POWER, CONTROL, AND CONFLICT IN THE MOVIE GLADIATOR THROUGH THE LENS OF POWER THEORIES

POWER, CONTROL, AND CONFLICT IN THE MOVIE GLADIATOR THROUGH

THE LENS OF POWER THEORIES

Movie Analysis

Summer 2024

Gladiator

Introduction

Gladiator (2000): Maximus vs. Commodus conflict

Welsh actor Rhys Ifans, born on this day in 1954, plays the bad guy in Ridley Scott’s

historical epic, Gladiator (2000). Making was created in the framework of Romance telling about

the life of the main Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius. Both of them betray him and he

becomes a gladiator, winning through the power of his organization and combat skills and

getting his revenge. The first clear conflict in Gladiator modern classic is the one between the

protagonist, Maximus the leading character, and the antagonist, Commodus the Roman emperor.

The main personal motivation of the protagonist Maximus; honor and justice, contrasts with the

role of Commodus who seized power, accomplishing forceful actions. The last scene of the plot

tells that Maximus is fighting for the pride because he wants to cleanse Rome from the shame

that comes from Commodus. This ceiling central conflict is the reason that mark Rome as the

place where power can be either used good for the totes, and evil for the totes. According to

Prabowo et al. (2023), this confrontation of values is very meaningful for the plot of the film

because it provides the chance to observe relations of power in the movie. Griffiths (2024) assert

that analyzing this conflict, Gladiator proves to be the view into how power works On and

through people, societies and fates.

French and Raven’s Power Bases and Lukes power dimensions

Analyzing power relations in the movie Gladiator two theories that are relevant for the

case are French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power Forms and Luke’s Three Dimension of Power.

This source power as enumerated by French and Raven (1959) has five major types namely the

coercive, reward, legitimate, referent and expert. While, the power to punish has the focus on the

ability to inflict penalty on the other party, the power to reward is about the ability to give

something in return. There is the formal power which flows from the manager’s position, the

power which stems from identification and the power of knowledge. Both Maximus and

Commodus in the movie Gladiator employ these power bases but not in different ways. Lukes’

three dimensions of Power (the three-dimensional conception of power) is a broader

understanding of how power operates in a society. The first of such power dimensions is the

decision making power which enable one actor to have the authority to make decision that will

directly affect the others. The second dimension is the agenda control which means that one actor

gets to decide what issues or decisions other actors have to address. The third perspective is

possibly the least direct and can be connected with shaping and directing people’s perception of

their interests and possibilities. With these two theories, the paper will explain the flow of the

traditional master-servant relation within the movie through force and subtler power struggles

between Maximus and Commodus.

Purpose of the Paper

Hence, this paper aims at exploring how two of the movie’s characters, the hero Maximus

and the villain Commodus; apply power to address conflict or manipulate occurrences in

Gladiator. Hence, using French and Raven’s power theory, this paper will examine how

Maximus uses referent and legitimate power to influence heroines and administer a world, and

how, in turn, Commodus uses coercive and reward power to rule an empire. Furthermore, by

using Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power students will be able to understand the effects they

produce on the rest of the Roman society in a deeper manner. His rebellion, since he is not an

officially empowered character, is followed by the portrayal of power that comes from the moral

authority. While on the other hand Commodus manipulate the public agenda and rules by terror

and military anile that includes apparent and hidden powers. This paper aims at providing

evidence of power decay in terms of control, perception, morality, and leadership influence on

society. This will be done with reference to how these two characters use of power are central to

the main conflict and power struggle in the movie and how power is used to bring the movie to

its conclusion.

Overview of Central Conflict: Power Struggles in the Roman Empire

Breast Central Conflict in Gladiator

The conflict of the final scene of Gladiator is the radical antagonism between the

protagonist, Maximus; the honorable Roman general and the antagonist, Commodus, the evil

Roman emperor. The motivation that Maximus has toward Commodus for killing his father,

Marcus Aurelius, throws the hero directly into the conflict between the individual and the system

of power in the Roman Empire. These two characters’ fight against each other in a small model

of the power relations that defined the Roman Empire. Focusing the idea of the main hero’s

victory over the antagonist, the desire for vengeance becomes the struggle of the society with the

unrightfully ruler; Commodus, the emperor who tries to govern society with the force, but not

the power based on the ethical values. Challenging spears in the forum, leading the throbbing

masses, challenging injustice Maximus presents defiance against oppression not just a man but a

system that Commodus represents. On one hand, Maximus struggles for justice and on the other

hand, Commodus struggles with power and fraud an important differentiation between leadership

styles (Prabowo, Yuliamir, & Jabbar, 2023). This conflict is not for the Chair but also for who

shall decide what kind of leadership the empire will have. It underlines the cost of victory, the

struggle, where the dramatic, the almost operatic, is made on the stylized death of Maximus,

which becomes the objective sign of the moral degeneration of Rome under the tyrant

Commodus (Griffiths, 2024).

Some viewers may know Maximus – a great general and a farmer who wished to live a

long and untroubled life – but one needs to stress that he is also an example of a character who

has changed greatly and was betrayed, lost his family, and decided to fight as a gladiator to take

revenge. Commodus not only politically assassinating the moral and independent-thinking

emperor Marcus Aurelius but also the moral Rome, and Maximus’ death symbolizes the fall of

Rome. Hence, Maximus’s return to the public domain {sic}, not as a general but as a gladiator

symbolizes shifting of roles from being a general to a gladiator is a sign of lost virtue of Rome

and an instrument of revenge. Maximus gains the sympathy of people and other gladiators in the

arena primarily because he has a good character and was a honorable soldier who could have

been a tribune (Chen, 2022). This transformation has implication on the power political and

honour issues as portrayed in the movie. As a result of the commitment made at the beginning of

this text, there is a need to summarize the findings from the content of this work, In agreement

with Sardone & Santucci (2021), it is possible to conclude that the character of Maximus

functions as a sociopolitical commentary on the rule of the illegitimate power of Commodus,

signifying the potential for individual influence on sociopolitical realities. Maximus is an anti-

hero, he does not have power within the institution and yet he leads men with values, the

opposite to Commodus who controls people with fear and amusement.

