I remember reading that they ended up pulling a fairly historical accurate scene from the film Gladiator. Specifically after Russell Crowe's character becomes famous he ends up in a scene showing him annoyed, sitting for a portrait that's going to be copied and blown up to be used in billboards hocking olive oil and other goods. Which is 100% accurate, in fact many accounts of the era mention that getting an olive oil endorsement was seen as a sign of a particularly successful gladiator. Unfortunately the test audiences thought it was just the director shoehorning in some modern anti-consumerism message and the studio pulled it.
I took an archaeology course on Pompeii and we spent a unit on gladiators. The coolest thing I learned was the existence of the “referee” role that is often depicted. Also, while purely conjecture, Lloyd/Lindybeige brings up really interesting points in his video and even suggests that a gladiator bout might look and feel closer to a WWE or MMA match rather than the deadly execution method we think of today. Obviously there were tons of executions on top of the games, but the actual bouts themselves were between trained professionals. Apparently, and I haven’t independently verified this, there was a law passed to prevent patrician men from joining the gladiators in lu of military service. It’s such an interesting topic.
the point of gladiators fighting in a more stylized manner similar to WWE makes a lot more sense to me because having seen competition fights with swords and spears end in 3-6 seconds and being over in one or two moves would probably be too boring to count as entertainment. plus it would be ridiculously expensive for only one minute worth of entertainment per fight, and a "death match" lasting for a minute is being very generous.
Other than the condemned to death, to whom the arena was simply the method of execution there were a sort of arena "cannon fodder", those were the "noxii", "enemies of the state" (often war prisoners, or other kind of criminals not specifically condemned to death). Those were cheap (no special training, no tailored weapons...) and they were often put at a disadvantage (IE fighting on foot vs. a gladiator on a chariot) but, being given a weapon, they had anyway at least a possibility to survive. It only needed a good display of martial proveness.
Don't underestimate the danger the gladiators were in. It may not have been quite as deadly as the movies depict, but death was a very real possibility, even for the best. One of the best gladiators was a Secutor named Flamma. He had been offered retirement four times, but chose to keep fighting, and he was finally killed in his 35th fight.
@@XCodes It depended on the gladiator type. At least one class used a conventional military gladius while others had different kinds of swords or weapons.
The thing that annoys me is we have so much reference for what gladiators looked like, and they look very iconic already. But we don't really see them much in the film looking that way. History already gave them a blueprint for something that looked really cool without needing to embellish the designs, but they went the opposite way for the most part. It's baffling.
Most producers & directors in Hollywood are dicks & costumers/props are arty luvvies pandering to their own narcissistic creative egos rather than trying to give any authenticity. Lazy tropes plus a sweety-shop attitude when looking at catalogues. As Matt says, once Hollywood incorrectly defines a look to any period, it';s brainwashed into our cukture & a major obstacle to the truth.
Even though you wouldn't (even couldn't due to contracts) want your main talent wearing full helmets you could at least have the extras wearing them plus the other gear.
I wrote a paper on this movie while I was in college, and in my research I found that the historical consultant for the film wanted her name excluded from the credits because of how unhistorical it was (and how much they totally disregarded her advice). Also, I found that a lot of gladiator combats were explicitly nonlethal--like, they used blunt wooden swords. Of course this is dependent on CONTEXT; gladiatorial combat existed for along time and fashions changed. So there *were* gladiatorial combats that were explicitly about people getting eaten by lions and killing each other with real weapons for entertainment. But these shouldn't be taken as representative of the sport overall (and were mostly practiced under the crazy emperors, and only for special occasions). When facing dangerous animals, as well, it should be taken into consideration what a great advantage a human with armor and weapons has against any wild animal--especially when that animal is on a leash attached to a secure object....That said, I don't claim to be any kind of expert, this is one research paper. If anyone can confirm, refute, or contextualize these findings I'd be very interested.
the battles with the deadly end were when they joined gladiators vs criminals (thieves, murderers, bandits) - a group that would otherwise end up on crosses, here they got a chance to entertain the people and maybe save their heads if they fight well but it was usually the slaughterhouse of these convicts by gladiators when only gladiators fought, the thumb-down murder was out of mercy, when everyone saw that the wounded had no chance of surviving
I think the 2010 show 'Spartacus' is the most compelling and arguably realistic depiction of gladiators in fiction. While the fight scenes are story are a little over the top, has all the main classes of gladiators (in addition to a few rarer ones) and shows them as being specifically being trained as such. It also depicts how successful gladiators get more and more privileges as they rise up in the ranks.
@@MaMastoast I guess "awkward" is the perfect word for describing that show.. I'm not prude at all, but idk it seemed to me they showed in that stuff just to get attention, which makes it awkward to me.
Sad about Andrew Whitfield passing. That show had good potential. IIRC they had several seasons planned. When Andrew got sick, they did the pre-quel season waiting for him to get better. After he passed, Liam Mcintyre did his best playing the role, but it just wasn't the same. They ended the show with half the number of originally planned seasons.
Yeah, you can imagine them doing impractical but flashy shit like spinning attacks just to get the crowd going. I thought Lindybeige's theory about the helmets being so enclosed as to allow them to choreograph their fights unnoticed was an interesting one.
@@adamtennant4936 One of the differences between gladiators' helmets and legionaries helmets is that gladiators helmets didn't have openings for the ears, and often for the mouth. To be heard by the opponent the gladiator should have shouted that much that everyone would have heard it.
Another problem is that the film never really shows the referees who were supposed to make sure that everybody sticked to the rules and the end the fight when one of the gladiators surrendered. But it probably didn’t fit into their picture of Gladiators just killing each other without any rules...
Speaking of tussling with leather-clad greased-up dudes, there's Turkish oil wrestling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_wrestling Don't forget to get your hand down the opponent's pants, it's a legit move: ruclips.net/video/D2keIfaPHgw/видео.html
If you really want to be disappointed watch the movie Zulu's and then watch "Gladiators" and note that both the Zulu's and the Germanic tribes in "Gladiators" had exactly the same war chants in both movies. Funny how Hollywood can be so utterly un-self aware.
the most important thing to remember about Gladiator is that it is a work of fiction mean to convey a story. It should be viewed with the same lens as a Captain America movie
Gladiators: *are trained performers who are divided into Fantasy-style classes and who's literal entire point was to put on a spectacular show for the audience, much like the point of an action movie* Media: *still manages to fuck them up*
The types of gladiators, which the Romans called armaturae, gradually appeared during the history of the Roman gladiator. This appearance corresponds to the organizers' concern to spice up the confrontations by pairing two outfits and two combat techniques. The evolution of certain categories ultimately giving rise to others reflects the concern to balance the fighting by opposing different categories but with the same effectiveness. The first types to be born are generally qualified as "ethnic", because their name and their equipment correspond to that of peoples who fought Rome, the galli, the samnite ,the briton,the thrace. The equites fought on horseback, dressed in a short tunic, protected by a visor helmet, a small round shield (parma), and armed with a spear and a short sword. It happened that the combat continued on foot. The essential appeared in the amphitheater under the reigns of Claude and Néron, recalling the Breton soldiers (essedarii) mounted on light tanks, that the legions of Caesar, then those of Claude had to fight during the conquest of insular Brittany . Each tank carried two men: the coachman, the most honored, who held the main role, and a warrior, thrower of javelins. But we do not know whether, in the case of the essary, the crew included one man or two. But like his ancestor the Edesarius, he excelled in the throwing of the javelin., The crupellar whose weight prevented him from getting up in the event of a fall. The Dimachère fought with a sword in each hand. Certain heroes of the arena, versatile, wielded the sica of Thrace as well as the trident of the retiary
I wonder if the reason certain gladiator types were usually paired with specific gladiator types for combat, is because it is a form of storytelling taking place. As in telling certain myths/folk tales and/or propaganda. For instance, Murmillo vs Thracian representing Rome's wars/conquest of them, Secutor vs Secutor representing civil wars, etc.
6:56 The actual time the video starts. Also, I think Retiarius's trident and Secutor's helmet is a clever combination, since trident cannot poke through an eyehole of the Secutro's helmet, because one of the dents of a trident will hit the brass of the helmet whenever one tries to hit an eyehole.
