Historical Truth of Gladiator

In the year 2000 Universal Studios released the film "Gladiator." This film directed by Ridley Scott is both a great and terrible depiction of the Roman Empire in its "Golden Age." Some of the tiniest details of this time period have been observed and recreated skillfully, yet some major issues have been completely altered or tweaked. Right from the opening scene one can view historical inaccuracies. First, there was no last great battle against the Germanic tribes the day before Marcus Aurelius' death. However, a great battle was fought late in the campaign in 179 C.E., yet Marcus Aurelius did not die until the year 180 C.E.# This leads to another point of error in this film; Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son Commodus. It is believed that after two long winter campaigns along the Danube River Aurelius contracted the plague and died shortly after at the age of 59. In fact, in actual history there is not even a motive for Commodus to assassinate his father and emperor. This event is completely false and was probably created to discredit Commodus and to prompt the viewers to hate him. "Gladiator" also tells us that Marcus Aurelius had no confidence in his son, Commodus, and intended to return The Roman Empire to its roots as a republic, stating that "-there once was a dream that was Rome," which is again, completely fiction. The thought of any Roman Emperor denying his heir the throne is absurd.# In truth Marcus Aurelius had named Commodus a joint ruler in 177 C.E. , making him the youngest joint ruler in Roman history up to that point. Then in 178 C.E. Commodus and Marcus Aurelius jointly commanded the war against Germania until Aurelius' death 180 C.E. This clearly demonstrates Aurelius' pure confidence in his son and disproves any notion that he would deny him the title of Emperor of Rome. Also this opening sequence harbors some errors in Roman warfare. Firstly and probably most obvious is the use of catapults. There is no