Picture it: The scene is the arena, on the floor of the Falvian Amphitheater in Rome. The emperor is presenting games for public consumption to celebrate his ascension to the throne and commemorate his dead father.

In this production, gladiator slaves will take the role of the barbarian horde of Hannibal, and trained fighters, not directly identified as slaves or gladiators, will play the part of the legions of Scipio Africanus, the illustrious general of Roman history who defeated Hannibal at the battle of Zamma at the end of the Second Punic War.

The gladiators who play the role of the "barbarians" march on foot. They fight with short spears and carry kite shields. They wear no heavy armor, mostly chain mail over cloth tunics, and march as a group in a quasi phalanx formation. They are predominantly Caucasian, and exclusively men. The "Roman" legions advance on the barbarians in chariots. They fight with javelins, bows and arrows, and even crossbows. Their armor is fairly heavy, obviously of metalwork, and primarily gold in color covered in cases by leopard skin. They are predominantly black in respect to race, and their ranks are filled with women. The Romans are defeated in their advance, and the barbarians take the day.

What's wrong with this picture? Aside from the anachronistic crossbows and incorrect history, the 'barbarians' are, by all appearances, more Roman than the 'Romans.' The legions of Scipio do not look like, fight like, or organize themselves as a Roman fighting unit. The scene described above is the re-enactment of the Battle of Carthage in Gladiator.

What does this have to do with emperors? The scene concludes with a rather odd remark on the part of Commodus. "My history is a little hazy, Cassius," he says, "but shouldn't the barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?" He's right. As recalled by Martial, often executions in the form of Games which sought to re-enact a the past, either historical or mythological, did not turn out as the 'real' events did. This was not a problem for the Roman audience. They sought entertainment, not a history lesson. Most spectators would be well aware of the actual historical outcome, and the fact the Games did not properly emulate this would have been of little consequence. As I've said, the history is incorrect, but this is not the point.

A Roman audience would almost assuredly have picked up on visual cues of identification. That is, they would have seen the barbarians and said 'that's us,' and conversely have looked at the Romans and said 'that's not us.' Similarly, a modern audience would do the same. After all, the hero of the film Maximus is among the barbarian horde. It wouldn't make for a very good movie were they to be slaughtered then and there. More to the point is that it is Commodus who directly points this out to the astute viewer. His history is a little hazy not because the scene did not play out as its historical precedent did, but because the players are all wrong.

In this light, the scene takes on a rather dark undertone. The viewer is confronted directly with issues of race and identity that are left unresolved. One begins to ask oneself, how would the scene be different if the Romans really looked and fought like Romans? Why is it, in a sense, easier to watch these strange and exotic, and distinctly non-Roman, fighters die? Would the emotional connection be severed if identity were harder to establish?

Important to remember is that fact that it is the Emperor who points out this incongruity. It is the emperor, upon whom numerous visual devices are imposed and with whom the audience is directed to explicitly reject, who serves as the voice of conscience.