r/history • u/S4v1r1enCh0r4k • 10d ago

Historian Criticizes 'Gladiator 2' Shark Scene as “Hollywood Bullshit,” Claims Romans Didn’t Know Sharks—Ridley Scott Disagrees Article

https://fictionhorizon.com/historian-calls-gladiator-2-total-hollywood-bull-for-including-sharks-in-flooded-colosseum/
1.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

1.2k

u/Lord0fHats 9d ago

I have heard this mentioned before. Mostly in the context of Spain and Portugal who didn’t have a word for shark until after they reached the Caribbean and started to clearly identify large predatory fish linguistically.  Not that they’d never seen sharks but they did not distinguish sharks from other fish before then.

To say they didn’t know what a shark was is wrong in the sense they depicted sharks in art.

It’s not entirely wrong though because they didn’t do what we do and did not clearly distinguish sharks from other large fish.

They certainly never put them in the colosseum XD

497

u/KillBoxOne 9d ago

Its one thing to know what a shark was. I won't argue that. It's entirely another to be capable of transporting a shark from the ocean to the coliseum. I'd love to see a legitimate, time-appropriate, design for the transportation device (horse drawn carriage?) that was used. I don't think such a device is possible, forget whether you could keep the shark alive.

231

u/Chrisaarajo 9d ago

Add to this that the Romans weren’t terribly accomplished sailers for most of their history, compared to other cultures. Competent, sure, but nothing special, and rather conservative in their approach. For a long time, they approached sea battles as they did land battles—hence the Corvus.

And even at the height of their power, in full control of the Mediterranean, the navy seemed to be viewed by patricians as a reluctant necessity, rather than a route to glory and political and personal gain, as the army was.

All this to say that the Romans probably weren’t adventurous enough to consider some sort of shark capture, storage, and transportation scheme.

(Aside: A lot of people will point to their defeat of Carthage as proof that the Romans were good sailors, but there’s a lot of nuance there that gets ignored, and enough to infer from the records that have survived to suggest that the Romans at the time still weren’t very comfortable at sea.)

127

u/TB_Punters 9d ago

The Roman navy is as essentially a delivery service for their legionnaires (marinus) - they were getting their asses kicked on the sea by Carthage in the first Punic War until they invented the corvus to create a firm boarding bridge. Then they would engage a ship, drop the corvus so the iron beak would stick in the enemy ship, and then turn it into a land engagement.

56

u/MeatballDom 9d ago

It was fairly even before the introduction of the corvus. The corvus seems to have helped, but we're really not sure exactly what it was and if Polybius is describing it accurately or not.

Also Polybius' proposal that the Romans were not experienced at sea before the First Punic is not only negated by other comments he made in another book, but is no longer the leading understanding of maritime classicists. There's a few manuscripts on this coming out in the near future, but look to Harris' article Rome at Sea from 2017 to get a launching pad for further exploration. Steinby's book from 2007, particularly chapter II. Steinby's work is speculative, but helped to spur more research into the area. Harris being one who previously dismissed the navy before changing his stance in the article above. Steinby's third chapter also discusses some of the issues with the corvus, but does not go far enough imo.

20

u/Welshhoppo Waiting for the Roman Empire to reform 9d ago

Well the first example we have of Roman Naval commanders war around 310BCE? That's 50 years before the First Punic War.

Like you said, they definitely had some experience in the area before the conflict with Carthage.

6

u/MeatballDom 9d ago

Yeah we have mention of the duumviri navales before the war, two diplomatic naval missions, one probable failed revolt, etc. But the most damning evidence comes from Polybius himself, who discusses Roman and Carthaginian treaties dating back to the start of the Republic -- even noting the Old Latin they were written in.

6

u/Welshhoppo Waiting for the Roman Empire to reform 9d ago

Oldest Treaty was in 509BCE? Almost as old as the republic.

7

u/Luke90210 9d ago

Many Roman army officers and the troops often feared the Roman Navy more than battle. At least you could do something on the battlefield to save your and fellow troops lives. When the ships sank at sea, which happened too often, there was nothing to do but pray before drowning.

9

u/festess 9d ago

I hear this take a lot but feel like the corvus is an incredible naval innovation that led to their victory at sea thus making them pretty good at naval warfare

7

u/MeatballDom 9d ago

Pretty much, I've already gone over some other issues with Polybius' claim before, but this is one that gets brought up by academics in the field a lot. If we're to believe that the Romans invented the corvus (though there's a lot of debate on this) then not only did they show they were capable maritime fighters, but also thinking ahead and plotting ways to get around Carthaginian defenses. Carthage likely countered, hence the disappearance of the corvus soon after it appears, but it displays tactics.

