Bored Panda works better on our iPhone app
Continue in app Continue in browser

BoredPanda Add post form topAdd Post
Tooltip close

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here.

“Total Hollywood BS”: Gladiator 2 Is Historically Inaccurate, Historian Says
79

“Total Hollywood BS”: Gladiator 2 Is Historically Inaccurate, Historian Says

ADVERTISEMENT

Gladiator II hasn’t been released yet, but its trailer is already giving historians much to talk about. Dr. Shadi Bartsch, a classics professor who has written several books on ancient Rome, bluntly described the Ridley Scott-directed film as “total Hollywood bullsh*t.”

The sequel to the Oscar-winning epic is set two decades after the first film and stars Paul Mescal as Lucius, the grandson of Rome’s former emperor Marcus Aurelius and the son of Lucilla and Maximus.

Highlights
  • A historian called Gladiator II "total Hollywood bullsh*t" for its historical inaccuracies.
  • The Ridley Scott-directed film shows a flooded Colosseum with sharks, which is inaccurate, said Dr. Shadi Bartsch.
  • Moreover, Romans never drank tea in cafes or read newspapers as shown in the film.

Lucius is forced to fight as a gladiator after Roman soldiers led by General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) invade Numidia. The former heir to the Roman Empire receives help from Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a former slave who mentors Lucius and keeps a stable of gladiators.

You May Also Like:

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

In one scene from the film’s first trailer, the Colosseum is shown flooded and filled with sharks. According to Bartsch, a University of Chicago professor with degrees from Princeton, Harvard, and UC Berkeley, this portrayal is historically inaccurate.

“I don’t think Romans knew what a shark was,” Bartsch told The Hollywood Reporter, noting that ancient Romans did fill the arena with water for naval battles.

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

A separate scene shows rhinos charging into the Colosseum, which is partially inaccurate.

Martial, a Roman poet born in Hispania (modern Spain), “wrote a poem in 80 A.D. about a rhinoceros tossing a bull up to the sky,” Bartsch explained.

However, while the rhinoceros in the film has two horns, the one in Martial’s poem has a single horn. Additionally, unlike in the film, there is no evidence that gladiators actually rode such animals.

Though the Romans did fill the Colosseum with water for naval battles, they did not throw sharks in, as depicted in the movie trailer

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

Bartsch pointed out another anachronistic scene, where a Roman noble drinks tea in a café while reading a newspaper—1,200 years before the invention of the printing press.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They did have daily news — Acta Diurna — but it was carved and placed at certain locations,” the author and historian described.

“You had to go to it; you couldn’t hold it at a cafe. Also, they didn’t have cafes!”

The Acta Diurna (also called Acta Populi, or Acta Publica), said to date from before 59 B.C.E., recorded official business and matters of public interest, serving as a type of daily gazette, as per Britannica. The term Acta, when used by itself, generally designated an emperor’s official enactments.

Contrary to what is depicted in the film, the Romans did not have cafés

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

Image credits: Paramount Pictures

The film is scheduled for release on November 15 in the UK and November 22 in the US

ADVERTISEMENT

Ridley Scott was previously questioned by historians for the depiction of Napoleon in his 2023 film about the French military leader and emperor. One critic, Patrice Gueniffey, a Napoleon biographer, attacked the film in Le Point magazine as a “very anti-French and very pro-British” rewrite of history.

Responding to the criticism from French historians, the British director declared that “the French don’t even like themselves.”

In an interview with The Times, the 86-year-old added, “When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the f*** up then.'”

Bored Panda has contacted Ridley Scott’s representatives for comment.

People didn’t seem to mind that not every scene in the film was historically accurate, saying, “It’s not a documentary”

Image credits: buckleupjazz

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credits: OurMovieGuide

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credits: EricsElectrons

Image credits: tydriscoll7

Image credits: DGen_Media

Image credits: woodygwatts

Ic_polls

Poll Question

Thanks! Check out the results:

Share on Facebook
Marina Urman

Marina Urman

Writer, BoredPanda staff

Read more »

Marina is a journalist at Bored Panda. Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, she holds a Bachelor of Social Science. In her spare time, you can find her baking, reading, or binge-watching a docuseries. Her main areas of interest are pop culture, literature, and education.

Read less »
Marina Urman

Marina Urman

Writer, BoredPanda staff

Marina is a journalist at Bored Panda. Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, she holds a Bachelor of Social Science. In her spare time, you can find her baking, reading, or binge-watching a docuseries. Her main areas of interest are pop culture, literature, and education.

Renan Duarte

Renan Duarte

Author, BoredPanda staff

Read more »

This lazy panda forgot to write something about itself.

