Spartacus: Good or Bad?

[Cornelius Plautus]

I apologize for the simple title in advance; I suppose a better one would be Spartacus: Hero or Criminal?

Recently, I watched the old Kirk Douglas movie, Spartacus, and as a proponent of the old Roman Republic, I am absolutely disgusted by how heroically they portrayed him.

Historically, Spartacus was a Thracian farmer, who, when Thrace was conquered by Rome, signed up as an Auxiliary for the Legions. After he recieved his training, he was ordered to assault a nearby town, but decided that he didn't want to.

So, Spartacus deserted his Legion and ran off into the hills. The Romans eventually caught him and dispensed the punishment for all legionary deserters: forced Gladiatorial service. But during his training, Spartacus broke out of his training camp, and proceeded to ambush Legionaries, kill them, and steal their equipment multiple times.

Then, in order to get back at the Romans, he mustered an army of dissilusioned slaves to fight with him, knowing full well that he and his buddies would be crushed by the might of the Legions, Rome's impending military answer to his pillaging.

Spartacus died in battle, having killed two Centurions, who were senior officers that lead and disciplined Legionary Centuries; these men were much like fathers to their subordinates. As a punishment for going against the established order, the remaining slaves were crucified.

In Kirk Douglas' film, Spartacus was portrayed as noble, as a man who wanted freedom for all. What a load of garbage. All he wanted was to get back at the Republic, and for what might I add? Because he did not want to accept Justice?

It's not as if Roman law as unjust, otherwise why would it dictate so many of the strictures of modern law? How about slavery? Roman slavery wasn't particularly unjust: slaves were clothed, fed and, get this, paid. Yes, that's right, Roman slaves were paid for their work, and could eventually buy their own freedom. And then, when a slave became a libertus, a freedman, he could become a millionare (like the Imperial freedman Pallas, a contemporary of Pliny). In fact, Rome had more social mobility than most other nations in the world. Even a Gladiator was not stuck as such; a man like Spartacus probably could have earned enough money to buy his way out of the Arena, and become famous in Rome. He could have been loved by all the Romans, but in stead, he chose to throw away countless slaves lives in a pathetic, misguided revenge quest.

In conclusion, my point is that Spartacus was not the man we think he was. Quite the contrary, I would say that the Romans were the real protagonists here. (Remember the Republic, the precursor to modern Democracy, after all).

[Farnan]

Hey I moved this post here because its an excellent post and this forum gets more activity. Also the fight club requires you already have an opponent.

[Azog 150]

So the Roman came along and invaded his homeland. I think its pretty understandable that he would not want to fight for them and instead to get back at them. And to say he wasn't heroic is pretty stupid. To take up arms with a bunch of slaves against the full might of Roman Empire must have taken some balls.

[bushbush]

hero to the slaves who followed him, rebellious criminal to the romans. It really depends on your perspective.

[Spartacus the Irish]

I think I'm a pretty nice guy, personally.

[conon394]

Well the starting point is first Hollywood epics are entertainment first and foremost so certainly one should not expect Spartacus or say Gladiator to be a graduate level discussion of Roman history. Spartacus is using Ancient Rome and the popularity (at the time) of swords and saddles epic to make political points about the time it was made not telling history (A ideal quite older than Spartacus since Athenian drama did much the same use history and myth often heavy altered to both entertain and argue about current issues).

Second it is of course true that virtually all the source material is rather pro-Roman, the only potentially sympathetic account is lost*. Even in the Roman accounts Spartacus is not usually the main focus so details are often scant.

Thus while some sources back the story of desertion, others don't mention it - more particularity no information exists about why he deserted. The reason perhaps makes no difference to the law but it does potentially impact a moral appraisal of the man. Deserting to just become a bandit as Florus suggests is quite a diffrent thing than say deserting because his orders conflicted with some social or family commitment. On this point I think its interesting to note that Spartacus did not simple pursue large scale banditry when leading his revolt (as Crixus advocated) and seems really only to have firmly held the loyalty of his Thracian followers and truly aimed at returning home with them.

Spartacus was more restrained in terms of violence/looting/pillaging than the Gaul/Germanic factions and he does seem to have had a plan. I don't think it was like Eunus (leader of an earlier large scale revolt in Sicily) who aimed the establishment of a hellenistic state that while not anti-slavery per say, could be called reformist.

Eunus called himself King Antiochus and his revolt manged to cross ethnic boundaries and link several diffrent vectors of anti-Roman anger (slaves, disaffected peasants, bandits, etc.) and touch of revolts elsewhere.

All in all the fact that the First Sicilian slave actually coincided with the life of Tiberius Gracchis, and the related slave revolt in Asia with its Utopian propaganda promulgated by Blosius - the Kirk Douglas movie has a certain accuracy on the revolt side if one allows it referenced the First Sicilian slave war not Spartacus.

Perter Green's articles on the First Sicilian Slave War make interesting reading in this context.

[But you have to admit 'I am Spartacus' sounds better to the modern ear than 'I am Eunus']

Overall you are very very likely correct Spartacus had no overarching vision or ideology he had no success in either unifying his own following or appealing to other oppressed Roman subjects (consider the Social war had just occurred as had Slave revolts on Sicily).

