The name of Spartacus has become a symbol of the selfless struggle for freedom. However, paying tribute to the courage and military talents of the fugitive slave, Roman historians quickly described the events associated with him. As a result, we know little about Spartacus himself and about his death.
To begin with, let's return to the events of the uprising, which do not cause much controversy. So, in late 74 or early 73 BC, a group of 78 gladiators staged an uprising at the Lentula Batiatus gladiatorial school in the city of Capua. These slaves were specially trained in martial arts to fight for the amusement of the Roman crowd.
Historical facts
Having escaped to freedom, the fugitives took refuge on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. They were joined by runaway slaves from the surrounding estates, so a three-thousand-strong militia detachment of Praetor Claudius Glabra was equipped to defeat them, which blocked the only road leading to the top. The rebels weaved ropes from vines, descended the steep cliff to the rear of the enemy and completely destroyed him.
A detachment of former slaves turned into a small army, against which a larger force had to be sent under the command of the praetor Publius Varinius. In a series of battles, the Romans were defeated, after which Spartacus was able to establish control over almost the entire countryside of southern Italy and capture several cities. He spent the winter of 73-72 BC training his army, which by spring numbered about 70 thousand soldiers.
Probably, Spartacus's attempts to raise discipline led to the fact that a large detachment under the command of Enomai was separated from his army, which was soon destroyed by the Romans.
Meanwhile, two consular armies were moved against the rebels. Spartacus was able to defeat them separately, but he himself lost a rather strong corps under the command of his closest ally Crixus, who separated from the main forces, probably to carry out a flanking maneuver.
Promotional video:
One way or another, the defeat of the two consular armies put Rome on the brink of disaster, because the best troops during this period were fighting against the king Mithridates in Greece and Asia Minor. I had to strain the last forces and form a new army, sponsored by the richest man in Rome, Mark Crassus, who himself led it.
The rebels began to move north, probably intending to withdraw to Gaul, but then turned sharply and headed to the very south of the Apennine Peninsula. The chance to break free seemed less tempting compared to the opportunity to take over Rome and take the place of its former masters. But Rome was ready for defense, so Spartacus proceeded further south to the Rhegium peninsula, from where he was going to cross over to Sicily.
On this island, considered the granary of Italy, over the previous 50 years, there have been two slave uprisings, and not less than the Spartak one. Another thing is that they did not pose a direct threat to Rome.
Spartacus counted on crossing to Sicily with the help of the Cilician pirates, but they did not keep their promises - either they did not manage to collect the required number of ships, or they were bought by the Romans or the king Mithridates, interested in the uprising blazing closer to Rome itself.
Spartacus was trapped on the Regius Peninsula, but thanks to a well-organized attack, he broke through the fortifications built by Crassus. This was his last victory.
Legions from Macedonia, Spain and Asia returned to Italy. The only chance was to smash Crassus before their approach. The decisive battle took place in 71 BC at the source of the Silar River. Spartacus fought like a lion and fell in an unequal battle. His body was not found. Six thousand captured slaves were crucified on crosses along the road from Capua to Rome.
In the book by Rafaello Giovagnoli
Historians provide primary information, but the perception of the heroes of the past is formed, first of all, by works of art.
In the case of Spartacus, we can talk about two such works - the novel by Rafaello Giovagnoli (1874) and the movie by Stanley Kubrick (1960).
The novel "Spartacus" was created in the early 1870s in an atmosphere of euphoria that gripped Italy from the fact of the country's unification. The events described in it were projected onto the present, and Spartacus himself was associated with Garibaldi. The Italian national hero, by the way, wrote an enthusiastic letter to the author, which was later published as a preface to the book.
In Giovagnoli, in accordance with the classical version, Spartacus was a Thracian who was captured during the fighting. Having become a gladiator, he received freedom for his exploits in the arena and led the organization of the uprising already as a free man. The uprising itself was the result of an elaborate conspiracy, the members of which were conspiracy in the style of the Italian Carbonari. Moreover, Katiline and Julius Caesar are aware of the Spartacus conspiracy and even sympathize with him, realizing the need to reform the Roman Republic. Catiline, nine years after the slave uprising, undertook something like an attempt at a socialist coup, which, however, ended in failure. Caesar, as you know, became the gravedigger of the republic.
In addition, the author introduced a romantic line between Spartacus and the widow of the dictator Sulla Valeria Messala. This story is not confirmed by sources, but it looks quite convincing - Roman aristocrats often struck up relationships with brutal and beautiful gladiators.
The course of hostilities is described quite conscientiously, although not without interweaving another romantic plot. The author explains the death of the corps of Enomai and Kriks, separated from the main forces, by the intrigues of the Greek courtesan Eutibida, who unrequitedly fell in love with the leader of the uprising. She quarreled with Spartacus, and killed Crixus, giving the Romans the cunning plan of the rebels.
It is interesting that the three companions of Spartacus - Enomai, Crixus and Gannicus - were Gauls, that is, the ancestors of modern French. For Giovagnoli and his compatriots of the 1870s, France was an ally, and it is no surprise that Crixus and Gannicus appear to be the models of all virtues. But for some reason he made Enomai a German and an ingenuous fool.
Probably, the specific relations of Italy at the end of the 19th century with two German states - Austria-Hungary and Germany - played a role here. Austria was an outspoken enemy, but Giovagnoli probably sent a message to German readers - don't be as foolish as Enomai, do not fall for the intrigues of the Austrians, who are as insidious as Euthybida.
