The Fall of the Roman Empire
First of all I'm sure this movie is an excellent epic, with the war scenes, power struggles and Commodus portrayed very well. However, a large number of places in the film that are inconsistent with historical facts will confuse people, and serious places will be disgusting.
Selected objects
1 Commodus (the Roman emperor at the end of the second century AD, reigned from 180 to 192)
2 Aurelius (the philosopher emperor, the father of Commodus)
3 Lucilla (Commodus' sister)
4 Libyas ( Male protagonist, commander of the Roman legions)
5 Poisoning Aurelius (the minister murdered the emperor)
6 The war against Germany (the main battle in the first half of the film)
7 The war against Persia (the main battle in the second half of the film)
8 War scenes (Most spectacular)
9 Rome at the time (economics, culture, etc.)
10 The death of Commodus (the finale)
Next were grades
1 Commodus was a fool, and he was indeed keen on gladiatorial sports, but he ended his struggle with the Germans early in his tenure. The war is the only positive evaluation of him in history. The film portrays Commodus as a war-mad monarch for the purpose of portraying a tyrant. (1 point)
2 Aurelius was a wise man who started a war against Germany, but it is doubtful whether all regions were declared Roman. He did die on the front line, and Wikipedia said that his wife was indeed unfaithful, so it's hard to say whether Commodus was born. Give him (2 points)
3 Lucilla. It is very sad to say that the older sister, played by Sophia Roland, is a bad person according to historical records. Because of jealousy of his younger brother, he planned a murder, and finally failed and was exiled to death. (0 points)
4 Libyas. fictional character. It is estimated that the prototype is a certain guard commander. Helped Commodus put down a rebellion while he was indulging in gladiatorial combat. (0 points)
5 Poisoning Orillo, this very dramatic scene has never happened in history (0 points)
6 The war against Germany is in line with historical facts (2 points)
7 For the war against Persia, no relevant records have been found, because most of them commented that Commodus was not keen to fight everywhere. (0 points)
8 The war scenes, in this regard, Western film and television works are more in line with historical facts. Because there is no saddle, it can only be one-handed swords and one-handed spears, and except for some tactics that Alexander and Hannibal said when they were, they were all fighting for their heads. (2 points)
9 At that time, Rome suffered from starvation and infectious diseases were rampant. It was in line with historical facts. There were also consuls and rank, but they did not dare to rise to the point of selling dictators right after the emperor died. Moreover, the disloyalty of Roman soldiers to their generals is also somewhat suspicious, after all, honor and loyalty were still influential at that time. The most intolerable is the Senate's proposal to change the Roman Empire to the Commodus Empire... I'm speechless. I would like to give negative points, but still give it (0 points)
first correction favilla (2 points)
10 Commodus's death, died in the bathhouse outside the arena. The film is changed to die in the hands of Libyas. It is also related to the arena (1 point)
In summary: credibility 8/20=40%
The first revision credibility 10/20=50%
Of course, the film’s The viewing degree and conflict are still good, but because there are too many places that do not match the historical facts, it will inevitably confuse people who have a little knowledge of history.
View more about The Fall of the Roman Empire reviews