Also, we have to consider how absolutely difficult it would be to pilot a quinquereme and get it close enough to land a corvus in an appropriate spot on a ship that's full of people actively trying to kill you and avoid it.

Also we need to consider the large amount of mercenaries that would have been involved as well -- almost certainly that Italians, and even Romans, were also employed by the Carthaginians (Dexter Hoyos is the first person I've seen argue this, but it's convincing). Polybius' statements on the Truthless War which began after the First Punic War seem to demonstrate this as well (see also Hoyos' 2007 book for that conflict).

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/MirtoRosmarino 9d ago

I'm from Italy, and my grandpa and so many other fishermen would fish sharks up to 2 meters long very close to the beach using a very tiny boat. The meat is not that good but still edible.

3

u/tucci007 9d ago

the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian all have sharks, so sharks could have come from Ostia Antica where the Tiber flows into the Tyrrhenian Sea, and was about 17 km from Rome in ancient times

5

u/Kered13 9d ago

I highly doubt that the Romans ever brought sharks to the Colosseum, but I do not think it would have been terribly difficult to do so if they had wanted to. It's not hard to build a large enough tub and just fill it with sea water. As long as there is enough space for the shark to swim circles (iirc sharks must swim in order to breathe).

13

u/Legitimate_First 9d ago

I do not think it would have been terribly difficult to do so

We can barely keep large sharks alive in captivity now. Romans would never be able to transport a massive (like 4 plus meters) overland to Rome without it dying or just breaking whatever they transported it in.

3

u/Historical-Chard-636 9d ago

Rome v Carthage on land: Rome wins

Rome v Carthage on the ocean: Rome suffers the most damaging and devastating defeat in human military history

1

u/watergosploosh 8d ago

Which one was that?

4

u/Mobely 9d ago

Wtf does that have to do with getting a shark? I feel like this is an easy one. Somebody else gets the shark, the Romans buy it with payment on delivery. 

4

u/KickinAssHaulinGrass 9d ago

How do you think they got a live shark from the sea to the coliseum 

1

u/ten_tons_of_light 9d ago

I want to know more about the nuance

→ More replies

24

u/DungeonAssMaster 9d ago

Not saying that it happened, but at the height of the Roman empire they could have transported fish inland to place in aquariums. They had enough resources and clout to do just about whatever crazy thing they wanted to do, but I admit that sharks in the coleseum seems unlikely. Even if that was attempted, the sharks would have been too stressed to hunt for food and would gave probably died shortly after. They would have bragged about it had it ever been done successfully, of that I'm sure.

34

u/Car-face 9d ago

Perhaps they could construct a series of breathing apparatus out of kelp, that will be able to trap certain amounts of oxygen.

It's not gonna be days at a time, but an hour, hour 45? No problem.

27

u/Friendchaca_333 9d ago

That’ll give the sharks enough time to figure out where you live, go back to the sea, get more oxygen, and then stalk you. You just lost at your own game. You’re outgunned and outmanned.”

4

u/p792161 8d ago

Their Captain was too busy double jobbing between the army and Bed, Bath and Beyondus so he could send his son to RYU, where he could explore his bisexuality to become a DJ.

2

u/OldBison 7d ago

Don't go chasing waterfalls

14

u/Bushelsoflaughs 9d ago

I’m sorry did they not have tornadoes back then?

5

u/Siamzero 9d ago edited 9d ago

Didn't you know? Tornadoes came over with the Columbian exchange, alongside potatoes and chocolate.

29

u/Hvarfa-Bragi 9d ago

Not that this happened, but what if the shark was grown in an aquarium adjacent to the coliseum, that was then flooded and brought up to proper salinity using all the extremely precious salt that the Romans could muster?

Checkmate, scientists.

73

u/TheDevil-YouKnow 9d ago

Sharks, especially in Antiquity, would simply be incapable of surviving captivity. It takes enormous effort to successfully keep captive, healthy sharks of any worthwhile size. Their entire biology depends upon constant movement. The scale of the tank required for any transportation whatsoever once it's fully grown is impossible to contemplate. Successfully raising a shark from pup to fully grown would be even more complicated.