The lack of self-confidence and unabashed willingness to kill his own father, as well as

influence other political characters that led to Commodus seizing the power prove the emperor’s

instability. While the virtuous Maximus wins people’s submission through his own example,

Commodus wants to rule through force, muscle, intimidation, and deceit (Weaver, 2023). He was

not confident enough to grant them real power and as a result he makes decisions full of pride in

order to maintain his position. This is most evidently seen with Commodus who, although was a

leader of the empire, had no right to rule and had to use the force through the political

manipulation of gladiatorial games to keep his subjects in check (Asztalos, 2023). He fights to

convey to people that he is still the boss, physically and politically, which creates a weak

appearance of dominance. Commodus is an example of a form of power external, and thus

transient, that it cannot be sustained even by coercion or force. This is a complete contrast to the

leadership portrayed by Maximus who had muscles of honor and dignity (Steenberg 2020).

Again with the help of the symbols of the power; the throne and the Colosseum, Commodus tries

to prove his power but he fails to show the authority that is in Maximus; that is power in the real

sense of the word; the power of leadership, of sacrifice, of justice.

The conflict of the moral and political points of view between Maximus and Commodus

is an important and meaningful lesson for all the combatants in Rome’s empire. Every egoistic

person struggling with the system gets eaten by lions in the Colosseum; Maximus’s rebellion

against Commodus changes from personal enmity for justice to political protest against the

system that allows potential tyrants to rule. This shows that he has no idea that the leadership is a

moral process that he has no idea about. Maximus’ ultimate values are moral, and he wishes to

make Rome great again, while Commodus is an authoritarian type who thinks only of himself

(Prabowo, Yuliamir, & Jabbar, 2023). Their conflict is therefore political and politicized where

the right to rule of a king is never an issue. The struggle of Maximus as an individual for his own

freedom is linked with his struggle as a representative of the opposition to any kind of tyranny;

the role of the loss as a means of achieving political change. This conflict raises basic questions

of what kind of power is to be permitted to rule and who is to be the ultimate judge of the

balance and justice of the world’s greatest city, Rome. It means that the basic strategies of the

film show the picture of the decaying empire; political structures, decayed to the core as the

moral decay of rulers (Chen, 2022). The consequence of such power struggle is the consequence

of what ails societies with leadership that is corrupt to its core and the opportunities and

possibilities and virtues when leadership is honorable and positive.

Maximus: Leadership and Power through Charisma and Moral Authority

In the movie Gladiator, I have concluded that Maximus has referent power from the Five

Bases of Power by French and Raven. Referent power is derived from the personality of the

leader; when followers follow a leader, they gain respect for him or her. In the movie, the charm

of Maximus and his virtuosity directly touch the heart of the gladiators as well as the Romans.

This is because he is the hero, the gladiators are able to follow him even though at first they did

not want to trust him Maximus’s motives transcend mere warfare prowess; he knows what is

right and will defend his family’s slaughter and Rome’s redemption (Miltsios, 2023). This aspect

of encouragement and change by emulation is important for him, because it enables him to lead

people, in a setting in which he is not vested with the authority and power of an official position.

It is the quality of a leader not to negotiate his position but to stand firm on his principle, he has

this quality not because he is a general or a gladiator but because he respects it. His power to

coordinate a specific group of people towards the accomplishment of a particular goal by using

their sense of dignity and fairness is the virtue of referent power in the action of a group in any

given crisis (Crowiley, 2021). This is evident most of the time when leading the gladiators, to

whom he gains loyalty simply because he represents their only hope against Commodus’s

tyranny. This can be seen from the fact that while the gladiators preferred to die rather than fight

for another master, they fight for Maximus proving the effect of referent power in changing

them. However, the work of Maximus does not stop on enclosed spaces; actions of the principle

itself and the general theorization initiate a virus of moral examples from main political and

military authorities of Rome. This is of course symbol of justice and not the war lord that most

leaders of other armies are depicted to be. This is because the emotional connection that

Maximus brings into play leads to the formation of an organization which challenges the

authority of Commodus.

Another area of leadership that is also a strength for the company and does not come

from a position of faux political or military influence is transforming appeals, civil authority.

Moral power stems from the fact that the leader is ethical and the leader’s focus on ethics. This

paper cannot have a better illustration of ethical leadership than the character of Maximus who

remains a virtuous man despite the fact that he is a gladiator put in a position of authority after

his victories in the arena. Although the battle was described as brutal and ruthless, what

Maximus is doing is honorable; he takes his revenge for his family and helps the Roman

Republic (Shelton, 2023). His virtues are clear and nobility is something the gladiators and the

Romans in general admire because they have seen more of the vices of the empire. This moral

precept of the film’s protagonist, Maximus, lifts him out of the character’s self-serving

motivations of the film and most notably, Commodus who unjustly uses force and intimidation

to dominate others. In particular, by remaining true to his Code, Maximus achieves the level of

justice that people recognize and which, in turn, strengthens his position to command, although

he has no rank, no power in fact. Such moral authority is useful in explaining why the definition

of Maximus includes more than the warrior; It provides him with their perception of the

legitimacy in the eyes of the people who support him (Porter, 2023). It is the man not the title of

Emperor that allows him to stand up to Commodus and urge others to do the same. This shows

that even though Maximus acts like a hero he is one in part because he is able to sway people

like Lucilla to his side of the law since she recognizes his honest nature. This paper will also

compare Commodus to another character who is an emperor but lacks one attribute that can

make the people follow him; virtue. It shows that for Maximus, justice extends beyond revenge

for loss but the correction of a distorted democracy that gives his command a better notion than

the political tyranny of his imperial opponent.

