Gladiator II: What they got wrong (aka shark-fighting gladiators and the golden denarius)

Gladiator II came out in cinemas in the UK on 15 November 2024. Much like its predecessor, it was a movie rooted in history with a large sprinkling of artistic license. It is clear that some research had been done to gain inspiration for the film, but was since watered down to make for an entertaining movie. Alternatively, it was twisted to fit the plot that had already been established in an attempt to tie it back to the original.

Since I saw the movie, I have been reflecting a lot on what was included, why and what could have been included instead. Roman history is shocking and entertaining enough without the need to change it for a modern audience. So I have put together a series of responses to some of the themes and characters that feature in the movie. Of course, I am limited to what I remember from the film and what I have been able to piece together from the trailers and reviews, so I am sure there is a lot more I have missed, which I can address another time. So for now, here are my thoughts on Gladiator II.

Themes

The Numidians

The opening of the movie starts with a naval attack on an undetermined city on the coast of Numidia, in North Africa. Numidia was conquered by the Romans in 46BC. Although split into two provinces under Septimius Severus, not too long before the movie took place, it was already part of the Roman empire at the time of Gladiator II. I can't find any reference to rebellions in that region during the time the movie is set that could have given reason for a Roman naval attack.

I am not sure why they chose Numidia as the focus of the attack and the hiding place for Lucius, the main character. Rome was constantly at war with different nations and subduing rebellions on the edge of her empire, so there were plenty of options. An alternative location could have been Parthia, a region in modern day Iran, which Caracalla and his father had military campaigns in.

Roman siege weapons

The ships in the first scene are equipped with catapults, which didn’t truly exist until over a century later. Although often called catapults, the Romans at this time used ballistae, which were essentially giant crossbows that would fire large bolts. Catapults in the form of missile propelling machines that threw in an arc, known as onagers, don’t get a mention until the 4th century.

The ships also had mechanical rising towers that acted a bit like elevators. Although ship mounted siege towers did exist in the ancient world, they didn’t have hand-crank elevated siege towers. Roman siege weapons were pretty impressive, and devastating, enough without these anachronisms.

Baboons in the arena

I have tried very hard to find references to baboons in the arena. Some spurious accounts mention baboons, but all seem to be modern articles citing one another with no clear original source, other than HBO’s series Rome where a character says they wanted to train baboons to do some pretty horrific things to women. It would seem that no primary source mention baboons specifically going anywhere near Roman arenas, though most mention a variety of creatures.

Some incredible animals were in the arena. These were either as a form of execution, as was the intended outcome in the baboon scene of Gladiator II, or as entertainment. Bestiarii, were trained fighters who would take on a range of animals to entertain the crowd. Similar animals would then be let loose in the arena to tear apart criminals and others who the emperor or officials had deemed worthy of a brutal death. Lions, tigers, bears, rhinos (though no one ever rode a rhino!), leopards, deer and elephants could all be found in the arenas of the Roman world. Any of those creatures could have provided an entertaining scene within the movie.

There are also sources, like Cicero, showing an attitude that would perhaps have been unexpected to modern viewers. Cicero described seeing elephants in the arena and recognising their emotion, suggesting they had a greater awareness and intelligence than some might believe. He suggests this was a sentiment shared with the wider audience and that his view was not that unusual. He also wrote to a friend sharing his disgust for the treatment of animals in the arena, so wasn't afraid to make it known to those close to him. I've always wondered about showing an anti-gladiatorial stance for characters in any Roman dramatisation, as it always seems that everyone loved them. I know most film and tv makers want to portray the Romans as barbaric and bloodthirsty, but a balanced approach could bring interesting conflict amongst characters.

That Virgil quote

After a mini gladiatorial fight at a party, Lucius ends up quoting a line from book Six of Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’, an epic poem about the founding of Rome. It’s in book 6 where the trojans finally arrive in Italy, and Aeneas, the main character, heads to the temple of Apollo where a sibyl (a fortune telling priestess) tells him:

“…facilis descensus Averno; noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis.”

Some translations give the quote in the movie:

“The gates of hell are open night and day. Smooth the descent, and easy is the way.”

As is often the case, translators like to match the poetic nature of the original Latin by using a much more modern rhyme. A literal translation is:

“The descent into the underworld is easy. The dark doors of Dis are open night and day.”

Dis is another name for Pluto, God of the underworld. So Lucius’ words, pointedly at the emperors, were perhaps that they themselves would soon end up in the underworld, like everyone does. This at first seems like a threat, but also has another purpose. The only way he would know that quote, was by having a fairly high level of Roman teaching. This shows the emperors, and all those in attendance, that he is in fact not a typical Numidian slave, but something more. Setting up the big reveal...

