Gladiator II - first look at the STORY and the history

I'm waing for the next Q&A. When you catch the Helvetii crossing the river and round up a few thousand slaves... Where do they go? Like is there a big caravan of lories following the 10th round?

Been waiting on this one Professor

Gold Standard
Gold Sworthy

something off w the lights in your room.

I'll watch this but I'll skip the actual film.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is, if Lucius is Maximus' son that means Maximus cheated on his beloved, ideal wife. in the first film Maximus says the two boys are the same age.

So that totally ruins the romanticism of the marriage in the first movie.

Would be good too hear your thoughts 0n the 3rd century sometime .

I’m just imagining sitting down in the theater getting ready to watch this and noticing Adrian Goldsworthy sitting a few seats away. To a certain type of person, with a genuine passion for this subject matter, that would be more thrilling than if the stars of the movie were sitting there. Oh god I would have annoyed the hell out of you 😂

That was a very generous description. Thank you.

I enjoy your content, but ever since you started monetizing it, you allow commercials midroll that makes listening to these almost impossible without getting a couple of commercials every 5 minutes.

On the historical accuracy side, the odd quotes of Virgil and Cicero were nice. I'm surprised you didn't mention the kids playing football or the senator drinking coffee while reading the morning paper. I don't really mind such historical "liberties" but it does take me out of the movie somewhat, even when it's played for laughs. You also said not too many flags, but in the final confontration both sides have more soldiers holding flags than shields! I'm guessing we're the minority who would like to see a movie actually set in ancient Rome, rather than a movie about people with modern sensibilities in Roman fancy dress...

But the thing that really ground my gears, and only because it's a pet peeve of mine, is the archery. Yes, they're nice recurve bows. But they're used as if they were pistols or carbines in a western: kept at full draw for ages, never miss, absolutely deadly, etc... You see this in the huge volleys covering every shield with dozen of arrows in the opening assault, in the underground ambush later on where a party of archers kills everyone in a millisecond, or in the praetorian archers acting as crowd control in the colosseum. It's just so strange that all the battles are fought primarily with bows. It's like someone choreographed fights with rifles, and then replaced the props with bows at the last second, rather than actually try to represent ancient battles (which is why shields are never used - there's no way to shoehorn them as the ancient analogy of something modern). The urge with cinematographers to make every battle look like Saving Private Ryan is strong indeed. It's not, in the grand scheme of things, a big deal, but it is a pointlessly lost opportunity IMO.

THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTE CRAP ! Riding a rino... Who wrote this ? AI ?

Wouldn't the counter part for the Roman naval invasion of the fictional Numidian city at the start of the movie be the siege of Syracuse?

I have read that Romans would shine their helmets and armor so as to be very bright, obvious as a psychologic play on their enemies.
Supposedly the Romans even advanced on their enemy formations in silence, which was apparently very disconcerting to the usual load boasting & noise making of most armies of the time.

I like to look at them as more fantasy history, in that regard they are fine, gave plenty of stuff to use visually in tabletop gaming. Fantasy Rome settings over the ages are a fascinating mirror into fiction.

The new version of Caligula that was in theaters recently is more historically accurate than both Gladiator flicks.

Thankyou again Adrian you fine fellow

Sorry, Adrian, your indulgence of this cheese bomb to encourage interest in Ancient Rome doesn't balance the enormous eye roll most viewers will have, be they ancient history aficionados or just movie fans. The film's 15 minutes is just about up.

Thank you for all you put out. Your opinions have great value because you have the knowledge to back them up. Hats off as always for giving us your time and opinions.

Hi Professor! Huge fan of your work since my dad gave me your book on the Punic Wars for Christmas a few years ago. I enjoyed the film since I never expected Scott to strive for historical accuracy, and the action was fairly good. The characterization of Caracalla and Geta was somewhat baffling, but I digress. I must say, though, I did like Caracalla’s monkey, and the absurd scene of him being appointed consul for the year along with Macrinus; it gave me shades of Honorius’ chickens. Looking forward to the in-depth historical analysis of the movie whenever it comes out!

It was nice hearing your opinion of it . Great video

Like Napoleon, I walked into G2 assuming it would be ahistorical, and as such the ahistorical aspects of the film didn't bother me at all. A gladiator riding a rhino did, not because I know of no historical source for such a thing, but even if there is one out there someplace, it still seemed goofy. It also hilariously reminded me of Mongo from Blazing Saddles riding into town on an ox. "Candygram for Mongo!"

A sequel we did not need.

Critics get over yourselves. G2 is a fun over the top sandal flick, not a documentary and I'm sick to death of marvel movies or Disney cartoons. Enjoy it for what it is, fun mindless fluff.

Since Kingdom of Heaven, I have hated Scott.

A great way of presenting the film after seeing it. The actual history that wasn't presented would make a superb film though.

When I heard the main character was called Hanno, I thought it would turn out to be a film about some distant Carthaginian relative of Hannibal initially. That would have been a much better story

The movie sucks.

I think the potential for an Elagabalus film is immense - what a crass, guilty treat that would be! In the same dimension in which Crowe plays Ferox!

If there is to be an Elagabalus-based sequel, it will face the difficulty of not seeming repetitive in having the emperor be hyperbolic madman with 'un-Roman' perversions. Gladiator II decided to double down on that trope despite its historical inaccuracy, so pushing further in that direction may detract from any novelty the third film offers. I think if there is to be novelty in the third film it should really break away even more from the template established by the first film (downcast warrior gets a last chance at revenge by going to Rome as unknown gladiator, where a lunatic emperor rules and the people yearn for democratic freedom). I do think one aspect of the political situation that the film gave novelty to was the sense of great poverty and mass discontent among the people of Rome, while the emperor is bent on more needless, costly wars. The whole set-up seems meant to mirror contemporary American politics and its own decaying empire. Perhaps if that angle had been accented more the second film would have actually stood apart from the original in terms of its faux-political message.

Was Septimus Black or just really tan 😂

Something they odly got right is the Macedonian phalangites. In the first fight in which Lucius Verus is before Geta and Caracalla, some of the guards (I´m guessing Praetorians) looked more like Macedonian phalangites than praetorians