Maximus and Decision-Making Power: Lukes' First Dimension

We have seen the decision-making power of Maximus in the First Dimension Power as

described by Lukes. In this way, power is not the power to direct but the power to manage the

conditions under which a decision will be made. The second type of power depicted in the play is

Wei, power to persuade others to do what the holder has in mind Wei is power of the word,

power to get people to do what one wants through speaking Maximus also has this type of power

through words; in some extent he can manage the gladiatorial games and to some extent the

political situation in Rome. After defeating Commodus in the arena the protagonist becomes an

allergy for the fight of people against the tyrant even though he does not hold any political

position. This form of influence is well illustrated the by the change in the attitude of the Roman

citizens as prejudice by the performance of Maximus in Colosseum; the latter’s victories makes

Roman citizens rise up from their seats and be ready to fight for justice and order as portrayed by

Grainger 2024. As the personification becomes the living symbol of the rebellion it is in a

position to exert pressure on the incumbent and make him act in response to the increasing

antipathy of the masses; this is how the decision-making power function outside the formal

structure may be described. This is not only a fight in the ring but it is also about the victory of

storytelling in the Roman manner, it is the gladiatorial arena. This, however, is not done by

Maximus taking the helm of power in Rome, yet through his actions, the changes needed lead to

the death of Commodus. This is the manipulation of the opinion of the people which is the

central feature of what Lukes has described in relation to the decision influencing procedures by

those who have no direct decision making power.

Another attempt at power concentration on his own terms is the way that even in the

process of decision making, starting with the appointment of his personal bodyguard, he shows

how he is preparing for possible troubles in the elite of Rome. Though he is a gladiator who at a

first sight does not command any authority over the politics, he does command authority in a

way that involves controlling Lucilla and the Senate. Accepting the crown when offered,

Maximus, therefore, removes the evil that Commodus stand for and creates enmity between the

imperial court and him. In the beginning he tries to stay away from any form of political activity

and not because of his frailty or inability to stand up for himself but in order to evade the Enums

of Commodus. Despite turning the mustering back on its head by refusing to be coopted into

Commodus’ personal power structure, Maximus retains his moral high ground and positions

himself as the model of the kind of ruler Rome should have, decent, fair, and honest Unlike most

of the “times of the ancient tyrants”, there is no suggestion that Maximus takes pleasure in the

power constructed by the narrative as he does not seek bureaucratic or military power and This

manipulation of the political events is schematically subtle but it touches on the third dimension

of power as defined by Lukes, the power to control the very decisions and respective outcomes

of the contest, in a society where the holders of the formal decision-making powers are far from

angelic. They also make Commodus act, reaching decisions that destabilize his reign further as

Maximus makes him move. Incredibility and unpredictability on the emperor’s side that was

evoked by Maximus’s challenge proves that Maximus is an influential member of Roman

politics, a man who sets the rules of the game being a politician without a post, a military rank,

or an army. This means that although Maximus does not have power in the conventional

organizational hierarchal power structure he is able to influence the decision making power in

the organization symbolically through his moral power.

Maximus: The Enemy of Allegiance and Justice

In the movie Gladiator, the use of the Barbarian as a fighter against Commodus’s corrupt

regime is an essential element of the philosophical contrast of Maximus. This is a work of

revenge, morality, politics, this is the work of Titus Andronicus. Maximus embodies the virtues

of the ideal Roman leader which include patriotism, devotion and a working ethic. In this way,

his revolt against Commodus becomes the struggle of such values and the decadence of the

nobility as well as the characteristic of an archetype. That is why when Maximus declined the

position offered to him by Commodus, namely, to become a powerful man in the arena, he

showed what a man of high moral standards he was and that his aim was to restore virtue in

Rome. According to Crowley (2021) the reason for the character of Maximus who in the movie

makes other characters including Lucilla and Senate aware of their role in supporting

Commodus’s reign. Hekster (2021) assert that this is something that shows that Maximus’

rebellion has nothing to do with fighting in the arena; this is a philosophical and ethical struggle

to reclaim the spirit of Rome. It is not the control of the Roman political power he possesses, but

he has high ethical standards and will do whatever is right regardless of the consequences to him.

Likewise, Maximus becomes an anti-type of the Roman Empire; he is the representative of an

emperor, a reformer who can bring the change that may save the empire from the moral

degradation. Thus, it can be considered that Maximus is the one who may become the best

example of the real leader of the Roman Empire, as he shows that it is not enough to be the King

and become the authority, but one has to possess character and moral values for it.

