Just Saw "Gladiator"...

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
wow.

I mean, really...

Even allowing that I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan, this was one of the best movies I've seen in years. A Hollywood production that actually promotes the four Stoic virtues, a movie that assumes you know what SPQR stands for and who Marcus Aurelius was. A movie about the Romans where someone did their homework (although I wish they'd used Ave Caesar, te moritu salutus! instead of translating into English. Some things are just better in the original Latin...). The battle scene at the beginning gives up nothing to 'Saving Private Ryan', which is saying quite a bit. The Roman tactics, uniforms, and equipment are spot on.

Most importantly, the movie spreads a subversive message of freedom, integrity, honor, and ethics; heady stuff in a world awash in cynical flicks with no good guys, just some less bad than others. If Hollywood keeps releasing powerful movies like "Braveheart", "Gladiator", and Mel Gibson's forthcoming "Patriot", they'd best be careful: us proles might start thinking like citizens and start getting ideas above our station.

Two thumbs up from me and my beau...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Saw Gladiator yesterday and was quite entertained...and on occassion, moved.

Overall, I found the film to be something more than almost subliminal violent action and ugly images prettily filmed.

It served as an examination of what a MAN of PRINCIPLE could accomplish in a dire unprincipled world, despite personal loss and imprisonment. Maximus' body was fettered, not his spirit.

Interesting how the fights progressed from epic battlefield action, through multiple gladiator confrontations, right down to a mano to mano resolution.

Did I note the strains of a classical music piece - maybe Deus Irae? - adorning several action setpieces?
Jeff
 
I saw it Friday, and was entranced for an hour and a half...and then horribly disappointed. This was a movie that deserved an ending worthy of its buildup but didn't get it. That was the biggest fizzle of an ending I have seen in quite a while...totally unbelievable, implausible and ridiculous.
 
Tamara, you said the Roman tactics were right on, thats something that I have been curious about.

In the opening battle scene, all the Romans did was basically open up with an artillery barrage and go in and brawl until they won. They did not seem to have any major tactical moves like encirclement, splitting the enemie's forces along the weak lines, and a bunch of other tricks they had up their sleves.

You probably know your Roman history better than I, so tell me, would tactics like those have been used in that situation or would it have gone down as it was depicted?

Thanks
Glock Glockler
 
One of the most imressive scenes for me was during the first battle when the camera pulls back and you get a more broad picture of the barrage that the Roman army is throwing at the Germanians.

It's a rain of fire from the sky that looks like the unleashing of Hell.

Rik, Maximus did encircle the Germanians with his cavalry to come from behind. And what kind of an ending would you have liked to have seen?

I was a bit baffled at the end as well when Ceasar calls for another sword and is defied by his guards that surround the fight.

Was this because the rules of the arena were so ridgid that even he could not bend them to his will? Or was it that he was so despised that they simply expoited the opportunity to see him removed from office?

Another thing that really made an impression was the political climate as depicted by the film, as Tamara mentioned. I could draw so many parallels to our political climate that it made me uncomfortable.

Overall, for me, it was a very enjoyable film.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Well, you'll notice that Maximus did hold a Cavalry reserve to attack from the flank/rear, which was cutting-edge stuff for the Roman army of the day, which for centuries had been an infantry force which relegated cavalry to the scout/skirmisher role. It also pointed up the fact that a roman consular army had direct-fire artillery on the battlefield, ballistae and onagers (catapults) which is something most don't realize. The Greek Fire was a little anachronistic, as it didn't make it's appearance til much later (late 3rd century AD).