And historical animal hide armor was rawhide or only partially tanned rawhide, not leather. Rawhide is significantly tougher and harder (rigid like hard plastic) than leather and was cheaper to make too.
Growing up in the 1960's & 70's I thought studded leather "armour" was cool. Leather was used as scale & lamellar armour, but Matt's quite right our modern obsession isn't historic. Most Medival & rennasience people considered leather uncivilised, preferring Linen, wool & further south, cotton.
Hilarious moment where Matt starts changing the conversation to discussing Gladiator's history in For Honor and how over time he received various tweaks and changes.
I am writing a screenplay where the main characters are Thracian and Greek. The Collosseum scene is pretty short and rapidly breaks out into a riot, but I will definitely be using this.
@@Artyomthewalrus Not really. Spartacus himself was a Thraex up until they introduced him as a non-helmeted Dimachaerus. Crixus was the Myrmillo - and the show got that pretty correct too, in that Myrmillos and Secutors, etc. were often the beefier/stockier body types - just because of the effort required to fight with the full scutum and helmets, etc. Spartacus, being of slightly thinner build, would have made a suitable Thraex candidate.
@@TurnStyleGames yeah, but any tv show has to be entertaining versus reality. The audience wants to see the actor and his v cut six pack. Then more six packs, alot of six packs.
It's well known that the movie Gladiator is based on the practice of "Friday Fortuita" arena combat. On those days, gladiators could choose to just wear the most comfortable armor, or pleated Dockers and polo shirts.
According to historical writings, Commadus was killed by his house servants in his sleep. Not in combat. He was very dangerous and fought over 750 times in the arena.
@@mnk9073 Let me repeat he never killed his opponents. A dull sword is perfectly capable of chopping one head down. It is still a piece of narrow steel bar. Not unlike the blades in your lawn mover.
Gibbons or Livi just mentioned the number. But recounts that everyone was terribly afraid of him. Also the movie character Maximus is an amalgam of two brothers. And Commadus ruled for 13 years. But that's movies for you. I still liked it.
It's very interesting to see how the gladiator classes rise and fall in favour and get rebranded according to the political climate. The Samnite class was popular until Samnium was integrated into the Roman sphere of influence so it was fased out over time and replaced with the Murmillo and the Secutor, the same goes for the gaulish influenced Gallus class. Notably the Hoplomachus and the Thraex were very popular in the western and southern part of the empire while the hellenic east found the pairing to be in very poor taste.
Matt. Check out that Spartacus show from a few years back. Theres a lot of ridiculous shit in there, but there's also some surprising attention to detail in some of the costumes/equipment and the aspect of fighters being celebrities and not fighting to the death. The first episode is markedly worse than the others. Im assuming it was the pilot, so don't get turned off by the first episode as I did. Only watch the first season though. Sadly the star actor passed away, and the subsequent seasons tried throwing another guy in, who just doesn't have the charisma and likeability of Andy Whitfield.
it was pretty respectfull to the history of the gladiators, the prequel was also good. i couldnt get over the new actor as you said, i was used to Spartacus being miserable and when i saw the new guy smile i just lost all interest. still, you cant go wrong with a show involving Lucy Lawless
I think the new guy did his best, I like him in other things I've seen him in. All things considered I'd rather have more and let them finish out the story then have it just end after season one. We got a good prequel season, plus there were some great moments in seasons 2 and 3. I particularly like the villain in season 3. He wasn't this completely despicable person like Craig Parker's character was in the first two seasons. I don't know the names of all the actors off the top of my head. Craig Parker did an excellent job but the character could get pretty cartoony IMHO.
I don't know if you have, but check out the series Rome by HBO. From the first episode where it shows Romans fighting in open ranks and using a whistle to rotate files or Pullo being in a execution ring fighting "gladiators"; it's pretty spot on. The troops even wear mail instead of the normal Segmentata which would be correct for the time period.
I've read we actually don't know if the Romans rotated like that as it is mostly the series' interpretation. The Romans wrote that they rotated entire units of men (eg. Maniples and then cohorts), but we don't know if or how they rotated lines of men within an individual unit (which is what the show portrays).
I wrote a comedic short story about a pair of announcers in a Thunderdome-esque postapocalyptic gladiatorial arena. I also made a point to actually use the gladiator classes. For example, the retiarius has a pneumatic net gun, the secutor whom he fights wears a diving bell for a helmet, and the retired scissore has his hand replaced with a circular saw.
Spartacus was great. I'm just 21 but i watched more 10 commandments and Ben-Hur than i did 300 or game of thrones. there's something about those massive productions they had way back. The sheer amount of color that was used and now we get black, grey, and brown even with our updated tech.
Yo, while your video is focusing on Imperial Gladiators: it's fairly evident due to names if nothing else that the Republican gladiator types which came about were based on different enemy nations of Rome (Samnite, Gallus, Thrax) with the Gallus transforming into Murmillo as to not offend the now very Gallic parts of the empire after Caesar's conquest. The Hoplonmachus being the "Greeks".
It is somewhat fantastical and does a lot of inventing, but I forgive it far more than Gladiator because being such an over-the-top stylised show doesn’t claim to be historic - like the way you can forgive a fantasy film for making armour and weapons a bit silly as long as they achieve the cinematic goals of having a good aesthetic and giving clear distinction between combatants. It’s quite happy to be Tits: The Stabbening, and as a result it’s impressive that they actually put a good amount of time and money into the Prop/Costume incidentals. Gladiator, on the other hand, tries much greater to present itself as mostly-real history - and that makes being no more realistic than the hyper-stylised Spartacus B&S a genuine fault.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Yeah, I agree. That was a very OTT show. Some of the behind the scenes stuff with the phantom cameras on rails to get those impressive kill shots is really cool.
UnreasonableOpinions also a lot of the costumes are on point in Spartacus, with the different gladiator types wearing accurate armour and as we get to the later seasons the Roman soldiers look accurate to the time period as well, they do take a lot of liberties regarding historical accuracy but it’s not trying to be a 100% historical account, whereas for the most part gladiator is trying to appear as real history
Sadly the most accurate part of that battle is the artillery barrage, the more i look back at that movie, the more annoying it gets that they really could have made it so, so much more accurate and interesting yet chose not to.
Years ago I was at a re-enactment(Syb-Roman) & got talking to a guy in he Britannia group who'd been an extra for that. He'd dressed as both a Roman archer(he still had the bow to show me) & a German archer. I think he said a lot of the arrows they'd used were left over from the film Braveheart. Many of the arows seen flying were shot from arrow shooting machines. But yes, I think the battle scene at the start was the best part of the film.
@@101Mant Fighting in forest formations are harder to keep, but the Legions are more in formation & it's mostly the cavalry that lose formation after the charge from the rear.
The 'good guys' weren't 'gladiators' - they were low value slaves originally caught and supplied to be killed by real gladiators. It just turned out they had a lot of military training and ended up killing the real gladiators while trying to stay alive. The real gladiators were never expected to die.
Not quite sure if some of that is true. You do know that some men applied to become gladiators. The lure of the arena and the chance that they could become very famous in a "rock star" sort of way. There was much to fight for-money, women, fame; a lot of things never change.
The cool thing about Roman gladiators is that they specifically built in opposing strengths and weaknesses with the Gladiator classes and matched them against each other. It’s like in modern sports when we get the dominant offensive team vs the dominant defensive team.
What confuses me is that armour on the right or weapon arm is really, really common in depictions of gladiatorial matches, so its value in combat must have been appreciated by the Romans, but it seems to be much rarer in depictions of Roman warfare. The limited amount I've read on the subject suggests that manica was regarded as optional, supplementary armour for much of Roman military history, and that it was not commonly worn by soldiers. In contrast, lorica- body armour- seems to have been pretty ubiquitous, and most soldiers seem to wear it in artistic depictions. I believe that there is also much more archaeological evidence of lorica than manica... though obviously prove me wrong if you know better. Obviously, gladiatorial matches were aimed primarily to entertain, rather than simulate battle, so would attempt to prevent fights being ended prematurely by 'cheap' disabling blows to the limbs- hence heavy armour for the limbs and none on the chest being common. All the same, its strange that Roman soldiers seem to have worn so much body armour, but often left their weapon arm exposed- in contrast, some medieval writers prioritise gauntlets over breastplates, especially when fighting with a shield. Maybe wearing manica interfered with throwing a pilum? Maybe it was just about minimising the weight of carried equipment on long marches? There must have been some reason Roman Legionaries didn't usually wear it... Or are there other reasons its under-represented in the artistic record. Anybody know?