Naumachia

Fake naval battles, or ‘naumachia’, did happen on occasion in the ancient world, though these were often on natural lakes or in custom built venues. The Flavian amphitheatre, the Roman name for the colosseum, did host a couple of naumachia in its time, but not during the reign of Geta and Caracalla. In fact, the famous and often wrongly attributed phrase “those who are about to die, salute you”, which featured in the original Gladiator movie, comes from a naumachia that took place during the reign of Claudius in AD 52. That particular staged naval battle took place at a lake in Northern Italy.

The Flavian amphitheatre, however impressive it might be, was never big enough to hold more than a couple of small boats. If you have ever been, you would see how difficult it would be to fill with water and get boats inside, let alone for them to manoeuvre within it.

Also, there were most certainly never sharks swimming around the boats. Though I have found this cheeky depiction in Colchester Museums that could be a rare instance of a Gladiator fighting a shark (giant fish)...or just some conveniently positioned decoration.

Roman riots

I couldn't find any reference to riots during the reign of Geta and Caracalla, which was admittedly less than a year. Civil unrest caused by a gladiator fight that didn’t go how people voted isn’t something that would have happened. In the movie, the crowd cheer and vote to keep General Acacius alive, but the emperors decide to execute him instead. After this scene, flame wielding romans are seen flooding the streets, which leads to Geta and Caracalla’s panic over their safety within the imperial palace.

The Roman people revolted over food and taxes, not entertainment. The closest thing I can think of to this, is the Nucerian riot against the Pompeiians in AD 59. This historical event was more to do with rival towns coming together and getting worked up by the games, rather than the games themselves influencing the behaviour. It has been captured better in other places how the gladiatorial games had a similar sort of following as football in the modern day, with people having their favourite fighters or supporting gladiator schools from their hometowns. So I can imagine fights, scuffles and chaos breaking out after a day at the games, but these were unlikely directly related to decisions made by those hosting the games.

Roman gossip and business

One of the most criticised scenes in the movie was the "Roman cafe" that had a senator with a newspaper and a cup of something hot. Now, we can assume the hot drink was not tea or coffee, as these weren't around in Europe at that time. However, the newspaper is the most unbelievable item, as paper of that sort was not available until centuries later.

News was shared in stone, at specific points throughout the largest cities. It was also shared by word of mouth, whether through announcements in public or gossip shared amongst friends and family. The main place this would have been shared was at the baths.

The baths were not only a place for people to get "clean" and keep fit, though the grossness of the baths is a subject for another time, they were a place were the Roman people shared information and did business. Perhaps it was something to do with the fact that nudity makes us vulnerable, so we're more likely to be honest, that the Romans saw this as the perfect place to make deals and update one another on the goings on in the Roman world.

I'm sure no one would complain to an additional scene in the Roman baths, where all the plotting and scheming could take place.

Denarii

 Denarii are silver not gold!!!!

Also, what Lucius was paid after his first fight, it looked like 2-3 gold coins, would have been the rough equivalent of 128 days worth of wages for an average labourer, at minimum! The fact that he was a slave and wouldn't have got paid anything anyway is just a side note to the obscene amount of coin he was given. Just because there are only a few coins doesn't mean the value wasn't high, Roman money was very different to modern money.

The people of Gladiator II

Geta and Caracalla

These two emperors hated each other! They spent most of their co-rule apart, with rare interactions facilitated by their mother, who of course doesn’t appear in the film, and an armed guard. Although there is some minor conflict between the two in the movie, culminating in the assassination of Geta, they are almost depicted as close siblings. In the movie it was Macrinus, whispering in Caracalla’s ear, who convinced him to murder his brother, whilst in real life he had been planning his brother’s murder from the moment they ascended the joint thrones.

In reality, the pair almost split the empire in half. This was stopped by their mother who saw the need for its unification. Eventually, after a failed assassination attempt, Caracalla lured Geta to their mother’s quarters under the guise of seeking a truce, but instead commanded the praetorian guard to murder his brother. Geta died in his mother’s arms and she went on to support her surviving son Caracalla, until he himself was murdered in a rebellion whilst campaigning in Parthia. She took her own life to not be subject to unknown repercussions from her son’s fall from power. Honestly, we need a Julia Domna biopic, because that woman was a powerhouse and fashion icon.

After Acacius’ victory celebrations, the movie has Geta say they have a desire to conquer Persia and India. This is more likely aligned with Caracalla. This may be a rare instance where they have actually looked at a historical source! In the Historia Augusta, it suggests Caracalla regularly spoke about Alexander when he became an adult and was even trying to imitate him in some respects. For me, the reference to Persia and India is likely an attempted comparison to Alexander the Great, as those were also the Macedonian ruler’s aspirations. Caracalla did lead military campaigns as Emperor, though he never quite made it that far. He finally met his end whilst out fighting the Parthians.