Roman infantry was rarely superior in strategy/operational level maneuver, most Roman generals being political appointees, but tactics-wise was the finest fighting force in the world for centuries. They'd use a straight up advance like you saw in the movie, but you'll notice that unlike the mob of Germanic warriors, all individuals, the Romans came on in disciplined rows (the Cohort, roughly a battalion). If one man was injured, he was trained to step aside and back and let the man behind him step forward to fill his place. Centurions, the veteran non-com backbone of the legions, could use elaborate signaling to have their unit fall back through the line in an orderly fashion and be replaced by the unit behind it. The Romans were truly the first modern army; if you took an Eleven-Bulletcatcher from todays army, magically taught him latin and beamed him into a Roman legion, he'd feel right at home...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
After seeing "Gladiator", I picked up my Roman history books again, particularly "The Making of the Roman Army". Speaking of the first battle scene in Germania: the threat from the Germanic tribes was not understated. I was born in the area of Germany that includes the Teutoburg Forest, where Varus lost the majority of the Rhine garrison forces in 9AD. They got lured out of their winter camps, and the barbarians surrounded them and cut them off in the expanses of the Teutoburg forest. Three legions were lost in one battle, a total of 15,000 soldiers, plus a few extra cohorts of auxiliaries.

Here's what the liberal feel-good people don't understand: the survival and prosperity of a nation has always depended on the strength and skill of its army. We are a violent species, and those nations who had no skills at warmaking (or who scapped their swords to chant happy songs) got wiped off the map in a short period of time. Things are no different now than back in the Roman days, and the only reason why the Roman Empire was the most powerful entity in the history of mankind was precisely because they had well-trained soldiers using superior weaponry and innovative tactics.

The movie is through and through awesome storytelling. I find it encouraging that the best ( and most recognized) movies of the past few years have not been the politically correct ones, but those that stressed the honor of the warrior spirit.
 
To answer the question of the ending, the reason Commodus can't get another sword is that the head of the guards hates him as much as everybody else and seizes the chance to help get rid of him. To assassinate him makes him a martyr; but to deny him a second sword in the arena can just be explained away as following the rules.

Wasn't the head of the guard in the last part of the movie the same guy who arrested Maximus earlier? If so, they were friends before, and the man was simply one of those guys who follow orders even when they think they're wrong.
 
I have a well made replica of the aerly "long point" Roman Gladius hanging on the wall in my study. Its only defect is that it is not very sharp. After seeing Gladiator (which means sowrdsman) I think I will put nice sharp edges on it in case I encounter any barbarians.

Tamara's description of Roman infantry tactics is a good one. A Roman legion in Imperial times consisted of ten cohorts. Each had about 525 men commanded by six centurions. It was divided into six centuries wuich had 80 men, one centurion, one optio who was second in command, a signifier who carried the century's standard, a corneicon who was the bugler, and a tessarius who organized the guard parties and acted as the century clerk.
The 2nd through tenth cohorts had this organization. The First cohort was a double strength cohort which guarded the eagle. The legate who commanded the legion normally was with the first cohort.

If your curious as to how I know this, well, I was in the OLD Army. Ave Caesar! Advance the Standards!

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited May 07, 2000).]
 
I've heard a lot of people bashing the ending of Gladiator, but I don't know if it was all that implausable. Commodus probably thought (and his thinking was warped) that killing Maximus in the ring was what would win back respect for him. You will remember that he didn't want to have Maximus murdered early on for fear that he would turn him into a martyr. It also follows Commodus's character to wound Maximus before the fight to give himself the advantage. Maybe not historical, but I don't know if I would call it improbable.
 
Howdy folks,

I haven't seen the movie, but plan to within a day or so.

Sounds like the military element is represented pretty well, but one comment: my texts suggest that Commodus was strangled/beaten in his bath by a wrestler hired for that purpose.

But hey, what's history if you can't play a little fast & loose?

I'm looking forward to it even more after the "reviews" here.

SA Scott
 
SA Scott,

It was very accurate in detail, and although it was a fictional story it was set among factual historical events and personages.

After the historical butchering performed on the Anglo-Scottish wars in the (Admittedly great) movie 'Braveheart', it was good to see that someone made a very entertaining and inspiring movie without rewriting history with a heavy pen to accomplish their ends.

The freedom-loving movie buff in me loved 'Braveheart', the armchair historian was peeved at it. Both sides however, were satisfied by 'Gladiator'. If you are a Roman history buff, you'll be too blown away by the immersiveness of it to pay much attention to the actual movie the first time you see it... (Finally a flick where all the legionaries aren't in bogus leather muscle cuirasses! :) )

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
As usual, great visuals with good ol' Ridley. Can't wait for the DVD to come out so I can dissect it for the sual subtle details Scott is infamous for.

