Homepage Ralph Häussler |
|
Not really one of my current research projects, just food for thought. Thanks to my first-year students in Lampeter in 2018 who survived an intensive four-week block on Spartacus and his modern reception in the 18th-21st centuries...
|
Spartacus & the Third Slave War
|
|
Evidence for Spartacus
If we believe our ancient sources, then Spartacus was a Thracian, even fighting for the Romans, perhaps he was a deserter who was sold into slavery, ending up in the gladiatorial school of Lentulus Batiatus in Capua, from where he escaped with some 70 fellow slaves, then leading the slaves across Italy for three years, with his two 'lieutanants', Crixus and Oenonimus, defeating all the Roman armies that were sent against them (apart from Crixus who separated from the main 'army' and perished, together with 30,000 men at Mount Gargano in 72 BCE). In 71 BCE all the slaves were finally defeated by Marcus Licinius Crassus
Our main evidence Our main sources are Plutarch's Crassus biography (after 96 CE) and the 'Civil War' chapters of Appian of Alexandria's Roman History (finishing his work around 160 CE) - both written in Greek during the height of the Roman Empire, roughly 170 to 230 years after the Spartacus War. Other accounts are rather fragmented, notably Sallust's History (c.50-35 BCE) and Florus' Epitome of Roman History (c.100 CE, based on Livy's Roman history). For all these works, we need to ask: What did they know about the event? How faithfully did they represent earlier accounts? Were there any contemporary accounts from 73-71 BCE or perhaps even contemporary documents in Rome's archive which ancient authors could use? Or is it all primarily based on hear-say...? Also: Genre & Intention! Moreover, we must take into account what genres we are dealing with and what the authors' intentions were: Plutarch, for example, wrote biographies, not history! His Crassus biography is, like many of his works, less a historic account, but a study of character and morality, comparing him to the 5th-century Athenian politician and strategos Nicias (on Plutarch's work, see for example Tim Duff [2002] Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice): the Spartacus account in Plutarch is therefore just one episode to explore Crassus' character, his virtues and his vices (like his enormous wealth!). Sallust, too, was more interested in the moral decline of the Late Republic, having written in a period of continued civil wars... He was 15 years old when the Spartacus revolt broke out: but just how trustworthy are the surviving fragments of his account? The few passages from Sallust (3.64, 3.66) provide quite detailed descriptinos, like a power struggle between Crixus and Spartacus, in which Spartacus is depicted as the cautious and reasonable leader. But Sallust also aims to excuse the shortcomings of the Roman army... |
Fact is that we do not have any contemporary sources from 73-71 BC! How is this possible?
For example, Cicero, our most productive writer from the 80's down to his assassination in 43 BCE, actually lived through the Servile War! And he was quaestor in 75 and aedile in 69 BCE. If this was such an important event, and Spartacus the main protagonist, why didn't he explore the issue any further, even if he just wanted to talk about Crassus' or Pompey's conduct and ambitions, or the other praetors' carelessness and incompetence...? In fact, Cicero only mentions the name Spartacus is passing: in 57 BCE in his "On the Response of the Haruspices" (CIc. har. 12: "...to celebrate the games after the fashion of Athenio or Spartacus") and in 44-43 BCE in his Philippicae against Mark Antony (3.8). By the time, the name Spartacus had already become proverbial! |
The name 'Spartacus'
Let us start with Spartacus' name.
Yes, one could say that Spartacus was a Thracian, and this is a typical Thracian name! Yes, there was a (Hellenised!) Thracian royal dynasty, commonly called the Spartocidae, founded by a certain Spartokos/Spartakos I in the 5th century BC. Is it feasible that our gladiator, Spartacus, was related to this royal family and then became enslaved when (as suggested by Florus) he had deserted the Roman army? But can we really imagine that a high-ranking member of a local aristocracy would end up as a slave...? As a slave and gladiator, our person X (so-called Spartacus) was likely to be given a name by his new owner. This is a common practise for slaves. And it will become increasingly common for gladiators in Rome to have a 'stage name'! It is therefore most likely that we will never find out Spartacus' real name, before he came to Capua. The famous Spartacus graffito from Pompeii. It shows fighting scenes, here two horsemen fighting each other; one of them is called "Spartaks", written in Oscan (read from right to left; Notizie Scavi 1927, 21, fig. 5.). Just because it was written Oscan does not mean it dates to the mid-1st century BC; people continued to speak their native language for a long time. And did no-one renovate the house in circa 150 years prior to Pompeii's destructionin AD79? This seems unlikely. This graffito might be interpreted in many ways, perhaps depicting a spectace in Pompeii's amphitheatre - at any time - and one of the fighters was called Spartacus; did one perhaps re-enact the defeat of Spartacus in the arena? And the animal-headed character to the right makes it more unlikely that this is meant to be a depiction of Spartacus from the 70's-40's BCE.
|
|
Ancient sources: fact & fiction
|
A closer study of the ancient sources reveal enormous divergencies between the various accounts of Spartacus and the Third Servile War.
... ...... ..... |