With the recent news that a sequel to the movie Gladiator is coming there are rumors of the new movie being “woke” and fuzzy memories about the original are running amok. I thought it would be worth giving my take on the films legacy.
Gladiator in the Circus 🧵
Gladiator in the Circus 🧵
Gladiator is really two films. One is a dedication to many great things about ancient Rome; a glorious spectacle of armies, arms, and armor. A film that brings the Colosseum back to life.
The other film is political propaganda the kind of which Hollywood cannot be subtle about.
The other film is political propaganda the kind of which Hollywood cannot be subtle about.
Some may consider propaganda to be too strong a word, but I don’t. History is interesting enough on it’s own; if presented in a compelling manner.
So when a significant divergence is made from historical accuracy it is being done for reasons that deserve examination.
So when a significant divergence is made from historical accuracy it is being done for reasons that deserve examination.
I’ll contrast these choices by covering the better half of the film first. The entire opening sequence is essentially a museum diorama of a Roman Legion.
The battle builds with a soundtrack heavily borrowing from the classical piece by Gustav Holst “Mars, the Bringer of War”
The battle builds with a soundtrack heavily borrowing from the classical piece by Gustav Holst “Mars, the Bringer of War”
The museum diorama aspect comes from the accuracy of uniform and weapons, but with everything deployed and used more like a display piece.
The combination of infantry, cavalry, archers, and artillery is compelling visually but convoluted strategically.
The combination of infantry, cavalry, archers, and artillery is compelling visually but convoluted strategically.
The gladiatorial scenes follow this format as well. They are very deadly and dramatic.
Actual gladiators were if anything more dramatic, and yet avoided death pretty well. It was expensive to train gladiators and the games were largely performances.
Actual gladiators were if anything more dramatic, and yet avoided death pretty well. It was expensive to train gladiators and the games were largely performances.
The gladiators were good at putting on a show and scoring superficial wounds. A little blood on the ground to rile up the crowd, but these weren’t mass human sacrifices and genuinely had more in common with modern day professional wrestling.
The notorious violence of the coliseum was mostly restricted to the brutal execution of criminals and enemies. The historical Commodus, who is characterized in the film, participated in (rigged) contests, mostly against animals, but this didn’t earn him favor with the citizenry.
The games existed for the commoners to have some vicarious experience of real conquests and history, but dramatized and made entertaining.
Gladiator, the film, also illustrates how many of the contests in the Colosseum were meant to be stand-ins for historical battles.
Gladiator, the film, also illustrates how many of the contests in the Colosseum were meant to be stand-ins for historical battles.
“Gladiator” and gladiators, as well as films and coliseums, are alike in a meta-sense.
The film is an entertainment product, with enough history and production value to dazzle, but none the less having an ideological worldview championed within it.
The film is an entertainment product, with enough history and production value to dazzle, but none the less having an ideological worldview championed within it.
Which gets us to the second aspect of the film; its liberal narrative that rewrites history to champion the dominant ideology of the era in which the film was made.
Maximus, a literal Great Man, is the protagonist. He begins as a general of legions, well respected by his men.
Maximus, a literal Great Man, is the protagonist. He begins as a general of legions, well respected by his men.
He dutifully conquers the enemies of his Emperor, the Wise Man, Marcus Aurelius who is presented as a very Wise Man, because he’s old and tired and doesn’t like war. Liberalism requires leaders to pretend to regret the wars they start.
The historical Marcus Aurelius was a philosophical ruler. But in an attempt to make the Wise Man into a liberal notion of a Good King the film makes Marcus Aurelius regretful and morose, as if expansionist wars weren’t the lifeblood of the Roman economy.
Marcus Aurelius wrote Meditations during his campaigns. As a stoic all he had to say about regret is that it is a waste of time. He was the last of the Five Good Emperors during the Pax Romania, in which the Empire was prosperous largely due to long strings of conquests.
The regretful Wise Man act in the film goes even further, because you see Marcus Aurelius has decided to be the wisest man of all and return Rome to a republic!
His only reason to do so is that he fears his son Commodus will be a Tyrant.
His only reason to do so is that he fears his son Commodus will be a Tyrant.
The film doesn’t care that Rome called itself a Republic under the emperors. Or the many practical reasons that allowed the emperors to maintain their power. Or the many insane emperors Rome weathered long before Commodus.
It’s simply assumed Republics are better.
It’s simply assumed Republics are better.
The Wise Man is then made very stupid for the narrative, as he tells the would-be Tyrant his plan, to his face, while they’re alone, in his bedroom, at night.
Tragically the Wise Man dies and the Tyrant somehow takes power. His first action is to kill off the loyal Great Man.
Tragically the Wise Man dies and the Tyrant somehow takes power. His first action is to kill off the loyal Great Man.
It’s paranoia on his part because the Great Man has no great desires at all. He just wants to go home to his farm, wife, and son.
He’s the ideal Liberal man; powerful, virtuous, and utterly passive, never minding the contradictions the first two qualities have with the latter.
He’s the ideal Liberal man; powerful, virtuous, and utterly passive, never minding the contradictions the first two qualities have with the latter.
Here we see another historical hiccup, wherein the legion officers immediately switch loyalty to the Tyrant with a “just doing my job” attitude of liberal bureaucrats.
This ignores that in Rome the generals paid their legions, which caused an entirely different set of problems.
This ignores that in Rome the generals paid their legions, which caused an entirely different set of problems.
The Great Man escapes, but returns home to find that it, and his family, have been destroyed.
He wanders off mourning his dead family in Spain and is captured somewhere in North Africa. He’s sold into slavery to become the titular Gladiator.
He wanders off mourning his dead family in Spain and is captured somewhere in North Africa. He’s sold into slavery to become the titular Gladiator.