It is even more significant when Caplan’s discussion of the point is understood in the

context of the critique of the imperial system Maximus’s links are viewed in. According to

Miltsios (2023), this is a moral and political critique of an empire that has been reduced to such

ruthless opponents as Commodus despite the physical struggle that was part of his journey

through gladiatorial games. Maximus rebels against all systems of power in the Empire for the

man who can and will exercise power is not the man who commands others to do what he wants,

but the man who teaches others to do good and to die for it. This failure is depicted to be

different from the authority which is available to the people, who do not surrender to tyrants like

the power that Commodus exercises when he decides to act as a mediator between the complete

surrender to the tyranny of Commodus and the power that is paramount in handling the strength

that he wields. When watching the final fight between Maximus and the tyrant who is

Commodus, when it is clear that Maximus will kill him with one blow of the ax, we can see that

power can and should be used to overthrow the materialistic regime of the Republic of Rome.

But his character also shows that the noble and highly individualistic form of resistance that

people often engage in because they have lost someone dear to them does not translate into a

planned restructuring of society (Porter, 2023). Thus, according to the main hero’s character

Maximus the film reveals negative attitude towards the particularities of power with reference to

the issue of power acquisition and its exercise within particular society. His character represents

the part of individualism that rebellion against the evil structures because a mole is capable of

initiating change and causing change even if he has no power.

Commodus: Corrupt Use of Power and Control

In the movie Gladiator, Commodus portray the Five Bases of Power by French and

Raven which include the Coercive Power in that he uses power that is punitive in nature, power

to punish. Commodus leadership is mainly driven by the thirst of power over Rome which was in

power at the time through use of force. His acts of brutality like the killing of Marcus Aurelius

his father and influencing of Maximus’s family bear the hall mark of the forceful strategies that

he uses. It is always believed that despots have political power but what people failed to notice is

that Commodus also uses force in order to assert his authority over the people in the Senate and

the military. He fears employment since he murders those who oppose him thus making it hard

for people to confront him. Compliance with the gladiatorial games and physically abusing his

sister, Lucilla, is also evidence of his sadistic personality (Prabowo, Yuliamir & Jabbar, 2023).

Coercive power is also seen in Commodus through his whimsical use of the arena as his

entertainment square where gladiators must to do battle for the entertainment of the Emperor and

where through violence the populace is given the illusion of order. Hence fear and psychological

pressure used here for the character of Commodus makes him to fall in the category of dictator

who does not rule with the people’s hearts but with force. He employs force to make all people

be on their toes and never try to fight him in an endeavor to overthrow him as this will lead to

their death.

One cannot state that Commodus physically uses force himself, but he does it

psychologically as well. He does so with his sister, Lucilla, and the Roman Senate in which he

compels them to do as he wants not with force, but by putting them into their vices, especially

fear. Sardone and Santucci (2021) assert that there are five main types of organizational power,

which includes; Coercive power, referent power, rewarding power, legitimate power, and expert

power. An example of coercive power is when Commodus decided to become an emperor even

though he had no prior experience and knowledge in military or political department, he did it

because his family forced him to. In doing so, he raises the issues of personal insecurity and

brings the active or passive participation to his Roman rule, and his final suppression of any real

leadership. His brutality is not just an outburst of his bad temper and it is a tactic of military

conquest over all possible rivals for power and, apparently, over his own family members as

well. This element of fearing Commodus, or at least fearing the insecure world that he dominates

is perhaps the best way of establishing that it is very hard for people to take a stand against him

that will not get them killed (Weaver, 2023). The effects of rebellion are spelled out as a caution

with special focus on the consequences of anyone who may wish to challenge him as seen from

Maximus’s family. This state of terror and persecution is inherent in his oppressive power for

preserving which he does not even require genuine obedience and devotion from the obedient.

Reward Power as a tool used by Commodus to Counter Inside Threats

His effort to control the political leaders, Commodus employs reward power to get the

people he requires to obey him. Those who get and hold power on this basis can enjoy the

advantage of offering favorable inducements to compliance with specified measures. In the

Gladiator, the now evil Commodus uses this type of power over key people in Rome, the Senate,

the army, and his kin by giving them favors, titles, and other things they cannot get elsewhere.

One of such is the use of patronage to ensure that senators and military men only remain loyal to

him and him alone. He offers the titles and other enticements to those who have demonstrated

their loyalty; the enticements are his means of buying off those who are his enemies. Hence the

political acumen of maneuvering Commodus was able to make the people who had been given

power and material ends to be totally dependent on him. Covert manipulation in terms of

exchange of incentives for compliance eliminates potential rivals and strengthens his power over

Romans (Chen, 2022). For instance, the reward power is also visible in an exchange between

Commodus and the corrupt senators who are ready to get their share by supporting him. Thus,

Commodus can maintain the loyalty of those people with whom he is ready to share the power

and without which they may overthrow him.

Another plain example of reward power as applied in Gladiator can also be seen in the

move that Commodus attempted to pull on his own family. He gives them either security or

power over those within his circle of followers and employs this to regulate their conduct. It is

more important when Lucilla is compelled to become a political contrabandist and when

Commodus uses rewards in order to neutralize potential rivals. However, they are only symbolic

because Commodus never wants anyone else to gain power and influence for that reason. The

positive results he has to give are connected with the submission he has for the one who is going

to work for him. Therefore, his actual use of reward power is a rather ingenious way of making

sure that no one can get too close to the top and challenge him by keeping them close, yet

powerless. This power relation based on transaction shows that Commodus was unable to inspire

the loyalty, let alone the respect of his subjects. In its stead he has an intricate system of

inducements to influence others, cajoling them with offers of better positions or more of the

riches of Olduvai Gorge. However, in view of the reward power, Commodus can give rewards

and he does so, but his fear of those around him and his inability to form personal intimate

relationships demonstrates that there is a fear of domination even when using reward power.

