From the Conversation: Dedicated Roman gladiator superfans were the football hooligans of their day

John Pearce, King’s College London

In the amphitheatre of Gladiator II, Ridley Scott trains his lens on fighters and emperors – but no account of ancient gladiators is complete without its devotees.

Eclipsing the modern superfan in adulation for their heroes, fans massed in the amphitheatre to see their favourites fight, taking on a mania with potential for disaster. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in AD27 a poorly built arena at Fidenae, just outside Rome, collapsed under the spectators. The incident left 50,000 dead or injured.

But gladiator fandom extended well beyond the arena. In the summer of 2019, archaeologists uncovered a tavern in Pompeii that had been decorated to show the bloody outcome of a gladiator fight. This hints at the way “sports talk” pervaded life in the city.

There’s more evidence in Roman author Petronius’s mid-first-century BC satire The Satyricon. His fictional freedmen banter about the merits of various fighters over dinner. The ubiquitous gladiator motifs found on Roman wine cups show that this kind of convivial exchange over dinner and drinks was common.

A glass cup showing gladiators fighting
A glass gladiator cup, circa AD50–80. The Met Fifth Avenue

Their passion could, however, turn fans from drinkers into fighters. At Pollentia (modern day Majorca), Emperor Tiberius needed soldiers to quell riots borne of frustration at the absence of gladiators from a local bigwig’s funeral.

Much like modern-day football hooliganism, gladiator fandom could be weaponised in intercommunal violence. In a 59BC gladiatorial show, Pompeians murderously assaulted their neighbours from Nuceria (modern day Nocera, near Naples), causing games to be banned at Pompeii and leading to exile for the instigator.

Fan favourites

Fans were drawn to gladiators for more than just their fighting skills. Stage names could emphasise their good looks, lent by physique, coiffure and armour. Pearl and Emerald, for example, sparkled with jewel-like lustre. Callimorphus flaunted his peerless body and Chrysomallos and Xanthos their blonde locks.

It was common for Romans to illustrate the erotic appeal of a gladiator by naming the Roman women who, metaphorically, lost their heads to fighters. The Roman poet Juvenal wrote of the fictional, or perhaps fictionalised, wife of a Roman senator, Eppia, who allegedly preferred the battered arena veteran Sergius to her husband.

A fresco depicting the AD59 riot between Pompeiians and Nucerians in the Pompeii amphitheater.
A fresco depicting the AD59 riot between Pompeiians and Nucerians in the Pompeii amphitheater. National Archaeological Museum, Naples., CC BY

Meanwhile Faustina, wife of Marcus Aurelius, is said in a 4th century biography of the emperor, to have confessed a passion for gladiators to her husband.

But these examples more reliably testify to elite male misogyny than to ancient reality. Seating regulations may have confined them to the higher tiers of the amphitheatres, but many women likely also had an interest in combat itself. Some were perhaps authors of the gladiatorial graffiti still legible on Pompeii’s walls.

Tombstones tell a less sensational story of gladiators’ sex lives, where their partnerships are described by the language of respectable matrimony.

Who were the gladiator superfans?

Gladiator fans could be found in all strata of Roman society. But the voices of elite fans are loudest today, as they were preserved in literary texts. Members of powerful families and emperors well knew that they must put on gladiatorial and other games, since presiding at them was central to political theatre.

Wary of Julius Caesar’s reputation for obvious disdain for gladiatorial combat, Emperor Augustus was instead a visibly enthused spectator. The crowd’s acclaim for his generosity and its appreciation of his sharing common pleasures helped to bolster the emperor’s authority. At the Colosseum, senators could see how the political land lay as the emperor was applauded (or not) by their public.

Some emperors appreciated fighting technique close up. Titus was a parmularius (a fan of the “small shield” men), while his brother Domitian preferred the heavier-armed murmillones, named after the fish-like crest on their helmets.

But when they addressed the subject of gladiators directly, most elite men were usually ambivalent. Pagan and Christian authors, including Seneca and St Augustine, had no qualms over the shedding of gladiatorial blood. But they did regret the loss of reason among their peers as spectators, heady with emotion at the slaughter.

The genre in which these authors wrote also dictated what they said. Seneca, like Cicero, turned gladiators into philosophical examples, persevering in combat despite the vagaries of fortune.

But incidental literary references suggest that Roman elite males were closely acquainted with real gladiatorial nitty-gritty. Instructing would-be lawyers, for example, the Roman educator Quintilian reached for a gladiator’s fencing steps as a metaphor for a well-rehearsed argument.

Exceptionally well-preserved graffiti discovered on houses and tombs in Pompeii has brought us closer to understanding the ordinary fans of gladiators. In particular, the drawings of armoured combatants, which are captioned with their names, types and schools.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


Thoroughly versed in performer biographies, fans counted fights, wins and reprieves. This affinity went beyond individuals – men of the same status, neighbourhood or town crowded the stepped seating of the amphitheatres together, vociferously unified by ecstasy at a favourite’s success, or anguish at their defeat and death.