We get to see the Tyrant in action, and the liberal narrative has to insist on his tyranny because it doesn’t show us anything going wrong in Rome.
Other than his desire to start the games back up, he actually seems more focused on creeping on his sister than governance.
Other than his desire to start the games back up, he actually seems more focused on creeping on his sister than governance.
This is where the feminine nature of liberalism begins to emerge in the narrative. Commodus is called a Tyrant, but really he’s just a creep.
Sure the Wise Man emperor could be tolerated because he was like a charming non-threatening grandpa, but creeps are just like eww.
Sure the Wise Man emperor could be tolerated because he was like a charming non-threatening grandpa, but creeps are just like eww.
The whole benefit of a Republic is reduced to “not Commodus”. Meanwhile the Great Man makes a name for himself as “the Spaniard” in the games taking place out in the provinces and his boss is excited that they can go back to Rome thanks to the new emperor.
Back in Rome some Senators explain to the audience how the games have made the Tyrant very popular. So they have to get rid of him.
The real Commodus was finally killed on his second assassination attempt because he had been terribly unpopular and incompetent for ten years.
The real Commodus was finally killed on his second assassination attempt because he had been terribly unpopular and incompetent for ten years.
The audience isn’t trusted with moral or practical reasoning because Liberalism is feminine. Once the consensus among the scolds is set, reasons are just a formality.
Conspiracies of women and weak men dethroning popular, but unsavory Emperors are justified because they say so.
Conspiracies of women and weak men dethroning popular, but unsavory Emperors are justified because they say so.
The Great Man eventually reveals himself to the Tyrant. The Tyrant continues to not do anything tyrannical by not only allowing the Great Man to live but granting him repeated public spectacles with which to increase his visibility and popularity.
Given that Commodus was eventually strangled to death by his “wrestling partner” I guess we should just be grateful the story wasn’t any more liberal in it’s historical revisions.
Anyhow, all the weak characters recognize that the Great Man can free them from the non-Tyrant.
Anyhow, all the weak characters recognize that the Great Man can free them from the non-Tyrant.
The conspiracy of the senators, the sister, and the Spaniard is launched. It immediately fails when the Tyrant begins threatening his nephew and his sister drops the details like a toga at an orgy.
A final rigged battle between the Great Man and the Tyrant is planned.
A final rigged battle between the Great Man and the Tyrant is planned.
The real Commodus was 18 when he became Emperor. His sister, Lucilla, was ten years older and rumored to be envious of Commodus’s wife.
For some reason, the liberal narrative turned her into an entirely sympathetic character rather than show her being creepy and power hungry.
For some reason, the liberal narrative turned her into an entirely sympathetic character rather than show her being creepy and power hungry.
The first assassination attempt of Commodus, at age 21, was by Lucilla and two guys she was having affairs with, one of which was her first cousin.
They failed, and after that Commodus’s rule became defined by a deep paranoia, narcissism, and encroaching insanity. Funny that.
They failed, and after that Commodus’s rule became defined by a deep paranoia, narcissism, and encroaching insanity. Funny that.
Anyways, in the film, the Great Man kills the Tyrant and then dies, making sure that the immensely popular guy who did all the work isn’t just made into the new emperor.
A women, a child, a senator, and some slaves declare Rome will be a Republic again, whatever that means.
A women, a child, a senator, and some slaves declare Rome will be a Republic again, whatever that means.
@PageauJonathan produced a video a few years ago relevant to this, about the role of strong men in feminist narratives, which is worth a watch.
He identified this notion of “masculine power sacrificing itself for the ascendant feminine” to be a recent trend at the time.
He identified this notion of “masculine power sacrificing itself for the ascendant feminine” to be a recent trend at the time.
As we see in Gladiator, that narrative is not that recent.
Competent men compelled to sacrifice themselves, often at a moment of triumph, so that the duty of ruling is effortlessly transferred to undeserving feminine, or even child, figures is a recurring modern narrative.
Competent men compelled to sacrifice themselves, often at a moment of triumph, so that the duty of ruling is effortlessly transferred to undeserving feminine, or even child, figures is a recurring modern narrative.
Within liberalism women and weak men view Great Men and Tyrants the same. Liberalism relegates masculine duty to a sacrificial offering.
This film about a Great Man titles itself on his role as a slave. He serves only propaganda and a culture that resents his competencies.
This film about a Great Man titles itself on his role as a slave. He serves only propaganda and a culture that resents his competencies.
The irony of course is that Liberal propaganda so often confesses their inadequacy. The sort of Tyrant Commodus was imagined to be; weak, cowardly, and perverted, is in fact the sort of men that liberalism is destined to put into positions of power and defend.
A system ruled by argument without honor is going to put liars in charge. A system that views strength as evil will sabotage those who wield power openly and reward those who work from the shadows. A system that fears judgment will make saints of the shameless and degenerate.
Liberalism, which insists all men are equal, will always work to condemn the Great Men and exalt the Wicked above their station.
It will only forgive a Great Man for solving the problems they cannot if he dies gracelessly and returns power to those who did not earn it.
It will only forgive a Great Man for solving the problems they cannot if he dies gracelessly and returns power to those who did not earn it.
Their only problem is that, outside of their propaganda, no Great Man will ever sacrifice himself to continue the corrupt rule of women and weak men.
For all the insistence on expertise Liberalism is built on the delusion that power can be adequately wielded by all.
For all the insistence on expertise Liberalism is built on the delusion that power can be adequately wielded by all.
Some gratuitous tags @CovfefeAnon @astralflightpod @CristusVictor @_kruptos @LionsSpectre @plantationdrip @UpdatingOnRome @Aristos_Revenge
Loading suggestions...