Consider the fighting style of the legionary; he had a man to his right with another scutum, who had a man to *his* right with another scutum, and so on. The gladius is primarily a short, thrusting weapon - your arm isn't staying out past your shield for long, if at all. Many scholars, living history buffs, and experimental archaeologists suggest that the Roman tactic on the battlefield was to crush against their shield wall and then make short thrusts to mow through the enemy ranks like a combine-harvester. The Legion was always evolving, taking what worked and applying it to their forces. But they really came into their own, tactically, in fighting against the Greek and Carthaginian phalanx. If you look at Hoplite shield walls with pikes, the long range fighting was pretty inconclusive for the effort put in. You can poke and stab, but you can't physically push an enemy back and break their formation; they will be driven back in good order if they have any modicum of discipline. When two pike blocks meet, it becomes a shoving contest; the rear ranks pushing against the front, and the front ranks reduced to using short daggers and swords to stab at one another. Fighting at such close range is more visceral, and getting shoved back in disarray - being trampled, essentially - can cause a panic. The Romans determined that if the best way to defeat a phalanx was to advance into pushing-contest range and shove them off them off the battlefield with close quarter skill and iron discipline, then why use pikes at all? Why not make your shield as protective as possible, optimize your weapon for that crushing knife-fight, and then drill your troops to expect that kind of fighting and to employ it like a well-oiled machine? You want to fight the Romans in a swirling melee like your barbarians are used to? Too bad, they don't break rank and now your trapped against their shields. Want to lure them into breaking rank like Hastings? Too bad, they don't break rank and now you can't control the field. Want to press them, like a phalanx? That works, but you'd better be just as disciplined and bloodthirsty as they are (which is why Roman vs. Roman battles were so deadly). The only way to really break those formations was to drive a tank straight through it - which is why Hannibal brought the elephants.
A lot of their fights were executions, where condemned criminals and prisoners of war were killed by professional gladiators. Thus you you got the spectacle and blood without major risk to your expensive gladiator.
Tattoos are ancient. A 5,000y ear old mummy in Europe had tattoos. Texts mention a 'military mark' on soldiers, and that may have been a tattoo. IIRC the mark was on the hand so it couldn't be hidden. You needed to be old enough ro a cripple to et away with it while beign a civilian.
How has no one made a gladiator sports video game? Think old Fifa or Madden, when they were actually good, but with gladiators. Franchise mode would be much more exciting when you or your fighters could actually die
It's highly possible that it was actually because of that. At least according to the few secutors in our club. You don't see shit in those things and breathing is already painful enough in an eques and hoplo helmet.
Not necessarily the eye since it is a rather small target to begin with so you really wouldn't need to go that extreme. I think that it's more as overall protection for the head and to give the secutor a disadvantage or handicap vs. the retiarius. From what I understand, the various classes of gladiators and who they commonly fought against was all about checks and balances. making sure that for every advantage had over another class it would be balanced out by a disadvantage. In this case, full face and head protection at the expense of visibility and ability to breathe, They might have also been concerned about more holes in the face creating areas that the points of the trident could potentially get hooked on which might work in favor to either side, I'm not too sure who would benefit the most.
I’m a history buff and absolutely love history. The Romans & Roman period was the first historical period that I really got into (followed by the Ancient Egyptians & Greeks) and since come to love so many different periods of history all around the world (where as when I was a kid it was really around Europe where I live with Egypt being the exception). I saw Gladiators and noticed the historical inaccuracies like they only put certain classes of gladiators against other classes of gladiators which didn’t happen in this film. But I still love the film, how it’s shot/filmed & the story. I think these historical inaccuracies are there to show off the full range of what you could see at the Roman games with the chariots (which would have never gone up against non mounted gladiators), wild animals and the different classes of gladiator while focusing on the film’s main character. Yes Marcus wouldn’t be one type of gladiator in one fight and a different type in the next fight but Ridley Scott wanted to give the audience the full range of the Roman games because we all have an image of what a gladiator was and he gives us that
Hey Matt, Do we know much about the quality of the metallurgy from Roman times, when compared to the medieval era? Specially with iron and steel in regards to carbon content and impurity’s?
Personally I think the reason for holding the dagger in the off hand is a defensive one. The people we mostly see doing this are hopplomacus, who would sometimes fight other hopplomacus, and Highlanders fighting bayoneted muskets. What little experience I have using a shield I've found when fighting against spear that they tend to attack high then low. The high blow forces you to raise your shield which momentarily blocks your line of sight. Then they attack low trying to slip past the shield. Using a round shield I have found that using it against low thrusts ESPECIALLY ones where the point is already past the edge of the shield or in the inside line is very difficult. Holding the dagger point down gives a projection that can be used to hook or trap the point allowing you to move it laterally off line in a way that the round shield struggles to do otherwise. Just my two cents based off limited personal anecdote.
25:55 I think in India they did use the Dhal, in the off-hand with a Katar to use the latter as a riposte after blocking. One has to remember that a Katar is a Punch dagger and not used like the Highland Dirk.
The mace and axe don't correspond to any class but i wouldn't discount some gladiator somewhere using them, they were uncommon weapons in the battlefield but they existed, and gladiators who were famous and skilled might have gotten to pick their gear and develop specific fighting styles.
The thing to look for at The Great Courses Plus is if the speaker does master the scholar cradle, and if he wears beige. I got this information from a reliable source... ;)
Awesome talk! Learned a ton! "Gladiator" was a great movie, but you do have to put your history degree aside. If the historical inaccuracies drive you nuts, don't watch "Braveheart"
There's also the fact that some people volunteered as gladiators, they actually chose to be a gladiator as a profession, which is another little fact that adds to the point of gladiators not being just expendable canon fodder slaves that nobody cared if they died.
The more I hear about ancient Gladiators and how they actually generally worked, the more I can't help but think that they trended to be more akin to Pokemon or MLA then just simply pit fighters.
How do you feel about lindybeiges idea that gladiators could very well have coreographed their fights on the go and that their face obscuring helmets were partly designed to help with that making
Gladiator is one film I love despite inaccuracies. If the film were set in a fantasy world that just mimicked the Roman Empire, most of the flaws would become irrelevant. So I try not to let the fact that it's "historical fiction" prevent me from enjoying it. At least it's not attempting to be a dramatization of actual historical events. Instead it's a wholly fictional story, just set within a real place and time.
I actually really like the movie as well. But it's sad that an opportunity was missed to show a little more accurately what gladiators were actually like.
It is kind of silly that the Gladiator movie about gladiators didn't make use of highly relevant historical knowledge of gladiators. It's like Braveheart where the Battle of Stirling Bridge uh, had no bridge.
In 7th grade I did my first research paper on gladiators and was surprised by all the information there was on the subject. When most of my classmates had little to know "source" material, I had books upon books dedicated to the subject. With that said, it is sad that no history class ever gave much attention to the subject and therefore few classmates ever learned about gladiators.
Hey Matt! A thought occurred to me early on in your video -- the film "Gladiator" re-affirmed my interest not in the gladiators, as such, but in the gladiator owning class. Because there is an hierarchical class structure, there are classes or types of gladiator.
Okay. It's been twenty years on, I'll say it. Maximus, our hero's name is dumb, and his gladiator helmet looks even dumber. But, the first 20 minutes of that movie are great, great like the storming of the beach in Normandy great in _Saving Private Ryan_ type of great.
I have to say every new channel I find that I like seems to be sponsored by Great Courses Plus at one point or another - i i did subscribe. Kingsley's Modern History TV got me to your channel via the horseback fighting episode excellent stuff I like your context approach it is what i am looking for when learning history :D.
You want to know why Gladiator got it wrong? Watch the special features. It was originally supposed to be even more of a violent and brutal film. Then one of the writers that got brought in, changed it into more of a love story (that Maximus loves his wife, loves Marcus Aurelius, loves Rome, loves Lucilla, loves Proximo even). Hence the focus on Maximus, and the things he loves and wants to go to, and not so much on actual gladiators themselves.
