Commonly taught inaccuracies about the classical world

[caldrail]

Spartacus is depicted as almost faultless; a freedom fighter with a concept of freedom and self determination that, I think, did not exist in the ancient world. To be fair, Kubrick was unhappy with this portrayal but was browbeaten by Dalton Trumbo, writing under the name of Sam Jackson that appeared on the credits.

 

I will get to the point. As a result of the popularity of the Trumbo/Kubrick film, Spartacus is seen as the ultimate freedom fighter. In truth he gave no mercy and expected none. Spartacus executed hundreds of prisoners and many thousands died in his prosecutions. He also enslaved captives; at Rhegium at least which is hardly the action of an anti-slavery campaigner in the modern context.

 

If we accept the ancient context of Spartacus, he was to all intents and purposes, a "terrorist". Crassus was not a 'good' man but Spartacus was in no way the saint portrayed in the film that is responsible for the general perception of his character.

 

Kubricks epic is great entertainment isn't it? All good square jawed shakespearean stuff (apart from the slightly dubious ending between Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis )

 

The story wasn't Kubricks of course, he merely directed the film. The producer was Douglas himself who based his screenplay on a novel by Howard Fast, so in fact the film Spartacus wasn't actually intended to be a 'historical' film, but a period drama. On the other hand, Douglas was inspired to make the film due to Fast's heroic tale of freedom for the enslaved. This is a modern interpretation of Spartacus. The marxist movement saw in him a man struggling to unchain the working class of Rome.

 

The real Spartacus (pun intended) had no such motive. For him, slavery was something very real about the world around him. Virtually all nation states tolerated that idea in some way or other and it wasn't considered unusual or particularly harsh (though I suspect many of the enslaved saw it differently).

 

We also have to factor in the Roman attitude to slavery. They did have a concept of personal freedom in their republican culture - it was the removal of the tyrannical and immoral King Tarquinus that brought the Republic into being, and they also had a strangely impersonal view of slavery. Once enslaved, your humanity was removed, and that was a stain upon your character thereafter.

 

We should realise at this point that the legend of Spartacus was written by the Romans themselves. They wanted to dramatise his story for good copy in their histories, to make it an interesting read, but also to explain his success at evading the leaders the senate had chosen to capture him. How could a man of such lowly status cause so much strife in two years against the legions of Rome? The answer (and one still prevalent in modern times as the concept is underwritten by the 19th century historian Mommsen) was that he was in some way of noble birth, and the origins of a romantic vision of the rebellion is born.

 

This is hard to reconcile with what we know. More likely he began life as a shepherd, got tired of the life tending animals, and joined the Roman auxillaries to quench his thrist for adventure. If the history is correct, he deserted. Clearly Spartacus had a rebellious streak, a man who could not conform to expected behaviour, and also a man for whom the exercise of violence was not unusual, given that he subsequently chose to become a bandit.

 

His movement was wiped out, defeated in battle and the survivors crucified along the Appian Way. Such was the completeness of Roman victory that we don't know the real name of Spartacus - The name by which we remember him was his stage name given by his lanista, Lentulus Batiatus, as a gladiator - a common practice. Since slaves were now property, 'Talking Tools', their barbarian name was of no consequence and the owner did as he pleased which included renaming fighters for commercial reasons as much as latin convenience.

 

The period in which Spartacus was incarcerated was a hard time for gladiators. This was during the rise in popularity of staged combat and before the professional trained athletes became the norm. The cruelty of lanistas over their property was remarked upon and Batiatus was no exception, though some observers have noted a possible carelessness? At any rate, the regime Spartacus trained under was a hard one and in no way was he cossetted. Indeed, it would appear that he escaped shortly before a large spectacular event (in which he and many others would have fought a big set-to) and by coincidence the weapons intended for this show were captured by him during the first night of freedom.

 

But if Spartacus wasn't interested in freedom for the masses, a modern idea, what was he doing? Firstly it was survival. Spartacus was no coward, but in no way was he about to die for entertainment. The problem with the man is that he was an out and out rogue. Whether he was really an army deserter or not we can't say for sure (it was mentioned he had been in the auxillaries and was therefore not a Roman citizen) but we can be sure he was a bandit. It was for that lifestyle that he was captured and sold to the arena, a fate the Romans considered fitting. Once free, and the success of his northward escape toward the Alps filling his sails, he turns south and embarks on large scale banditry. That condemns the man in every sense.

