{"id":96183,"date":"2026-01-29T01:00:04","date_gmt":"2026-01-29T06:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=96183"},"modified":"2026-01-28T10:20:18","modified_gmt":"2026-01-28T15:20:18","slug":"qotd-nitpicking-the-roman-army-in-gladiator-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2026\/01\/29\/qotd-nitpicking-the-roman-army-in-gladiator-2000\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: Nitpicking the Roman army in Gladiator<\/em> (2000)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>We pick up in an improbably mud-soaked<\/a> clearing with a title card informing us that we’re in “Germania”, which is correct in a very broad sense that this is the Second Marcomannic War and the enemies here are the Marcomanni and Quadi, who are Germani (Germanic-language speakers), but the army here isn’t operating out of the Roman provinces<\/em> of Germania (superior<\/em> and inferior<\/em>) which are on the Rhine, but rather on the Danube, from the provinces of Noricum and Pannonia (Superior). But in the sense that we’re in Germania magna<\/em>, the greater zone of Germanic cultural influence, sure, fine.<\/p>\n

In the process of Maximus riding up, the failure of negotiations and Maximus riding to join his cavalry, we get something of an overview of the Roman army and its position and both are wrong. Let’s start with the soldiers: we see a very clear distinction between two kinds of soldiers, the mail-clad auxilia<\/em>, all archers, and the legionaries wearing the lorica segmentata<\/em> and there appear to be about the same number of both groups. And here is where we first see the clear influence of the Column of Trajan<\/a> (and to an unfortunately lesser degree, the far more appropriate Column of Marcus Aurelius) on the depiction, because this use of armor to distinctly signal the Roman citizen legionaries and non-citizen auxilia<\/em> is straight from the Column of Trajan, completed probably around 113 and commemorating Trajan’s two Dacian Wars (101-102, 105-106).<\/p>\n

What this sequence gets correct is that the Roman army was divided into those two groups, they were roughly equal in number (by this period, the auxilia<\/em> probably modestly outnumber the legions in total manpower)1<\/sup> and Trajan’s Column does use that visual signifier to distinguish them. This component is the crux of the verisimilitude that leads people to trust the rest of this sequence.<\/p>\n

The problems start almost immediately from there. Roman auxilia<\/em> were far more varied than what we see here in terms of equipment and tactics and only very few of them were archers<\/strong>. So let’s break down Roman auxiliary contingents. With all due caveats about the limits of our evidence, infantry auxilia<\/em> outnumber cavalry by about 2:1 in attested auxilia<\/em> units (auxilia<\/em> were grouped into cavalry alae<\/em> and infantry cohortes<\/em>, generally of 480 men (sometimes around 800), but unlike for legionary citizen-infantry, these cohorts were not grouped into larger legions).2<\/sup> So we ought to expect about a third of our auxilia<\/em> to be cavalry, which is important because the cavalry detachments of Roman legions were very small (and mostly for scouting and messenger duties). Auxilia<\/em> cavalry ranged in equipment and could include horse archers and even ultra-heavy cataphract cavalry, but most were mailed shock cavalry, equipped quite a lot like how Gallic or Germanic warrior-aristocrats or Roman legionary cavalry would be.<\/p>\n

Of the remainder, the most common kind of infantry auxilia<\/em> by far seem to have been heavy infantry, fighting in fairly heavy armor. These fellows get depicted in Roman artwork generally in mail armor, with flat oval shields (as opposed to the curved, rectangular imperial-period Roman scutum<\/em>), spears and swords. These fellows, totally absent in this sequence are all over<\/em> the Column of Trajan, with their flat oval shields being frequently seen (although one must distinguish them from Dacians who carry the same shield; the auxilia<\/em> stick out for their mail and helmets). A bit less than 10% of auxilia<\/em> units are attested as cohortes sagittariorum<\/em> (“cohort of archers”). We also know the Romans used slingers within the auxilia<\/em>, but as far as we can tell, not in specialized units; they may have been brigaded in with other auxilia<\/em> cohorts. In either case, they appear in fairly small numbers. Finally, we also see on things like the Column of Trajan<\/em> Roman allied or auxiliary units that are substantially lighter infantry: on the Column of Trajan, these are local troops shown wielding large clubs and stripped to the waist, presumably representing troops local to the Danube region, fighting in local (unarmored, with heavy two-handed weapons) style.<\/p>\n

