MovieChat Forums > Gladiator (2000) Discussion > Historical Accuracy of the Roman Legion

Historical Accuracy of the Roman Legion

posted 10 years ago by mycellardoor24
23 replies | jump to latest

Hey guys, so I'm very interested in learning more about Rome and it's ways. Especially the Roman Legion. What I've learned so far seems to go in direct contrast with what happened to Maximus's wife and son. The killing I can accept, but (if it was true) what Commodus says about her being raped repeatedly...that seems out of character with what I've read.

The men who led the attack on his wife and son, for the order to be given so quickly, it had to come from Quintus and be carried out by his men (or even Maximus's men) - if this is the case, I cannot see them raping the wife like that or killing the boy in such a cruel way. The men are portrayed as loving their General. The other alternative is that the group that carried out the attack were Commodus's own soldiers which makes more sense, but I still cannot justify this act of savagery.

What I've learned so far is that the Roman Legion wanted to be as separate from Barbarians as possible and prided themselves on being civilised, even when killing. The whole time they were on the road they made a big deal out of setting up a very civilised camp, not just sleeping anywhere. They would only eat wheat and frumentum also, they would eat it every single day, without fail - they were actually punished by NOT being allowed to eat the same boring stuff over and over. This again was to be as separate from the Barbarians who drunk ale and ate meat every night.

I can't see them raping her and this is assuming that they did and Commodus wasn't just being especially nasty and lying.

Now I'm not being naïve and hopefully not annoying. I'd just love to hear more about this from someone who really knows about it.

Also, for those who do know their stuff about Rome, how accurate was this film with regards to the military aspects? What was accurate and what wasn't?

Thanks in advance, this is such fascinating stuff.

___"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Except for trolls."____

[–] LDThompson-998-811981 9 years ago

The ONLY historically accurate elements of the Roman army, the Imperial Roman army that is (it was a manifestly different beast under the Republic) are the artillery and the fact that no one has stirrups.
1. Any Roman formation that broke as it did in the movie would have been defeated in detail and probably been decimated if it survived at all. Decimation was THE punishment for cowardice or incompetence -- one in every 10 soldiers is killed.
2. ANY Roman soldier that slashed as the movie soldiers did would get some lashes. Romans STABBED their enemies. That was pounded into them for months in their training camps and in their drills.
3. The Romans were never really an equestrian army. They drilled mercilessly in infantry tactics, to wit: "Their drills are bloodless battles, and their battles bloody drills."
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian, AD 37--101, on the Roman military
The Romans, as someone pointed out perfectly, were a MACHINE in war. They didn't fight for honor (another movie idiocy), they fought to WIN. Winning was ALL it was about. The reasons FOR the fight might matter (Spartacus, a slave uprising/Boudica, a "barbarian" chieftess who tries to throw over the Roman yoke/etc), but once the fight was joined, the Romans went into bloody-drill mode.
If you want to see a REALLY good example of how the Romans fought in formation, get ahold of HBO's "ROME". It shows Gaius Julius Caesar's army whacking a Gaulish army. Troops in formation, 10 minutes on the front line, 5 men stacked up behind, the Centurion blows his whistle, the man in front turns his shield, and slides to the back of the line, and the next man moves up. Machine. See?
4. (and then I'll stop, promise) The Romans made massive use of mercenaries all through their time. They were called "Auxilia" and were the types of troops the Romans DIDN'T grow -- slingers, archers, and, probably most of all, cavalry. It wasn't until really, REALLY late that the Romans developed a true equestrian class that worked its way into the army. Some even say that the Romans shifting from pure infantry to cavalry was what led to their downfall.
And now, I stop. As I promised (don't you wish I were a politician? I shut up AND I kept my promise).
Ciao!

[–] me-1523 9 years ago

The Romans shifting to cavalry didn't lead to their downfall considering it was mounted archery that finally exposed the weakness of the legion in the first place (after 600 years or so of legionary dominance).

The Romans had to upgrade their tactics or perish. They were no longer fighting undisciplined Gauls or Germans, but well trained, well equipped and massively mounted numbers of Huns, Goths, Persians and later on, Arabs.

[–] volkstraum 9 years ago

The men who led the attack on his wife and son, for the order to be given so quickly, it had to come from Quintus and be carried out by his men (or even Maximus's men) - if this is the case, I cannot see them raping the wife like that or killing the boy in such a cruel way.

Well, they weren't a crack unit from the Legion. They were Praetorian guards, who maximus was able to beat handily while disarmed. They weren't fighters since there was no actual fighting in Rome.
I'm sure they jumped at the chance to abuse some "traitors" out in the countryside, away from public scrutiny.
Even if they weren't explicitly ordered, rape would not be a surprising outcome.

"I can't help but notice that there are skulls all over everything. Are we the baddies?"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]