The Last Battle of Spartacus

53
In 72 BC the days of underestimating Spartacus and his army are over. “Spartacus was now great and formidable ... not only the unworthy shame of a slave uprising disturbed the Roman Senate. He was afraid of Spartacus, ”reports Plutarch. “The state was no less fearful than when Hannibal stood ominously at the gates of Rome,” testifies Orosius.


Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, 1960 Movie




The Senate of Rome understood the dangers of the situation. All the forces of the Republic that were available were sent to fight the rebels. The commander of the new army was Mark Licinius Crassus.


Lawrence Olivier as Mark Crassus, 1960 Movie


His purpose was largely due to the fact that Gnea Pompey, Lucius Licinius Lucullus and his brother Marc Licinius Lucull, who were considered the best commanders of Rome, fought outside the Apennines Peninsula. Moreover, there was no excess among the remaining commanders to go to war with the gladiators and slaves: the risk of suffering another defeat was very great, but the victory over such an “unworthy” rival did not promise great glory.

Appian reports:
“When the elections of other praetors were appointed in Rome, fear held everyone, and no one put up his candidacy until Licinius Crassus, distinguished among the Romans with his background and wealth, agreed to accept the title of praetor and commander of the troops.”


Crassus already had combat experience: during the II Civil War, he fought against Maria in the army of Sulla. Together with Pompey, he then won a victory over Spolecius, and later, commanding the right wing, overturned the left flank of the enemy in the battle at the Collin Gate. Now Crassus got the post of praetor and 6 legions, joined by consular legions of Gellius and Lentula. Thus, in submission he had from 40 to 50 thousands of soldiers, and with auxiliary units - all 60 thousands.


Roman army in the film "Spartak", 1960 year


The first loud deed of Crassus in this war was the ancient procedure of decimation — the execution by lot of every tenth warrior of the retreating units: thus, he clearly showed everyone that he did not intend to spare the "cowards". According to Appian, 4000 people were executed, and “now Crassus turned out to be more terrible for his soldiers than the enemies who defeated them.” According to the same author, these executions were carried out as follows: one of the junior commanders touched a warrior who was drawn, and a dozen other nine soldiers beat him with sticks or stones until he died. The survivors did not have the right to spend the night in the camp, instead of wheat bread they were given a "disgraceful" barley - which was fed by gladiators.

But soon after the appointment of Crassus, the situation on the fronts of the Republic changed. During the feast in Spain, the talented Marian commander Quintus Sertorius was treacherously killed, after which Pompey easily defeated the rebels who remained without an acknowledged leader. In Thrace, he won and was preparing for the return home Mark Lucius Lucullus. And therefore, in the fall of that year, the Roman Senate decided to appoint a second commander for the war against rebellious slaves. The choice fell on Pompey. Crassus, who was always jealous of the glory of Pompey and therefore in a hurry to end the rebels on his own, was extremely displeased with this appointment. He besieged the army of Spartacus in Regia (according to another version - north of the Furies). However, according to some historians, Spartak was just waiting in a camp prepared by him, when winter storms would pass and pirate would come to his aid flotilla.


Cilician pirate, still from Spartak, 1960


Many researchers now believe that with the help of pirates, Spartak planned to organize landings in the rear of Crassus (to surround the Romans, and not to evacuate his army at all, as the author of the wonderful novel Rafaello Giovagnoli believed). The fact is that the rebel slaves did not, in general, have any place to go. Close Sicily was just a large cage with limited human and material resources. The Romans would not leave impudent slaves alone and would not give them this island. By the way, Plutarch understood this, arguing that Spartak planned to transfer the entire 2000 man to Sicily - in order to raise a revolt there, this detachment was quite enough. It was unlikely, perhaps, that the rebels had any strength to establish their own state in Tsizalpinskaya Gaul. The path to “Shaggy” Gaul lay across the Alps, and there would not be very happy about the Latinized Gauls of Spartak (especially Thracians and people of other nationalities). In addition, the powerful Gallic tribe of the Edues at this time acted as an ally of the Romans, sending their warriors to them as mercenaries. The Gauls and Germans of the army of Spartacus, who initially did not fully trust their companions, and, eventually, separated from them, had nothing to do in Thrace. And it was too late to go there - Mark Licinius Lukull already finished off the last rebels. No one was waiting for the rebels in the tamed Pompey of Spain. And there was absolutely no place to go to the natives of Italy - both free people who joined Spartacus and slaves. However, information about the appointment of Pompey forced Spartacus to abandon the original plans and begin hostilities. Part of his army broke through the defensive line of Crassus and defiantly moved to Rome. The losses of the rebels were great (up to 12 thousands of people), but Crassus "was afraid that Spartak would decide to move swiftly to Rome" (Plutarch). Having rushed after parts of Spartacus, Crassus wrote to the Senate a letter demanding that he urgently call Lucullus from Thrace and speed up the return of Pompey from Spain. The remaining "unguarded" part of the troops of the rebels, unrestrained by anyone, went to the operating room. But at the same time, the army of Spartak split: a part of it remained in Bruttiya, a part was in Sylar, and Guan Gannik’s squad was in Lucania at that time, who probably had been acting independently for a long time: some data suggest that the leaders of the rebel gladiators, Spartak and Crix, from the very beginning formed two different armies. Orosius writes:
"Kriks had an army in 10 000 people, and Spartak - three times more."


