The Spartacus War by Barry Strauss

[barca]

Having watched Spartacus Blood and Sand, I naturally developed and interest in finding out more about the real Spartacus and I recently ordered this book by Barry Strauss:

http://www.amazon.com/Spartacus-War-Barry-...s/dp/1416532056

 

In his introduction, he mentions that Ronald Reagan cited him as one of his heroes

 

Was he referring to the Kirk Douglas version of Spartacus?

With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, I somehow doubt that he was familiar with the details of the real Spartacus as described by Plutarch and other classical writers.

 

If so, was he aware that the Kirk Douglas movie was based on a novel by Howard Fast, who was a Marxist, and the movie itself has Marxist overtones of class struggle?

[Majorianus Invictus]

Reagan may have known the details of Spartacus. By chance, in a totally unrelated search, I came across a reference to the Saint Telemachus. Apparently the Gipper told the story of the martyred monk at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast.

 

Here is a link to the speech.

 

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee...1984/20284a.htm

 

As far as the book is concerned, I have it on the shelf, but have not had the time to devote to it as of yet.

 

H. Majorianus Invictus

Edited June 13, 2010 by Majorianus Invictus

[caldrail]

In his introduction, he mentions that Ronald Reagan cited him as one of his heroes

 

Was he referring to the Kirk Douglas version of Spartacus?

With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, I somehow doubt that he was familiar with the details of the real Spartacus as described by Plutarch and other classical writers.

 

If so, was he aware that the Kirk Douglas movie was based on a novel by Howard Fast, who was a Marxist, and the movie itself has Marxist overtones of class struggle?

 

Spartacus is often portrayed variously as a great general, a heroic freedom fighter, or a Roman-era progenitor of the class struggle'. None of these is really true of course. The reality as far as we can discern from our sources is that he was an army deserter and a bandit. He wasn't a great general because he had no long term strategy and either succumbed to temptation to resume banditry or failed utterly to convince his followers not to do so, and spent the latter part of his rebellion in flight having lost the intiative to the Roman adversaries. He wasn't a freedom fighter because he didn't care about freedom in the way we do these days, though I daresay he was happy enough to receive the numbers of disaffected slaves and citizens that flocked to his banner. He wasn't a class warrior because he had no intention of changing the status quo, and even though (unlike the Kirk Douglas film) he had captured Roman patrons fighting for their entertainment, he made no attempt to establish a different socio-political regime (or evn distribute little red scrolls )

 

However, the idea of Spartacus as a hero is a very persistent one. Even Theodor Mommsen suggested he was a 'scion of his country' because in his victorian era mindset such an apparently able leader must have had 'princely' blood in his veins. The theme of a man throwing off misfortune and fightin for freedom and justice is a common one. The tales of Robin Hood are effectively the same, and just as distorting of the truth behind them. When Ronald Reagan referred to Spartacus as his hero, he was of course talking aboutthe heroic image, not the reality of the man nor for that matter any particular media depiction, since Kirk Douglas was merely reinforcing popular images of Spartacus as a fairly standard mythic hero.

Edited June 13, 2010 by caldrail

[Ursus]

From Mary Beard's review of the book:

 

When Ronald Reagan addressed the British parliament in 1982, he used Spartacus, the Roman rebel slave, as a symbol of the fight against tyranny and totalitarianism. For Reagan, Spartacus stood for the struggle of western democracy against Soviet oppression and

[barca]

Full review here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle6066272.ece

 

That was a nice review. Here's a comment from it:

 

"This admiration for the runaway gladiator who, in his bid for freedom, managed to score a series of victories over the Roman legions before succumbing to their vastly superior firepower, is about the only thing Reagan ever shared with Karl Marx."

 

Karl Marx was one of the original admirers of Spartacus, so I find it interesting that Reagan would pick a communist icon in his anti-communist rhetoric. Was he being clever, or did he just not know better?

[barca]

... I came across a reference to the Saint Telemachus. Apparently the Gipper told the story of the martyred monk at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast.

 

Here is a link to the speech.

 

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee...1984/20284a.htm

 

Not necessarily. I received much of my early education in Catholic Schools and our religion teachers frequently would tell stories glorifyng the martyrs (and that's another issue worthy of separate thread), but these teachers were not well versed in the Classics and presented a one-sided story as if all pagans were evil.

 

What I find interesting about the story of Telemachus is that he lived in "Christian" Rome, but there were obviously still strong remnants of pagan culture. Supporters of the Gladiatorial contests probably viewed Honorius' decree of ending the games as a sign of how Christianity had softened the Romans. They no longer could stomach watching such spectacles, which were in keeping with the martial spirit of the traditional pagan Romans.

 

One would think that Christianity would have resulted in a "kinder, gentler" Roman Empire, but in reality there was violence on the part of Christians toward pagans and even against other Christians who had differing beliefs. Not to mention Honorius' shameful execution of Stilicho.

 

The Empire was in such a tentative state under Honorius, that the elimination or continuation of Gladiatrial contests was the least of their concerns.

Edited June 13, 2010 by barca