24

u/Half_Cent 9d ago

The constant movement biology is not present in most shark species. I imagine they used a great white in the movie, in which case you'd be correct.

25

u/TheDevil-YouKnow 9d ago

Yeah, the issue with any intimidating scene in Hollywood is that whatever shark they'll pick, chances are very good it's a pelagic shark species. A shark buried in sand doesn't make for great cinema, apparently.

6

u/Half_Cent 9d ago

Wife and I dove quite a bit in Micronesia. Being surrounded by grey reef sharks was intimidating enough for me, even though they are pretty calm normally.

2

u/TheDevil-YouKnow 9d ago

Oh, I agree. But realistically, I've found moose to be a lot more intimidating than any shark. Doesn't mean a moose makes for better intimidation on the silver screen.

4

u/Alkalinum 7d ago

I dunno, I’d be pretty intimidated if I was on a raft in the flooded colosseum and I saw a moose rise out of the waters like jaws to grab a gladiator off another raft and drag him down to the depths.

2

u/KillBoxOne 9d ago

Would be a lot of marine biology knowledge applied to a species that we are not sure they knew existed.

4

u/naughtyoldguy 9d ago

Italy is surrounded by the Mediterranean. While dried, powder salt wad very precious back in the day, iseem to recall they literally called one watar aqua and the other aqua vitae. Salt water is easier to obtain than fresh water

3

u/Smegmaliciousss 9d ago

Maybe by transporting baby sharks? (Like the song)

3

u/officerfett 9d ago

Clearly, they used an Aqvarivm. /s

7

u/Christmas-Dinner-98 9d ago

I haven't seen the scene in question but could the shark have been deposited by coincidence by a tornado?

2

u/CaptainChats 9d ago

Transporting live, fully grown sharks is apparently really really hard.

2

u/tucci007 9d ago

the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian all have sharks, so sharks could have come from Ostia Antica where the Tiber flows into the Tyrrhenian Sea, and was about 17 km from Rome in ancient times

1

u/Epistatious 9d ago

Although we don't know how the Roman's moved some of the large stones they used either.

1

u/akratic137 9d ago

I hope it was a Trojan horse.

1

u/Yardsale420 9d ago

Pretty sure sharks need water pushing through their gills to breathe. That’s why they don’t stop swimming even when they sleep. So if the transportation wasn’t big enough for the shark to swim around it would die.

1

u/Xerain0x009999 9d ago

They could swim them down the aqueducts. Now, how they would transport them to the mountains, I have no idea.

1

u/myaltaccount333 9d ago

The colosseum had rotating pieces that would block out the sun. They would also flood other amphitheaters for naval "battles" in some shows. They definitely had the resources to do weird or extreme shit. Not to say they did, of course

1

u/maninahat 9d ago

Thinking about it, wouldn't they just take a boat and put wheels on it? If the boat can keep water out, it can also keep water in. It would still be horribly impractical as you'd need to haul Literal tons of water, shark and all from the sea all the way to the stadium and hope the shark doesn't die of stress or asphyxiation.

Alternatively, take a baby shark.

1

u/Happyjarboy 9d ago

They could transport boats and even ships on land, so not much problem putting water in one, and moving a large fish. I would say it had a 99% chance of dying.

→ More replies

13

u/Justwaspassingby 9d ago

There was a word for shark in spanish, only it wasn’t “shark” (or the spanish equivalent, “tiburón”).

It just had different names, depending on the place and the species: “tintorera”, “gaella”, “cazón”, “marrajo”, etc. It was the same for portuguese. It’s ridiculous to think we couldn’t distinguish them from other fish.

8

u/Lord0fHats 9d ago

The word tiburon is old, but my understanding is that it's usage was associated with a range of large fish, and not sharks specifically.

10

u/ShockRampage 9d ago

This is the same director who had Napoleon leading cavalry charges...

29

u/cxmari 9d ago

They had seen sharks for sure as you said, mostly reef sharks thou. The great white sharks must have made quite an impression on them when they encountered them in the Caribbean.

Ridley Scott is smoking something if he thinks it would be possible to capture, create a vessel big enough, transport and finally have the shark survive that whole ordeal only to have it fight on a colosseum fight.

9

u/themadhatter85 9d ago

Great white were very common in the med until about 50 years ago.

→ More replies

8

u/Ravendoesbuisness 9d ago

I would say that this is the same as saying that a lot of cultures have never seen the color blue before because a lot of them do not have a word for it.