 

In the movie Douglas proclaims that "There's never been an army of gladiators". There never was, and historically, gladiators proved themselves to be poor troops. Spartacus had a cadre of trained fighters but the majority were escaped slaves or ordinary Romans who decided that running with Spartacus offered them a chance of a better life. Substantial numbers flocked to his cause, approaching something like 100,000 people at it's height, the vast majority of which would die by the sword or on the cross.

 

Spartacus is often described as a brilliant general. I dispute that. He was a talented guerilla leader but a great general? He turned south when he could have escaped to freedom. He failed to secure transport with the cilician pirates. His escape from the Wall of Crassus was achieved not by tactical genius, but the huge losses of 6,000 dead, 6,000 wounded, for only 100 Roman soldiers killed. That he could lead such a large army, provide for their needs, and stay at large for two years is not contested. yet when he chose to meet the legions in a pitched battle, he sealed his fate. His army could not compete with Roman soldiery in a conventional fight. That he was recorded as dying under the weight of enemy sopldiers whilst rying to reach Crassus waiting upon his horse is the stuff of legend, yet for all his natural rebelliousness, greed, and naivety, you can't help believing he was something of the hero we desperately want him to be.

[DecimusCaesar]

Interesting points made about the Spartacus film. I ought to watch it agin, I haven't done so in years. It's interesting that so many people love the film, Kubrick hated it.

 

As for the inaccuracies list:

 

The Romans rode chariots into battle.

Roman soldiers wore short skirts all the time.

Roman roads were always in good working condition.

Sewers and false teeth were invented by the Romans.

[sylla]

Interesting points made about the Spartacus film. I ought to watch it agin, I haven't done so in years. It's interesting that so many people love the film, Kubrick hated it.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

"During the final battle sequences the slaves drag down burning hay rollers. One of the slaves in Spartacus's army overshoots the end of the run and a Roman soldier generously drops his sword in order to catch him."

 

I knew it!!! The Roman soldiers weren't blood thirsty killing machines at all, they all had hearts of gold and cared about the well being of their fellow man above any thing else!!

[Ludovicus]

I studied Latin four years in high school.

My teachers were wonderful, dedicated.

But the lack of any background on spoken

Latin left me with the false impression

that all Romans spoke like Cicero.

[Fulvia]

I studied Latin four years in high school.

My teachers were wonderful, dedicated.

But the lack of any background on spoken

Latin left me with the false impression

that all Romans spoke like Cicero.

What an unfortunate life that would have been! It would take an hour just to ask how the weather has been lately in Umbria!

 

One day Gaius decided that he wanted to hear Cicero give a speech in the forum. So he tells his wife who packs him a small lunch and off he sets early in the morning. Gaius is gone all day and when he finally arrived home that night his wife asks him how Cicero's speech went.

"Well," he said, "he is as fine an orator as they say."

"What did he speak about?" Gaius' wife asks.

"I don't know." Gaius responds. "I didn't stay long enough to hear the verb."

[Ludovicus]

I studied Latin four years in high school.

My teachers were wonderful, dedicated.

But the lack of any background on spoken

Latin left me with the false impression

that all Romans spoke like Cicero.

What an unfortunate life that would have been! It would take an hour just to ask how the weather has been lately in Umbria!

 

One day Gaius decided that he wanted to hear Cicero give a speech in the forum. So he tells his wife who packs him a small lunch and off he sets early in the morning. Gaius is gone all day and when he finally arrived home that night his wife asks him how Cicero's speech went.

"Well," he said, "he is as fine an orator as they say."

"What did he speak about?" Gaius' wife asks.

"I don't know." Gaius responds. "I didn't stay long enough to hear the verb."

 

 

Very funny!!! Have anymore? Maybe there should be a Roman jokes thread. Thanks!