Check out Domina. It's a great game where you own your own gladiator guild, a ludus. You can train your gladiators, you can make them fight in the Colosseum. It's like 5 euro on Steam now.
I am glad you have The Great Courses as a sponsor as I love there works. I own about 70-72+ great course lectures series on history or religion/mythology audiobooks and have listened to all but i think 5 or 10 of them. I got on audible and have a subscription for there video series available on amazon on audible...MONGOL EMPIRE YOU MUSHT TELL ME THE NAME OF THE SERIES AS I AM A BIT OBSESSED WITH THE MONGOLS RIGHT NOW 0_0. I disliked that they did the old thumbs up or down ruling instead of the thumb to the throat that scholars actually think was what the judge did...i also did not realize Sir Ridley Scott who directed it...who also directed Thelma & Louise it was a big shock to learn the same guy who directed the cult classics Alie and Blade runner also directed Thelma & Louise and Gladiator.
wasn't the first gladiator class/type the Samnis, derived from the "italian" tribe the romans defeated in IV sec a.C ? dressed with a gladius, a scutum and a helmet not derived from what the roman army used but, on the contrary, because those where the equipments used by Samnites at that time (later adopted, after the defeat and consequent annexation, by the romans?) :-)
I didn't like how thin the Roman lines were in the opening battle, nor how the legionnaires never threw their pila. Admittedly, the legions would sometimes use the pilum as a spear against cavalry or against other infantry, however, in this case they're facing off against poorly armoured infantry; their pila would have been HIGHLY effective against them and so throwing them would have been pretty high on their list of priorities!
Throughout much of Roman history there are citizen soldiers who are competent and even excellent generals. I believe these generals learned the fundamentals of pre firearm warfare by being keen observers of the gladiatorial games, by observing those strengths and weakness of the various matches.
the series Spartacus:Blood and sand did a better job at picturing gladiators I think. They even had some inside the helmet shots, proving that no main character has to go to battle without a helmet out of fear their face won't be shown.
Thanks for this video and the accurate information. They really didn't try. I love the movie still but.. the inaccuracies not. One reality that doesn't fit the modern narrative is that Roman gladiators were highly trained professionals paid to fight. Sacrificing them needlessly was not a reality in Roman era and wouldn't be today. It's quite disappointing that a movie presumably about "Gladiator" doesn't represent gladiators very well.
I've always found the Sica an interesting sword. Which way round was it used? I've seen it both ways but the idea of it curving towards the opponent to hook shields or reach around them sounds intriguing, is it a plausible technique?
I think you somewhat missed the point Matt, they touched on the fact that the games had been suspended for sometime. Commodos scoured and just had expendibles brought in to simply die.ie.. (Commodos is not a just man) (he will bring them blood and they will love him for it) etc..he didn't play by the sociatl rules that everyone one was used to . Watch the making of with Ridley Scott and others he touches on alot of this. Really enjoy the channel by the way keep them coming. Shadows and dust, shadows and dust!!
If you research the production of the film Gladiator, one of the things that stands out is how rushed it was. Iirc, Crowe has said in an interview that they were still writing the script as they were shooting. May explain why they made the "mistake" of not portraying the various historical styles/classifications of actual gladiator, they simply didn't have time to research that in depth an work it into shooting.
Matt, agreed with all of that, but what did you think of the "Spartacus" series? They did a decent job of representing the different gladiator types--even mentioned their names in the arena.
Whoa. "Great cources plus, a bit later in this video"? That sound awfully much like "more on that later". Soon Matt will be wearing beige and play ukulele. I think he's been professorised. If he makes the schollars cradle, we have to interveen.
One thing you did not say but is kind of relevant today...at least here in the States there is a lot of talk of people trying to erase history because it offends them, but this video shows it's also quite common for history to be erased, merely for the sake of entertainment. Making something like looks "cool" without it being historically accurate in the slightest.
A Retiarius vs a Myrmillo would be a novel match to watch, the fish vs. the fisherman. The TV show, Spartacus: Blood and Sand, did a far better job of depicting actual gladiator types than the movie Gladiator. They show Myrmillo, Retiarius, Thraex, Dimachairus, Secutor etc.
thinking about the armour on their arms and the video you made a few days ago about hand guards. you mentioned in that vid that hand protection matters more in 1v1 duels than battles so maybe thats part of why gladiators were so 'up-armoured' compared to legionaries at least when it comes to body armour
It’s the same gladius that Mats using in the video too by the looks of it, just like how Mat was sent the same Chinese swords as Skallagrim. I guess companies are just sending out the same thing to everyone at the moment
Matt's vid comes up in my recommendations.... I wonder what Matt's talking about ? Tell you what, lets have a sip of beer every time Matt says Gladiator..... Oh heck !o)
Its funny how film makers think creating some special non-historic armor to make the main characters stand out or look cool will make the movie more entertaining when in reality it just makes the movie less submersive, which in turn makes the movie less entertaining for a huge number of people who actually know what the armor should look like.
Matt's gladiator name would be Contextius maximus😂 love this channel!
MATHEVS CONTEXTIVS MAXIMVS
I guess his type would be Penetrator...
Contextivs Penetratvs Maximvs
Maximus Contextius to be linguistically correct. Much like the emperor Maximinus Thrax 'Big man from Thrace' but yeah awesomely appropriate name.
I remember reading that they ended up pulling a fairly historical accurate scene from the film Gladiator. Specifically after Russell Crowe's character becomes famous he ends up in a scene showing him annoyed, sitting for a portrait that's going to be copied and blown up to be used in billboards hocking olive oil and other goods. Which is 100% accurate, in fact many accounts of the era mention that getting an olive oil endorsement was seen as a sign of a particularly successful gladiator. Unfortunately the test audiences thought it was just the director shoehorning in some modern anti-consumerism message and the studio pulled it.
That's a shame sounds like a fun scene
UR FACR IS A DUN SCENE
I took an archaeology course on Pompeii and we spent a unit on gladiators. The coolest thing I learned was the existence of the “referee” role that is often depicted. Also, while purely conjecture, Lloyd/Lindybeige brings up really interesting points in his video and even suggests that a gladiator bout might look and feel closer to a WWE or MMA match rather than the deadly execution method we think of today. Obviously there were tons of executions on top of the games, but the actual bouts themselves were between trained professionals. Apparently, and I haven’t independently verified this, there was a law passed to prevent patrician men from joining the gladiators in lu of military service. It’s such an interesting topic.
the point of gladiators fighting in a more stylized manner similar to WWE makes a lot more sense to me because having seen competition fights with swords and spears end in 3-6 seconds and being over in one or two moves would probably be too boring to count as entertainment. plus it would be ridiculously expensive for only one minute worth of entertainment per fight, and a "death match" lasting for a minute is being very generous.
Other than the condemned to death, to whom the arena was simply the method of execution there were a sort of arena "cannon fodder", those were the "noxii", "enemies of the state" (often war prisoners, or other kind of criminals not specifically condemned to death). Those were cheap (no special training, no tailored weapons...) and they were often put at a disadvantage (IE fighting on foot vs. a gladiator on a chariot) but, being given a weapon, they had anyway at least a possibility to survive. It only needed a good display of martial proveness.
Don't underestimate the danger the gladiators were in. It may not have been quite as deadly as the movies depict, but death was a very real possibility, even for the best. One of the best gladiators was a Secutor named Flamma. He had been offered retirement four times, but chose to keep fighting, and he was finally killed in his 35th fight.
WWE with swords does sound like a good time.
Stay out of the 'splash zone'.
Swords were the contemporary weapon of the gladiator era, so to make WWE more like gladiators, wrestlers should have guns.
@@XCodes It depended on the gladiator type. At least one class used a conventional military gladius while others had different kinds of swords or weapons.
The thing that annoys me is we have so much reference for what gladiators looked like, and they look very iconic already. But we don't really see them much in the film looking that way. History already gave them a blueprint for something that looked really cool without needing to embellish the designs, but they went the opposite way for the most part. It's baffling.
Most producers & directors in Hollywood are dicks & costumers/props are arty luvvies pandering to their own narcissistic creative egos rather than trying to give any authenticity. Lazy tropes plus a sweety-shop attitude when looking at catalogues.
