- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark as New
- Mark as Read
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Email to a Friend
- Printer Friendly Page
- Report Inappropriate Content
The “Historica
The “Historical” Spartacus
by Aaron Irvin, Historical Consultant, Spartacus: Blood and Sand
The basic facts are these: between 73 and June of 71 BC, what began as a group of about 70-80 escaped gladiator slaves grew into a massive army that ravaged the Italian countryside. In two years, this group of rebel slaves and freemen defeated a total of six Roman armies, three Praetors, two Consuls, and finally the Gallic legion under a Roman governor. In the end, it took the combined force of almost 12 Roman legions under three Roman commanders to bring an end to the rebellion. The “leader” of this rebellion, a Thracian gladiator, has come down through the millennia as a legend, a symbol of revolution for the oppressed and the triumph of the ultimate underdog.
Roman sources record this Thracian gladiator’s name as “Spartacus”, and it is on this point alone that our primary sources can be said to be in agreement. Plutarch states that the Thracian was from a nomadic tribe, possibly the Maedi, and had been brought to Rome with his wife, a priestess of Dionysus, and sold into slavery. Appian, on the other hand, states that while he had once served with Roman soldiers, he had become a prisoner and sold as a gladiator; it is Appian who writes the enigmatic phrase “his body was never found”, warning his readers that Spartacus may yet live to strike again. Florus presents the Thracian as a mercenary who had deserted from the Roman military and become a bandit, and then captured and sold as a gladiator. With Plutarch writing in the 1st century AD, almost 150 years after the rebellion, and Appian and Florus in the early to mid 2nd century AD, one might be struck by the fact that as more time passes, our Roman authors seem to become more and more informed on the background of this famous slave.
It is Spartacus’ status as a slave that defined how the Romans saw his origin- prior to the rebellion, no one cared who he was or where he came from. Only after his armies had shaken the Republic and threatened Rome itself was there any reason to take note. In fact, one can even call into question his “Thracian” background; his role as a Thraex in the arena was, for the Roman mind anyway, grounds enough for placing his origin in Thrace. But, for the Romans, Thrace was a backwards land, its people the prototypical barbarians- large, hairy, unwashed, uneducated, and lacking in any of the culture and civility of “polite” Roman society. Among Greek historians, a story was continually passed around that the Thracians practiced divination by throwing men onto upright spears, and divined the will of the gods by how the man landed; if he missed the spears completely, or survived the ordeal (so the story went), the Thracians believed he must have been an evil, wicked man, and clubbed him to death before grabbing another victim to throw on the spears.
How could someone from such an uncivilized and, lets face it, stupid group of people possibly have brought low six Roman armies? Well, Plutarch explains, you see, this Spartacus guy, he was really more of a “Greek” than a Thracian; he was educated, well spoken, erudite, intelligent, more like one of the good “Hellenized” Thracians than the stupid ones. Years later, Appian and Florus would likewise chime in: not only was Spartacus intelligent, but he had actually been part of the Roman army, trained to fight like a good, civilized Roman soldier, so you see, that’s why this barbarian slave was able to beat us. Early on, we can see the Roman fascination with this Thracian slave, whom they found admirable despite his status as slave, gladiator, and rebel leader.
It is possible that in all of these accounts, a kernel of the real, historical man lies somewhere dormant and unreachable. Spartacus may very well have been all of the above, a “civilized” Thracian, trained in Roman arms, full of a Roman compassion and honor and sense of duty, but such is the fate of legends that over time the man dies and only the story remains, to become what later generations wish it to be. Fundamentally, Spartacus was a slave, a man ripped from his family, his home, and his life, forced to fight at the pleasure of a foreign people, and at a certain point had enough and struck back. Perhaps he sought to unleash a terrible vengeance against those who had wronged him so; perhaps he sought to simply go home. That man has long since passed, yet ultimately Appian was correct; his body will never be found. The story and legend of Spartacus continues to walk among us and speak to us still, not of who the man was, but what he became.
Aaron Irvin is a current Teaching Fellow and Ph.D. candidate at UCLA. He received a B.A. in History from Western Washington University in 2005, a M.A. from UCLA in 2007, and a C.Phil. from UCLA in 2008. His areas of study include Romanization and internationalism in the ancient world.
You must be a registered user to add a comment on this article. If you've already registered, please log in. If you haven't registered yet, please register and log in.
