Quinn, 1999) Other parts of the movie plot are completely fabricated, however. None of the histories, even those that are particularly unkind to Commodus, mention an incestuous relationship with his sister Lucilla as the movie implies. Lucilla, in fact, did not survive her brother, having been implicated in a conspiracy early in his reign (around the year 182) and exiled to Capri, where she was later killed. (“The Life of Commodus”, 2007) If the histories are accurate, Commodus’ real sexual preferences were even more salacious than portrayed in the movie. He is often described as participating in “debauchery”, and much of the discord between him and the Senate was blamed on a favourite male lover, a certain Saoterus, whose murder by the palace guard provoked a savage reaction by the Emperor. (“The Life of Commodus”, 2007) The plot that ended Commodus’ life and his reign was likewise a Hollywood invention in the movie, with only the barest connection to the actual history. Just as there was no “Maximus Decimus Meridius”, there was no “Senator Gracchus”, either – the famous Gracchus brothers lived in the time of the Republic, more than 300 years before Commodus. (“Gracchus”, 2006) Commodus’ successor, Pertinax, was a Senator and the urban of Rome, but he apparently had no part in the actual plot. (Meckler, 1997) The plotters were actually members of the Imperial household, who feared Commodus’ increasingly erratic behaviour; his murderer was a slave, a Greek named Narcissus, who strangled the Emperor in his bath. (Quinn, 1999) Commodus’ poor reputation was cemented for eternity by the reaction of the Senate to his death. He was declared a pariah and subjected to the Damnatio memoriae, the removal of his name from all public places, coins, and proclamations, his statues thrown down, and his body dug up and dragged through the streets. (“The Life of Commodus”, 2007, and Lendering, n.d.) The megalomaniac behaviour that Commodus had shown in the last years of his reign, such as naming Rome, the Senate, the army, and all the months of the calendar after himself (“The Life of Commodus”, 2007) was offensive to the Senate, but there were practical reasons for their displeasure as well. The economy of the Empire was in poor condition by 192 due to a debasement of the currency in 190 and wild price fluctuations for staple goods. (Quinn, 1999, and Lendering, n.d.) In addition, Commodus’ policy towards the Christians was tolerant compared to his father’s; he did not change Marcus Aurelius’ decrees against the Christians, but neither did he pursue them with any energy. (Quinn, 1999) These factors, along with Commodus’ preference for the army and the lower classes over the patricians were plenty of reason for the Senate to curse his name and welcome one of their own as the new Emperor. Commodus’ death marked the end of a long period of relative stability in the Roman Empire; his successor Pertinax, a man of good character, was unable to appease the army and was killed after less than three months on the throne. It would be several more years until the Emperor Septimius Severus would finally put an end to internal struggles in the Empire. (Meckler, 1997) This too is another misrepresentation of the movie, which hints that a new, peaceful era would result from Commodus’ death when in fact just the opposite happened. For all his personal faults he reigned for 12 mostly peaceful years, most of them with the popular support of the troops and the common people. Even so, no matter how inaccurately Commodus might be portrayed by history or cinema, his fall did mark the beginning of the long, slow decline of the Roman Empire. Works Cited Birley, Anthony R. Marcus Aurelius: A Biography. New York: Routledge, 1987. “Commodus.” UNRV History. 12 September 2009. . “Gracchus.” Classic Encyclopedia. 3 September 2006. 12 September 2009. . Lendering, Jona. “Commodus.” Livius.org. 12 September 2009. . “The Life of Commodus.” Historia Augusta. 28 June 2007. 12 September 2009. . Meckler, Michael L. “Pertinax (192-193 A.D.).” De Imperatoribus Romanis. 10 December 1997. 12 September 2009. . Quinn, Dennis. “Commodus (A.D. 180-192).” De Imperatoribus Romanis. 4 January 1999. 12 September 2009. . “Synopsis for Gladiator (2000).” The Internet Movie Database. October 2008. 12 September 2009. . “Vidin.” Wikipedia. 30 August 2009. 12 September 2009. . Read More