As Matt says, once Hollywood incorrectly defines a look to any period, it';s brainwashed into our cukture & a major obstacle to the truth.
It's SO true! It's the case with everything, especially weapons!
Even though you wouldn't (even couldn't due to contracts) want your main talent wearing full helmets you could at least have the extras wearing them plus the other gear.
What do you expect from the fraud Ridley Scott?
Historical reality is so much deeper, complex, immersive, and logically supportive of plots that it's beyond irksome to see it just tossed aside.
I wrote a paper on this movie while I was in college, and in my research I found that the historical consultant for the film wanted her name excluded from the credits because of how unhistorical it was (and how much they totally disregarded her advice). Also, I found that a lot of gladiator combats were explicitly nonlethal--like, they used blunt wooden swords. Of course this is dependent on CONTEXT; gladiatorial combat existed for along time and fashions changed. So there *were* gladiatorial combats that were explicitly about people getting eaten by lions and killing each other with real weapons for entertainment. But these shouldn't be taken as representative of the sport overall (and were mostly practiced under the crazy emperors, and only for special occasions). When facing dangerous animals, as well, it should be taken into consideration what a great advantage a human with armor and weapons has against any wild animal--especially when that animal is on a leash attached to a secure object....That said, I don't claim to be any kind of expert, this is one research paper. If anyone can confirm, refute, or contextualize these findings I'd be very interested.
the battles with the deadly end were when they joined gladiators vs criminals (thieves, murderers, bandits) - a group that would otherwise end up on crosses, here they got a chance to entertain the people and maybe save their heads if they fight well
but it was usually the slaughterhouse of these convicts by gladiators
when only gladiators fought, the thumb-down murder was out of mercy, when everyone saw that the wounded had no chance of surviving
"Thumbs down" meant the sword was put down and the other man would be spared. @@tihomirrasperic
someone should make a sports movie, about gladiators, with all the classic sports movie cliches.
Sounds like a job for monty python.
That would actually be great, gladiator underdog team
I think the 2010 show 'Spartacus' is the most compelling and arguably realistic depiction of gladiators in fiction. While the fight scenes are story are a little over the top, has all the main classes of gladiators (in addition to a few rarer ones) and shows them as being specifically being trained as such. It also depicts how successful gladiators get more and more privileges as they rise up in the ranks.
Much like Roman antiquity, it was a bloody porno.
I did like parts of the show but honestly the vast amounts of slowmotion sexscenes is a lil much.. I'm no prude but it's just kinda awkward
@@MaMastoast I guess "awkward" is the perfect word for describing that show.. I'm not prude at all, but idk it seemed to me they showed in that stuff just to get attention, which makes it awkward to me.
Dont say more, you are gayer
Sad about Andrew Whitfield passing. That show had good potential. IIRC they had several seasons planned. When Andrew got sick, they did the pre-quel season waiting for him to get better. After he passed, Liam Mcintyre did his best playing the role, but it just wasn't the same. They ended the show with half the number of originally planned seasons.
The crazy big helmets imply a lot of showmanship and flamboyance. That implies a lot of goofy crowd baiting behaviors.
So entertainers would focus on entertaining? Man that's revolutionary hahaha. Sorry couldn't resist.
Early click baiting!
Yeah, you can imagine them doing impractical but flashy shit like spinning attacks just to get the crowd going. I thought Lindybeige's theory about the helmets being so enclosed as to allow them to choreograph their fights unnoticed was an interesting one.
@@adamtennant4936 One of the differences between gladiators' helmets and legionaries helmets is that gladiators helmets didn't have openings for the ears, and often for the mouth. To be heard by the opponent the gladiator should have shouted that much that everyone would have heard it.
Another problem is that the film never really shows the referees who were supposed to make sure that everybody sticked to the rules and the end the fight when one of the gladiators surrendered. But it probably didn’t fit into their picture of Gladiators just killing each other without any rules...
Our Pasta Lord, the Metatron, has gotten to you, hasn't he?
ALL HAIL THE SPAGHETTI THAT HAS GOTTEN WET!
all hail good Italian food.😋
Oversama Who toucha my SPAGETT?
Matt murmillo vs Raff retiarius
😆
When discussing the gladiators, I often liken them to modern day professional wrestlers.
So..... The bickering about buffs and nerfs has been around for quite some time, huh?
in defense of shiny, studded black leather armor, nobody wants to get in a tussle with the weird bdsm guy...
Speaking of tussling with leather-clad greased-up dudes, there's Turkish oil wrestling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_wrestling
Don't forget to get your hand down the opponent's pants, it's a legit move: ruclips.net/video/D2keIfaPHgw/видео.html
If you really want to be disappointed watch the movie Zulu's and then watch "Gladiators" and note that both the Zulu's and the Germanic tribes in "Gladiators" had exactly the same war chants in both movies. Funny how Hollywood can be so utterly un-self aware.
the most important thing to remember about Gladiator is that it is a work of fiction mean to convey a story. It should be viewed with the same lens as a Captain America movie
I read somewhere that the film had several historians attached. Ridley Scott disagreed with them, historical accuracy went out of the window.
Really, can you give some mor info?
I would never trust Ridley Scott for historical accuracy.
It was a shame that they didn't produce that film more accurately, particularly with the budget Ridley Scott had to produce such a dynamic film.
"Armor was used as armor."
Thanks Matt. That's the informational, educational content I signed up for.
Gladiators: *are trained performers who are divided into Fantasy-style classes and who's literal entire point was to put on a spectacular show for the audience, much like the point of an action movie*
Media: *still manages to fuck them up*
The types of gladiators, which the Romans called armaturae, gradually appeared during the history of the Roman gladiator. This appearance corresponds to the organizers' concern to spice up the confrontations by pairing two outfits and two combat techniques. The evolution of certain categories ultimately giving rise to others reflects the concern to balance the fighting by opposing different categories but with the same effectiveness. The first types to be born are generally qualified as "ethnic", because their name and their equipment correspond to that of peoples who fought Rome, the galli, the samnite ,the briton,the thrace.
The equites fought on horseback, dressed in a short tunic, protected by a visor helmet, a small round shield (parma), and armed with a spear and a short sword. It happened that the combat continued on foot.
The essential appeared in the amphitheater under the reigns of Claude and Néron, recalling the Breton soldiers (essedarii) mounted on light tanks, that the legions of Caesar, then those of Claude had to fight during the conquest of insular Brittany . Each tank carried two men: the coachman, the most honored, who held the main role, and a warrior, thrower of javelins. But we do not know whether, in the case of the essary, the crew included one man or two. But like his ancestor the Edesarius, he excelled in the throwing of the javelin., The crupellar whose weight prevented him from getting up in the event of a fall. The Dimachère fought with a sword in each hand. Certain heroes of the arena, versatile, wielded the sica of Thrace as well as the trident of the retiary
I wonder if the reason certain gladiator types were usually paired with specific gladiator types for combat, is because it is a form of storytelling taking place. As in telling certain myths/folk tales and/or propaganda. For instance, Murmillo vs Thracian representing Rome's wars/conquest of them, Secutor vs Secutor representing civil wars, etc.
"Armor was used as armor". The shocking untold truth.
You gotta paint that shield, all that white drives your camera crazy
Likewise your opponent....
6:56 The actual time the video starts.
Also, I think Retiarius's trident and Secutor's helmet is a clever combination, since trident cannot poke through an eyehole of the Secutro's helmet, because one of the dents of a trident will hit the brass of the helmet whenever one tries to hit an eyehole.
"Shinny black leather was never used as armour, Armour was used as armour." lol!
Shin armor? you mean greaves? LOL
Nowhere Nyx think he meant to say shiny
@@mishmashmedley no not really i meant the thin coat of leather and i think Matt ment that aswell. I qoutet him
And historical animal hide armor was rawhide or only partially tanned rawhide, not leather. Rawhide is significantly tougher and harder (rigid like hard plastic) than leather and was cheaper to make too.
Growing up in the 1960's & 70's I thought studded leather "armour" was cool. Leather was used as scale & lamellar armour, but Matt's quite right our modern obsession isn't historic. Most Medival & rennasience people considered leather uncivilised, preferring Linen, wool & further south, cotton.
