Although he does not fulfill all five of the characteristics, that Aristotle's definition of a tragic hero defines. Maximus showed his potential of showing common traits of a tragic hero. He was doomed from the start but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw. For example, Maximus was physically wounded but he wasn't responsible for his unfortunate outcome. For this reason being, I don't agree with Aristotle that to be a tragic hero you need to have those five characteristics. If a tragic hero does not include those characteristics, it will still attract the audience. The tragic hero doesn't have to have those characteristics so they can stand out more than the other characters. In addition, the audience will be more interested to know who the real tragic hero will be. Such as in the film Gladiator we see that although Marcus was the Emperor, and the main character Maximus was the true tragic hero. Aristotle stated that a common trait of a true tragic hero cannot be too good or too bad,but he must end in misery. Which we see in the film that Maximus ended up in misery for being to kind to the gladiators, and later leads to his …show more content…
In the film, Maximus duty was to make Rome republic again. He was told by Marcus, who is the Emperor, to give people power. Maximus was welcomes by all the troops with respect and was loved dearly. He had a wife and a son whom he had left behind at their home,they had been about 264 days apart. Maximus has some characteristics to be a fit in the category of being a tragic hero. Those are that Maximus was a noble, since he was a farmer back in Spain and had wisdom. He fits in the category of having hamartia. Maximus had too much pride and his popularity caused him to have enemies. The hero's main error was that he had everything, then he lost it. For example, his family dies but it wasn't for his actions but for being involved as a gladiator. Therefore, he didn't have anagnorisis as a characteristic,since the change in his fortune wasn't brought by his own