He is one of Britain's most esteemed and prolific filmmakers. But at times it can seem like Ridley ScottAn English filmmaker known for his sci-fi, historical and crime films. He was born in 1937. 's life-long purpose is to get the world's historians to tear all their hair out.

Last year there was his blockbuster Napoleon, which experts said was littered with inaccuracies.

The eponymousThings that are named after a person or place, etc. French leader was not a low-born lout but a minor noble, he never shot his cannons at the Pyramids of GizaThree Ancient Egyptian pyramids built near the Nile River., and he did not return from exile just to see his ex-wife Josephine one last time.

Scott was unimpressed, telling his critics to "get a life" and announcing: "When I have issues with historians, I ask: Excuse me, mate, were you there?".¹ He argued that all history is distorted because of how long ago it took place.

Now his new historical epic Gladiator II, a sequel to the 2000 film, is causing historical consternation all over again.

At the top of the list of charges: sharks in the ColosseumA vast stadium built by the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus. It could seat between 50,000 and 80,000 spectators. It was used to hold gladiatorial contests and even mock sea battles. (never happened), rhino-riding (deeply unlikely), and newspaper-reading in a cafe (no newspapers and no cafes in ancient Rome).²

For Scott and many viewers, this hardly matters. The point is the spectacle, the intrigue, the blood and gore. But, whether by accident or design, he does actually get a number of things right about Rome:

Gladiators at sea. The sharks may not be real but the Colosseum was occasionally flooded so gladiators could stage mock sea battles in special flat-bottomed boats.³

Feuding brother rulers. Geta and Caracalla, the gruesome twosome who jointly hold the imperatorship at the start of the film, were real and did rule together. But there was no brotherly love lost between them and Caracalla quickly had Geta murdered. However, Caracalla was probably not the monkey-obsessed lunatic of Scott's imagination.

Enslaving prisoners. Many gladiators were prisoners of war, like the protagonistMain character. Lucius Verus. The fittest captives would be sent to gladiator schools for training and of these the best would be shipped off to Rome.

Black emperor. Denzel WashingtonAn American actor and director born in 1954, seen as one of the best of his generation. 's MacrinusA Roman emperor between 217 and 218AD. character was real, did (briefly) ascend to the throne, and was of North African BerberDescendants of the pre-Arab peoples who lived across North Africa. origin. The Romans had a different conception of race from us and did not believe only those born in Rome could be citizens, nor that the emperor had to come from Rome itself. Indeed, Macrinus' successor, ElagabalusThe teenage Roman emperor from 218 to 222AD. Elagabalus is a nickname - his real name is Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. , was an Arab from Syria.

Hints of homosexuality. Same-sex relationships were entirely ordinary in Rome. In fact, for high-born young men, having a relationship with an older man was seen as a useful part of a good education.

What mattered in ancient Rome was not the gender of one's partner but the role one took in the relationship. It was considered shameful to take a "passive" role in a relationship with someone of lower status than oneself.

Lesbian relationships were more frowned upon, although they were not actually banned. Women were expected to be chasteNot having any sexual nature or intention. and any expression of an "active" sexuality on their part was discouraged.

Was Rome really as gay as that?

Yes: Same-sex relationships were common and even encouraged in Rome. It was a far cry from the hyper-masculine and heteronormativeA world view that promotes heterosexuality as the "normal" or preferred sexual orientation. vision displayed to us by most media.

No: While same-sex relationships were common, the Roman view of them was hardly enlightened. They mostly involved exploitation and abuse of younger and lower-status people by powerful men.

Or... There was really no such idea as "gay" in ancient Rome, and to think of it in these terms is anachronisticSomething belonging to the wrong time period.. The conclusion we should draw is that human sexuality is always fluid and open to change across time.