Yet while cinema foregrounds gladiators in our modern consciousness, ancient fans likely reserved greater passion for other performers – above all theatre and chariot racing.

When Roman authors, such as Pliny, decried the triviality of popular obsessions, it was chariot racing that came first to mind. And factions linked to chariot teams threatened political order on a scale never equalled by the amphitheatre. No known gladiator aficionado came close, for example, to the devoted fan who threw himself onto the burning pyre of his favourite chariot driver.

John Pearce, Reader in Archaeology, King’s College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation: Gladiator II: historians on the fate of the real Roman royalty featured in the film

Stephan Blum, University of Tübingen and Michael La Corte, University of Tübingen

Warning: this article contains spoilers for Gladiator II.

Twenty-four years after Gladiator, Ridley Scott has returned with a sweeping sequel to his epic tale. Thanks to cutting-edge CGI, Rome’s grandeur – and its downfall – have never looked so breathtaking.

Gladiator II picks up years after the original film, taking place during the reign of the co-emperors Caracalla (played by Fred Hechinger) and Geta (Joseph Quinn) in the early 3rd century AD. The film follows Lucius (Paul Mescal), the son of Russell Crowe’s Maximus (protagonist of the first Gladiator movie). Now an adult, he’s been living in the ancient northwest African kingdom, Numidia, under the guise of a new identity to escape Roman politics.

When Roman forces, led by Tribun Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), invade Numidia, tragedy strikes. Lucius’s wife is killed and he is captured. Purchased as a slave by the Roman Macrinus (portrayed masterfully by Denzel Washington), Lucius is transported to Rome. There he is forced into the brutal world of gladiatorial combat, fighting to bring his captor profit in the arena.

But which of these characters were based on real ancient people – and how far did their fates match the arc they have in Scott’s sequel? https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ts0N8swyWFI?wmode=transparent&start=0 The trailer for Gladiator II.

The opening invasion scene in Numidia, set in AD200, diverges from the real history. After Julius Caesar’s victory at the Battle of Thapsus in AD46, Numidia (modern-day Algeria) was divided. The eastern part formed the province Africa Nova and the western region around Cirta became a Roman colony. By the early 3rd century AD, the Roman emperor Septimius Severus (not depicted in the film) made Numidia an independent province.

The film’s portrayal of a rebellious Numidian city seems more like a playful nod to the French comic series Asterix and Obelix, where a small village defies Roman domination. Instead of reflecting the complexities of Roman imperialism, the film adopts the trope of a tiny, indomitable group holding out against an empire in a heavily fortified harbour city.

This blending of myth and history evokes a comic strip sensibility rather than a serious historical narrative, prioritising spectacle over accuracy.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


History rewritten for the big screen

Set in AD200, the film places Caracalla and Geta at the centre of political intrigue. This is despite the fact that the real imperial heirs were still only children, around nine and ten years old at the time.

Portraying the young boys as cunning political operators is a stretch that even the most imaginative screenwriter might struggle to defend. Furthermore, in AD200, their father, Septimius Severus, was still very much alive and in control of the empire, continuing his rule for another 11 years.

Then there is Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), the second daughter of Marcus Aurelius. The film casts her in a prominent role though, inconveniently, in real life she had been executed around AD181 or 182 – nearly two decades before the events of Gladiator II.

The portrayal of Macrinus is another historical misstep. Although he rose to power under Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Macrinus did not become emperor until AD217.

The film dramatises Macrinus’s role by showing him guiding Caracalla in Geta’s murder and even directly assassinating Caracalla in the Circus Maximus, adding a fictional layer to historical events. But in fact, while Macrinus was involved in the conspiracy to eliminate Caracalla, he did not physically kill the emperor himself.

Historical accounts such as those by Cassius Dio or Historia Augusta do not support the movie’s portrayal of Macrinus stabbing Caracalla in such a public setting.

Caracalla was actually murdered in 217AD during a journey from Edessa in Turkey to Carrhae in Syria. The assassin, a soldier named Martialis, struck Caracalla with a fatal blow, reportedly at the behest of Macrinus’ supporters, who sought to elevate him to the throne.

Leaving aside the inaccurate timeline, the film is an opulent portrayal of Roman lifestyle in the mid-imperial period. With impressive battle scenes, gladiator duels, grand festivities and stunning costumes, there’s still plenty to enjoy, even for the most fastidious history buff.

Stephan Blum, Scientific Employee, Institute for Prehistory and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, University of Tübingen and Michael La Corte, Research Associate, Curation and Communication, University of Tübingen

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.