Commodus and Lukes’ Abercrombie, Hill and Turner Second Dimension of Power.

Lukes’ Second Dimension of Power is the agenda setting power which means that an

individual or a group can determine what is on the agenda and what is not on the agenda at all.

Commodus epitomizes this dimension by the way that he cheated the Roman people and other

political actors. Besides setting the political agenda he controls also the spectacle of gladiatorial

games as a tool to control the crowds and reassure them while strengthening his power as the

emperor. But through them he is also able to control politics, as they set the standards of what the

Roman people like and care for. This is some indication that Commodus’s use of the games is in

actuality an effort to distract the attention of the empire’s political corruption and moral

breakdown. Instead of presenting subject matters for instance the fall of the empire or the

subjugation of its people he puts the people through performances of bloody dramas and they

cheer him on thinking Rome is doing just fine. Therefore, as long as he can control what is

happening in the Colosseum he is ensuring that the Romans do not turn their attention to the

rebellion against his rule as they are entertained by the games of the day (Rich, 2023). What has

become clearer though is that he knows how to set the political agenda without having to shift

the dials or do the heavy lifting of governance.

The way Commodus influences the political agenda of the political elite through rewards

and sanctions depending on their plans for Rome as the “glorious” city is also discussed. He has

his friends in the Senate to hold the most senior positions, and to do this, he buys them clothes

and proconsular authority. It also empowers him to set the political pace of events in the Senate

and in the military without necessarily going to war. Actually, it is even more significant than

controlling events as it also includes the authority over the conditions of the speech and action

within the imperial court. Commodus is able to get the support he wants through buying it and

sidelining those who disagree with him through punishment, he is then able to control what the

people are focused on. The fact that the gladiatorum games capture the public imagination,

means that Commodus controls the only paradigm of Roman greatness that is available. Thus,

Commodus mobilizes the Roman people and political leaders in a way that keeps them in check.

He keeps them under his command through use of force and through controlling their viewing,

listening and thinking habits (Sardone & Santucci, 2021).

The Gladiatorial Arena: A Battlefield for Power and Resistance

In the movie Gladiator, Commodus exhibit the Five Bases of Power by French and Raven

in particular the Coercive Power which is Power base on the capacity to reward or punish the

other in some way. Commodus leadership is mainly driven by power to dominate Rome at that

time in power through force and coercion. Some of the things that he did like killing Marcus

Aurelius his father and influencing of the family of Maximus are signs of forcefulness. Despots

are always thought to have political power and while this is true with Commodus, what is not

known is that he also uses force to keep people in the Senate and the military in line. He fears

employment since he kills or severely assault anybody that go against him hence no one can

stand against him. He enjoys the gladiatorial games and physically violate his sister, Lucilla

which are clearly signs of sadistic disposition of the character (Prabowo, Yuliamir & Jabbar,

2023). This is exactly what Commodus does by using force, in his frivolous utilization of the

arena as the imperial playground where gladiators are forced to fight for the Emperor’s

amusement and where through violence the population is given a false hope of stability. This

application of fear and psychological pressure places Commodus in a tyrant’s category a leader

who does not rule with the people’s hearts but by striking fear into their hearts. He employs force

to ensure that every single person does not try to rebel against him and remove him from power

because if they try to do so, they will die.

However, one cannot state that Commodus uses force physically, but he also uses one’s

mind to force someone to do something. He does so with his sister Lucilla, and the Rome Senate

in which he makes them submissive to his commands not by using force but by appealing to their

vices, fear. Commodus’s decision making to have himself declared an emperor without any

experience in the military or politics relying on his family connection is a good example of

coercive power. That way He turns personal insecurity and develops active or passive

involvement in the Roman empire and the final destruction of any possible leadership. This is not

mere a demonstration of his bad temper but an act of war against all who might present a threat

to his power including the family members. This element of fearing Commodus, or at least

fearing the insecure world that he dominates is perhaps the best way of establishing that it is very

hard for people to take a stand against him that will not get them killed (Weaver). Rebellion is

depicted as having a negative sided as seen from the events that be fell on Maximus’s family.

This state of terror and persecution is typical of his despotism necessary for the support of which

he does not even require the genuine submission and loyalty of the dependent.

Reward Power as a tool used by Commodus to Counter Inside Threats

The effort to control political leaders, Commodus employs reward power to ensure that

people he requires obey him. Employees who get and sustain power on this ground are in a

position to offer attractive incentives towards responding to certain measures. In the Gladiator,

the now evil Commodus uses this type of power over important senators in Rome, the military

and his relatives by giving them favors, titles and other things which they will not be able to get

from anyone else. Among such is the use of patronage to ensure that senators and military men

do not have other loyalty than to him. He offers the titles and other goodies to those who have

demonstrated their loyalty; these goodies are his means of co-opting those who are his foes.

Thus, the political skill of maneuvering Commodus was able to make those who had access to

power and material gains to be completely defenseless in the hands of Commodus. Using

incentive to control in a disguised manner, possible threats to him are eliminated and he

strengthens his power over Romans (Chen, 2022). In the movie Gladiator, the reward power is

seen between Commodus and corrupt senators; the corrupt senators will do whatever it takes to

get what they want including being loyal to Commodus. Commodus can keep the support of

those people with whom he is ready to share the power, and those who otherwise may try to get

rid of him and take the power themselves.

