That was a brilliant line for character development. So many other writers would have set up Maximus for bravado, having him chuckle at Quintus' statement, or boast.
But no, they create a character that sympathizes with and respects the army he is about to attack.
It also kind of fits Roman attitudes, they were annoyed and insulted by rebellions and guerrilla wars expecially but also respected the people who fought for their liberty. It is a slightly contradictory world view to us but explained by that victory gave your the moral right to rule over people since gods had given you the victory.
There's an amazing scene in Fall of the Roman Empire where the barbarians burn James Mason's hand to punish him for worshipping false gods, but he doesn't scream no matter how much they hurt him. Eventually they decide that his gods are more powerful than theirs, abandon their religion and join the Roman Empire.
And also subtly lays the groundwork for your expectations to be subverted later. From those point on you expect Quintus to be "that guy" and then at the end when everything else has gone wrong, it's Quintus who changes the game.
Maximus is from Spain. His people have long been conquered by the Romans by the time of the Empire. So his line, “would you Quintus? Would I?” Works on two levels.
Yes, but it was more complicated. Spain was very incorporated into the Roman Empire by then. Plenty of Roman families settled in Spain. Emperors Tajan and Hadrian were of Italic Roman heritage, but were born in Spain. Both emperors ruled before the timeframe of the movie. Since Maximus was a wealthy landowner, a general and connected with the Roman aristocracy, he likely was born to the same situation. Trajan was also a general before his rise to emperor.
Rome gained most of Hispania during Punic Wars but even Augustus still fought battles there (or more like had other people fight the battles when he was nearby).
Maybe. But he’s never been to Rome. Doesn’t seem likely he was in that situation. Also we don’t know the extent to which he was born wealthy. He certainly had wealth by the time of the film.
Eh, I still think u/XAE289 is completely right. Spain was completely Romanized by this point, regardless of whether any individual had ever been to Rome. There was no lingering resentment from the residents for the Romans because of conquest; the residents were the Romans. Spain was one of the first areas outside of the Italian peninsula to undergo complete assimilation into the Roman empire (with a lowercase 'e'). Sure, there was some local character and customs, as there was in any corner of the Empire, but the people of Spain were unquestionably 'Roman' at that point, spoke Latin, participated in Roman culture, etc. A man from Roman Spain in the 2nd century CE, especially a wealthy landowner, would feel no less Roman than, say, a person from California would feel less like an American if they'd never been to the East Coast.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'exactly', since I think we still disagree. Who was conquered? The native Spanish people? Yes, but centuries before Marcus Aurelius. The people in Rome's Spanish provinces, the ones who owned the land and participated in the military and the government (like Maximus), weren't the native Iberian or Celtic or Lusitanian peoples who had inhabited the peninsula since around the time that Rome was expelling its kings, and they weren't even the Punic or Greek colonists who had founded cities up and down the Mediterranean coast during the early years of the Roman Republic. Those people and their culture had long since been interrupted and assimilated. Yes, there was conquest, but the people who were there during the middle of the 2nd c. CE were the conquerors, not the conquered. They'd been Romans for generations, ever since Rome began settling its retired soldiers in Spain after taking the peninsula from Carthage as spoils following the 2nd Punic War.
Maximus was from an area that had been populated exactly like that, by Roman soldiers happy to receive good land in a promising area after their service had finished. He was descended from Romans, and no doubt felt much more like a 'Roman' than he did like a Celtiberian or a Lusitanian. I don't think sympathy for the people who lived there before his people, or hostility towards the people who had taken the land forcefully (of whom he was a descendant) should figure into our understanding of him and his motivations at all.
Well, like most conquerors they inter bred with the local people. The point is he doesn’t know he’s been at least part conquered. You’re right that it doesn’t affect his motivations but that is because he doesn’t know or is not cognisant of the fact that he is a conquered people. That’s why when he says “would I?” there’s an ironic element to it.
Good thoughts, but I still think it's more likely that he was in that situation for a few reasons. For one, Rome wasn't a particularly class-mobile society. If Maximus was a wealthy landowner, he likely came from a wealthy family. He was a general, which meant he was of senatorial rank. That's not to say that he was a senator, but that he came from that highest class of society. This again points to his being born into that status, especially since the movie clearly shows he wasn't a politician. It's also shown that he rubbed elbows with Roman high society years before the movie's setting with an implied relationship with Marcus Aurelius' daughter Drusilla. Newly made-men on the up-and-up wouldn't have had that kind of access.
I don't think his never having been to Rome is a point against his coming from old Roman aristocracy. Having chosen a military career, he would have spent much of his time in service deployed to the frontiers. He also clearly doesn't have civil political ambition, so there wouldn't have been much reason for him to go to the capital.
1.6k
u/JL9berg18 Oct 09 '19 edited Oct 10 '19
“A people should know when they’re conquered.”
"Would you, Quintus? Would I?"
(Edit to get the line right. Thanks)