Relevance and political correctness
The Kubrick film was a product of another time. The script was written based on the novel by Howard Fast by the author himself and another writer Dalton Trumbo. Both of them were considered agents of communist influence, and therefore were included in the "Hollywood Black List". Inviting them to be screenwriters was something like "public rehabilitation", and the film itself voiced topics that were not so much for Ancient Rome as for America of the 1960s with its leftist trends.
Spartacus turns out to be a slave from birth, taken as gladiator from the quarries. It looks quite democratic, but it negates the very possibility of raising the question: how was Spartacus able to form a rather disciplined army, organized in the Roman manner, out of the violent crowds of freed slaves - with division into maniples, cohorts, legions?
The main lesson of courage and love of freedom right in the arena is given to Spartak by the black gladiator Drabba. Instead of fulfilling the desire of the audience and finishing off the defeated Spartacus, he rushes to Crassus and dies as a hero.
If at the beginning of the 1st century BC in Rome there were black gladiators (which, in principle, is possible), then they were extremely rare. However, the film was filmed at a time when the African American struggle for equal rights was gaining momentum. And in Drabba there was obviously a hint of Martin Luther King, and the very theme of the Spartacus uprising with the theme of racial struggle clearly echoed.
The aristocrat Valeria was replaced by the slave Varinia, which also looked democratic. Spartacus really had either a wife or a girlfriend, whose name was not preserved in history, but who was clearly not a Roman matron.
The censors cut most of all the scene where the Krasé bathing in the pool hints to the slave about his homosexual inclinations. With this behavior, Krasé, as it were, illustrated the theme of the decomposition of the Roman Republic. It is clear that, with modern trends, the stage would not have been cut, but Spartacus himself would have been made homosexual, having provided him with a team of faithful companions of two blacks, a Puerto Rican and a Chinese.
At the end of the film, the unrecognized leader of the rebels is crucified on a cross along with six thousand other rebels. The version is admissible, but still unlikely: by that time Spartak was a too famous figure. Today, such an ending also looks politically incorrect, because Christian allusions are too clearly read in it.
The authors of the 2010-2012 series "Spartacus" tried to smooth out the discrepancies between the novel, the film and the true events, which led to a logical result: the number of myths around the hero only increased. Let's try to figure out which ones contain the rationale, and which are obvious legend.
Spear Wielder
Since the Italians are unpleasant that some slave skillfully smashed their ancestors (the conquerors of the world), historians of this country tend to bend the line that Spartacus was also a Roman, given to gladiators as punishment; as a kind of analogue to a prison sentence.
This did happen, but it was practiced extremely rarely and is refuted by the name of the hero - clearly not of Roman origin. Translated from Greek, it means "wielding a spear" and is characteristic of the tribes living in Western Thrace (modern Bulgaria and European Turkey). All historians who chronologically lived closest to the events of the uprising say that Spartacus was a Thracian, probably from the tribe of Meds: Plutarch, Appian, Sallust.
However, the opponents have one clue. Gladiators were divided according to the type of weapons into more than two dozen types, among which were the so-called Thracians with weapons characteristic of this people: a helmet with a visor, a rectangular shield and a short gladius sword. So, theoretically, a Thracian gladiator could not necessarily be a Thracian by nationality. But the likelihood of such a version is not high: all historians, listing after the "Thracian Spartak" his associates, indicate their nationality - "Gauls". However, here you can find fault, since there was such a type of gladiators as "Gauls", although by the 1st century BC they were already called Murmillons.
Summing up, we can say that Spartacus was 99% a free-born Thracian who had some combat experience and knew the Roman army well. It is known that before entering Batiatus's school he changed owners twice. But how did he even fall into slavery?
Here, with approximately equal probability, one of two versions can be accepted.
According to the first, he was taken prisoner during the hostilities that the Thracian tribe of honey led against the army of Sulla in 85 BC.
According to the second version, he belonged to the Thracians - allies of Rome, who had the right to serve in the Roman army. This version also has two possible development options. It is possible that he enlisted as a legionnaire, but then deserted, either not wanting to fight against his fellow tribesmen, or simply because of some kind of conflict with his superiors.
Or Spartacus enlisted in the legions of Sulla's opponents - the Marians. In 82 BC, the Marians lost the civil war in Rome, and a Thracian mercenary who inadvertently ended up in their camp had a direct path to slavery.
Another important point concerns Spartak's gladiatorial career. Here historians also disagree. Some of them believe that for his courage in the arena, he really got freedom and led the conspiracy at the Batiatus school, living there as a freelance teacher.
Killed, crucified, or fled?
As for the death of Spartacus, not everything is clear with her either.
According to Plutarch, before the battle, Spartacus stabbed a horse, stating that in case of victory, the horses from the rebels would be enough, and in case of defeat they would not be needed. At the same time, it follows from the stories of other historians that in this battle Spartacus fought on horseback and at a critical moment led a cavalry detachment with which he tried to break through to Crassus.
The former gladiator slayed two centurions until he himself was wounded in the thigh and fell from swords and spears, piled on him from all sides of the legionnaires. It turns out that many participants in the battle witnessed the death of Spartak, but the hero's body was never found. The case is, to put it mildly, strange and almost unparalleled in history. In the battles of Antiquity and Modernism, the commander-in-chief was always in the center of attention of both his own troops and the enemy's army.
Not surprisingly, all of this gave rise to rumors of his salvation. It is difficult to imagine how he would have succeeded in an area saturated with Roman troops. But why not believe in what you want to believe and the probability of which, even if minimal, still exists?