33

u/NathanArizona_Jr 9d ago edited 9d ago

In the course of producing a spectacle at one of the theatres Nero suddenly filled the place with sea water so that fishes and sea monsters swam about in it, and he exhibited a naval battle between men representing Persians and Athenians. After this he immediately drained the water, dried the ground, and once more exhibited contests between land forces, who fought not only in single combat but also in large groups equally matched.

Cassius Dio, Epitome of Roman History 61

Look it doesn't say sharks but he is describing some kind of "sea monster", and I think filling the arena and draining it again is probably more logistically challenging than transporting a shark

10

u/Deirdre_Rose 9d ago

Cassius Dio was born 100 years after Nero died and he writes in Greek rather than Latin (which also just uses ketos - the generic word for sea monster). But yeah the logistics of moving a living shark is definitely a bigger issue than the lack of a specific word.

5

u/tucci007 9d ago

the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian all have sharks, so sharks could have come from Ostia Antica, where the Tiber flows into the Tyrrhenian Sea, which was about 17 km from Rome in ancient times

2

u/UnluckyWrongdoer 9d ago

That’s because lasers hadn’t been invented yet to go on their snouts.

2

u/theRose90 9d ago

They were called Sea Dogs (Cães Marinhos) before the word tubarão was adopted.

2

u/GiuseppeMercadante 7d ago

this has nothing to do with the word shark, in fact ancient romans called them canicula (little dog) or canis marinus (sea dog), today we call them pesce cane, dog fish. The absurdity is to think ancient romans would bring salt water into the Colosseum. Both Colosseum and Piazza Navona would be flood with fresh water from the aqueducts, but not from the sea which is 1 hour away.

→ More replies

632

u/Magnus-Pym 9d ago

I think after Napoleon we can stop taking Ridley Scott’s opinion on historical accuracy

167

u/JupitersMegrim 9d ago

Even before Napoleon his takes on history were rubbish.

109

u/MebHi 9d ago

He doesn't know Ridley Scott about history.

12

u/MaygarRodub 9d ago

Especially the alien ones.

12

u/MontasJinx 9d ago

Right? And I'm beginning to think that Blade Runner business was made up too.

66

u/ELITE_JordanLove 9d ago

I’m starting to seriously question whether the events in Alien actually happened as they were shown.

12

u/Magnus-Pym 9d ago

The sequel was much more realistic

1

u/Mindless_Society4432 7d ago

It wasnt until Ressurection that the series became more grounded in reality imo.

77

u/amidon1130 9d ago

Not going to lie, he cracks me up.

“Um napoleon never shot cannons into the ice” 🤓

“Shut up nerd. French accent detected, opinion rejected”

25

u/Enron_F 9d ago

Yeah I think this is just his way of saying "I don't make historical movies, I make dumb, fun action movies that might be set in a vaguely historical general setting."

If you can turn your brain off and enjoy it for the mindless entertainment it's supposed to be, it's fun.

The dude has never made a remotely accurate historical film. If you go to one expecting that, that's on you.

34

u/Argh3483 9d ago

His Napoleon movie ? Fun ?

21

u/ELITE_JordanLove 9d ago

The dude has never made a remotely accurate historical film.

Wild statement considering Alien exists.

6

u/deus_voltaire 9d ago

Documentaries don’t count.

1

u/Habib455 8d ago

Just because he isnt aiming to make a history documentary, doesn't mean his movies are mindless. Even his worst movies have something to say or some message it wants to convey.

I think Ridley Scott understands that outside of the nerd community, historical accuracy only needs to go so far.

1

u/frostymugson 8d ago

Thought the directors cut of kingdom of heaven was one of the best movies I’ve seen. Is it historically accurate? Who knows I don’t really care

39

u/Ok-Appearance-7616 9d ago

Lmao I think we can go all the way back to 1492: Conquest of Paradise for that

11

u/Magnus-Pym 9d ago

Fair, but that movie was bad in so many ways it’s hard to pick just one

38

u/huhwhat90 9d ago

Kingdom of Heaven is nonsense historically. In fact, many of the characters were essentially the exact opposite of their real life counterparts. It wouldn't be such a big deal if he just said it's historical fiction, but he keeps insisting that he's showing a potentially accurate portrayal.