We can allow some artistic license with the portrayal of Geta, as Caracalla did a good job of eradicating most records and images of his brother after his assassination. Damnatio memoriae, the condemnation of memorials i.e. destroying any trace that the person ever existed, has led to a lot of information being lost about many figures in history. However, it seems the filmmakers for Gladiator II have taken the history of these brother emperors, stuck them in a blender and then reassembled them to form the movie characters we ended up with.

Senator Thraex

Although there was no senator Thraex (Thraex means Thracian, i.e. from the province of Thrace, and was also a type of gladiator) he is your stereotypical self-serving (Roman) politician.

The gladiator fight at Thraex’s dinner party is something that might have been misconstrued. In Petronius’ Satyricon there are conversations about gladiatorial fights and gladiatorial scenes, painted on walls and on objects, are described in his household. Archaeological evidence also shows us objects and wall paintings showing gladiators were found all over the place. In Colchester, several objects depicting gladiators have been found, including fragments of a wall painting, despite an arena not having been discovered (that’s a conversation for another time!). It appears, through a cursory browse of google, that some articles (and AI) will suggest the source tells us gladiatorial fights happened at dinner parties as well. It seems more likely discussion and imagery were shared at these parties, perhaps in the form of gladiatorial drinking cups, which have been found in a few places, but having actual fights would have been messy. Although few gladiators were actually killed in spectacles, it was still a high energy contact sport that could lead to spills and breakages.

Thraex no doubt had a lot of money and influence, as shown in his lavish attire, his house and his support of the emperors after the failed assassination attempt. He is a good archetype of what a roman senator could be, blended into a single movie character.

Lucius Verus

Although he is the protagonist of the movie, I have very little to say about Lucius, as the real historical figure did not make it into adulthood. The child of Lucilla, granddaughter of Marcus Aurelius, died young and was never ushered out of Rome to grow up in North Africa (or was he?! We’d never know!). He was in fact the second Lucius Verus, as his father had the same name and had ruled as emperor alongside Marcus Aurelius, his wife’s father…I know, the Roman imperial family tree/timeline is a mess.  

I couldn’t find out how the child died, but it was probably through some illness.

Macrinus

Macrinus interestingly was a real person, quite possibly the “same” Macrinus in the movie, but with quite a few significant differences. The historical Macrinus was born and grew up in the region that is now Algeria, with Berber ancestry. We don't really know where the movie Macrinus came from, but he suggested that he was captured as he was a former slave.

In the movie, Macrinus is a gladiator trainer who had previously been an enslaved gladiator himself. The historical Macrinus was a prefect in Caracalla’s Praetorian Guard, the personal army of the Emperor. Although the movie Macrinus clearly has a lot of influence within the Roman imperial court, like the historical version, a former slave and gladiator trainer would be very unlikely to get that close to the emperor(s).  

Both the historical and movie Macrinus were involved in the assassination of Emperor Caracalla. However, the real Macrinus did not do the deed himself and became the next Emperor. He was not killed in a river close to Rome by the secret grandson of the former emperor Marcus Aurelius... I swear Roman history is complicated enough why add to it!

Assassination plots

The only known attempted assassination of Geta was actually by his brother Caracalla, not by Roman patricians. There was one attempt before the successful assassination, both of which took place in December AD 211. The movie shows the general Acacius and Lucilla, the granddaughter of Marcus Aurelius, conspiring to overthrow the emperors and getting caught by Macrinus and senator Thraex. Half of those characters are fictional and the other half are heavily fictionalised, so we couldn’t really expect anything more. I guess, if anything, it was an easy way to set up an amphitheatrical execution.

Imperial assassinations were fairly common in Ancient Rome and there are quite a few instances, like with both Geta and Caracalla, where soldiers were the ones to do the actual deed, commanded by the Emperor (or future emperor as the case would often be). That way, the next emperor could have clean hands when trying to justify and legitimise their rule. Macrinus killing Caracalla, as mentioned above, is not what happened historically nor was it common for a succeeding emperor to kill his predecessor.

Dundus the monkey

Obviously, the best character in the whole film. Sadly, Caracalla never had a pet monkey and I have no idea where the name Dundus comes from. My best guess at where this originated is with the emperor Caligula. Although sources say that Caligula supposedly made his horse consul, this was possibly a piece of propaganda to show how untrustworthy the emperor was. It is highly likely that, in the movie, they are drawing on this piece of historical hyperbole to show how ridiculous Caracalla was as an emperor.

It is worth noting at this point that in Ancient Rome, much like today, mental illness was used as a way to ostracise and delegitimise countless people, both at the time and posthumously. The idea that Roman emperors were “insane” was something quite happily promoted by their successors and even more happily promoted by Victorian gentlemen studying the period wanting to make it more appealing to the masses. I have no doubt that many of the Roman emperors had quite series ill mental health, whether as a result of the pressures put on them to rule an empire or due to witness generations of family trauma. This is really an aspect of Roman history that fascinates me and has not been given anywhere near as much attention as it deserves.