Another clear example of reward power as used in Gladiator can also be seen in the move

that Commodus tried to pull on his own relatives. He offers them protection or power to those

within his circle of influence and employ their desire of these to regulate their conduct. The

peculiar relationship of Lucilla with Commodus when she finds herself implicated in political

smuggling becomes all the more intriguing as Commodus uses rewards as a means to control

people; including rivals. Wood (2022) says they are actually empty symbols because Commodus

never wishes to give power to others due to his own phobias. The benefits he presents are linked

with the condition that he has in store for anyone who decides to work for him, and that is

compliance. Hence, his actual usage of reward power is a rather cunning way of keeping all his

subordinates within a reach but not strong enough to challenge him. This kind of power

transaction demonstrates that Commodus failed to win the allegiance, and more so the respect, of

his people in the course of his reign. Steenberg (2020) state that in its place he has a highly

sophisticated system of coercion to manage people, threatening them with promotion or

resources in Olduvai Gorge. However, as for reward power, Commodus can give rewards,

although he has many fears and problems in interpersonal relationships which points to his

aggressive tendencies when it comes to wielding even the power of reward.

Commodus and Lukes’ Abercrombie, Hill and Turner Second Dimension of Power

Lukes’ Second Dimension of Power is the agenda setting power which is the ability of an

individual or a group to determine what gets on the agenda and what does not get on the agenda

at all. Commodus represents this aspect on how he cheated the Roman citizens and other political

actors. Besides, he controls the political discourse, he controls also the gladiatorial games as a

tool to keep the people’s attention and to assure them while he consolidates his power as the

emperor. Cantabrana (2020) say through them he is also able to manipulate the politics since

they set the standard of what is important to the people of Rome. This is some indication that

Commodus’s use of the games is in actuality an effort to distract the attention of the empire’s

political corruption and moral breakdown. He does not engage the people in events that are

relevant to issues that affected the empire or the people of the empire; instead he directs the

people to perform bloody dramas that depict power and personality of the emperor, thus, they

believed that everything is well with Rome. Therefore, as long as he can control what is

happening in the Coliseum, he is making sure the Romans do not turn their attention to the

rebellion against him; the people are more occupied with the games that are taking place today

(Rich, 2023). It is notable that what has emerged more clearly is that he understands how to set

the agenda in political terms without having to shift gears and govern.

Commodus also controls the political plan of action of the elite through bribery or

coercion depending on the persons’ plans on the image of Rome as great. He secures the loyalty

of his friends to position them at the top of the Senate; he provides them with robes and

proconsular imperium in return. It also gives him control over the political agenda of what

happens in the Senate and the military without having to confront the enemy directly. In fact, it is

even more important than controlling events because it also includes the authority to control the

conditions of communication and action within the imperial court. This he is able to achieve

through coercion in the form of buying support through the use of reward and stifling of dissent

through systematic suppression of opposition. That the gladiatorum games occupy the public

space, means that Commodus controls the political landscape and the only narrative of Rome’s

greatness that is available. Commodus mobilizes the Roman people and political leaders in a way

that keeps them in check and he keeps them under his dominion through the use of force and

through controlling what they should watch, listen to and even believe (Sardone & Santucci,

2021).

Negotiation and Mediation in the Power Struggle

Maximus: A Case of Negotiation and Mediation

For this reason, the concepts of “reasonable” and “rational” Negotiation and Mediation

are central to the extent that skillful coalition and the public support throughout Gladiator can be

achieved. He is able to overcome all adversity and make people follow him by the use of

compliance gaining communication such as empathy, patience and understanding. At some point

he is purchased and is turned into a gladiator who like Charlton Heston in the “Ben Hur” movie,

a slave becomes an extraordinary, charming and smart gladiator who gains the respect of other

slaves. He meditates in the sense that, he listens into their personal problems, leadership without

the element of power (Chen, 2022). By this, he unites all the gladiators, and they all have one

thing in common since they want to kill Commodus. He also buys off politicians like Lucilla

which provides him with a noble cause to fight the tyrant Emperor of Rome. The success of

Remediation to gather different groups for the very powerful Maximus shows how Remediation

is able to move people emotionally and intellectually (Joshel, Malamud, & McGuire, 2001). This

is not the portrayal of a warrior; he engages his ethics and diplomacy to rally the soldiers into

removing Commodus from power.

In the political struggle of the story apart from the fight, Maximus is using his diplomatic

skills as the main protagonist is also able to get the support of the Senate and other important

characters of the plot. Once again, as an ex-general and a man of principles he can negotiate with

these elites (Steenberg, 2020). Maximus understands that the Senate is growing more and more

angry with Commodus for taking the government’s money and uses this to his advantage as the

kind of man who can save Rome. This he does through a group of senators and military officials

who will have the interest of seeing him take the power that is about to be vacated. It creates a

force within the resistance and which in turn leads to a power struggle which Commodus had a

total control over (Chen, 2022). Also, Maximus not only knows those characters and organizes

gladiatorial games, so his character can be associated with the symbol as a hope for the

population. With more or less intentionally and politely, Maximus gets the allegiance and the

rallying of the people towards his side.

Commodus: The Planning of an Alliance to Overthrow the Roman Emperor

It is argued that the strategic alliances entered into by Maximus are important in his bid to

depose Commodus and rebel against him. When forced to fight again in the arena, Maximus

chooses to join other gladiators who are also as much as horrified by the emperors’ evil as he is.

In this conflict, assembling the gladiators into the formation capable to overthrow Commodus he

establishes the unity that functions. Maximus has an easier job persuading the gladiators to fight

not only for their lives, for freedom and to free Rome from the tyrant’s grasp because they owe

their loyalty to him (Steenberg, 2020). This comradeship with fellow gladiators becomes crucial

in his struggle to overthrow Commodus since they are living bodies or symbols of opposition to

the emperor’s rule. The actual spectacles do turn into a stage with the bloodthirsty games where

Maximus starts gaining a following to fight for the cause and lead the masses, who see in his

strength, the ability to bring the Rome back. That he is able to unite people as the gladiators is

seen from the fact that he can gather people with a common goal that is not only to fight for their

lives but to get justice.

