# The ethics of Quintus from "The Gladiator"



## Anton Bruckner

I watched parts of this movie early this week and couldn't help but notice the ethics of Quintus.

When Commodus gave the orders for Quintus to execute Maximus, Quintus had no reservations in ordering his underlings to take Maximus out and execute him.

Maximus asked Quintus to spare his family to which Quintus replied, "They will join you in the afterlife".

In considering Quintus, he had no problems obeying Commodus. He even pointed out that Maximus's disobedience to Commodus was, "Unwise". Maximus on the other hand after realizing what a snake Quintus was in murdering the old Emperor behaved totally indignant and disrespectful towards him. "The days for honoring yourself will soon be at an end, highness", "My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius......and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next".

What determination can be made on the behavior of Quintus? Was he simply a good soldier that followed orders? Or was he immoral in carrying out sinful orders? How does this relates to Romans 13? Is Maximus the bad guy and Quintus the good guy in light of this scripture or the contrary? Can Quintus be likened to a soldier in the Nazi army? How are we to evaluate subordinates that carry out dastardly deeds of their master whether ignorantly? Can they hide under the cloak of duty?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Slippery said:


> Can Quintus be likened to a soldier in the Nazi army? How are we to evaluate subordinates that carry out dastardly deeds of their master whether ignorantly? Can they hide under the cloak of duty?



They cannot hide under the cloak of duty and this is why they were executed following World War II. "I was merely obeying orders" never excuses a man from violating the Law of God. It is interesting that we would have difficulty punishing men for War crimes violations on the basis of "Natural Law" like we once did following WWII. Even the Geneva Conventions are written around an idea that there is a duty that transcends what a human culture might degenerate into. If the New Atheists had their way then whatever convention a culture determines makes it "right for them".


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Ok Rich, how about the concept of self preservation. "I obeyed because I did not want my family and I to be killed"

I know many would use that reasoning and think it valid.


----------



## Zenas

Quintus always struck me as odd. Toward the end, note he didn't help Commodus in his fight with Maximus. Commodus had lost his sword, he demended one, and Quintus ordered no sword to be given to him, presumably defying the Emperor's order. If Commodus was a mindless soldier, then he would have given the Emperor a sword, but he didn't, and I've always wondered why.

Surely he couldn't have believed it was moral wrong, or dishonorable, due to the fact he ordered the slaughter of Maximus' family.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

good observation Andrew, but my opinion was that the tables were finally turned and he was just jumping on the bandwagon of the soon to be victorious side. Even if Commodus had survived that fight he would have been so weak and ineffectual that it would have simply been a matter of time before someone took him out.

think about it, Imagine seeing your emperor in the Coliseum fighting and getting his behind handed to him?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Slippery said:


> Ok Rich, how about the concept of self preservation. "I obeyed because I did not want my family and I to be killed"
> 
> I know many would use that reasoning and think it valid.



What? To murder others? I could not murder others to save those I loved either.


----------



## Pergamum

Murder can and should be distinguished from self-defense and the defense of others, which are legitimate reasons to exercise deadly violence against an attacker.


A question related to this is the question of assasinating a murderous leader if one had the chance. In WWII if you had the chance to kill Hitler, would it be morally excusable - for the defense of family and neighbor?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Pergamum said:


> A question related to this is the question of assasinating a murderous leader if one had the chance. In WWII if you had the chance to kill Hitler, would it be morally excusable - for the defense of family and neighbor?


I think so.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Pergamum said:


> Murder can and should be distinguished from self-defense and the defense of others, which are legitimate reasons to exercise deadly violence against an attacker.
> 
> 
> A question related to this is the question of assasinating a murderous leader if one had the chance. In WWII if you had the chance to kill Hitler, would it be morally excusable - for the defense of family and neighbor?



I think it acceptable on appropriate grounds - sic semper tyrannus!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Slippery said:


> good observation Andrew, but my opinion was that the tables were finally turned and he was just jumping on the bandwagon of the soon to be victorious side. Even if Commodus had survived that fight he would have been so weak and ineffectual that it would have simply been a matter of time before someone took him out.
> 
> think about it, Imagine seeing your emperor in the Coliseum fighting and getting his behind handed to him?



Good point! My view of Quintus is that he is an opportunist, or at least acts based on self-preservation rather than principle. He obeys Commodus when Commodus is in power, and helps Maximus when he has the upper hand at the end. 

And I think Maximus and the senator are perfectly right to overthrow Commodus, who is clearly a corrupt, immoral, murdering ruler. This doesn't violate the Romans 13 concept at all...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hay:

First, Quintus did not kill the Emperor. It was Commodus who did so.

Second, the Emperor did not make known publically his desires for Maximus, and not Commodus, to take the throne and restore the Republic. He announced it privately to Maximus first, and then to Commodus which spurred Commodus to kill his father. Thus, only two people knew that the Emperor was going to give his powers to Maximus - Commodus and Maximus (I think the sister either knew also or suspected).

Conclusion, Quintus was following the legitimate line of succession of the Roman Emperors which went from Father to Son. He would then view Maximus as a rebel and a traitor, and follow a legitimate command from Commodus to kill such.

At the end of the movie I think that Quintus realized the tyranny of Commodus, but was unwilling to step outside of the law. Not providing the Emperor a sword was within his authority in the "game" for it was one on one with no interference. Quintus was following the "Rule of Law" throughout the movie.

Overall, you can see the power Quintus had at the beginning of the movie. If he threw his weight behind Maximus, then Commodus would have been killed. The question that was undoubtedly running in his mind is: Who has the right of ascension to the Throne. He followed normal Roman Law and Procedure.

Now, if Quintus *knew* that the Emperor intended to give his powers to Maximus, then Quintus was the true rebel possibly bribed or cajoled by Commodus.

Historically, what is interesting is that beginning at the reign of Commodus a bloody reign of terror swept through the Roman government with the Praetorian Guard taking bribes and putting Emperors on the throne. This was the time of the Red Horse prophesied in the Book of Revelation, 6:4.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Pergamum

Robert, thanks for that excellent summary - except that last part about all that red horse stuff!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Pergamum said:


> Robert, thanks for that excellent summary - except that last part about all that red horse stuff!



Thanks you. I could not help but share my Historicist views here!

*And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another, and there was given unto him a great sword.*

From Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

_Commodus' cruelty at last proved fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the best blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own servants ... The immediate consequence of the assassination of Comm0dus was the elevation of Pertinax to the throne, and his murder eighty-six days after. Then followed the public setting-up of the empire to sale by the pretorian guards, and its purchase by a wealthy Roman senator, Didius Julianus, or Julian, who on the throne of the world, found himself without a friend and without an adherent ... The public discontent was soon diffused from the centre to the frontiers of the empire. In the midst of this universal indignation, Septimius Severus, who then commanded the army in the neighbourhood of the Danube, resolved to avenge the death of Pertinax, and to seive upon the imperial crown. He marched to Rome, overcame the feeble Julian, and placed himself on the throne. After the death of Severus, then follows an account of the contentions between his sons, Geta and Caracalla, and of the death of the former by the latter. Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. Every province was by turns the scene of his rapine and cruelty. In the midst of peace and repose, upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria in Egypt for a general massacre,_

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Pergamum

Interesting.


----------