Later, he also reports that Mark Krass defeated Spartak's "auxiliary troops," and he says so about the Kriks army — a detachment of Gauls and Germans. And the auxiliary troops in Rome were called independent units, which were temporarily attached to the army performing the main task. And it is very likely that Spartacus and Kriks had completely different views on the war with Rome, different plans, and their alliance was temporary. When the contradictions between the armies of the rebels reached their maximum, Cricks began to implement his, unknown to us, plan. Spartak led his army to the north, to Tsizalpinskaya Gaul, while Crix finally separated from him and headed south. On the way, his detachment underwent a flanking strike in the most adverse conditions - on a small peninsula surrounded by water on three sides. Cricks was killed in a battle at Mount Gargan, but the Romans could not destroy his army, which had escaped from the trap and was now retreating to the south, leading the army of consul Gellius behind them. The consul pursued them for some time, but then turned north - towards Spartak, who had already defeated the army of Lentul (another consul):
"When Lentul surrounded Spartacus with a large number of troops, the latter, striking with all his forces in one place, smashed the legates of Lentul and captured the entire wagon train."

(Plutarch.)

Then it was the turn of the army of Gellius, who was in a hurry to meet him:
"Consul Lucius Gellius and praetor Quintus Arrius were defeated by Spartak in open battle."

(Titus Livius.)

After defeating the consuls, Spartak honored the memory of Kriks and the Gauls who died with him, arranging gladiatorial battles in which 300 noble Roman prisoners of war were forced to participate. At the same time, Spartak allegedly said then:
"Kriks was a brave and skillful warrior, but a very bad general."


The Last Battle of Spartacus

Paul Kinman as Crix, Spartak, 2004



Spartak honored the memory of his fallen comrades by arranging gladiatorial battles in which noble Roman prisoners of war were forced to participate, a frame from the movie Spartak, 1960.


Kriksa was replaced by the Kannikas Gaul, who was often called by the Roman name Guy Gannic, which means that he had the rights of a Roman citizen: not one of the Roman historians reproached him for appropriating this name and no one doubted the right of Gannik to wear it. Most likely, Kriks, Gai Gannik and his deputy Kast were Gauls from the Insubra tribe, who had previously lived in the province of Tsizalpinskaya (Predalpiyskaya) Gallia, whose capital was Mediolan (Milan). This province was also called Middle Gaul and Gaul Togata (since its inhabitants wore togas like the Romans).


Cisalpine Gaul



Gaul in the I century BC


But some researchers, ignoring the numerous indications that Crix was a gall, consider him a Hellenized Italic from the Samnite tribal union.


Tribes of Italy on the map



Roads of Ancient Rome in Italy scheme


In 89 BC all personally free inhabitants of Tsizalpinskaya Gaul received Roman citizenship, the Samnites received citizenship in the same year. Therefore, it is likely that Crixes, Gannic, and Castes (regardless of their nationality) were Roman citizens. And all three fall under the definition of Plutarch and Sallust:
"Roman citizens who heroically defended freedom from the tyranny of Sulla, thrown into a dungeon for gladiators."

(Plutarch.)

"People are free-spirited and famous, former fighters and army commanders Maria, illegally repressed by dictator Sulla."

(Sallust.)

So, part of the soldiers of the army of Spartacus, in fact, could previously have been free people, opponents of Sulla, after the victory of which, were unfairly sold into slavery. This may explain their unwillingness to be close to "real" slaves and the desire to act separately. Even the defeat and death of Kriks did not make them unite with the army of Spartacus.

Let's go back to 71 BC and we will see a detachment of Gannik and Kasta, standing apart from the army of Spartak - at Lake Lucan. It was this detachment of the rebels that was closest to the main forces of Crassus, who immediately tried to strike at him with superior forces. He was prevented from doing this by the time Spartak approached:
"Going to the detached part, Crassus pushed her away from the lake, but he did not manage to beat the rebels and turn them to flight, because Spartak, who quickly appeared, stopped the panic."

(Plutarch.)