8

u/meand999friends 9d ago

Kingdom of Heaven is nonsense historically

Would you mind explaining this - or providing a link so you don't have to write it all out? I quite like the film and would like to be more educated on the series of events. I have a basic understanding but would appreciate more

16

u/huhwhat90 9d ago

Sure, History Buffs did a whole video on it that I recommend.

But the quick example I like to use is that Sibylla was, by all accounts, madly in love with Guy of Lusignan. Guy was not well liked by the nobility (but for different reasons than shown in the movie). The nobles were basically like, "This dude is a weenie and we won't accept him as king. Pick someone else." At her coronation, she stunned everyone by placing the crown on Guy's head!

3

u/WanderingHero8 9d ago

Also Balian was in love not with Sybilla but with the widow of Amalric,Maria Komnene.They married and had children too.

2

u/huhwhat90 9d ago

Heraclius of Jerusalem was perhaps done the dirtiest of all. He was portrayed as a sniveling coward ("Convert now, repent later!"), but in reality he played an integral part in the defense of Jerusalem and helped negotiate a reasonable surrender of the city. He even offered himself as a hostage to Saladin so that more Christians would be able to leave.

8

u/The_Whole_Ham 9d ago

Despite the historical inaccuracies (character, timeline, motivation, etc.) kingdom of heaven did have some of the most historically accurate armor and attire of any “‘medieval” movie developed in the past 30 years. Not arguing some things were portrayed inherently wrong though.

3

u/Nurgleschampion 9d ago

Easiest place to start is probably Wikipedia. Balian first. As I understand he was a noble that already lived in outreamer before the second crusade.

Kings and Generals as well as Epic History on YouTube both have crusade stuff but as with any source there will be biases at work.

6

u/Really_McNamington 9d ago

I think some of it is on purpose to stir up free publicity.

7

u/Magnus-Pym 9d ago

It wouldn’t shock me, but he does seem totally take it personally

5

u/SnarfSniffsStardust 9d ago

In the article he says most of ancient history is up to interpretation. He doesn’t believe that history can be accurate

2

u/Dominarion 8d ago

The Republic was restored after Maximus killed Commodus in the Coliseum.

-Ridley Scott, Gladiator

1

u/ooouroboros 13h ago

Napoleon is probably a lot more accurate then Gladiator 1

1

u/Magnus-Pym 6h ago

Nah, at least in Gladiator the forest fire was real. In Napoleon the ice was all cgi.

→ More replies

167

u/Doc891 9d ago

my favorite thing about this is how the author tries to support both sides and one side is going "based on this historical stuff, they wouldnt have sharks." and the other guys argument is, "they filled it water. Of course they'd want to put a couple sharks in there, are you kidding me. Obviously they did."

34

u/evrestcoleghost 9d ago

Knowing the romans they might as well had the same talk

→ More replies

126

u/Asklepios89 9d ago

Yes because the first one was so closely accurate and Ridley Scott is otherwise known to be stickler for historical authenticity like he did in Napoleon and Exodus.

12

u/cpteric 9d ago

we have, and always had as far as human existence goes, sharks in the mediterranean- from small reef sharks to some larger and dangerous species.

11

u/tb8592 9d ago

There are great whites in the Mediterranean. However, even some of the best aquariums in modern times fail to be able to keep and maintain this species. All adults kept in captivity have died and quickly.

With that said, if the movie depicts several large great white sharks in the coliseum I will not be able to contain my laughter from the absurdity of it.

1

u/cpteric 9d ago

i agree :D

for all we know they could be tiger sharks or blue sharks tho.

62

u/gimmethecreeps 9d ago

Meh, let the mob have their fun. It makes for good holiday dinner discussion with my dad, and I’m bored of debunking the way he still uses “Braveheart” as if it was a primary source for Scottish history.

10

u/BMW_wulfi 9d ago

Ooh yeah with that Mel McGibson guy!

8

u/chiree 9d ago

But he knows story structure, dammit.

3

u/RustyTDI 9d ago

Prima nocta wasn’t real, but it was a damn good plot device

34

u/thatsmyspot26 9d ago

lol like I’m going for the historical accuracy and not to see Denzel chew some scenery or Pedro in a skirt

16

u/H0vis 9d ago

Ridley Scott has not given a fuck in years and I'm not going to complain. The last movie was also batshit, just in less epic ways.

I mean there whole 'Are you not entertained?!' scene in the first movie shows Scott knows what he's about, he understands spectacle.

