Before the Premiere of Gladiator II, Ridley Scott Had Already Achieved One of His Big Goals: Making Historians Mad

Historians tend to react strongly whenever Ridley Scott unveils a film set in the past. The British director, known for period pieces, recently stirred controversy with Napoleon, which has upset classical historians. Scott’s liberties with the French general’s life have sparked a debate that appears likely to resurface with Gladiator II.

Taking liberties with Napoleon. Controversy started to brew with the release of the first trailer of Napoleon, starring Joaquin Phoenix. Historians’ criticisms ranged from minor inaccuracies—often considered artistic license—to serious historical distortions. For example, during the Egyptian campaign, French artillery fired at the pyramids. However, French history expert Georges Mourier told France Info that “Napoleon never bombed the pyramids,” according to an English translation provided by Google.“Napoleon is after all the basis of modern Egyptology!” Mourier added.

“Vive la France!” The film contains numerous false details. For instance, it depicts Marie Antoinette’s execution as witnessed by her husband, who was actually at the siege of Toulon at the time. Another scene drew laughter from historians when soldiers shouted “Vive la France!” in French with pronounced Anglo-Saxon accents. Furthermore, Napoleon portrays Bonaparte as an heir to the French crown, overlooking his 1804 oath to break from monarchy by declaring himself emperor. According to Mourier, the film “lacks a lot of geopolitical elements” that explain Bonaparte’s decisions.

Aiming for controversy. Scott stirred up controversy while promoting Napoleon, comparing Bonaparte to historical figures like Alexander the Great and dictators Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. When questioned by the BBC about the backlash from French critics, Scott retorted, “You really want me to answer that?... It will have a bleep in it.” He then advised critics to “buy a life,” and told his interviewer, “Were you there? Oh, you weren’t there. Then how do you know?”

And so on. The Film Experience reviewed Scott’s career, highlighting how only The Duelists and, to a lesser extent, The Last Duel showed any ambition toward historical accuracy. Since then, Scott has modernized characters, costumes, and dialogue. He’s sometimes done this for aesthetic purposes, such as playing Greek composer Vangelis’ music as Columbus arrived in America in 1492: Conquest of Paradise. Other times, he’s done it for thematic resonance, as with Kingdom of Heaven’s post-9/11 undertones.

Gladiator II continues the tradition. Scott’s Gladiator II appears to follow a similar path. While critics have generally received the film favorably, historians, like expert Shadi Bartsch, have labeled it “total Hollywood bullshit.” Scott, for instance, includes a scene where the Colosseum is turned into a giant pool with sharks. Bartsch concedes that Romans did occasionally flood the Colosseum for naval battles but notes, “I don’t think Romans knew what a shark was.”

A century up, a century down. The movie piles on the anachronisms. Denzel Washington’s character, Macrinus, is shown in a café, a setting that didn’t exist in Rome until the 18th century. A nobleman is also depicted reading a newspaper, despite the printing press not having been invented yet. These creative liberties will appeal differently to viewers, depending on their preference for historical accuracy in what Scott calls a work of escapism. Regardless of public opinion, Scott seems ready to defend his vision.

Image | Paramount

Related |Archaeologists Opened the Tomb of a Roman Gladiator. They Didn’t Find a Gladiator Inside, but They Did Find 12 Other People