[Pantagathus]

Some years back I was at a friend's place and his 9 or 10 year old kid was doing his homework. One of the questions he had to answer was : ''Who invented sailing ships ?'' According to the 'lesson' that went with the questionary, a piece of work by the teacher him- or herself, apparently, the correct answer was :

[Maty]

His army could not compete with Roman soldiery in a conventional fight.

 

A great post, and one I thoroughly enjoyed. But there's one sentence I'd quibble with, and that's the one above. As I recall Spartacus did compete with Roman soldiery in a fair fight - and beat them at least twice, and one lot of soldiery were a veteran legion from Gaul. (I'm counting the other time when he was caught between two Roman armies, and beat them one after the other as a single occasion.)

 

With inaccuracies in the movie, I seem to recall Crassus doing his decimating by pushing people off a bridge, which is innovative, but not what a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Crassus would have done.

[sylla]

His army could not compete with Roman soldiery in a conventional fight.

 

A great post, and one I thoroughly enjoyed. But there's one sentence I'd quibble with, and that's the one above. As I recall Spartacus did compete with Roman soldiery in a fair fight - and beat them at least twice, and one lot of soldiery were a veteran legion from Gaul. (I'm counting the other time when he was caught between two Roman armies, and beat them one after the other as a single occasion.)

 

With inaccuracies in the movie, I seem to recall Crassus doing his decimating by pushing people off a bridge, which is innovative, but not what a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Crassus would have done.

You know, this thread is about innacuracies.

As discussed in a recent Thread, our available sources are simply unanimous; the rebel army of the III Servile War (not all of them slaves) was more than able not just to compete with, but to systematically overcome the Roman soldiery in both conventional and unconventional figth from 73 to 71 BC, praetor after praetor, legate after legate and legion after legion.

Even without Spartacus they always represented a real nightmare for the Legions.

C. Cassius (the governor of Cisalpine Gaul) had at least two legions plus auxiliaries (the regular garrison) when he was utterly crushed.

The double army defeat must refer to the consecutive defeats of both consular armies for 72 BC, in fact more than once; those were definitely different battles at different times in different locations; the battles were consecutive, not simultaneous.

Stating anything else would be a huge innacuracy, as innacurate on its own as the Kubrick film itself .

Edited September 20, 2009 by sylla

[Emperor Goblinus]

I wonder if there was ever the inconsistency that roman Africans were black.not really an inconsistency but just plain ignorance

 

I haven't seen any such misrepresentations thus far but I do know what you mean. Perhaps The History Channel will ask Don Cheadle to play Septimus Severus!!! As I am writing this, they are broadcasting "Battles BC" with a ludicrously miscast actor playing Hannibal, plainly of sub-Saharan African descent and I do know there is an image elsewhere on this forum but I couldn't remember in which part.

 

Casting directors nowadays seem to think that if a certain character, such as Hannibal or Severus, is from Africa - per se - they must avoid offence by casting an actor of sub-Saharan ancestry. This, to my mind, is as offensive as Laurence Olivier 'blacking up' for his portrayal of Othello who, by the way, was a Moor and therefore of Arabic descent.

 

Hannibal was of Phoenician lineage and would have been of Middle-Eastern appearance and Severus was of Italian, Libyan and Phoenician mixed heritage. It doesn't seem to be realised that Roman Africa was a province in the north of the continent, populated by a mixture of indiginous peoples mixed with other ethnic groups, non of whom match those misguided portrayals.

 

There are so many lazy intellectual attempts in the media to portray historical characters in, what they see, as a sensitive and accurate fashion. In doing this they cause more offense to the reasonably knowledgeable than the most crass and chauvinistic representations of the past.

 

This is a good point. The vast majority of Africans in the empire would not have been "black."

 

Along this train of thought, I find it borderline offensive at how the Romans have been so thoroughly Anglicized. In so many artistic representations, they look, sound, and act like your stereotypical modern northern European. Now, this isn't entirely inaccurate, as some Romans in Gaul, Britain, and northern Spain probably did look more like northern European and less Mediterranean. But for most of Rome's history, both before and after the empire, they probably looked and sounded more or less like a modern-day Italian, Spaniard, Portuguese, or Frenchman does. I know that this is a very broad generalization, but I think that it's been drilled into the public conciousness that Romans looked sounded like Kirk Douglas Russell Crowe, when they really probably sounded more like Silvio Berlusconi. I think that it's a great disservice and insult to both Roman history and the Romance countries that the the quintessentially Mediterranean nature of the Roman people is often completely ignored in popular culture.