But in this case Crassus showed himself to be a skilled commander. Frontin reports:
"Dividing the cavalry, he ordered the Quince to send part of it against Spartacus and lure him with a pretense view of the battle, and with another part of the cavalry to try to lure the Gauls and Germans from the detachment of Caste and Gannik to battle, and under the pretense view of the battle to lure them to where he himself stood before his army in battle order. "


So, Crassus managed to divert Spartak’s attention by imitating an offensive, while the main forces of the Romans smashed Gannik’s army:
"Marc Crassus at first happily fought part of the runaway slaves, consisting of Gauls and Germans, killing thirty-five thousand slaves and killing their leader Gannik"
(Titus Livius).

Dustin Claire as Guy Gannik, Spartak Gods of the Arena, 2011


Despite the inequality of forces, the battle was extremely fierce - according to Plutarch, “the 12 300 slaves fell. Of these, only two were wounded in the back, all others fell in the ranks, fighting against the Romans. "

But the main surprise was waiting for Crassus in the Gannik camp. Frontin reports:
"Five Roman Eagles were selected back, twenty-six military badges, many military spoils, between which there were five Liktor liaisons with axes."


The list of trophies - just fantastic. Because in the famous battle in the Teutoburg Forest (9 AD), the Romans lost three Eagles, in the wars with Parthia - two. And these losses in the battles with "full-fledged" enemies were considered a disaster. And then it turns out that only a squad of Kriks-Gannik-Caste 5 defeated the Roman legions.


Aquila - Roman Eagle, Bronze, Oltenia Museum, Bucharest, it was previously gilded


Learning of the defeat of Gannik and Casta, Spartak retreated to the Petelia Mountains. On the way, he defeated Quintus and Quaestor Skrofy, who were pursuing his legacy:
“When he (Spartak) turned and moved on them, there was a stampede of the Romans. They managed to escape with difficulty, carrying the injured questor away. ”

(Plutarch.)

The same author reports:
“Success ruined Spartacus, because runaway slaves were extremely proud. They did not want to hear about the retreat, did not obey the chiefs and with weapons in their hands they were forced to go back through Lucania towards Rome. ”


It is difficult to say how it was in reality, but Spartak moved precisely to Lucania. A number of historians suggest that the goal of Spartacus was still not a campaign against Rome: he probably intended to turn to Brundysius. This city was a strategically important port - all-weather, protected from storms. In Brundizii there were large reserves of supplies, and also - it was the site of the most likely landing of the army of Lucullus. In addition, in this way Spartacus took Crassus from Pompey, whose troops were already in Tsizalpinskaya Gaul, and got the opportunity to smash the enemy commanders in turn. However, the troops of the governor of Macedonia, Mark Lukulla (brother Lucius Lucull), had already landed in Brundizii and the leader of the rebels was in the position of Napoleon at Waterloo.

"Spartak ... I realized that everything was dead, and went to Crassus."
(Appian.)

This was his last chance - to smash the Romans piece by piece, before their armies united.

Orosius reports that the last battle of Spartacus took place in Lucania - at the head of the Sylar River. Eutropius claims that Spartak gave this battle near Brundisius - in Apulia. Most researchers prefer this version. One way or another, in January, 71 BC around 4 hours of the day, Spartacus's cavalry stumbled upon the Crassus army, which was engaged in the arrangement of the camp (half of the army was building the camp, half of them were in military guard) and attacked it without permission. It was the only battle of Spartacus, which did not develop according to his plan, and not at all the battle that the great commander would like to give.

"Since on both sides more and more people were in a hurry to help, Spartak was forced to build his army in battle order."

(Plutarch.)

Plutarch argues that in his last battle, Spartak fought on foot:
“A horse was brought to him. Drawing a sword and saying that if he wins, he will have many beautiful enemy horses, and if he is defeated, he will not need them, Spartak stabbed the horse. ”


However, if the commander of the rebels and killed the horse before his last battle, then, probably, for ritual purposes - sacrificing him. Knowing that Spartak led the blow against Crassus’s headquarters, it’s logical to assume that his squad was equestrian. Appian says: "He (Spartak) already had enough riders." He also writes that Spartak was injured by a spear "doration", which was used by cavalrymen. Probably Spartak himself at the time of the wound fought on horseback. This version is confirmed by a fragment of a mural found in Pompeii, in which a rider, named Felix, spears a wound in the thigh of another, over whose head there is an inscription "Spartacus".

Modern reconstruction of the mural found in Pompeii


On the second part of this fresco, a Roman warrior from behind strikes an enemy in an unnatural posture - perhaps this is an image of Spartacus’s last moments.

So, realizing that in case of defeat, his army was doomed, Spartak decided to take a chance and hit the center, where the enemy commander stood:
“He rushed at Crass himself, but because of the mass of the fighting and the wounded, he was unable to reach him. But he killed two centurions who had joined him in the battle. ”

(Plutarch.)

