1
The Portrayal of Emperor Commodus in Gladiator vs. Historical Sources
Introduction
This paper discusses Commodus, the Roman emperor who ruled from 177 to 192 AD and
is considered one of the most tyrannical in Roman history. As stated by Cassius Dio and
Herodian, Commodus is described as a self-indulgent and erratic ruler, but Ridley Scott’s
Gladiator (2000) presents his character in a different way: as a psychopathic villain. In this
paper, the author aims to demonstrate the contrast between the image of Commodus as depicted
by ancient sources and his depiction in the film, arguing that while the film amplifies the flaws
of Commodus for the sake of dramatic effect, the historical sources depict a more complex figure
whose reign, though flawed, was not solely defined by the extremes suggested by the film.
Thesis Statement:
Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000) presents Commodus as a power-hungry and
psychopathic villain, while Cassius Dio and Herodian describe him as a ruler whose reign was
marked by both excess and instability, but not the moral decay shown in the film. This author
claims that Gladiator’s portrayal is shaped by the conventions of cinema that emphasize narrative
clarity and emotional engagement, and in doing so, it distorts the complexity of Commodus as a
ruler and the political context of his reign.1 The following is a response to that claim.
1 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, trans. Earnest Cary and Herbert Baldwin Foster
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1927
2
Section 1: Commodus in Gladiator
Commodus is depicted as a sadistic, power-hungry emperor with a strong psychological
fixation on his father, Marcus Aurelius in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator. Commodus is depicted in the
film as an unstable character who tries to establish his rule through violence, manipulation, and
the destruction of his family. His desire for power and control is reflected in his obsession with
gladiatorial combat, as seen in the famous final scene when he fights with Maximus, a former
general.
The film’s portrayal of Commodus, especially the murder of his father, is quite a
departure from historical records. Although historical records show that Commodus’s reign was
marked by a shift towards personal indulgence and the centralization of power, there is no
indication that he was psychopathic as seen in the film. Cassius Dio, however, states that
Commodus was at first accepted as a ruler who could bring some order, but his later actions
became more erratic as he tightened his grip on power. Cassius Dio writes that Commodus
‘though he had a promising start to his reign, he became fond of gladiatorial games and chariot
races, and he preferred spectacle to governance’.2
While the film takes certain liberties in depicting Commodus as a gladiatorial combat-
obsessed emperor, it is a powerful narrative device. It reduces a complex historical figure into a
symbol of moral decay, a figure who is the opposite of Maximus, the hero. Thus, the depiction of
2 Herodian, History of the Roman Empire, trans. Edward C. Echols (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1961).
3
Commodus in the film is exaggerated to the extent that he is an easily recognizable antagonist
who embodies the internal chaos and corruption of the Roman Empire.
Section 2: Commodus in Historical Accounts
To get a better understanding of the real Commodus, we must rely on the ancient sources
such as Cassius Dio and Herodian, who provide a better insight into the character of Commodus
and his reign. Cassius Dio, a Roman historian who lived in the early third century AD, is one of
the most important sources of information on Commodus’s rule. According to Dio, Commodus
was a ruler who started his reign on the right note but later became more tyrannical, especially in
his later years. According to Dio, Commodus used to indulge in the display of power and was
completely cut off from the governance of the empire, he used to fight as a gladiatorial
combatant and hunt wild animals in the arena. Although Dio criticizes Commodus’s behavior, he
does not portray him as the villainous figure that is seen in Gladiator but as a flawed emperor
who was driven by his passions. As Cassius Dio notes, “He became completely obsessed with
the games of the arena where he fought as a gladiator and even declared himself a god.”3 The
historian Herodian presents a similar version of Commodus yet places greater emphasis on the
emperor's erratic nature. According to Herodian the emperor frequently exhibited extreme
conduct by sponsoring extravagant Colosseum games which he hoped would win over the
Roman people. Commodus' desire for public favor through such spectacles did not set him apart
from other Roman emperors who exhibited similar actions. Throughout the centuries gladiatorial
contests remained a staple of Roman civilization and Augustus and Nero had previously
3 Herodian, History of the Roman Empire, trans. Edward C. Echols (Berkeley: University of California
Press,
4
employed games to gain popularity during their rule. Herodian describes Commodus as being
consumed by his image while trying to gain popular adoration through spectacular events.4
Commodus' games participation stands out, but this characteristic does not make him stand out
as a particularly evil character.