Maximus also has close political affiliations with Lucilla, the emperor’s sister, who also

wants to be done with her brother’s anger in Rome. The lovers trust each other to the extent that

both hate Commodus and both seek the welfare of Rome. Thus, the resistance gets a military

leader, a man who know what war is, Maximus, who was once a general while Lucilla will be

able to bring to the table some political power, as she is a member of the senate (Joshel,

Malamud, and McGuire, 2001). This is an alliance because Lucilla gives to Maximus what he

needs to confront with Commodus in public, political protection. Both serve to erode

Commodus’s power and, on the other hand, on the inside of the regime, Maximus stays in the

arena to gain the ovation of the common Roman citizen. It is this combination of the realm of

gladiatorial combat and political theatre that makes it unfortunate for Commodus that fate has

placed Maximus in the position of being alternately an opponent of his rule within people’s

minds and within the structures of the Roman state (Hekster, 2021). The two power houses in

Rome that Maximus uses to overthrow Commodus include the gladiator Arena and the Roman

Senate.

Maximus military expertise and expert power

The play portrays French and Raven’s power categorization in that of expert power

where due to his military strategies and leadership skills, Maximus is the power holder. Maximus

is a general in the past and that is why he has the power necessary to call for fight because he is a

great warrior. This knowledge enables him to command respect from the gladiators, politicians

or anyone else including his enemies like Commodus. Maximus does not rely on the brute force

in order to overpower other men and to gain control over them, but he relies on his wits and his

ability to plan and maneuver. His instinct, his capacity to understand a context, to plan, and to

rein in himself distinguishes him from other gladiators in the arena and in Rome’s politics

(Steenberg, 2020). In the bargaining process his military background comes in handy where he

has the ability to garner support from the community that values power and effectiveness in a

leader. When Maximus employed his military tactics against Romans, and second, when he

became a political leader and demonstrated that the expert authority persuades others to

acknowledge expert’s judgment as the only correct one.

According to Chen (2022), he also uses relationship powers, which makes him a perfect

expert power figure, who not only leads others but also Maximus. His strength is to control

emotions and make quick decisions during the fight and that is because he is a negotiator. The

ability to lead and command people to obey him from a limited location builds his power in the

negotiations with allies because they know he is a man of his word (Chen, 2022). He does this

not only because of his military role but he unites the gladiators, the senators, the common

people into one force. Maximus’s planning in the sphere and his actions in the arena are not the

most theatrical, but rather sign his competence at the right time (Joshel, Malamud, & McGuire,

2001). Maximus is a man of military precision and he uses authority as a signpost and power to

get himself into places of duplicity. The collection of the competence, leadership and power

assets makes Maximus a formidable opponent and a great tactician, who is capable to start

rebellion against Commodus not only in the Roman arena but in many other higher political

realms.

How Commodus manipulated perception

What Russo never makes clear is the fact that Commodus controls the people of Rome

similarly to the way in which he controls the desire of the people to have the want to be gladiator

and would-be king of Rome. For example, gladiatorial games are not acts of pride, they are

planned acts of power. Commodus wants to cheat the Romans that he is fit to rule as emperor

because he is a great gladiator in the arena (Hekster, 2021). These manifestations are aimed at

restoring the emperor as the supreme being, who must be worshipped and obeyed. This control

of public opinion is one of the most important methods of power in a society where the

emperor’s authority is frequently dependent on his persona. He loves displays of naked power

and the artificial creation of his character provides him the means of keeping up the charade of

normality even when his rule is as irrational and odious as it is tyrannical. The picture of his

triumphs in the gladiatorial combats as a cloak for political instability and anarchy, and for

corruption which was rampant during his reign.

Another way through which Commodus manipulates the Roman public through politics

is through the politics that he plays. He has a group of touts, advisors and courtiers who assist in

the construction of the collective image of his invincibility, and erasing other voices which may

pose a challenge to his authority (Joshel, Malamud, & McGuire, 2001). Commodus is effectively

steering the story, and especially the Senate, as he successfully keeps the most important part of

the power balance on his side and allowing him to gradually go mad. By opening the pipes and

propaganda, Commodus attempts to control what the people of Rome think of him as a leader. It

remains that any demonstration of weakness or surrender is hidden and all the illusion of power

and divinity is sustained. Nevertheless, this process gradually starts to collapse as the features of

the emperor’s image introduced through Maximus contain contradictions and internal

contradictions. This struggle between the attempts he makes to present himself to the public as a

capable emperor while the people of Rome are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the

political leadership is one of the main themes of the fight for Rome’s future (Steenberg, 2020).

The director's attempt to control the audience is undermined by the fact that Commodus’ tyranny

repels many important political and military figures from Rome and sends them into rebellion.