“Spartacus was hit in the thigh with a dart; Kneeling down and exposing a shield, he fought off the attackers until he fell along with a large number of his own, who were near him, surrounded by enemies. ”

(Appian.)

"Spartak himself, fighting bravely in the first row, was killed and died, as would be the quasi imperator - the great emperor."

(Flor.)

"Defending himself with great courage, he fell not unmanned."

(Sallust.)

"He, surrounded by a large number of enemies and courageously reflecting their blows, was finally hacked into pieces."

(Plutarch.)


"The death of Spartacus." Engraving by Hermann Vogel


The body of Spartacus was not found.

Perhaps personal participation in the attack of the enemy was a mistake of Spartacus. It was the panic that swept the troops of the rebels after the news of the death of the leader, and led to their complete defeat. There was no one to gather the retreating troops, no one to organize a proper retreat. However, the rebels did not intend to surrender: they were well aware that death would await them anyway — no one would buy slaves who had fought for two years against Rome. Therefore, according to Appian, after the defeat:
“A large number of Spartacists still took refuge in the mountains, where they fled after the battle. Crassus moved on them. Divided into 4 units, they fought back until everyone was killed, with the exception of 6000, which were caught and hung along the entire road from Capua to Rome. ”



Appian Way (modern photo), along which 6000 slaves were crucified along the crosses


Flor writes about their doom:
"They died a death worthy of brave people, fighting not for life, but for death, which was quite natural among the troops under the leadership of the gladiator."


In the "hunt" for the fled slaves, Pompey managed to take part:
“Fate would still like to make Pompey somehow participate in this victory. The 5000 slaves who had escaped the battle met him and were killed to the last man. ”

(Plutarch.)

However, for a long time the remains of the army of Spartacus were disturbed by the Romans. Only after 20 years, according to Suetonius, their last detachment was defeated by Bruttius propretor Guy Octavius ​​- the father of the future emperor Octavian Augustus.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    30 March 2019 06: 32
    A delightful collection of Roman sources on the topic!
    Sincerely, Valery The article was a success!
    1. +9
      30 March 2019 08: 09
      Roman sources ???
      Which ones are literal or material? In which edition?
      And archaeological sources, because they are no less important.
      1. +4
        30 March 2019 08: 26
        Allow me to support you? - the topic is not fully disclosed. There is no photo from the ballet `` Spartacus '' by Armen Khachuituryan ...
        1. +1
          April 1 2019 08: 19
          Armen Khachuityuryan ...
          That's right - Aram Ilyich Khachaturian (Khachatryan)
      2. +5
        30 March 2019 09: 40
        Well, what kind of desire to demonstrate your erudition is not the case and out of place? And what other sources are there? And archaeological ... Do you want the author to describe the burials of crucified slaves?
        1. 0
          30 March 2019 17: 56
          I would like clarification: Were they hanged or crucified? Those are 6.
          1. VLR
            +15
            30 March 2019 18: 30
            The Romans did not consider death itself a punishment, but precisely the torture before death - the executed should not have died too early, without experiencing the "prescribed" amount of pain and torment. Therefore, crucifixion was a very common form of execution. And death was considered "liberation" for those executed in Rome. Therefore, the Roman centurion (centurion Gaius Cassius Longinus) showed mercy by striking the crucified Christ with a spear and ending his torment.
            Slaves along the Appian Way were, of course, crucified.
            1. +2
              30 March 2019 21: 40
              I have always been interested in the fates of people and things accompanying that event: real, apocryphal, metaphysical ... Judas, Agasfer, Barabbas, Longinus, spear, shroud ... Who are they, what are they, what happened to them?
              1. VLR
                +3
                31 March 2019 11: 33
                By the way, the blow of Guy Cassius Longin is, in fact, the first description of euthanasia!
            2. -5
              April 1 2019 04: 15
              ..nothing and nothing was crucified ... Rome was founded by the Dolgoruky brothers in the 13th century .. Jesus Christ (1152–1185) ... All the tales of the Old Arbat .. Venice stands on stilts from Siberian larch ..
        2. -1
          30 March 2019 22: 18
          "And what to do with cleverness, cleverness?"
        3. +10
          30 March 2019 22: 43
          no, well, if you take as a basis not this
          https://history.wikireading.ru/243137
          and see professional materials. or want to say that no excavations were made in Italy? For example - at the place of battles (battles) ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
  2. +4
    30 March 2019 07: 19
    I remember from my childhood, there were colored pencils, called "Spartacus", on the box was a picture of Spartacus from the above fresco, a dart protruded from the thigh.
    1. +7
      30 March 2019 08: 03
      Yes, there are pencils! And what about the Spartak football teams? Sports societies, sports clubs, military hunting associations? Candy factory "Spartak" ("oh, you are our sweeties, Spartak! feel ) ... "Union of Spartacus" in Germany in the early 20th century. ... the uprising of the Spartacists in 1919! And finally, Spartak Mishulin! fellow
  3. +4
    30 March 2019 07: 46
    Good. One of the things that Giovanyoli remembered as a child was decimation. Beat your own so that strangers are afraid. And it acts in different eras.
  4. +10
    30 March 2019 07: 52
    The battle in the Teutoburg Forest - 9 A.D. 6th century AD typo? And what do archaeological excavations say at the supposed site of the last battle of Spartak? And, as an option - Spartak did not see any options - on the approach of Pompey and Lucullus, Crassus’s army was clearly larger in number after breaking from the peninsula and a new split that came to be destroyed at Lake Lucan. If even in the face of the enemy in the army of slaves, they could not reject their differences? If each Crixus, Enomai, Gannicus and Cast imagines himself a strategist and they have followers. Who did not understand the strategy of Spartak. And we don’t know to what extent the rest of the army has already split into factions on a tribal basis. So that perhaps Spartacus simply preferred death in battle, to a knife in the back. Spartak was able to create an army from what it was, but how to overcome internal differences in this essentially diverse tribe? So that Spartacus preferred the glorious death-Vercingetorix-captivity and shameful execution. To each his own ...
    1. VLR
      +8
      30 March 2019 08: 31
      Thank you for noticing a typo, the look was blurred by the constant alternation of the century-year, now we will replace it.
    2. +13
      30 March 2019 11: 57
      Who did not understand the strategy of Spartak