I am low on time so only a comment the equity and fairness of the Roman legal system is a whole diffrent question, and in particualr if it was executed with fairness and justice in the provinces. The 'Social War' for example did not just occur because Italians were bored.

I'll add more later.



* Maybe a lost work by Caecilius.

edit - Gahhh type a couple paragraphs in the morning and man endless grammar and spelling errors...

[Odovacar]

Eunus was far more future-.minded than Spartacus as Conon wrote. However Spartacus was a soldier, and a pretty good leader, who evaded the unavoidable for long.
In reality he wasn't as heroic and astute maybe as in the film. The film shows that he is against forcing roman captives to gladiator games. In reality I think he precisely did that when Crixus died, to mourn his death by this form of sacrifice.

While the original Spartacus could have been more brutal and less idealistic than the hollywood Spartcaus, he himself was a hero still.
Roman slavery especially in Sicily and South Italy was ruthless. The slaves did not rise for nothing.
They were working in chains, kept in barns like animals. And when sick they received less food. The average agricultural slave had little chance to earn his freedom.

Punishments were cruel and inhuman. Anyone arguing that "slavery wasn't that bad" is a hypocrite. It's bad, and those slaves were not masochist with cute plastic handcuffs and latex-clad dominatrices.

Of course, house slaves, enslaved greek teachers, etc. had far better chance, and were treated better just like southerners treated better their negro janitors than those who worked on plantations.

In my opinion Spartacus is an icon of freedom and heroism. His enemies were ruthless greedy, aristocrats like Crassus.
While he was destined to fail pretty much, or at least to fail in carrying out his grandiose plans, he was still a great man.

[Charontas]

And at one point he reached the Alps, but why didn't he make a break for it by going to the Balkans?

But for some reason, he headed back to the south, only to get stiffed by pirates who promised him to get him and his army to Sicily.

These things make me wonder if he ever wanted to go return to Thrace.

[Knight of Heaven]

Well one thing i known from what i read, is important for one to not let wander by the romancist fiction, thing connected to spartacus. Im glad you enjoy the movie i did, even if kirk douglas in my opinion wasnt in his best. but still a great movie. As far as history is concerned, there is no proof that the slaves rebelion was connected with some sort of ideal( like freedom for the slaves, equal rights for every mans etc) so on that acertion they were simply a band of former slaves who broke free, and start pillaging and stealing from farms, villages , in order to survive. they had no political porpuse, but given the conditions of the slaves, well how could they? this revolt was doomed since day 1.
well for today standarts off course they were not criminals, but you have to put this on the right context at the time every single civiliztion had slaves, it was a normal thing.
Its important to be above this moral issues in order analise the situation, for the Roman republic they were criminals off course. They disrupt the comerce the farming production, they had to be dealt with, so the roman senate says. Off course from a humanist point of view it was natural thing to happen given the circunstances, and slavery is imoral in any circustances. that is my view.

[Alex-ander]

And at one point he reached the Alps, but why didn't he make a break for it by going to the Balkans?

But for some reason, he headed back to the south, only to get stiffed by pirates who promised him to get him and his army to Sicily.

That always puzzled me. They had quite a few options open to them Spain, Gaul, even Britain but they turned back and headed back down Itally. The fleet never came and Spartacus and his army were trapped and eventually wiped out.

So why did they turn back?

[Orko]

He was a heroic criminal

[Mangalore]

That always puzzled me. They had quite a few options open to them Spain, Gaul, even Britain but they turned back and headed back down Itally. The fleet never came and Spartacus and his army were trapped and eventually wiped out.

So why did they turn back?

Back in these times you had and saw no options when looking at foreign lands. This was no tourist trip. To get back to Thrace per land they would have to cross foreign and this meant enemy territory because every single native tribe they crossed would have defended themselves (because without any supply train or infinite money they would have to forage for food by looting the countryside) or attacked them if they appeared weak. Neither Gaul nor Spain were really outside Rome's domain, Ilyria recently conquered and other than getting home (which all non Thracians really couldn't appreciate) Thrace was also only more of an utopia than a realistic option.

Other than that the Alps were a very real, very difficult obstacle to traverse if you wanted to avoid Roman controlled coastal territory so that quite a few people would be dissuaded by seeing them after having walked and fought a month is not strange. Hannibal's feat became so famous because it was thought to be impossible.

In the above context one should also consider that Roman justice was Roman, not Greek, not Thracians so it goes without saying that a Thracian/Gaul/Spaniard/African gave a rat's ass about their justice system other than them being paid or forced to do something.

In conclusion, my point is that Spartacus was not the man we think he was. Quite the contrary, I would say that the Romans were the real protagonists here. (Remember the Republic, the precursor to modern Democracy, after all).

Your precious Roman Republic was running towards the cliff in a hurry. The civil war between Marius and Sulla already had greatly subverted any ideal the Roman Republic might stand for as they executed, banned or killed their opposition (all upstanding aristocratic senators and people in their own right). During Spartacus revolt Pompey had already made a name for himself, Crassus would try to make a name of himself by squashing Spartacus. Guess who was missing and how it all would end?

