Home
View My Guestbook
Sign my Guestbook
E-mail
Background for the fall of the Roman Empire || Background for the movie || Historical Inaccuracies of the Movie
|| Kudos || Personal Quirks
Background for Fall of the Roman Empire
Background for the Movie
Historical Inaccuracies of the Movie
Kudos
Personal Quirks
There are many theories to the fall of the Roman Empire. The
traditional date given is 476, when the Germanic mercenaries led by Odovacer
forced Romulus Augustulus to abdicate. Romulus Augustulus was the
last to be called Emperor, after his abdication, Odovacer called himself
the Rex, King. Although Romulus Augustulus was officially an Emperor,
the control of the Western Empire had long fallen into the hands of barbarian
generals. Today, many introduction courses to history place 476 as
the date of the fall of the Roman Empire. However, just as Rome was
not built in a day, it did not magically crumble in a day either.
The 476 date was suggested by Edward Gibbons in the eighteenth century.
Gibbons however, was not even a historian. Many Romans considered
Rome to fall in Aug. 23, 410, when the Gauls lead by Alaric sacked Rome.
It was the first time in 800 years. In 455, Rome was once again sacked
by the Vandals. An even more devastating loss because the Vandals
unlike the Gauls might have not been Christians and therefore did not even spare the
churches. What cause the once dominant Empire to be gutted by these
waves of barbarians? The causes are numerous and controversial.
Some of the more accepted ones include the tax burden, continuous barbarian
invasion, the lack of a strong emperor, infiltration of the barbarians,
population decline . . . There are also some more interesting ones suggesting
the lead piping that supplied water to the Empire caused a drop in health
and birth rates . . .
However, many argue that the so called fall was only a collapse of
the Roman political system but the social, cultural and linguistic constructs
remained in place. Granted those structures have changed dramatically
since the time of Augustus. Also while the Western Empire lost its
power the Eastern Empire remained firmly in place for another thousand
years.
The time frame of the movie takes place two hundred years before what
most historians would consider the fall of Rome. The Emperor in question
is Marcus Aurelius. He lived from 121-180 and ruled from 161 to 180.
(In case you are wondering, yes, it is dear ol' Obi-Wan Kenobi Alec Guiness
who plays the stoic Emperor. I was greatly amused by this for no
other reason than a obscene sugar high.) Marcus Aurelius is considered
the last of the Antonines, also known as the Five Good Emperors.
Many believe under the reign of these Emperors, Rome was at its golden
age. We know a great deal about Marcus Aurelius (from here on referred
to as MA, not to be confused with Mark Antony) because he wrote a diary
that records his life and his struggles as an Emperor. They are published
as his Meditations after his death, but most likely it was intended for
his eyes only. MA had training as a philosopher, well versed in Greek
and Latin. He was very concerned with justice and trying to be a
good Emperor although he realizes the conflicts that often arise from trying
to be both. He devoted much of his meditations to the nature of philosophy
and the nature of God. I highly recommend reading parts if not all
of meditations if you enjoy philosophy. Ironically, (and I think
rather melodramatically and very sadly) MA would spend most of his years as an Emperor in
battle when MA was such a philosopher. Which is not to say
MA was a bad general. Indeed by all accounts he was an excellent
soldier as he protected his Empire from the first waves of the Germanic
tribes. If one was to make an argument that the reign of MA was the beginning
of the fall, no doubt the continuous problems he encountered with the Germanic
tribes would play a major role. Unlike the movie suggest, MA most
likely did not die of poison. Rather, he probably died of small pox,
a plague that had killed so many of his troops. Unlike the rest of
the Antonines, MA did not pass the Emperorship by ability, rather he passed
it to his son who he had been training for a long time. The reason
for this is probably that none of the other emperors had sons to pass the
Empire over to.
In terms of historical accuracy this movie sucked. I'm sorry,
but it did.
Where do I start . . . I guess I will start with the main character
Livius. He didn't exist. He's not even based on a real character.
Then there is Lucilla. The real Lucilla is anything but chaste.
She was involved in numerous affairs. Some more hostile sources she
occasionally pretended she was a prostitute to amuse herself. She
did however plot against her brother which caused him to exile her and
eventually murders her.
One of the more interesting scenes in the movie is when MA gathers
all the leaders of the Empire and makes the speech about tolerance.
It is better reflections of United State's mentality during the 60s rather
than MA's own attitude. More over, the meeting never took place.
MA also did not plan to demote his son. Instead he made Commodus
co-ruler seven years before.
Interestingly enough, Commodus's personality is well captured.
He was another megalomanic in the tradition of Nero. He did enjoy
being a gladiator and by many accounts, he was probably really good at
it. He also killed many senators this way. Of course given
that most senators probably did not like this, he was murdered in 192 (unlike
the movie which suggested he died fairly soon after he became the Emperor.
And of course the real Commodus could not be killed by an imaginary character.)
Despite of the gross inaccuracies of the movie, there is one accurate
aspect of the movie worthy of mention. The lack of Christians.
At this time, Christianity is still a relative small cult that had no political
importance. Kudos to the movie for avoiding the popular cliché
of chaste Christians. (Although the way Lucilla dresses in the movie,
she is clearly a Madonna figure)
Because MA is one of my favorite emperors, I was thoroughly ticked
off that he got poisoned. I almost must say, seeing Obi-Wan as MA,
and Captain Vantrap (spelling? The guy from the Sound of Music) as
Commodus was thoroughly entertaining in their own right. I am not
sure if it was intentional or not, but when I saw the movie, I thought
I saw some homosexual tensions between Commodus and Livius. The implications
are interesting. Commodus (the real one) probably did have sexual
relationships with people of both sexes, not rare in Rome. However,
given the context of Commodus in the movie (embodiment of evil, opposite
of MA, etc.), I wonder if it is a statement about 1960s society.