      I am afraid that Spartak himself did not understand Spartak’s strategy. If everything is more or less clear with tactics, then we don’t know anything about the ultimate goal that he pursued. He did not intend to free slaves, in any case not a single source speaks about this. And if he had freed, then what would he do next? He could not lead the empire, and he was unlikely to, otherwise he would besiege Rome without waiting for Crassus and Pompey and Lucullus to corner him. Nothing is clear, except that the army of Spartacus was doomed initially. Defeat is only a matter of time.
      Valery! Thank you so much for the article!
      1. +7
        30 March 2019 23: 02
        But to me, just with the tactics and it is not clear, what formation did Spartak use? For example, when both consular armies were defeated? Yes, they write that he used a proven Roman organization, BUT it is unlikely that it is not enough to form legions, cohorts, maniples, centurias to fight in open battle formations, building cohorts, and even more so manipulating all these "free" and not free peasants, shepherds, etc. I still had to train, and this is not one, and not a couple of months. The ability to keep formation, to maneuver in formation, such skills are acquired not even in one year, but here a series of constant battles, an army in constant motion ...
        By the way, Spartak's strategy can be traced quite clearly, at the initial stage of the uprising, to leave Italy and sweep away everything that would interfere with this movement. This can be seen from the almost straightforward movement of the army. Why did the army turn back? We will never know this. Our sources are information on the one hand, Roman. Spartacus did not write his memoirs "Notes on the Italian War". I did not give an interview. It's a pity that Sallust's work has hardly survived. Perhaps there were some answers to many questions in it? But already when the army of Spartacus moves back, the meaning is not clear. But this can be explained - Spartak is the leader, but he does not have absolute power and there was a large number of Italians in the army, for whom the house is here, and not there. And for Spartak's army, the "red line" was the "Gallo-Germanic" curse, it was the Gallic "units" that were regularly laid out and weakened the army. The last desertion of Gannik and Kasta generally looks like complete Critenism. Of course, it is possible that during the breakthrough of the "Crassus line" it was their units that suffered the greatest losses, which caused resentment and anger that led to a split, who knows ...?
        And about the fact that only the Romans could defeat the Romans? Probably Neoptolem (Pyrrhus), Hannibal, (Spartak himself), Viriat and Decebal would not particularly agree with you. By the way, can a respected Author take the trouble to make out, if possible, a couple of battles of Spartak, the same rout of the consular armies, and we will discuss?
        1. +1
          30 March 2019 23: 20
          Thank you Oleg! Always informative and informative comments from you! I am proud of the community at the place of birth.
          1. +3
            31 March 2019 00: 57
            Goodnight. Thank you for your kind word, Countryman!
      2. +3
        31 March 2019 00: 12
        Quote: AK1972
        Nothing is clear, except that the army of Spartacus was doomed initially. Defeat is only a matter of time.

        Perhaps some kind of understanding may appear if you look at its origin. As you know, the name Spartak was not found in any known people ... except ... except for ONE people, where at that time the SPARTAKID dynasty was just the rule, rules for about five centuries, the name Spartak, except the founder of this glorious dynasty, is the name was borne by at least four Kings - with different intervals up to Spartacus 5, not counting the princes of blood. Such a name could be carried only by representatives of this dynasty, in any case, other cases are not known.

