Well, like pretty much every other movie about Rome, it idealizes the Senate and treats it like a beacon of democracy, when it was much less representative than all that. It's not any more or less inaccurate than any other Rome-related media in that sense, however, so I don't really hold that against it.

It's the little things that irk me. As an example, take a look at the main character's name: "Maximus," full name "Maximus Decimus Meridius." With regards to Roman naming conventions, that name makes no sense:

• "Maximus" was a cognomen, initially something of a nickname in the Republic era, though by the Imperial period it was more of a way to distinguish a certain branch of a family.

• "Decimus" is a praenomen, or a given name. Funnily enough, the Romans didn't really have many distinctive first names -- there were a dozen or so in circulation, which is why you have so many people named "Gaius" or "Titus" or "Lucius."

• "Meridius" is a nomen, or a family name. Often times we simplify Roman names by emphasizing the nomen and cognomen. For example, "Julius" wasn't Julius Caesar's first name, it was his family name. His first name was "Gaius."

So in reality, his name should have been "Decimus Meridius Maximus" -- essentially boiling down to "Decimus of the Maximus branch of the Meridius family," although this is obviously an oversimplification of Roman naming conventions.

Whilst a fantastic film, there are a number of inaccuracies and anachronisms. Firstly, there is no evidence showing Commodus killing his father Marcus Aurelius, in fact he died in Vienna rather than on the campaign field. Aurelius had also been co-emperor with his son indicating he was always set to be the heir.

As far as costume goes, most of the military stuff is an amalgamation of Roman equipment from the late-Republic and Early-Empire periods, along with some complete fantasy elements thrown in. In relation to the opening scene; knowing that they would be marching into dense forest it is also unlikely the legion would have built and deployed any of their siege equipment.

That's just a bit of the stuff I've picked up on, I'm sure there is plenty more, especially when it comes to the city of Rome it self that is inaccurate.

The sword fighting in Gladiator is atrocious, but that's usually how it is in Hollywood. While I have limited knowledge of specific Roman sword fighting, Gladiator gets some very basics of sword fighting wrong.

First off, their footwork is terrible. They're pretty much just walking normally. They cross their legs too much as they move. It would be very easy to knock them off balance.

As for their form, you should never hold your off hand out to your opponent. That's a sure way to get your hand cut by your opponent or by yourself. They also spin. Never, ever spin during a sword fight. It exposes your back and will get you killed. They also lean forward when waiting, which only exposes your head more.

Their strikes are those of unskilled fighters. They telegraph their swings, which means they cock the blade back before striking, making it very easy to defend against. They also over swing, meaning they follow through with their cut too much, making them unable to recover into a guard position.

As a final note, there is a lot of aiming for the opponent's sword. You always want to strike the opponent, but their blade gets in the way. There are a few cases where you want to hit your opponent's blade to knock it out of the way, but that's not what is shown.

I am basing my criticism on this scene.

Off the top of my head.

1. The senate was not a representative body and was composed of major landowners in Rome. It was a consultative body and not a legislative body and by the time of Marcus Aurelius not all that relevant to Roman politics anymore. An analogue today would not be the US senate but rather something like the 500 richest men in the US forming a consultative body for the government.

2. Maximus is portrayed as a farmer-soldier of the type which existed during the early-middle Republican period, but had long faded out of existence in favor of a professional force by the time of the movie.

3. The Gracchus brothers died more than a century before the timeline of the movie.

In general the politics is portrayed as more like the late Republican period than the early empire.

I think the thing that irks me the most is the flagrant misunderstanding of Roman political climates and just how dirty they would play in order to make Commodus's hamfisted ascension more smooth in the movie than it should have been. I don't believe that fiction is beholden to the facts but to the spirit of history and should you wish to create a fictitious account of Commodus murdering his father and dying in the arena that's perfectly fine, but you should stay as close to the manner of how it would happen as possible, which itself is greatly interesting.

The dynamic that was set up, though anachronistic, provided that:

a) Marcus Aurelius was a popular, dying despot, who had given increasing allowances to the Senate. b) The Senate was of nominal popularity at least among the idealists and the people in this fiction. c) There was a question as to who was going to become the next Emperor. Commodus himself expresses a certainty that he would be named as heir in his first scene, indicating that there was a widespread uncertainty among the Empire until Aurelius made the official decree. d) Commodus was representative of a clearly pro-monarchal faction. Gracchus and Falco were representative of a clearly pro-Republican faction. e) Maximus was a wild card, with an extremely loyal legion at his back.

With these truths that were set up there is no plausible way that a weak, undeclared heir will march up to Germania and have the general conspicuously disappear while leaving that legionary camp alive, especially since legions so frequently found their financial dependence on their generals.

The senators, who we are led to believe are great men of politics and guile, stand in front of the leader of the pro-monarchy faction and extol to him, very publically, that they wish to enlist Maximus in a pro-Republican faction once Marcus Aurelius dies to diminish the power of the Emperor and return it to the Senate.

There is just no plausible way that Commodus is going to kill his own father to secure his succession, kill a wildly popular general to secure his succession, and not see to it that the frustrating senators aren't killed too. Just like there's no plausible way that he's going to walk away from that camp full of battle hardened veterans who, according to the film, were devoted to their general. There's no way that in light of all of this, Commodus's succession is going to be a clean, smooth one since there were so many doubts about who was going to inherit in the first place, in the timeline of the film the Senate was on an upswing in power, and the personal character of Commodus himself was called into question by his own father.

The entire scene in Germania was just too awkward with politicians that are too brazen to have survived as long as they have, much less to survive that very scene, as Commodus enjoys a rip roaring success through the impossible feat of absconding with a popular general from his own camp and having him executed with no hitches.

Like I said I don't mind playing loose with the facts, but playing loose with the spirit bothers me.