So whereas the army we see is a nearly even split between legionary heavy infantry and auxilia<\/em> archers (with a small amount of legionary cavalry waiting for Maximus to show up to lead them), in practice a typical Roman field army would have far fewer<\/em> archers, indeed around ten times<\/em> fewer: not almost 50% of the force, but in fact probably a bit less than 5%<\/em> of the force (since they’re less than 10% of the auxilia<\/em> who would make up around half of a Roman field army). Meanwhile we’re simply missing<\/em> the \u2013 by far \u2013 two most common sorts of auxilia<\/em> cohorts, those of heavy infantry or heavy cavalry<\/strong>. This mangling of the structure of a Roman army is going to have implications when we get to Maximus’ overall plan for the battle as well.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the legionary infantry are also much too uniform<\/em><\/strong>, literally. This is easily the most pardonable error, because what has happened here is that director Ridley Scott has copied the Column of Trajan but far too uncritically. After all, the Column of Trajan is not a photograph<\/em> and thus has space for the artists producing it to take liberties, particularly in the name of imperial ideology and propaganda. In this case, showing large numbers of identically equipped soldiers, often moving in unified formation, serves the same rhetorical purpose in antiquity as it does today, suggesting an impressive, inhumanly uniformed and disciplined source. Moreover, the segmented Roman body armor, which we call the lorica segmentata<\/em> (we don’t know what the Romans called it), was very distinctive to the legions, as it was the one armor that it seems like the auxilia<\/em> probably (the evidence here can be tricky) didn’t share. And keeping the legions distinct from the auxilia<\/em> also matters, as the legionary soldiers are higher status citizens who thus get “higher billing” in the imagery, as it were, than the auxilia<\/em>. So showing all of the legions equipped neatly with this armor makes them seem distinct, impressive and uniform.<\/p>\n

In short, it served Trajan’s image (and thus the artists aim) to suggest that all<\/em> of his legions wore this armor.<\/p>\n

Archaeology tells us quite clearly it was not so. Indeed, the lorica segmentata<\/em>, so iconic because of its use in this way on the Column of Trajan, was probably the least common<\/em> of the three major types of Roman legionary body armor in this period<\/strong>. The most common<\/em> armor of the Roman legions was almost certainly still \u2013 as it had been in the Late Republic \u2013 mail<\/em>, exactly the same as we see the auxilia<\/em> wearing. We find fragments of Roman mail in legionary sites in all corners of the Empire and it remained common everywhere. To head off a standard question: no, it does not seem that the Romans ever got the idea to layer other defenses over mail, so when it was worn, it was the “primary” armor (worn over a padded textile defense called a subarmalis<\/em>, but not under any other armor).3<\/sup> We also see mail represented in Roman artwork, including on very high status soldiers, like senior centurions.<\/p>\n

The next<\/em> most common armor was probably scale armor<\/strong>, which we find very frequently in the East (that is, on the frontier with the Parthians\/Sassanids) and often enough (if less frequently) in the West (that is, the Rhine\/Danube frontier). We also know that some auxilia<\/em> units wore this armor too and we see quite a bit of scale armor<\/strong> \u2013 wholly absent in this sequence \u2013 on the Column of<\/strong> \u2013 wait for it \u2013 Marcus Aurelius<\/strong> (completed c. 193). That’s the column that commemorates this war<\/em>. Contemporary with this<\/em> fictional battle<\/strong>. But it is less famous and somewhat less well-preserved than 70-years-earlier Column of Trajan, which they pretty evidently used quite a bit more of.<\/p>\n

The lorica segmentata<\/em> shows up the least often and \u2013 to my knowledge \u2013 effectively exclusively<\/em> in the west on the Rhine\/Danube frontier, where it is still probably not the most common (although it may have been more common than scale on that frontier). So what we ought<\/em> to see in this army are legionaries who are marked out by their large scuta<\/em> (the big Roman shield, by this period distinctly rectangular and also (as in the republic) curved), but in a range of mail, scale and lorica segmentata<\/em> (with mail and segmentata<\/em> being the most common, because we are on the Danube frontier, but scale hardly rare), along with auxilia<\/em> divided into specialist cohorts (480 man units) each with different sets of armor and weapons: a few missile cohorts (archers, slingers), a lot more heavy infantry cohorts with spears and long shields, some lighter troops, and so on. The auxilia<\/em> ought to be wearing basically every armor under the sun except for the lorica segmentata<\/em> (which to my knowledge we’ve only ever found in sites associated with the legions).<\/p>\n

Finally, these units are backed up by a whole load of catapults. We see two kinds, dual-arm arrow-throwing machines (which most folks would casually call ballistae<\/em>) and single-armed pot-throwing machines (which most folks would casually call catapults), all of them in stationary mounts. Now on the one hand, “the Romans use lots of torsion-based catapults as artillery” is a true statement about the Roman army of this period, but on the other hand once again beyond that basic idea, most of this is wrong. Once again there’s an issue of verisimilitude here: the appearance of strange catapults and the true fact that the Romans used a lot of unusual catapults is likely to lead the viewer to assume some research has been done here and thus that these are the right catapults. For the most part, they are not.<\/p>\n

