Gladiator's general is anti-political hero for Rome as modern Amerika

by MC12

Hollywood is not about making accurate historical movies, so that fact that ITAL 
Gladiator END doesn't get history right is not too important. With movies about 
ancient Rome, the point is usually a current political one, and in Gladiator 
it's Colin Powell meets the Kennedys.

The hero is Maximus, a Roman army general played by Russell Crowe. He's a 
straight military type, into the glory of Rome but not the details of politics. 
He doesn't want his men to fight and die for nothing, and he resents the army 
being used as a political pawn. The myth of the apolitical military is post 
Vietnam Amerikan hypocrisy -- the idea that if the politicians got out of the 
way the military could get "the job" done. What the job means is just as 
ambiguous in Gladiator as it is in Amerikan mythmaking.

The "good" emperor is dying. He's looking back at 25 years of rule, with 20 
years of war, and saying he would rather have peace. Maximus agrees -- he wants 
to get back to his nuclear family and live a normal 19th century farming 
existence (never mind it's supposed to be 180 AD). The "bad" emperor, the son, 
wants power for himself, and he wants to disband the Roman senate and corrupt 
the republic.

The movies uses ridiculous language like "the people" when talking about the 
"representatives" in the senate. This is to convey the supposedly heroic aims of 
Maximus and the other good guys. What difference it really makes to the millions 
under Roman domination is not made clear, though at one point a good-guy senator 
says that "better sanitation" is needed to stop the spread of plague among the 
people, and the bad emperor scoffs. (They didn't know sanitation had anything to 
do with the spread of plague at that time -- the line is just in there to show 
that the good guys are liberals by today's standards.)

Crowe says on the movie web site: "[Maximus] was a military man who fought for 
honor and the glory of Rome ... but he is again caught up in the political 
turmoil of the day, and can't help but become involved. For want of a better 
expression, he's a good man."

Tell that to the "Germanians" Maximus is slaughtering and conquering in the 
opening battle scene. Like current Amerikan culture, imperialist wars are all 
about the "identity" and "purpose" of the imperial culture, not about the 
millions killed in the course of global domination.

Ironically, while you wouldn't expect accuracy, one historian of the period 
reports that in 180 AD a Roman general would had have come out of the senate 
before becoming a commander, so the apolitical general idea is a myth. Of course 
in a much larger sense the idea of an apolitical military is absurd from a 
materialist standpoint.

Both the 1960 movie ITAL Spartacus END and the current ITAL Gladiator END are 
weak Hollywood political statements. For modern political points we'd have to 
choose ITAL Spartacus END which is about the biggest slave revolt in Roman 
history, led by a gladiator. Unlike Maximus, Spartacus was a common slave, not 
an imperialist general -- a much better hero from MIM's point of view. And 
Spartacus' mission was to overthrow Rome and free the slaves, while Maximus is 
wrapped up in a stupid struggle over who gets to be emperor.

Note: Toronto Star, 15 May 2000.