Historians critique gladiator II for historical inaccuracies

The release of Gladiator II has sparked significant debate among historians about its historical accuracy, particularly concerning the portrayal of events in ancient Rome. Set in 211 AD, the film is depicted at a time when Romans enjoyed extensive entertainment at the Colosseum, highlighting events such as gladiator fights and mock sea battles called naumachia. Roman historian Murray Dahm has been vocal about the film's shortcomings, arguing that despite its high budget and impressive visuals, it lacks adherence to historical facts. He mentioned that while naumachia did occur in ancient Rome, they primarily took place earlier than the film’s setting and would not have featured elements such as live sharks being transported from the sea to Rome. Dahm elaborated on the impracticality of capturing and transporting a shark alive, given Rome's distance from the coast and the challenges of such logistics, especially after 81 AD when modifications to the Colosseum made flooding for such battles impossible. He also addressed the inaccuracies in the portrayal of animal gladiators, asserting that such combinations of trained gladiators fighting against animals were improbable. Instead, there were events where hunters would kill animals, but not in direct fights against gladiators. Dahm explained that the depiction of desperate battles between animals like baboons and rhinoceroses against gladiators was exaggerated and misleading. Furthermore, Dahm pointed out that the crowd dynamics in the film were overly simplified. In reality, followers of different gladiators often clashed, akin to modern sports fan rivalries, which the film glosses over for dramatic effect. Betting was rampant among audiences, influencing their loyalties as gladiators faced off in the arena, thus adding a layer of complexity to the entertainment of ancient Rome that Gladiator II may overlook. With Ridley Scott's response to historical criticism showcasing a cavalier attitude—suggesting the audience's absence from history grants him creative license—historians like Dahm argue that such historical liberties diminish the cultural and educational value of films set in historically rich periods. The overall takeaway from these critiques is that while cinematic storytelling is essential, it should not come at the expense of an accurate portrayal of history, particularly when so much money and effort is invested in the production. Audiences should be aware of these discrepancies to appreciate the complete picture of the historical narratives being presented.