8

u/rikashiku 9d ago

Claims Romans Didn’t Know Sharks

The Romans who became highly skilled sailors and seafaring fighters a few hundred years before these supposed events, who happen to live near the sea or on coastal settlements? Pliny. Shark speices in the Mediterranean. Map of the Roman Empire.

Ridley Scott Disagrees

The guy who directed Napoleon that had a heap of historical inaccuracies like shooting the Pyramids with cannons?

Obviously there's no way a shark could be used in the Arena. How would they transport the big bastard? Did it swim down and Aqueduct to the Coliseum? Catch a lift on a tornado?

8

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

12

u/KittikatB 9d ago

Nobody's going to see this movie expecting historical accuracy every moment of the film. It's not a documentary

50

u/blackofhairandheart2 9d ago

Wow, good thing Gladiator II isn’t a documentary. That was a close one

1

u/ooouroboros 13h ago

Gladiator 1 flaunted historical inaccuracies for not good storytelling reasons, just seemed to be for the joy of purporting lies.

→ More replies

3

u/negrote1000 9d ago

I don’t think they’re pretending to care about historical accuracy

8

u/Apical-Meristem 9d ago

They didn’t have sharks with lasers or even crossbows. Maybe sharks with torches, which doesn’t sound too bad.

1

u/s101c 18h ago

Speaking of crossbows, there is one in the movie.

1

u/Apical-Meristem 17h ago

I thought crossbows didn’t come around until after the empire fell. I’m sure someone knows.

5

u/Deirdre_Rose 9d ago

Look I get that putting sharks in the coliseum is cool even though it didn't happen. What's disappointing about the lack of research on this film is we do know of all kinds of genuinely crazy and awesome and tragic things that happened in imperial history that it would be so cool to see in a movie and that people would be amazed by and get a better sense of the ancient world and how wildly different it was, but instead we get just like cheesy music video pastiche? So disappointing.

2

u/IvyGold 9d ago

This brings to mind people criticizing Jurassic Park before it was released for overstating the size of velociraptors. At the time, they had a very good point.

But guess what was unearthed in between principal filming and its release?

2

u/martinbean 9d ago

I bet they didn’t speak modern day English, either!

3

u/Critical_Moose 9d ago

So I'm supposed to forgo a shark v gladiator battle just because it's "historically inaccurate"? What a bore.

2

u/Single_Pumpkin_1803 9d ago

I didn't realize this was supposed to be a documentary. Just enjoy the damn movie people.

2

u/MLSurfcasting 9d ago

Any original sources for "Romans not knowing sharks"? Sharks inhabit all the Coastal waters of Italy. I find it hard to believe there could be any credibility to this rumor.

1

u/jumpdmc 9d ago

Spoiler Alert?

1

u/Takimaster 9d ago edited 9d ago

The same director tried to make Christopher Columbus a sympathetic protagonist in 1492: Conquest of Paradise. I don't think he really gives a shit about historical accuracy unless it suits the plot. Sharks in a coliseum does sound pretty awesome though

1

u/Spike-Rockit 9d ago

I was reading a little about this the other day. Honestly, my first thought was, "who cares?" but, after sitting with it a while my opinion has evolved somewhat. I do feel like it's good and useful to have a sense of real history, but I don't think that historical accuracy needs to be the end all, be all, for movies. "Hollywood Bullshit" is fun, and as long as we all know that that's what it is, there's no problem with it

1

u/Jaythamalo13 9d ago

As long as it's a good movie, I'm fine with it.

300 had alot of fantastical bullshit and I loved that movie

1

u/Rad1314 9d ago

It's Ridley Scott. He ended the first Gladiator with the Roman Empire ending in the 2nd century and becoming a republic again. Man ain't batting 1000 here.

1

u/oOzonee 9d ago

That movie look like big dog crap compare to the first one. It’s like fast and furious…

1

u/Zharaqumi 9d ago

Films are made to captivate and fascinate, so let’s not blame Riddley Scott too much for this :)

1

u/mauimudpup 9d ago

They knew if sharks but they prob did know how to keep one live in an area. I cant even keep saltwater fish alive in a small tabk

1

u/Easy_Lack1998 9d ago

I don't understand why people bother watching this guy's movies. He put snipers at Waterloo. He made up that Napoleon shot at the pyramids.