        And yes, the glorious King Mithridates headed this dynasty at that glorious time!

        To the question of how the well-known Spartacus got first to Thrace, then to the Roman legions, and from there to the arenas of Rome and Capua, we will simply answer - just like other representatives of his family and people in the past centuries. The same Achilles, Hercules or other less known now fellow tribesmen of Spartacus - they were exiles of their land. Such was the tradition - for an unworthy act, but under extenuating circumstances, the offender was expelled from the "environment of the righteous" to a specially designated place on Earth for sinners ... and of course this place was called (and still does) Greece.

        So it turns out that Spartak began an uprising and war with the front behind enemy lines to help his relative and the head of his kind, Mithridates ... You did not work out for both ...

        But both life and death were NICE!
        1. VLR
          +7
          31 March 2019 00: 34
          Spartacus's dynasty (through O) was interrupted in 109 BC. The Romans knew about Spartokids, they would hardly have confused - Spartok would not be called Spartak. It would have been a pleasure to declare Spartacus a member of the overseas royal dynasty, because it is not so shameful to suffer defeat from such an opponent. But none of his contemporaries, and then did not even try.
          By the way, the only possible (unlikely, but possible) potential ally of Spartacus and especially the "Gauls", who, most likely, are really repressed supporters of Maria is the rebellious Marian commander Sertorius. Maybe Spartak originally wanted to break through to him - to Spain?
          1. 0
            April 2 2019 04: 03
            Surprisingly, several times I came across a version about the origin of Spartacus as "the son of a certain king from Thrace." It was a long time ago and I don't remember the sources, but I came across them even in fiction.
            As for the letter "A" instead of "O", then very often in the pronunciation of o easily changes to a, especially when playing a foreign name in a foreign country.
            Recognizing Spartak as a relative of Mithridates, Rome was just not profitable - this could cause a much greater panic in the Metropolis than just an uprising of slaves. And the actions of Spartak as a commander were above all praise, which does not correspond to the level of a simple gladiator or even a former Roman legionnaire / junior commander. Here, charisma alone will not be enough, here (as the Zoroastrians say), Hvarno (grace \ God's gift) is necessary, and not the Hvarno warrior, but Hvarno Kavian (royal). I don’t know how Spartak is, and Mithridates was certainly a Zoroastrian.
            If in the eastern provinces of Rome they learned that a relative of Mithridates was crushing Rome in the Metropolis itself, they would never have separated from Mithridates, but, on the contrary, would have rallied around him. That is why it was profitable for Rome to call Spartacus a "despicable slave" who dared.

            I do not feel any respect for Rome and its history, and to be honest - to culture. Another thing is Mithridates - a hero worthy of study, respect and reverence ... But he is also our relative.
            1. 0
              April 3 2019 21: 05
              Dear, I’m extremely weak in history, and even more so in Antique. I wonder what exactly Mithridates the third received such respect, honor? If not difficult, state the essence.
              1. 0
                April 3 2019 23: 42
                There is a wonderful film about Mithridates, shot by the Crimeans. I watched it while relaxing in Crimea on local TV. Look on YouTube, for sure there is, but I don’t remember the name. A large article is needed to describe the whole life of Mithridates, but I don’t have enough time for this.
                1. 0
                  April 10 2019 20: 14
                  Well, at least a little.
  5. +5
    30 March 2019 09: 36
    Very good stuff, Valery! Bravo!
    1. VLR
      +7
      30 March 2019 12: 16
      Thank you very much for the rating, positive feedback from you is always very pleasant. Yes
  6. 0
    30 March 2019 09: 41
    A very interesting story about Spartak. I learned a lot for myself that I did not know about the battles and campaigns of the gladiator general.
  7. -1
    30 March 2019 12: 27
    Wonderful material, thanks to the author. hi
    As for the topic itself, I agree with the user AK1972 (Alexey) in the part where he writes
    Quote: AK1972
    I am afraid that Spartak himself did not understand Spartak’s strategy.

    To this, one can only add that the complete absence of a coherent strategy is due to the complete absence of any political program, which, in turn, is due to the equally complete absence of an ideological base. smile
    Hannibal lasted longer in Italy, was never defeated there, but in the end he was forced to leave. Spartak had nowhere to go. Even if we imagine that Spartacus took Rome - the capital of the then "not empire" ( smile ), it would not change anything in his fate, he and his case were doomed initially.
    1. +3
      30 March 2019 12: 55
      Thanks for the comprehensive addition, Michael. You deployed exactly what I meant. In my opinion, there was no strategy, no political program, no ideological base. There was only an incredible desire to exterminate as many hated Romans in revenge for the illegal enslavement of a free citizen (I think that Spartak was still a Roman, since only a military man who perfectly knew the tactics of the Romans could beat Roman legions) with a full understanding of the inevitability of death. He preferred shame to death.
      1. +1
        31 March 2019 10: 54
        Quote: AK1972
        In my opinion, there was no strategy, no political program, no ideological base.

