The movie \'Gladiator\' in Historical Perspective

[Arthes]

Greetings,
A viewpoint by Allan Ward, University of Connecticut. http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/wa ... ator1.html
regards
Arthes

[DAN OF BRITANNIA]

For all its faults (and yep, we saw a few on set) it generated a lot of interest in the classical world and probably launched more than one book/documentary/paper/discussion/range of deodorants etc.

It paid well, and the catering was excellent, they did a very nice lasagne on day 4's filming I must say :lol: .

(Also With the money we earned we purchased some more accurate kit that was seen on camera 8) )

[Narukami]

Greetings Arthes.

Excellent article.

Thanks.

Narukami :wink:

[Crimson]

Gladiator is a great Historical/Fiction movie. For all its historical inaccuracies it showed a Rome that has come to be the stuff of legend and a gritty interpretation of the legion.

[Narukami]

Crimson,

You are quite right, there are some great images of Rome, and some are quite breathtaking. However, most I fear are images of Hollywood Rome rather than Ancient Rome.

In this I am thinking of the armor of the Praetorian Guard, the helmets worn by the soldiers in the legions, the use of cavalry as depicted in the first battle, the death of the Emperor Commodus, etc. etc. etc.

Scott has always made good looking films, scenes that are rich and dense, full if information not only in the center but at the edges as well. I still think The Duelists one of his most interesting films.

I also can not claim to be a historical purist as one of my favorite films/shows on Ancient Rome is the BBC series I Claudius. And yes, I know there are lots of costume and set problems and also that Robert Graves took some "liberties" with characters and events, and yet...and yet I still, after multiple viewings, enjoy it much more than Gladiator.

Perhaps my disappointment stems from the thought that Scott could have, and should have done better. He had the money, the skill, and the talented crew that could have made an incredible film, and admittedly some (perhaps many) think he did. I still believe he could have done better.

However, it did spark a wider interest in ancient history, and for that I am thankful.

Narukami :wink:

[Crimson]

Narukami,

You're on the money about Ridley Scott, in regards to that he could have done a better job. I think that when he goes into project such as Gladiator or kingdom of Heaven his minimum standard for authenticity for such things such as characters, events, clothing, weapons and armor may not be the greatest, but certainly the best today.

[Carus Andiae]

Narukami,

You're on the money about Ridley Scott, in regards to that he could have done a better job. I think that when he goes into project such as Gladiator or kingdom of Heaven his minimum standard for authenticity for such things such as characters, events, clothing, weapons and armor may not be the greatest, but certainly the best today.

As far as Kingdom of Heaven in concerned, character and events authenticity is dreadful.

[Crimson]

We just have to remember that these movies are made by a guy who has the "What were you there?" attitude.

[Robert Vermaat]

As far as Kingdom of Heaven in concerned, character and events authenticity is dreadful.

They should've stopped the movie after the surrender of Jerusalem. It was kinda bearable before that. After that (I never realised Jerusalem was situated on a vast, flat plain :twisted: ) it became truly horrid. Ex-queens riding into the sunset with wannbe barons, meeting King Richard (I seem to remember) on the way to the next Crusade... Shudder.

[Carus Andiae]

On reflection, it was probably not a good idea to watch it just after completing a history degree module on the Crusades.

But the demonisation of Guy de Lusignon, the sanctification of Raymond of Tripolis (the films 'Tiberias'), the portrayal of of the Templars as fanatics etc etc...

Urghhhh..... :x

[Narukami]

But I did enjoy the performance of the actor who played the part of Saladin. Was it historically correct -- who can say for certain but it seemed good to me.

As to the rest of the film...

The standard Hollywood Law is in force: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

However...

PBS (KCET LA) just ran a two hour show on this very topic (Richard I and Saladin) covering much of the same time frame with staged scenes and learned talking heads. I must say that overall this show too was lite on information and with obvious budget limits could not compete with Scott's "epic." It might have been better cut to an hour with less show and more tell.

Both Scott and PBS tell us that Saladin spared the people of Jerusalem, but neither tells us about the ransom that had to be paid, nor how the Bishop of Jerusalem could have ransomed the entire populace but didn't, or how Saladin extended the deadline for ransom in the hope more could pay and thus avoid enslavement, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps Scott felt that if he showed this people would think he was making it up in an attempt to make Saladin look better than the Christians.

Perhaps PBS thought the same thing.

As is usually the case the facts are often more interesting than the fiction.

Narukami

[Robert Vermaat]

At the risk of becomeing very OT....

The BBC (Timewatch) had a good docco last week about the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. The subject was a new castle at Jacob's Ford (Vadum Iacob) which threathened to upset the balance of power. The castle was besieged by Saladin and fell before it could be relieved by king Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (August 1179).
I would like to add that Saladin killed many of the captives. Imad ad-Din says that of the 700 or so prisoners taken, the greater part were massacred, while the rest went to the Damascus slave markets.
Something often mentioned about Richard, while Saladin often gets off with his (indeed!) very lenient treating of the garrison and population of Jerusalem.

The fall of the fort and the ravaging of the Safad region (once founded as a Roman town during the 2nd c. AD) lead to the battle of Hattin in 1187 and the eventual downfall of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Read more here.

[Narukami]

"Something often mentioned about Richard, while Saladin often gets off with his (indeed!) very lenient treating of the garrison and population of Jerusalem."

Which is, of course, precisely why it is so oft mentioned, because it stands in such stark contrast to the usual and accepted "laws of war" for that age.

So too is Julius Caesar's clemency toward captured enemies often mentioned. One wonder if he had captured Pompey if Caesar would have spared his life and pardoned him as he did many others in the Civil War.

Of course the Romans were practical and pragmatic to a fault, and such seemingly kind treatment of enemies was not motivated by any sense of morality but rather usually served some practical end.

And this is just my attempt to bring us back on topic--sort of anyway. :wink:

Narukami

[Felix]

Keeping well off of the title topic,

The PBS "Holy Warriors" erred significantly more than "Kingdom of Heaven" in its depiction of Saladin's taking of Jerusalem. Ridley Scott correctly shows that a brief siege did take place, but the defenders negotiated a surrender. This goes a long way towards explaining why there was not looting, rapine, and slaughter. Ransoms were part of the negotiation, but the main point is that the city didn't fall to assault. The PBS program doesn't actually say that Saladin stormed the city, but it certainly showed it - and when a city was taken by storm, then whatever happened to the inhabitants was pretty much up to the victors. The reason Saladin spared the Christians (most of them) of Jerusalem was because he negotiated to do this, and not out of sheer goodness of heart. This is part of the explanation for the slaughter in Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade (not the whole explanation); the practice of looting and pillaging continued up into the 19th century (see the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsular War).