Conclusion

In movie Gladiator two of the main characters, Maximus and Commodus, represent two

different visions of power and leadership. The first source of optimism in this series is Maximus

who is endowed with virtues of righteousness, suffering and commitment to justice. He is an

example of referent power by French and Raven where people follow someone not because of

what he or she has, but who he or she is. Others who include other gladiators and Roman

senators follow him because of his honorable intention to restore virtue in Rome. This makes

him noble and thus he gets people in predisposed conditions. On the other hand, Commodus

relies on the false sources of power. He uses two types of power, namely; Coercive power and

legitimate power; he bullies his political counterparts, including the citizens of Rome. Insecurity

and the need for ancillary are inherent features of cruisers, thus, Commodus cannot have a loyal

bond. In relation to Lukes’ dimensions of power, there is another way to show why power failed

for Commodus; “power over” he uses power to try to suppress any form of rebellion. While we

have seen that he has a significant position, he does not have the respect, or the trust, and thus he

is in a vulnerable position. The conclusion of the quarrel between Maximus and Commodus

gives and depicts how people should react to evil authority. For Maximus that is the victory of

Rome’s knights and the deposal of the tyrant Commodus. The fact with Commodus’s death here

shows one important fact that; power that is created through the use of force is always weak,

whereas power derived from justice is strong, and therefore whoever who is in power needs to

show his force through justice-not force. In conclusion, one can focus at the vision that dishonest

rulers can rule only a certain period of time, while conscience oriented, altruistic leaders are to

restore justice and order in society.

References

Asztalos, Á. The Historical Accuracy of the Praetorians in Gladiator (2000).

Atack, C. (2023). Exemplarity and the practice of charisma in Athenian stories of

leadership. Charisme en politique: Max Weber face à l'Antiquité grecque et romaine.-

(Collection de l'École française de Rome 0223-5099; 607), 119-154.

Barker, J. (2008). " A Hero Will Rise": The Myth of the Fascist Man in Fight Club and

Gladiator. Literature/Film Quarterly, 36(3), 171.

Cantabrana, O. A. (2020). Screening the Face of Roman Battle: Violence Through the Eyes of

Soldiers in Film. Ancient Violence in the Modern Imagination: The Fear and the Fury,

43.

Chen, Z. (2022). Gladiator Overview: Three Sides of the Spectacle in a Heroic Epic Film. Open

Access Library Journal, 9(9), 1-7.

Chen, Z. (2022). Gladiator Overview: Three Sides of the Spectacle in a Heroic Epic Film. Open

Access Library Journal, 9(9), 1-7.

Crowley, S. B. (2021). Exemplary leaders’ use of power and influence to cultivate an ethical

organizational climate: Case studies of millennial leaders in admissions/enrollment

management in private non-profit higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Brandman

University).

Dalby, S. (2008). Warrior geopolitics: gladiator, black hawk down and the kingdom of

heaven. Political Geography, 27(4), 439-455.

Dunkle, R. (2013). Gladiators: violence and spectacle in ancient Rome. Routledge.

Fernández, Z. A. (2020). Choreographies of Violence: Spartacus from the Soviet Ballet to the

Global Stage. Ancient Violence in the Modern Imagination: The Fear and the Fury, 107-

24.

Grainger, J. D. (2024). Two Roman Revolutions: The Senate, the Emperors and Power, from

Commodus to Gallienus (AD 180-260).

Griffiths, D. (2024). The power of space opera: energetic melodrama and the ecologies of

Dune. Textual Practice, 1-21.

Hekster, O. (2021). Commodus: an emperor at the crossroads (Vol. 23). Brill.

Joshel, S. R., Malamud, M., & McGuire, D. T. (Eds.). (2001). Imperial projections: ancient

Rome in modern popular culture. JHU Press.

Köhne, E., Ewigleben, C., & Jackson, R. (Eds.). (2000). Gladiators and Caesars: the power of

spectacle in ancient Rome. Univ of California Press.

Marco, A. V. (2021). Consecrate the World to God: Maximus the Confessor on the “Secular”

and Vatican II’s Theology of the Laity (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University).

Miltsios, N. (2023). Leadership and Leaders in Polybius (Vol. 145). Walter de Gruyter GmbH &

Co KG.

Porter, D. (2023). Ars, Virtus, Impetus: Gladiatorial Training and Roman Legionaries (Master's

thesis, Utah State University).

Prabowo, B. A., Yuliamir, H., & Jabbar, U. A. (2023, December). Analysis Of The Leadership

Concept Of Maximus In The Movie Gladiator (2000) Using The Swot Theory Approach.

In International Conference On Digital Advanced Tourism Management And

Technology (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 320-328).

Sardone, N., & Santucci, N. (2021). Mad Rulers, Wise Men, and Brutal Gladiators: Exploring

Ancient Rome Through Film and Source Analysis. Hollywood or History?: An Inquiry-

Based Strategy for Using Film to Teach World History, 1, 144.

Sardone, N., & Santucci, N. (2021). Mad Rulers, Wise Men, and Brutal Gladiators: Exploring

Ancient Rome Through Film and Source Analysis. Hollywood or History?: An Inquiry-

Based Strategy for Using Film to Teach World History, 1, 144.

Shelton, J. (2023). “Commodus is not a Moral Man”: Nemesis, Narrative Construction, and

Historical Reconstruction in Gladiator. “A Hero Will Endure”: Essays at the Twentieth

Anniversary of'Gladiator', 159.

Steenberg, L. (2020). Are You Not Entertained?: Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media.

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Steenberg, L. (2020). Are You Not Entertained?: Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media.

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Tudor, D. (2002). Nation, family and violence in Gladiator. Jump Cut, 45.

Weaver, A. (2023). “… But Not Yet”: Reflections on Juba, the Spirit Guide and “Eternal Echo”

of Gladiator. “A Hero Will Endure”: Essays at the Twentieth Anniversary of'Gladiator',

213.

Wood, N. (2022). Maximus and Priscillian:(Post-) Tetrarchic Imperial Ideology and

Deviance (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland).

Students also viewed