        I think you yourself gave the answer above. To paraphrase it a little and expand.

        The army of Spartacus (all rebels) is a Roman oecumene squeezed to people - representatives of all peoples with whom it contacted, but without territories.
        Each nation has its own views on life and wants to live and act in its own way. Like nowhere else, in the case of Spartacus, the principle of "Divide and Conquer" is visible. Although the Romans did not have to share it, the main thing is not to interfere and not to impose their values ​​on everyone. Having common values ​​and goals will be the same.

        Then we get. If a certain number of rebels have one idea, then they unite and detach from the general mass (cry, ganic ...) All the rest, a motley amoebic Brownian mass, was held together only by the name of the power of Spartacus - this is the "god" who held and led them together wherever he wants. He was gone, and the whole army was gone. And his lack of a clear goal is direct evidence of the lack of common interests among the entire mass, this is a white movement in a civil war under tracing paper. True, White never found his own Spartak.
  8. +11
    30 March 2019 14: 36
    Behind the pictures and phrases of Mr. Ryzhov lies ... emptiness.
    Here in the comments enthusiastic
    A delightful collection of Roman sources on the topic!

    And where is this analysis?
    Does he just mention names? Like - Plutarch, Flor, and so on?
    If the analysis is - then the name, edition, translation, paragraph, page. Where is it?
    Or take a word?
    Next - we are talking about the battle. Where is the disposition of the parties, the balance of forces, the analysis of the stages of the battle? But the course of the battle is known and very interesting.
    We do not know not only about losses, trophies, but also do not see a causal chain leading to the corresponding result.
    All of these gaps are likely to replace pictures from popular films.
    In general - about nothing. This is especially offensive, given the level of the author. We know who he is.
    Article bold minus.
    Very sorry
    1. +3
      30 March 2019 18: 30
      "Welkam" !!! Write better, we will read it with pleasure. All in your hands!
    2. +8
      30 March 2019 22: 38
      What are you what are you Sergey))
      For YOUR articles, only full approval is allowed
      1. -3
        30 March 2019 23: 24
        Sorry, you have not confused the sections of the site? "Opinions" with "history"?
        1. +5
          31 March 2019 07: 29
          What does the sections have to do with it. mixed up or not.
          All the guys say correctly. Licked from an Internet, and the sources are only mentioned. More precisely, one group.
          There are no archaeological sites at all. Although excavations are underway in Italy. This is the Turks forbid to dig the Roman-Byzantine layers
    3. -1
      April 1 2019 10: 55
      Quote: denatured alcohol
      If the analysis is - then the name, edition, translation, paragraph, page. Where is it?

      And this is not the case, since there are no references in the primary source that served as the basis for the article, namely A. Valentinov "Spartacus". https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=10205 - for those who want to get acquainted in more detail. Actually, some of the gaps and the absence of causal ones are caused by the fact that the author simply excluded a significant part of the original text.
  9. -1
    30 March 2019 18: 28
    Dear Valery! Many thanks for continuing the topic! To all adequate commentators, too!
  10. 0
    30 March 2019 20: 31
    Quote: Albatroz
    And archaeological sources, because they are no less important.

    And where to get them? Finding a place of an ancient battle is almost impossible. Especially in Italy, where there were similar battles ...
    1. +9
      30 March 2019 22: 39
      And where to get them?
      If you familiarize yourself with the source base on the topic, you will also leave for comments on archaeological materials
    2. +5
      31 March 2019 07: 27
      So this is unrealistic for someone who copy-paste what is on the internet, but for those who are interested, everything is real
      1. +3
        31 March 2019 14: 55
        Quote: Brutan
        So this is unrealistic for someone who copy-paste what is on the internet, but for those who are interested, everything is real

        Quote: Albatroz
        And archaeological sources, because they are no less important.