[sylla]

I wonder if there was ever the inconsistency that roman Africans were black.not really an inconsistency but just plain ignorance

 

I haven't seen any such misrepresentations thus far but I do know what you mean. Perhaps The History Channel will ask Don Cheadle to play Septimus Severus!!! As I am writing this, they are broadcasting "Battles BC" with a ludicrously miscast actor playing Hannibal, plainly of sub-Saharan African descent and I do know there is an image elsewhere on this forum but I couldn't remember in which part.

 

Casting directors nowadays seem to think that if a certain character, such as Hannibal or Severus, is from Africa - per se - they must avoid offence by casting an actor of sub-Saharan ancestry. This, to my mind, is as offensive as Laurence Olivier 'blacking up' for his portrayal of Othello who, by the way, was a Moor and therefore of Arabic descent.

 

Hannibal was of Phoenician lineage and would have been of Middle-Eastern appearance and Severus was of Italian, Libyan and Phoenician mixed heritage. It doesn't seem to be realised that Roman Africa was a province in the north of the continent, populated by a mixture of indiginous peoples mixed with other ethnic groups, non of whom match those misguided portrayals.

 

There are so many lazy intellectual attempts in the media to portray historical characters in, what they see, as a sensitive and accurate fashion. In doing this they cause more offense to the reasonably knowledgeable than the most crass and chauvinistic representations of the past.

 

This is a good point. The vast majority of Africans in the empire would not have been "black."

 

Along this train of thought, I find it borderline offensive at how the Romans have been so thoroughly Anglicized. In so many artistic representations, they look, sound, and act like your stereotypical modern northern European. Now, this isn't entirely inaccurate, as some Romans in Gaul, Britain, and northern Spain probably did look more like northern European and less Mediterranean. But for most of Rome's history, both before and after the empire, they probably looked and sounded more or less like a modern-day Italian, Spaniard, Portuguese, or Frenchman does. I know that this is a very broad generalization, but I think that it's been drilled into the public conciousness that Romans looked sounded like Kirk Douglas Russell Crowe, when they really probably sounded more like Silvio Berlusconi. I think that it's a great disservice and insult to both Roman history and the Romance countries that the the quintessentially Mediterranean nature of the Roman people is often completely ignored in popular culture.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Maty]

'Along this train of thought, I find it borderline offensive at how the Romans have been so thoroughly Anglicized. In so many artistic representations, they look, sound, and act like your stereotypical modern northern European. Now, this isn't entirely inaccurate, as some Romans in Gaul, Britain, and northern Spain probably did look more like northern European and less Mediterranean. But for most of Rome's history, both before and after the empire, they probably looked and sounded more or less like a modern-day Italian, Spaniard, Portuguese, or Frenchman does. '

 

Ummm, yes. As long as we accept that many northern Italians and Frenchmen are blue-eyed natural blondes. There were a number of Romans called Rufus, and this comes from red-headed 'Anglic types'. And Sulla was not just non-swarthy, he used to go horribly blotchy in the sun. Apparently he looked very Germanic. The Romans used to joke about people who tried to change their hair colour to artificial blonde, but there were undoubtedly many natural blonds about - Pompey being one.

 

As to how they sounded, that's anyone's guess. Attempts have been made to reconstruct the sound of 'original' Latin from the scansion of contemporary poetry (one effort famously deciding that Cicero should be pronounced 'kicke-roo') but no-one really knows.

[sylla]

... There were a number of Romans called Rufus, and this comes from red-headed 'Anglic types'. And Sulla was not just non-swarthy, he used to go horribly blotchy in the sun. Apparently he looked very Germanic.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

Ummm, yes. As long as we accept that many northern Italians and Frenchmen are blue-eyed natural blondes.

This could be a legacy of the Lombard invasion, or even the time when Gauls occupied Cisalpine Gaul. I have observed this in Northern and central Italy but not the south.