Read less »

Renan Duarte

Renan Duarte

Author, BoredPanda staff

This lazy panda forgot to write something about itself.

What do you think ?
Add photo comments
POST
Ursula S.
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Unfortunately, there are people who believe everything they see in a movie.

Vinnie
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The worst case I know of: a Supreme Court judge cited an action series as legal research. Antonin Scalia used the series 24 to justify torture. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles". 🙄

Load More Replies...
Ece Cenker
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Newspaper was too much imo. Newspapyrus or newsparchment maybe...

Luis Hernandez Dauajare
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yeah, who would have thought that a sequel to a movie where a general turned gladiator kills an Roman emperor, directed by the same person who literally told a historian to shut up if he was not there when questioned about the accuracy of another movie would possibly be historically inaccurate?

Rose the Cook
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Part of the fun of watching historical films is finding the inaccuracies.

CG
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Some historical accuracy is important, but not being 100% historically accurate in favour of spectacle is something that happens in movies quite often. It would be one thing if it was a historical biopic of a famous warrior, or celebrity, but Gladiator is intended as being more of a spectacle rather than a history lesson. The Gladiator series isn't the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

Heir of Durin
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Nobody’s watching this movie for historical accuracy. We’re in it for Pedro Pascal.

Fred L.
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I'm sorry, was there any doubt about that from the very second it was announced? Ridley Scott makes entertaining history movies, which is generally great, but his care about accuracy has gone out the window a long time ago.

Josh Hart
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

So f’n What Braveheart fir instance and the first Gladiator… more AI BS articles?

Jules
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

TBF I don't watch these films for the historical accuracy. Am I not educated by them? Maybe I'm not. Am I not entertained? Hell yes!!

Scott Rackley
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I can hear the whoosh of this going above this guys head. No s**t, Sherlock.

Caroline Nagel
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The 'where you there?'-argument is the silliest argument one could use for historical events. It shows how little you care about FACTS. What is so wrong showing the historical facts, why do directors ALWAYS have to change history? Facts are facts, stick to them.

reuben kift
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Please tell me this guy is being sarcastic. The first one was also historically inaccurate. Commodus fought in the Colosseum, but couldn't be harmed by other combatants. Maximus Decimus Meridius didn't exist. I could go on, but there is no way this guy is taking the movie this seriously.

Ursula S.
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Unfortunately, there are people who believe everything they see in a movie.

Vinnie
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The worst case I know of: a Supreme Court judge cited an action series as legal research. Antonin Scalia used the series 24 to justify torture. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles". 🙄

Load More Replies...
Ece Cenker
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Newspaper was too much imo. Newspapyrus or newsparchment maybe...

Luis Hernandez Dauajare
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yeah, who would have thought that a sequel to a movie where a general turned gladiator kills an Roman emperor, directed by the same person who literally told a historian to shut up if he was not there when questioned about the accuracy of another movie would possibly be historically inaccurate?

Rose the Cook
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Part of the fun of watching historical films is finding the inaccuracies.

CG
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Some historical accuracy is important, but not being 100% historically accurate in favour of spectacle is something that happens in movies quite often. It would be one thing if it was a historical biopic of a famous warrior, or celebrity, but Gladiator is intended as being more of a spectacle rather than a history lesson. The Gladiator series isn't the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

Heir of Durin
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Nobody’s watching this movie for historical accuracy. We’re in it for Pedro Pascal.

Fred L.
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I'm sorry, was there any doubt about that from the very second it was announced? Ridley Scott makes entertaining history movies, which is generally great, but his care about accuracy has gone out the window a long time ago.

Josh Hart
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

So f’n What Braveheart fir instance and the first Gladiator… more AI BS articles?

Jules
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

TBF I don't watch these films for the historical accuracy. Am I not educated by them? Maybe I'm not. Am I not entertained? Hell yes!!

Scott Rackley
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I can hear the whoosh of this going above this guys head. No s**t, Sherlock.

Caroline Nagel
Community Member
2 weeks ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The 'where you there?'-argument is the silliest argument one could use for historical events. It shows how little you care about FACTS. What is so wrong showing the historical facts, why do directors ALWAYS have to change history? Facts are facts, stick to them.

reuben kift
Community Member
2 weeks ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Please tell me this guy is being sarcastic. The first one was also historically inaccurate. Commodus fought in the Colosseum, but couldn't be harmed by other combatants. Maximus Decimus Meridius didn't exist. I could go on, but there is no way this guy is taking the movie this seriously.

You May Like
Related on Bored Panda
Related on Bored Panda
Trending on Bored Panda
Also on Bored Panda