        Seriously, such comments with respect to Valery Ryzhev are not perceived otherwise than the level of grudge .... Especially, given the format of VO with its limitations in volume, and the demands of opponents to reveal the artifact side of the fight between Spartak and Rome ....?
        So for those who imagine themselves in the subject. The time frame of the uprising of Spartacus - from 100 years BC Before Christ on the Apennine Peninsula covers more than 9 thousand works and studies, if on average we take one report for 1000 typewritten pages, we get about a million sheets!
        So the opponents pearls that the Turks do not give, but the Italians organize expeditions and we want to read them ...... ??????
        My other information that I have cited is taken from Italian sources, kindly calculated by Italians at my request, and in the end the graduate student who made this verification for me also noted that there are at least 1000 archaeological works in German, French, English, but alas, not yet translated into Italian!
        So, even if Valery refused the archaeological component in his article, he did absolutely right! However, the journalism and the archaeological monograph which the Italians taught me after my "attacks" to count the "mustache" are like two poles of the planet! In both cases it’s cold on them, but in one case the ocean is underfoot, and in the other the mainland!
        Thanks to D. Liadze, who kindly agreed to give the impudent Russian - the initial figures and a monograph on the excavations in 2015. Moreover, he also maliciously explained that the Italian language is more informative in writing than Russian! 23 letters - this is for you - 33 !!!
  11. +1
    30 March 2019 22: 26
    Thanks for the article, I was always interested in the history of the ancient world.
    It has long been for myself to conclude that Spartak was not an ordinary slave, I think he was a former warrior and not from the lowest ranks, a military gift is of course from above, but also an acquisition of skill that was visible to Spartak from the very beginning of his exploits.
    PS. In vain, of course, he remained within the empire. Such a person had the approaches to create his own state, since there was enough space then.
  12. VLR
    +3
    31 March 2019 00: 47
    Quote: Albatroz

    And archaeological sources, because they are no less important.

    A small article based on an analysis of the works of Roman and Greek (Plutarch) historians that have survived to our time. It was not intended to write a comprehensive study or monograph. "Archeology" was not included in the plan, it is necessary to write a separate article on this topic, those who wish can try it.
  13. +6
    31 March 2019 01: 20
    Yeah. We do not know exactly what Spartak was guided by, where and why he led his army (or army?), The origin and life path are unknown.
    But his leadership gift allowed him to take a place in History, which his winner Crassus did not even dream of.
    And sports societies, and proper names in honor of him, and not in honor of Crassus or Pompey.
    Here is the result: 30-40 years of earthly life, and now 2100 years of eternal existence. Incorporeal, but real. And that means - a great historical figure! And if he is also a Roman by birth, then Hugo with his “you cannot become a hero fighting against the Fatherland” (“93rd year”) is not quite right.
  14. 0
    31 March 2019 10: 34
    In order of clarification - and Spartak could not go to Dacia? NJA, Burebista, and later, Decebalus, willingly accepted Roman defectors
  15. 0
    31 March 2019 18: 41
    Well what to say. Weak article. Already reviewing at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences would not have been accurate. However - it suits here, because almost everything is completely delighted)
  16. 0
    April 2 2019 15: 12
    Quote: VlR
    By the way, the blow of Guy Cassius Longin is, in fact, the first description of euthanasia!

    Did Christ ask for death? It seems that euthanasia is a voluntary departure of a sick person from life.
    1. VLR
      0
      April 2 2019 17: 33
      Crucifixion is a terrible punishment, accompanied by terrible agony, a person on the cross very quickly becomes tormented by even every breath, but he cannot die for a very long time. And therefore everyone executed through crucifixion dreams of death. The Gospels speak of fear
      and the anguish of Christ on the eve of his arrest, and about his torments of the cross, therefore, he was no exception, and suffered for real. And, of course, dreamed of stopping these torments, from which only death could save. Therefore, the blow of a spear for him was certainly an act of mercy. And, of course, he couldn’t ask for him - the procedure for executing him, in fact, did not envisage: the executed one had to suffer on the cross for several days.
      1. 0
        April 2 2019 18: 21
        Everything you wrote is correct. But I "clung" precisely to the formulation of euthanasia and the fact of Christ's consent to a quick death by a spear. If someone mentions that Christ asked for death, then this can be regarded as euthanasia, and if not, then there is pure murder, albeit through an act of mercy and deliverance from torment.
  17. 0
    April 4 2019 08: 18
    Hmm .... Gauls, Germans .... Where did so many Gauls and Germans come from, if the last major wars with these tribes died down long before the uprising, and Caesar's wars were still far ahead? Maybe, after all, those who consider the "Gauls" and "Germans" to be gladiatorial corporations are right? Only the Thracians could have been enough for a couple of legions - the Romans just fought with these tribes at the time of the mutiny, the captured Thracians should have been enough. Theoretically, the Gauls could appear as a result of the slave trade, since the Celts themselves were constantly at war with each other; prisoners could well be sold to the Republic. But the Germans? Judging by the situation and the Roman authors, it was the Germans who constantly disturbed the Gauls and more often won the upper hand in battles (soon Caesar will face Ariovistus just at the request of his Gaulish allies, whom this German has spoiled with blood). So to recruit so many German prisoners so that they make up a noticeable percentage of Roman slaves is unrealistic.