The great slave revolts were obviously not a sign that people were happy with the Roman republic. Instead they are a clear sign that the Roman economy was bloated with such a percentage of slaves and had undermined the wealth of common farmers that they now rose up in numbers trying to break free from their oppression (as mentioned in Sicily tons of free farmers and other 'normal' people also supported the revolt). Rome was an empire, as such it was not nice to a lot of people living there or even worse, territories it had conquered.


By modern ideal western standards any human being has an irrevocable right to be free. With this right comes that we expect soldiers to not follow immoral orders, expect people to rise in arms to free themselves from dictators and the right of self defense. By all that aspects one can hardly blame Spartacus on morale grounds that he did act wrong when freeing himself from slavery in an obscene entertainment industry that was stacked in such a way that his violent death was almost certain. It's what we expect people to do. And the Romans were not the nice bringers of enlightenment you might believe either.

[Seleucos of Olympia]

That always puzzled me. They had quite a few options open to them Spain, Gaul, even Britain but they turned back and headed back down Itally. The fleet never came and Spartacus and his army were trapped and eventually wiped out.

So why did they turn back?

From what I remember from Plutarch, the Celtic/Germanic part of his army was more interested in plunder than in freedom, and they refused to leave Italy when there was so much more to be gained there. Spartacus, not wanting to split his army, obliged them and they all moved back south. It's easy to romanticize them today (movies like Spartacus help) as oppressed people fighting nobly for their freedom, but I'm sure for a lot of them it would have been the equivalent of a high security prison break today. In any case, they weren't fighting against the institution of slavery. I'm sure most, if not all, of them would be happy to own slaves, if they got out of their situation alive and well off.

[Poach]

What you must remember, OP, is that the Spartacus movie to which you are referring is produced by an American based off an American book. There's nothing Americans love more in their films than an underdog, oppressed guy fighting for his freedom against an evil Empire. Stems from that revolution mentality they've got, I suppose.

As such, any historical event that can be portrayed in that light invariably will be. Spartacus can be, and thus was.

I do agree with you, in reality he was quite possibly a deserter, he also orchestrated a prison break then proceeded to plunder the countryside and kill a large number of Roman soldiers. He was hardly a freedom loving victim of heavy handed oppression.

As I said, however, the US cinema audience eats this stuff up, historical accuracy is of secondary importance. Directors know this well, and play to it to make money.

[Mangalore]

a gladiator school was not a prison in any sense even the most frivolous oppressive regimes in recent decades have invented...

I do agree with you, in reality he was quite possibly a deserter, he also orchestrated a prison break then proceeded to plunder the countryside and kill a large number of Roman soldiers. He was hardly a freedom loving victim of heavy handed oppression.

So slavery, displacement of populations, forced gladiator games to the death for a cheerful crowd are not heavy handed oppression? Sure, the Romans didn't think so but the despicable thing is that they forced these specific laws onto non-Romans.

To dismiss him as a common criminal is taking the purely Roman POV which is just as wrong as taking the opposite. What is obvious is that his great initial success and similar events in other parts of the Roman empire suggest a great social disparity born out of a large slave population rid of any rights or security. The idea that he was a deserter is an example of this. It is barely mentioned and sadly the only source is Roman who really had no interest of portraying anything but their view. Even if he was, given that he was not a Roman there is still the question how he ended up a soldier for them and why he supposedly deserted. The fact is: We don't know who he was, but he managed to rally a very diverse crowd, organized them into an effective fighting force and in effect challenged the undeniably unjust Roman social system which had put him and his followers so far down the food chain that they had no hope to change that other than fighting or dieing.

[Habelo]

From reading your post i got to say that he sounds like a very noble carachter, rome was a disgusting empire that ruined all the beautiful diversity in europe and enslaved lots of people, they are the reason for the dark ages, the reason to people living in such even now. If i lived at that time i would have also wanted it to burn.

[Hilarion]

From reading your post i got to say that he sounds like a very noble carachter, rome was a disgusting empire that ruined all the beautiful diversity in europe and enslaved lots of people, they are the reason for the dark ages, the reason to people living in such even now. If i lived at that time i would have also wanted it to burn.

The Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages?
That's news to me.

[lordoftheT]

From reading your post i got to say that he sounds like a very noble carachter, rome was a disgusting empire that ruined all the beautiful diversity in europe and enslaved lots of people, they are the reason for the dark ages, the reason to people living in such even now. If i lived at that time i would have also wanted it to burn.

What? How would an empire from 2000 years ago affect living conditions today? Then theres the fact that most modern countries who's territory is made up of land that used to be under the Roman empire back in the day are generally not that bad off today.

[Sevachenko]

What? How would an empire from 2000 years ago affect living conditions today? Then theres the fact that most modern countries who's territory is made up of land that used to be under the Roman empire back in the day are generally not that bad off today.

Not to mention that it was the 'beautiful diverse' peoples that help bring down the Empire and effectively bringing upon the Dark Ages. He really can't be serious by stating that the LEDC's today in Europe are because of the Roman Empire, thats just absurd.

[Habelo]

The romans gave to us christianity.