So you are telling me Gladiators were not all about spamming toe stabs with tridents?
I don't know why not because it would be totally unblockable
bardiel2c c exactly what we’re they thinking
AlekzHertz ouch that’s must not have been useful for there tool kit
Hilarious moment where Matt starts changing the conversation to discussing Gladiator's history in For Honor and how over time he received various tweaks and changes.
@@bardiel2cc52 you dont see the armor on the guys foot at 13:25?
I am writing a screenplay where the main characters are Thracian and Greek. The Collosseum scene is pretty short and rapidly breaks out into a riot, but I will definitely be using this.
The show "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" did it better, for the most part.
absolutely
Would love some fight analysis of that show. Like Spartacus vs. Crixus with that helmet vision I think was cool.
It's also interesting to see that spartacus was a murmillo, despite being a thracian.
@@Artyomthewalrus Not really. Spartacus himself was a Thraex up until they introduced him as a non-helmeted Dimachaerus. Crixus was the Myrmillo - and the show got that pretty correct too, in that Myrmillos and Secutors, etc. were often the beefier/stockier body types - just because of the effort required to fight with the full scutum and helmets, etc. Spartacus, being of slightly thinner build, would have made a suitable Thraex candidate.
@@TurnStyleGames yeah, but any tv show has to be entertaining versus reality. The audience wants to see the actor and his v cut six pack. Then more six packs, alot of six packs.
It's well known that the movie Gladiator is based on the practice of "Friday Fortuita" arena combat. On those days, gladiators could choose to just wear the most comfortable armor, or pleated Dockers and polo shirts.
According to historical writings, Commadus was killed by his house servants in his sleep. Not in combat. He was very dangerous and fought over 750 times in the arena.
Yes ans his opponents always submitted to him during their fight and he never killed his opponents.
Let's not forget that his "opponents" only ever got dull weapons, so it was a lot more like Donald Trump participating in the WWE...
@@mnk9073 Let me repeat he never killed his opponents. A dull sword is perfectly capable of chopping one head down. It is still a piece of narrow steel bar. Not unlike the blades in your lawn mover.
How much of those were the ostriches he shot from the safety of the arena seats?
Gibbons or Livi just mentioned the number. But recounts that everyone was terribly afraid of him. Also the movie character Maximus is an amalgam of two brothers. And Commadus ruled for 13 years. But that's movies for you. I still liked it.
It's very interesting to see how the gladiator classes rise and fall in favour and get rebranded according to the political climate. The Samnite class was popular until Samnium was integrated into the Roman sphere of influence so it was fased out over time and replaced with the Murmillo and the Secutor, the same goes for the gaulish influenced Gallus class. Notably the Hoplomachus and the Thraex were very popular in the western and southern part of the empire while the hellenic east found the pairing to be in very poor taste.
Matt. Check out that Spartacus show from a few years back. Theres a lot of ridiculous shit in there, but there's also some surprising attention to detail in some of the costumes/equipment and the aspect of fighters being celebrities and not fighting to the death. The first episode is markedly worse than the others. Im assuming it was the pilot, so don't get turned off by the first episode as I did. Only watch the first season though. Sadly the star actor passed away, and the subsequent seasons tried throwing another guy in, who just doesn't have the charisma and likeability of Andy Whitfield.
it was pretty respectfull to the history of the gladiators, the prequel was also good. i couldnt get over the new actor as you said, i was used to Spartacus being miserable and when i saw the new guy smile i just lost all interest. still, you cant go wrong with a show involving Lucy Lawless
I think the new guy did his best, I like him in other things I've seen him in. All things considered I'd rather have more and let them finish out the story then have it just end after season one. We got a good prequel season, plus there were some great moments in seasons 2 and 3. I particularly like the villain in season 3. He wasn't this completely despicable person like Craig Parker's character was in the first two seasons. I don't know the names of all the actors off the top of my head. Craig Parker did an excellent job but the character could get pretty cartoony IMHO.
I don't know if you have, but check out the series Rome by HBO. From the first episode where it shows Romans fighting in open ranks and using a whistle to rotate files or Pullo being in a execution ring fighting "gladiators"; it's pretty spot on. The troops even wear mail instead of the normal Segmentata which would be correct for the time period.
"Thirteen! THIRTEEN!"
I've read we actually don't know if the Romans rotated like that as it is mostly the series' interpretation. The Romans wrote that they rotated entire units of men (eg. Maniples and then cohorts), but we don't know if or how they rotated lines of men within an individual unit (which is what the show portrays).
Every time I see people think that the battles in HBO's Rome are good, I die a little further inside.
@@100thdragoon It's all relative. It's still better than Gladiator!
Mail was used by Romans. Lorica was used during a few centuries and never entirely replaced mail.
*ARE YOU NOT IN CONTEXT?*
I wrote a comedic short story about a pair of announcers in a Thunderdome-esque postapocalyptic gladiatorial arena. I also made a point to actually use the gladiator classes. For example, the retiarius has a pneumatic net gun, the secutor whom he fights wears a diving bell for a helmet, and the retired scissore has his hand replaced with a circular saw.
Sounds interesting. Is the story available somewhere?
I did like Kirk Douglas as a gladiator. Giving away my age
Spartacus was great. I'm just 21 but i watched more 10 commandments and Ben-Hur than i did 300 or game of thrones. there's something about those massive productions they had way back. The sheer amount of color that was used and now we get black, grey, and brown even with our updated tech.
Yo, while your video is focusing on Imperial Gladiators: it's fairly evident due to names if nothing else that the Republican gladiator types which came about were based on different enemy nations of Rome (Samnite, Gallus, Thrax) with the Gallus transforming into Murmillo as to not offend the now very Gallic parts of the empire after Caesar's conquest. The Hoplonmachus being the "Greeks".
What do you think about "Spartacus Blood And Sand" series Armour and weapon? How far away are they?
curious about it as well
It is somewhat fantastical and does a lot of inventing, but I forgive it far more than Gladiator because being such an over-the-top stylised show doesn’t claim to be historic - like the way you can forgive a fantasy film for making armour and weapons a bit silly as long as they achieve the cinematic goals of having a good aesthetic and giving clear distinction between combatants. It’s quite happy to be Tits: The Stabbening, and as a result it’s impressive that they actually put a good amount of time and money into the Prop/Costume incidentals.
Gladiator, on the other hand, tries much greater to present itself as mostly-real history - and that makes being no more realistic than the hyper-stylised Spartacus B&S a genuine fault.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Yeah, I agree. That was a very OTT show. Some of the behind the scenes stuff with the phantom cameras on rails to get those impressive kill shots is really cool.
UnreasonableOpinions also a lot of the costumes are on point in Spartacus, with the different gladiator types wearing accurate armour and as we get to the later seasons the Roman soldiers look accurate to the time period as well, they do take a lot of liberties regarding historical accuracy but it’s not trying to be a 100% historical account, whereas for the most part gladiator is trying to appear as real history
My favorite part of that movie was the battle at the beginning.
Where they all break formation and the fight is just a giant melee?
Sadly the most accurate part of that battle is the artillery barrage, the more i look back at that movie, the more annoying it gets that they really could have made it so, so much more accurate and interesting yet chose not to.
@@gabrielinostroza4989 Yeah, the barrage is the best part.
Years ago I was at a re-enactment(Syb-Roman) & got talking to a guy in he Britannia group who'd been an extra for that. He'd dressed as both a Roman archer(he still had the bow to show me) & a German archer. I think he said a lot of the arrows they'd used were left over from the film Braveheart. Many of the arows seen flying were shot from arrow shooting machines.
But yes, I think the battle scene at the start was the best part of the film.
@@101Mant Fighting in forest formations are harder to keep, but the Legions are more in formation & it's mostly the cavalry that lose formation after the charge from the rear.
The 'good guys' weren't 'gladiators' - they were low value slaves originally caught and supplied to be killed by real gladiators. It just turned out they had a lot of military training and ended up killing the real gladiators while trying to stay alive. The real gladiators were never expected to die.
Not quite sure if some of that is true. You do know that some men applied to become gladiators. The lure of the arena and the chance that they could become very famous in a "rock star" sort of way. There was much to fight for-money, women, fame; a lot of things never change.