One detail that bothered me was that the swords which were in the foreground of the shot did not appear to have real blade shapes (in cross-section, that is). They seemed to be just flat bar stock, rather than being double flat-ground of the usual diamond cross-section.

Another minor detail was that we didn't see the enormous supply train required to move such a host. If there's one thing the Romans did well, it was logistics.

Aw come on now, Hard Ball, had you served way back in the legions, your pension would be incalculable now! ;)
 
Don Gwinn: yes, that was the same guy. Looks like he got the position of head of the Pretorian Guard for the betrayal, then decided it wasn't worth it, or the emperor wan't worthy, in the end.

The camera work in the opening battle made me want to vomit. I had to look away a few times to get my eyes to stabilize. I could have taken "the drunken cameraman" or the herky-jerky frame delivery, but not both at the same time.
 
Did they use their "pili" (spears) in the battle? Or did they just throw them, and then continue with swords?

As I understand the issue, it is a matter of penetration (stabbing), as opposed to slashing; this is very much easier, if you can hold your enemy off outside his sword-slashing range with a spear that cannot be chopped off easliy, due to its front portion being made of metal.

A spear designed for throwing saves metal by just providing a point, there being no consideration of holding on to the shaft.
 
Gunter:

IIRC, the pilum was designed with the long mild iron shaft so that when thrown it would lodge in the enemies shield and bend, making removal difficult, the shield useless, and preventing spent pila from being recovered and used against the legionaries. The earlier Imperial armies would issue two per trooper, which provided great tactical flexibility (throw both or throw one and keep the other). By the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was realized that it made as much sense to issue just one per man, reducing his equipment weight, the work in the fabricae, and the military budget (of course). I don't know if this was intentional in the film, but the lead cohorts actually advanced into the valley between the two armies and the resulting height advantage for the Germans would have made a close range pila volley less effective than retaining them and using them from behind a closed shield formation as a makeshift 'spear hedge' to blunt the initial impaetus of the Germans charge.

Just my $0.02...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Tamara:

I love this forum, and you! To be somewhere and hear terms such as "cuirass" used in their proper context without feeling like a (total) dork! :D

FWIW, my only serious gripe against "Spartacus" was the blending of two centuries on Roman History, i.e. Gracchus w/ Crassus & Caesar, etc.).

Will see "Gladiator" tonight without fail!

SA Scott
 
Tamara:

What was the primary offensive weapon? Pilum or gladius?

Pilum: Throw one and keep the other for close range - later, when field artillery is available, just issue one. Gladius is secondary weapon, for when it gets real close and there would be no room to swing a long sword.

Gladius: Have to throw at least one pilum before hand for primary weapon is free? No secondary weapon available (soldiers acquire secondary weapons from the battlefield if they are not issued in the first place)? Stab with a short sword against slash from a long one?
 
Tamarra is beginning to worry me. She knows far to much about our legions. She may be a spy for the tall. blonde, blue eyed northern barbarians! I am afraid I will have to report her to the Legate.

Primus Pilus. (AKA Hard Ball)
 
Gunter (& others):

The big trick of the Roman tactics/infantryman was that he was just equipped for the job.

The roman footsoldier's equipment was INFERIOR to his opponent's in one-on-one combat.

Thing is, the footsolder was not engaged in one-on-one combat.

Long sword slashing vs. short sword stabbing seems to favor the long sword. Until you have a few thousand of your disciplined buddies building up a shield wall. Anyone getting through the shield wall is in real close, actually TOO close to swing a long sword as easily as you could stab a short. . . . and that's after the non-Roman's probably been hit by or hit into that big shield.

Throughout their history the Romans gathered from the strengths of the conquered, recruiting archers, cavalry, etc. etc.

But these all took second place to the footsoldier.

A Roman footsoldier was a lousy one-man fighting machine; but the ultimate component of a collective fighting machine.


Battler
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top