Hollywood's Spartacus

[caldrail]

In the beginning of the film, when Spartacus is working in the salt quarry and bites a guard who strikes him for helping an exhausted fellow slave, the narration states that he 'dreamed of a time when slavery no longer existed'.

 

Was their any anti-slavery movement anywhere, in thought or deed, prior to the last few centuries?

Or would the slaves of that time have dreamed of owning their own slaves?

 

Yep, and its absolute codswallop. Spartacus was never in the quarries of Libya (which hollywood believe was situated on mountain tops ). Lentulus Batiatus would have found his trainees from slave markets closer to home I suspect. As to whether he dreamed of a non-slave future I really do suspect he wouldn't have. Slavery was normal for that time. The fact that he'd been enslaved was a consequence of his actions. By becoming a bandit it was likely he would be so when caught if not executed, which shows he wasn't competely murderous as a criminal. Of course he wouldn't have liked it!

 

Slaves were allowed to own slaves in roman law, though I doubt many did.

 

If a slave was lucky and was well respected by his master he could become a freedman. Some Slaves who recieved little pay could buy themselves out of bondage. It is funny that you mention that slaves would dream of owning their own slaves as in the film the Gladiator trainer, Batiatus tells us, was once a slave and gladiator himself.

 

He chose to raid and pillage rather than fight to freedom. He chose to head for rebellious Sicily where he could take advantage of the unhappy slaves of that region. He was no longer just a bandit, he was now a rebel seeking a base to operate, perhaps even with a longer view to becoming leader of a small state although there's no evidence he ever sought that.

 

I believe that it was the slaves themselves rather than Spartacus who demanded that they turn back from the Alps to continue their pillaging of Italy. The slaves were made up of various groups from different areas, including Gauls and Germans. It was these that broke off from Spartacus's main group and became a seperate gang led by Crixus, a German (who in the film remains friends with Spartacus till the very end). Crixus and his men were ambushed by the legions and destroyed before Spartacus' rebellion came to an end. It does go to show that Spartacus did not have a firm grip on the bands he was leading and therefore those who disagreed with his policies would brake off and form their own groups like Crixus did. Perhaps if Spartacus had not been persuaded by his men to remain in Italy, the slaves would have reached freedom in Gaul. Then again, Rome would not be likely to forgive or forget their enemies.

 

We'll never know. But I don't think Spartacus had an iron grip on his followers bearing in mind they had no military discipline or organisation. He was a leader who was led by his men.

[spittle]

"....no military doscipline or organisation..."?

Some may dispute the above statement, afterall, the group he led defeated enough legions to necessitate the Senate giving rare power to Crassus and calling on the return of Pompey and Lucullus from abroad.

 

'A slave could own a slave'?

You know you've hit rock bottom when your owned by a slave! Unless you can own one yourself.

[caldrail]

"....no military doscipline or organisation..."?

Some may dispute the above statement, afterall, the group he led defeated enough legions to necessitate the Senate giving rare power to Crassus and calling on the return of Pompey and Lucullus from abroad.

 

'A slave could own a slave'?

You know you've hit rock bottom when your owned by a slave! Unless you can own one yourself.

 

Well they didn't. It wasn't an army of gladiators as Kirk Douglas suggests, nor did they have any formal military organisation. They had some military/arena experience amongst them, a cadre of skill if you will, but most of his followers were ordinary folk who decided that rebellion under Spartacus was either a good cause or a possible source of quick cash. Spartacus was a cunning chap who'd learned a lot from his auxillary experience. He knew how the romans fought and he must have been aware of their weaknesses. Also, he must have inspired his followers a whole lot better than the commanders sent against him (crassus excluded).

 

However, it must also be said that his followers were willing to rebel against Rome - which suggests these people had little reason to stay as they were. For some slaves naturally the promise of freedom was attractive, but not all his followers would have been escaped slaves. Was there enough of popular resentment against Rome? There had been in Sicily.

Edited November 2, 2006 by caldrail