The article by Olivier Hekster titled "A New Portrait of Commodus" examines
Commodus' public image through a detailed analysis while showing how contemporary
scholarship influences our knowledge of his rule. Hekster demonstrates that the negative image
of Commodus as a tyrant emerges from political and cultural prejudices which exist in both
ancient and contemporary interpretations of his actions. 5
The ancient sources present a multifaceted leader beyond the villainous portrayal in the
film. Commodus demonstrated clear deficiencies as a ruler although his problems did not amount
to complete madness. The time under Commodus showed diminishing connection to royal duties
while he became more withdrawn and self-indulgent until his leadership failed completely.
Section 3: The Impact of Cinematic Portrayals on Historical Memory
The depiction of Commodus in Gladiator aligns with the industry practice of turning
historical figures into basic good and evil personas during film production. The film industry
tends to transform intricate historical personalities into simplistic hero-villain archetypes for the
sake of emotional impact even though it distorts historical accuracy. The film presents
4 Gary North, “Gladiator: A Pagan Film for a Pagan Society,” 2000,
https://www.garynorth.com/public/18115.cfm.
5 Olivier Hekster, “A New Portrait of Commodus-RRR Smith, and Christian Niederhuber. 2023.
Commodus. The Public Image of a Roman Emperor,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 37, no. 2 (2024): 666–671.
5
Commodus's death at Maximus's hands as a symbol of Rome's moral restoration. The dramatic
interpretation used by the film fulfills storytelling requirements, but it fails to represent the actual
complexities of Commodus's reign as ruler.
The practice of sensationalizing history for movie productions remains unchanged from
previous times. Gary North demonstrates in his Gladiator critique that the film’s depiction of
Commodus as a tyrant functions as part of a larger ideological framework which depicts the
Roman Empire's downfall through moral judgment. North explains that the film presents a black-
and-white moral perspective through Maximus while Commodus and other historical figures
exist in a more complicated moral landscape. North states that the film transforms a sophisticated
historical event into a direct moral lesson for modern audiences by depicting Commodus as an
evil character. 6
The practice of reducing historical people to basic moral opposites during filmmaking
processes challenges our comprehension of historical memory. The depiction of Commodus as
an evil character within Gladiator creates both a public misunderstanding of the historical
emperor and reinforces basic interpretations about the end of the Roman Empire. The film
concentrates its narrative on personal ethical breakdowns instead of displaying the systematic
societal and political elements which contributed to Rome's deterioration.
Conclusion
6 Pearce, John. "An empire of words? Archaeology and writing in the Roman world." InJMaterialising
Empire in Ancient Rome, pp. 45-76. UCL Press, 2024.
6
The depiction of Commodus as Emperor in Gladiator presents a dramatic take on the
historical figure's real complexities. Ancient historians including Cassius Dio and Herodian show
that Commodus displayed multiple flaws but simultaneously they demonstrate how his initial
potential clashed with his later extravagant behavior. The film takes his most provocative traits
to create a symbolic representation of his moral corruption. Gladiator provides more insight into
the dangers of leadership and the essence of power than an accurate depiction of Commodus’s
actual rule. The distinction between these two concepts remains vital for historians and
filmmakers because it shows how movies transform historical understanding.
7
Bibliography
Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Dio’s Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert Baldwin
Foster. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1927.
History of the Roman Empire. Univ of California Press, 1961.
North, Gary. “Gladiator: A Pagan Film for a Pagan Society.” 2000.
https://www.garynorth.com/public/18115.cfm.
Pearce, John. "An empire of words? Archaeology and writing in the Roman world."
InJMaterialising Empire in Ancient Rome, pp. 45-76. UCL Press, 2024.
Hekster, Olivier. "A new portrait of Commodus-RRR Smith, and Christian Niederhuber. 2023.
Commodus. The Public Image of a Roman Emperor. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag. Pp. 122, 99 plates. ISBN: 9783752007640."JJournal of Roman ArchaeologyJ37,
no. 2 (2024): 666-671.
Waldron, Byron. "Neglected Iranian AND Syriac Evidence on the Persian Campaigns of
Gordian III AND Galerius."JAncient Warfare, Volume II: Introducing Current
ResearchJ2 (2024): 227.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