We can start with the easy one, the larger single-armed pot-throwers. These are onagers<\/em>, a late-Roman simplified single-arm torsion catapult, named for their fearsome “kick” (like an ass, an onager<\/em>). These are popular favorites for Roman artillery, for instance showing up in both Rome: Total War<\/em> and Total War: Rome II<\/em> (both of which have main campaigns set during the Late Republic). There’s only one problem, which is that Gladiator<\/em> (much less the even earlier Total War<\/em> games) is set substantially too early for an onager<\/em> to appear<\/strong>. Our first attestation of the onager<\/em> is in Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the last two decades of the 300s AD about the events of 353-378 (his work was broader than this, but only the back end survives). Vegetius, writing roughly contemporary with Ammianus also mentions them. But before the late fourth century, we don’t have any evidence for this design and it doesn’t show up on the Columns of Trajan or Marcus. So this isn’t just a little bit too early for these catapults but, given the evidence we have, around 150 years too early, the equivalent of having a line of M1 Abrams show up in a film about the Battle of Gettysburg.<\/p>\n

What we do have are a number of twin-armed bolt or arrow-throwing machines and the Romans certainly had those, though what we see doesn’t match up well with what the Romans used. What we see is a single size of fairly large arrow-throwing engines, aimed upward to fire in fairly high arcs and built with large metal cases containing the torsion springs (generally made of hair or sinew, tightly coiled up; it is the coiling of these springs which stores the energy of the machine).<\/p>\n

These two-armed torsion catapults came in a wide range of sizes and could be designed to throw either arrows\/bolts or stones (the latter carved into spheres of rather precise caliber for specific machines). And we ought to see a pretty wide range of sizes here, from massive one-talent engines, which threw a 1 talent (26kg) stone and stood about three times the height of a man, to much smaller anti-personnel weapons (scorpiones<\/em>) that were more like a “crew served” weapon than a large artillery piece. By Trajan’s time, the Romans had even taken to mounting these smaller crew-served engines on mule-drawn carts (called carroballistae<\/em>) to allow them to be rapidly repositioned, something like early modern “horse artillery” (they were not meant to fire on the move; when we see them on Trajan’s Column, at least one of the operators is usually standing on the ground outside of the cart to winch the machine). These smaller machines, which would have made up the bulk of those deployed in a field battle, seem mostly absent in the sequence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The result of all of this is that the Roman army presented in the opening moments of Gladiator<\/em> manages to strike a remarkably unhappy balance: having just enough of the appearance of accuracy to decisively influence two decades of subsequent depictions of the Roman army without actually being particularly correct about anything<\/em> beyond a very surface level. But subsequent pop-culture (again, I think Rome: Total War<\/em> played a significant role here) would codify this vision of the Roman army \u2013 fire-throwing onagers<\/em>, lots of auxilia<\/em> archers, legionary rather than auxiliary cavalry, uniform use of the lorica segmentata<\/em> \u2013 as the dominant model for quite some time.<\/p>\n

But the army isn’t the only thing that’s wrong.<\/p>\n

Bret Devereaux, “Collections: Nitpicking Gladiator’s Iconic Opening Battle, Part I”, A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry<\/em><\/a>, 2025-06-06.<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. See figures in P. Holder, Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian (2003).<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. There’s some complexity here because some infantry auxilia<\/strong> cohorts had small attached cavalry contingents too.<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. I suppose I should note that is an odd exception for a type of very fine armor sometimes called lorica plumata<\/strong> (“feathered armor”) by modern writers where metal scales were mounted on mail armor (typically with extremely fine, small rings), rather than on a textile backing. This armor type seems to have been rare and must have been very expensive.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    We pick up in an improbably mud-soaked clearing with a title card informing us that we’re in “Germania”, which is correct in a very broad sense that this is the Second Marcomannic War and the enemies here are the Marcomanni and Quadi, who are Germani (Germanic-language speakers), but the army here isn’t operating out of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35193,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[62,7,5,41,663],"tags":[1379,31,1457,1102,347,1103,122,1343],"class_list":["post-96183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-europe","category-history","category-military","category-quotations","category-weapons","tag-armour","tag-army","tag-bretdevereaux","tag-cavalry","tag-debunking","tag-infantry","tag-movies","tag-romanempire"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/favicon.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-p1l","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96183"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96183\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":100583,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96183\/revisions\/100583"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}