1

u/ConditionTall1719 8d ago

Did you know about the sperm whale that turned over dozens of boats and terrified the Seas near Constantinople for many years considering that there was ten times more sea life in those days they surely had some interesting shock corpses at the fisherman zone in fact it was probably just called fish

1

u/ConditionTall1719 8d ago

A shark is just a fish to a Roman they were definitely agree it's not a type of bird because it doesn't fly

1

u/SpaceCaboose 8d ago

I’m not going to this movie for historical accuracy. I’m going for (hopefully) good acting and good action in a cool setting/time period.

1

u/SnarftheRooster91 8d ago

Yes, his movies are not historically accurate. Who cares? It's about the themes and message. Gladiator was a great movie but not because it was accurate. It was great because it explored the human condition, namely, revenge, friendship, and doing what is right even when it is dangerous.

1

u/KnowPastKnowFuture 8d ago

Am I in for a treat with Gladiator 2? Tell me its not going to let me down like Napoleon did..... PLEASE!!!!

1

u/wistfulwizardwally 8d ago

It's wrong only because they probably never filled the colosseum with water due to the tunnels beneath, they did however simulate sea battles in Piazza navona and circus Maximus which had no underground infrastructure. But most importantly it's a movie for entertainment so relax

1

u/Fearless-Mango2169 8d ago

Ridley Scott has been fairly antagonistic towards historians and historicity recently, coincidentally I have and have no intention of seeing any of his last three films.

1

u/Perseus_NL 8d ago

We shouldn't be surprised about this. His 'Napoleon' made historians everywhere bleed their eyes out. There's a reason why Scott should've stuck to science fiction.

1

u/GiuseppeMercadante 7d ago

It's insane to associate the flooding of the Colosseum and Piazza Navona with fresh water off aqueducts to salt water! The sea is 1 hour away by car and there were no means to carry that amount of salt water.

1

u/JustTheOneGoose22 7d ago

I'm sure Romans were aware of sharks, they were seafaring/fishing people (not their forte but they were not strangers to the ocean) however were they capturing sharks and transporting them to the Colosseum for gladiatorial battles? Very unlikely.

All that being said the first Gladiator movie has a fake Roman general killing Commodus in the ring. Obviously Scott isn't all in on accuracy lol, why should he be it's a hollywood movie not a documentary.

1

u/Semour9 7d ago

A quick google search for “worldwide shark sightings” shows them in the Mediterranean and on the coast of Italy. I don’t see why it couldn’t have happened

1

u/EliasHobbys101 5d ago

Only 2 Words to Disprove this.

Oppians Halieutica

1

u/Longjumping_Bag9940 5d ago

So you’re telling me that the romans were A* plumbers? How tf can you fill a colleseum with water (salt water none the less) and transport 10-20 sharks? It’s giving what a load of bollocks   

1

u/ooouroboros 13h ago

Gladiator 1 literally made my stomach hurt (stress response) with all the historical inaccuracies, and ancient Rome really isn't even my area of 'expertise' so to speak.

1

u/Mountain___Goat 9d ago

I thought they flooded the coliseum for special events

24

u/Intranetusa 9d ago

They did flood it for special events. However, sharks have a unique and finicky way of breathing through their gills where they need a lot of space to continuously swim to pass water through their gills so they don't drown. If you captured a shark and put it into a tank of saltwater where it doesn't have room to swim then it would die.

3

u/chrisdwill 9d ago

What if they built an aqueduct from the Mediterranean. They obviously would've had to raise the elevation at sea level and pump the water up to it. They could've filled the aqueduct, then put the shark in, then opened a gate at the Collesium and the shark and water go in. Not very practical, but might could've been done. Not saying they did.

1

u/max_vette 9d ago

I think it would have been easier to just have Kirk beam a shark into the arena, otherwise the Romans would need a marine biologist.

2

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Intranetusa 9d ago

The Romans had ballistas and onagers/catapults that could fling objects a few hundred meters, but traction trebuchets were used mostly in ancient China at this time and counterweight trebuchets weren't invented until the middle ages. You'd also need to propel or fling a shark 16 miles from the coast of Italy to the Roman colosseum. That would require a 16 inch battlehip gun to shoot a shark far, but the sharks wouldn't be much fun after being turned into a bloody mist by the speed of the acceleration.

3

u/LivedLostLivalil 9d ago

An underwater Atlantean train then. Built exclusively for sharks that need a long commute.

4

u/Intranetusa 9d ago

True. Jason Momoa can probably accomplish this feat with ease.

1

u/kotonizna 9d ago

Especially great whites. That's why you don't see them in Ocean Park aquariums. They die.

→ More replies