That pitch for the Great Courses Plus is helped a lot by holding a very pointy sword. I wouldn't argue against anyone waving that about. :)
The cool thing about Roman gladiators is that they specifically built in opposing strengths and weaknesses with the Gladiator classes and matched them against each other. It’s like in modern sports when we get the dominant offensive team vs the dominant defensive team.
Thank you for not having other ads in your sponsored video. Other channels I've found do not show such restraint.
Forgive my American-ness Mr. Easton, but this is mighty good shit. Mighty good shit indeed.
What confuses me is that armour on the right or weapon arm is really, really common in depictions of gladiatorial matches, so its value in combat must have been appreciated by the Romans, but it seems to be much rarer in depictions of Roman warfare. The limited amount I've read on the subject suggests that manica was regarded as optional, supplementary armour for much of Roman military history, and that it was not commonly worn by soldiers. In contrast, lorica- body armour- seems to have been pretty ubiquitous, and most soldiers seem to wear it in artistic depictions. I believe that there is also much more archaeological evidence of lorica than manica... though obviously prove me wrong if you know better.
Obviously, gladiatorial matches were aimed primarily to entertain, rather than simulate battle, so would attempt to prevent fights being ended prematurely by 'cheap' disabling blows to the limbs- hence heavy armour for the limbs and none on the chest being common. All the same, its strange that Roman soldiers seem to have worn so much body armour, but often left their weapon arm exposed- in contrast, some medieval writers prioritise gauntlets over breastplates, especially when fighting with a shield.
Maybe wearing manica interfered with throwing a pilum? Maybe it was just about minimising the weight of carried equipment on long marches? There must have been some reason Roman Legionaries didn't usually wear it... Or are there other reasons its under-represented in the artistic record. Anybody know?
Consider the fighting style of the legionary; he had a man to his right with another scutum, who had a man to *his* right with another scutum, and so on. The gladius is primarily a short, thrusting weapon - your arm isn't staying out past your shield for long, if at all. Many scholars, living history buffs, and experimental archaeologists suggest that the Roman tactic on the battlefield was to crush against their shield wall and then make short thrusts to mow through the enemy ranks like a combine-harvester.
The Legion was always evolving, taking what worked and applying it to their forces. But they really came into their own, tactically, in fighting against the Greek and Carthaginian phalanx. If you look at Hoplite shield walls with pikes, the long range fighting was pretty inconclusive for the effort put in. You can poke and stab, but you can't physically push an enemy back and break their formation; they will be driven back in good order if they have any modicum of discipline. When two pike blocks meet, it becomes a shoving contest; the rear ranks pushing against the front, and the front ranks reduced to using short daggers and swords to stab at one another. Fighting at such close range is more visceral, and getting shoved back in disarray - being trampled, essentially - can cause a panic.
The Romans determined that if the best way to defeat a phalanx was to advance into pushing-contest range and shove them off them off the battlefield with close quarter skill and iron discipline, then why use pikes at all? Why not make your shield as protective as possible, optimize your weapon for that crushing knife-fight, and then drill your troops to expect that kind of fighting and to employ it like a well-oiled machine?
You want to fight the Romans in a swirling melee like your barbarians are used to? Too bad, they don't break rank and now your trapped against their shields. Want to lure them into breaking rank like Hastings? Too bad, they don't break rank and now you can't control the field. Want to press them, like a phalanx? That works, but you'd better be just as disciplined and bloodthirsty as they are (which is why Roman vs. Roman battles were so deadly). The only way to really break those formations was to drive a tank straight through it - which is why Hannibal brought the elephants.
I am so happy that you increased the quality of your adds, your channel is too good for sponsoring predatory games
If you're going to have paid adverts, please keep doing _ads like these,_ rather than crap like _Raid!_
A lot of their fights were executions, where condemned criminals and prisoners of war were killed by professional gladiators. Thus you you got the spectacle and blood without major risk to your expensive gladiator.
Did the roman soldiers tattoo SPQR on their arms like in the movie?
It was branded on not tattooed
Tattooing originated in the pacific islands. I could be mistaken though. It's been a while since I referenced the information.
Tattoos are ancient. A 5,000y ear old mummy in Europe had tattoos.
Texts mention a 'military mark' on soldiers, and that may have been a tattoo. IIRC the mark was on the hand so it couldn't be hidden. You needed to be old enough ro a cripple to et away with it while beign a civilian.
How has no one made a gladiator sports video game? Think old Fifa or Madden, when they were actually good, but with gladiators. Franchise mode would be much more exciting when you or your fighters could actually die
Matt, could the secutor's helmet be designed to prevent any of the trident's point to pull an eye out?
That's exactly my guess. Can't see jack and can't breathe for beans but it's better than getting forked in the face.
I agree. I wonder whether the shape is also to give the wearer a sea creature look... Fisherman Vs Killer Lobster ;)
Very likely the reason for the look is just that. Also no doubt the sea creature vibe is not accidental.
It's highly possible that it was actually because of that. At least according to the few secutors in our club. You don't see shit in those things and breathing is already painful enough in an eques and hoplo helmet.
Not necessarily the eye since it is a rather small target to begin with so you really wouldn't need to go that extreme. I think that it's more as overall protection for the head and to give the secutor a disadvantage or handicap vs. the retiarius. From what I understand, the various classes of gladiators and who they commonly fought against was all about checks and balances. making sure that for every advantage had over another class it would be balanced out by a disadvantage. In this case, full face and head protection at the expense of visibility and ability to breathe, They might have also been concerned about more holes in the face creating areas that the points of the trident could potentially get hooked on which might work in favor to either side, I'm not too sure who would benefit the most.
I’m a history buff and absolutely love history. The Romans & Roman period was the first historical period that I really got into (followed by the Ancient Egyptians & Greeks) and since come to love so many different periods of history all around the world (where as when I was a kid it was really around Europe where I live with Egypt being the exception). I saw Gladiators and noticed the historical inaccuracies like they only put certain classes of gladiators against other classes of gladiators which didn’t happen in this film. But I still love the film, how it’s shot/filmed & the story. I think these historical inaccuracies are there to show off the full range of what you could see at the Roman games with the chariots (which would have never gone up against non mounted gladiators), wild animals and the different classes of gladiator while focusing on the film’s main character. Yes Marcus wouldn’t be one type of gladiator in one fight and a different type in the next fight but Ridley Scott wanted to give the audience the full range of the Roman games because we all have an image of what a gladiator was and he gives us that
Enjoy the video!
I KNEW Matt and Lindybeige were the same person - the fact that the great courses plus is here just confirms it
I even missed the "more of that later" bit
Hey Matt,
Do we know much about the quality of the metallurgy from Roman times, when compared to the medieval era? Specially with iron and steel in regards to carbon content and impurity’s?
Personally I think the reason for holding the dagger in the off hand is a defensive one. The people we mostly see doing this are hopplomacus, who would sometimes fight other hopplomacus, and Highlanders fighting bayoneted muskets. What little experience I have using a shield I've found when fighting against spear that they tend to attack high then low. The high blow forces you to raise your shield which momentarily blocks your line of sight. Then they attack low trying to slip past the shield. Using a round shield I have found that using it against low thrusts ESPECIALLY ones where the point is already past the edge of the shield or in the inside line is very difficult. Holding the dagger point down gives a projection that can be used to hook or trap the point allowing you to move it laterally off line in a way that the round shield struggles to do otherwise. Just my two cents based off limited personal anecdote.
25:55 I think in India they did use the Dhal, in the off-hand with a Katar to use the latter as a riposte after blocking.
One has to remember that a Katar is a Punch dagger and not used like the Highland Dirk.
The mace and axe don't correspond to any class but i wouldn't discount some gladiator somewhere using them, they were uncommon weapons in the battlefield but they existed, and gladiators who were famous and skilled might have gotten to pick their gear and develop specific fighting styles.
The thing to look for at The Great Courses Plus is if the speaker does master the scholar cradle, and if he wears beige.
I got this information from a reliable source... ;)
Awesome talk! Learned a ton! "Gladiator" was a great movie, but you do have to put your history degree aside.
If the historical inaccuracies drive you nuts, don't watch "Braveheart"
Lindybeige has an EXCELLENT video on Gladiators.
