Non-fiction / Pollice Verso
Pollice Verso
I was watching “Gladiator” the other night and I must say, despite having it several times before, I rather enjoyed it. But I am first and foremost an historian and it wasn’t long before I started analysing exactly what I was watching. It struck me that the film represented most people’s understanding of the Roman games and it was, to say the least, rather misleading.
Let’s begin with poor old Maximus’ status as a slave. To begin with as a freeborn Roman it was not possible for Maximus to simply be picked up and made a slave. He would have had certain legal rights in that regard and, though he would have had difficulty exercising them after being condemned to death by the Emperor Commodus, his captors would not have known that. Still, having been made a slave what about his career as a gladiator? In his first action in the arena it is clear that he had been selected to be an andabates – usually criminals whose only purpose was to die quickly for the entertainment of the mob. But why would he have been selected for this? There was no reason on the part of his captors to assume that he was a condemned criminal, while he and several of his companions were such superb physical specimens that any lanista (those that owned and trained gladiators) worth his salt would have seen the potential in them and trained them accordingly. Gladiators were, by the standards of the time, pampered professionals in which a great deal of time and money was invested.
Which brings us to the status of gladiators. True, they were slaves, but most were free to roam the streets when not actually fighting in the arena. There were two good reasons for this. First, slaves found it extraordinarily difficult to simply run away since there was nowhere to run away to. Second, and this is the most crucial point about the status of gladiators, they were widely regarded as the sporting superstars of their day. Those who survived and became such superstars could expect to make a great deal of money – several became the equivalent of millionaires. It is also true that the Romans practised manumission – the right of slaves to buy their freedom from their masters. There was, in fact, a whole stratum of society made up of such freedmen, many of whom set up very successful businesses and became quite wealthy. Nor were such people condemned to a life within their own stratum of society. There are many cases on record of freedmen rising to the equestrian rank, while many had son’s that rose to the exalted rank of Senator.
So OK, gladiators could become rich, but surely their life expectancy was rather short? Well, no. A gladiator had up to an 80% chance of walking away from a fight alive and healthy. The Romans, despite their reputation for cruelty, considered themselves as connoisseurs of fighting men and liked nothing better than to see two men fight each other to a standstill if they had exhibited great skill during the fight. Then there were the referees. Contrary to popular opinion gladiatorial fights were not a free-for-all, but were strictly controlled according to a well-developed set of rules. Like referees in a modern boxing match the Roman equivalent would step between gladiators if they found themselves in a clinch. The different styles of gladiator were specifically designed to make the contest as even as possible – simple slaughter was frowned upon as unsporting.
Still gladiators did die in the arena, much to the annoyance of the lanista who would have spent a great deal of money training the man. But, even when beaten by a superior opponent, a gladiator could expect mercy from the mob if he’d put up a half-decent show. Which brings us to the title of this piece – “police verso.” Translated from Latin this means “with thumb extended” and it was the signal by which the mob could show its appreciation for a defeated gladiator and grant him mercy. Now it is not certain what “with thumb extended” actually means. The accepted interpretation – a “thumbs up” sign – is actually an invention of a French film maker from the very early years of the 20th century. Some historians think that it wasn’t a means of signalling mercy at all but quite the opposite. What it actually meant, according to them, was a stabbing motion towards the neck that meant “give it to him right there.”
Yet, if all this is true, then why did the most famous of all gladiators – Spartacus – lead the revolt against Rome in 72BC? There are two possible explanations for this. First, Spartacus lived at an early stage in the development of the games and may not have been as well-treated as those who came after him. But there is a far more intriguing possibility that has been ignored for far too long. It is unlikely that Spartacus was his real name. It has no known provenance and sounds suspiciously like a stage name -many gladiators were given such names by their lanista. Secondly it is quite possible that when Roman writers described him as a Thracian, they were actually referring to his style of fighting in the arena rather than his place of origin. So who was Spartacus? Not the son of a slave that’s for sure. Roman writers tell us that he was in fact a soldier – a legionary condemned to the arena for some crime – probably striking a superior officer. Now in 72 BC the Roman army was still essentially a citizen army, so it is very unlikely that he was a Thracian. It is far more likely that he was, in fact, a Roman. Many Roman writers at the time actually said as much. As a Roman citizen he could not be crucified. It is recorded in the Bible that, over a century later, Saint Paul used the fact that he was a Roman citizen to avoid such a fate. It was probably because of his status as a Roman citizen that Spartacus was condemned to the arena rather than being nailed up in the first place. His ability to defeat several of the legions sent against him also begins to make more sense when these facts are known. As a soldier he was quite familiar with Roman tactics and if he had been an officer in the legions – it’s quite possible that he’d been a centurion for instance – his natural leadership skills and training would account for his uncanny abilities. Finally we come to the death of Spartacus in the final battle against Gaius Licinius Crassus. Despite a diligent search for his body by the victorious Roman commander it was never found. Could it be that Spartacus actually survived the battle and slipped away to lose himself amongst the general Roman population?
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
I agree with many of the points you listed concerning the historical accuracy of “Gladiator.” While it’s true that the film makes many allusions and inaccurate elements, the DVD special features have documentaries that explain much of what you covered. And as for Spartacus, whether or not the film was historically accurate about that, one would consider it to be more poetic than historical in its scope.
- add/view comments (0)
Showing 1 - 1 of 1
Review item
Add to faves
GENERAL
REVIEW QUEUE
Ratings & Rankings