There's also the fact that some people volunteered as gladiators, they actually chose to be a gladiator as a profession, which is another little fact that adds to the point of gladiators not being just expendable canon fodder slaves that nobody cared if they died.
The more I hear about ancient Gladiators and how they actually generally worked, the more I can't help but think that they trended to be more akin to Pokemon or MLA then just simply pit fighters.
In a thousand years, the Future Matt is going to be dissecting the types of professional wrestlers.
Very envious of that dynasty forge gladius. Been waiting for them to come back in stock for ages now....
Lindybeige did an excellent two hours on gladiator. If you’re interested
How do you feel about lindybeiges idea that gladiators could very well have coreographed their fights on the go and that their face obscuring helmets were partly designed to help with that making
Gladiator is one film I love despite inaccuracies. If the film were set in a fantasy world that just mimicked the Roman Empire, most of the flaws would become irrelevant. So I try not to let the fact that it's "historical fiction" prevent me from enjoying it. At least it's not attempting to be a dramatization of actual historical events. Instead it's a wholly fictional story, just set within a real place and time.
I actually really like the movie as well. But it's sad that an opportunity was missed to show a little more accurately what gladiators were actually like.
It is kind of silly that the Gladiator movie about gladiators didn't make use of highly relevant historical knowledge of gladiators. It's like Braveheart where the Battle of Stirling Bridge uh, had no bridge.
In 7th grade I did my first research paper on gladiators and was surprised by all the information there was on the subject. When most of my classmates had little to know "source" material, I had books upon books dedicated to the subject. With that said, it is sad that no history class ever gave much attention to the subject and therefore few classmates ever learned about gladiators.
Hey Matt! A thought occurred to me early on in your video -- the film "Gladiator" re-affirmed my interest not in the gladiators, as such, but in the gladiator owning class. Because there is an hierarchical class structure, there are classes or types of gladiator.
I can't even imagine the backlash had this video covered Human Gladiators vs Animals in arena.
I really must get around to The Great Courses... If only you had reviewed some of the presenters' scholar's cradles.
Okay. It's been twenty years on, I'll say it.
Maximus, our hero's name is dumb, and his gladiator helmet looks even dumber.
But, the first 20 minutes of that movie are great, great like the storming of the beach in Normandy great in _Saving Private Ryan_ type of great.
I have to say every new channel I find that I like seems to be sponsored by Great Courses Plus at one point or another - i i did subscribe. Kingsley's Modern History TV got me to your channel via the horseback fighting episode excellent stuff I like your context approach it is what i am looking for when learning history :D.
You want to know why Gladiator got it wrong? Watch the special features. It was originally supposed to be even more of a violent and brutal film. Then one of the writers that got brought in, changed it into more of a love story (that Maximus loves his wife, loves Marcus Aurelius, loves Rome, loves Lucilla, loves Proximo even). Hence the focus on Maximus, and the things he loves and wants to go to, and not so much on actual gladiators themselves.
Check out Domina. It's a great game where you own your own gladiator guild, a ludus. You can train your gladiators, you can make them fight in the Colosseum. It's like 5 euro on Steam now.
Still love the Gladiator movie
I am glad you have The Great Courses as a sponsor as I love there works. I own about 70-72+ great course lectures series on history or religion/mythology audiobooks and have listened to all but i think 5 or 10 of them. I got on audible and have a subscription for there video series available on amazon on audible...MONGOL EMPIRE YOU MUSHT TELL ME THE NAME OF THE SERIES AS I AM A BIT OBSESSED WITH THE MONGOLS RIGHT NOW 0_0.
I disliked that they did the old thumbs up or down ruling instead of the thumb to the throat that scholars actually think was what the judge did...i also did not realize Sir Ridley Scott who directed it...who also directed Thelma & Louise it was a big shock to learn the same guy who directed the cult classics Alie and Blade runner also directed Thelma & Louise and Gladiator.
wasn't the first gladiator class/type the Samnis, derived from the "italian" tribe the romans defeated in IV sec a.C ? dressed with a gladius, a scutum and a helmet not derived from what the roman army used but, on the contrary, because those where the equipments used by Samnites at that time (later adopted, after the defeat and consequent annexation, by the romans?) :-)
I didn't like how thin the Roman lines were in the opening battle, nor how the legionnaires never threw their pila. Admittedly, the legions would sometimes use the pilum as a spear against cavalry or against other infantry, however, in this case they're facing off against poorly armoured infantry; their pila would have been HIGHLY effective against them and so throwing them would have been pretty high on their list of priorities!
Throughout much of Roman history there are citizen soldiers who are competent and even excellent generals. I believe these generals learned the fundamentals of pre firearm warfare by being keen observers of the gladiatorial games, by observing those strengths and weakness of the various matches.
I took a drink every time he said the word "gladiator" and died half way through the video. :-D
Here you are commenting. Do they have youtube in the afterworld?
Do the same thing with the word "sword", maybe we'll get to live.
I want to see them remake Gladiator but make it more realistic, like these are similar to UFC or sports stars like they were
Thank you man, I enjoy your videos
the series Spartacus:Blood and sand did a better job at picturing gladiators I think. They even had some inside the helmet shots, proving that no main character has to go to battle without a helmet out of fear their face won't be shown.
Thanks for this video and the accurate information. They really didn't try. I love the movie still but.. the inaccuracies not. One reality that doesn't fit the modern narrative is that Roman gladiators were highly trained professionals paid to fight. Sacrificing them needlessly was not a reality in Roman era and wouldn't be today. It's quite disappointing that a movie presumably about "Gladiator" doesn't represent gladiators very well.
I've always found the Sica an interesting sword. Which way round was it used? I've seen it both ways but the idea of it curving towards the opponent to hook shields or reach around them sounds intriguing, is it a plausible technique?
I think you somewhat missed the point Matt, they touched on the fact that the games had been suspended for sometime. Commodos scoured and just had expendibles brought in to simply die.ie.. (Commodos is not a just man) (he will bring them blood and they will love him for it) etc..he didn't play by the sociatl rules that everyone one was used to . Watch the making of with Ridley Scott and others he touches on alot of this. Really enjoy the channel by the way keep them coming. Shadows and dust, shadows and dust!!
Metatron has a really good video on this topic.
If you research the production of the film Gladiator, one of the things that stands out is how rushed it was. Iirc, Crowe has said in an interview that they were still writing the script as they were shooting. May explain why they made the "mistake" of not portraying the various historical styles/classifications of actual gladiator, they simply didn't have time to research that in depth an work it into shooting.
Love the longer format and depth!
Matt, agreed with all of that, but what did you think of the "Spartacus" series? They did a decent job of representing the different gladiator types--even mentioned their names in the arena.
Whoa. "Great cources plus, a bit later in this video"? That sound awfully much like "more on that later". Soon Matt will be wearing beige and play ukulele. I think he's been professorised. If he makes the schollars cradle, we have to interveen.
One thing you did not say but is kind of relevant today...at least here in the States there is a lot of talk of people trying to erase history because it offends them, but this video shows it's also quite common for history to be erased, merely for the sake of entertainment. Making something like looks "cool" without it being historically accurate in the slightest.
A Retiarius vs a Myrmillo would be a novel match to watch, the fish vs. the fisherman. The TV show, Spartacus: Blood and Sand, did a far better job of depicting actual gladiator types than the movie Gladiator. They show Myrmillo, Retiarius, Thraex, Dimachairus, Secutor etc.
thinking about the armour on their arms and the video you made a few days ago about hand guards. you mentioned in that vid that hand protection matters more in 1v1 duels than battles so maybe thats part of why gladiators were so 'up-armoured' compared to legionaries at least when it comes to body armour
Skillagram just did a Gladius video. Is this Roman week or something?
It’s the same gladius that Mats using in the video too by the looks of it, just like how Mat was sent the same Chinese swords as Skallagrim. I guess companies are just sending out the same thing to everyone at the moment
Matt's vid comes up in my recommendations.... I wonder what Matt's talking about ?
Tell you what, lets have a sip of beer every time Matt says Gladiator.....
Oh heck !o)
Its funny how film makers think creating some special non-historic armor to make the main characters stand out or look cool will make the movie more entertaining when in reality it just makes the movie less submersive, which in turn makes the movie less entertaining for a huge number of people who actually know what the armor should look like.