Military Review

Was Spartacus gifted commander?

94



Not so long ago on the site was published an article about the revolt of Spartacus. In the comments there was a dispute about the talent of Spartacus as a commander. This question has remained open, although in general it is quite interesting and, by and large, poorly lit. By stories The uprising of Spartacus has a rather extensive literature in which the Italic slave movement of the 1st century AD. BC er It is considered in many aspects, with the possible exception of analysis from the point of view of the art of war, there are very few serious literature and articles.

It is known that Spartak had a well-armed and equipped army of about 70 thousand people. It was built according to the Roman model, it had in its composition light and heavily armed infantry, cavalry, reconnaissance and messengers, it had a considerable transport and workshops for the manufacture weapons. The system of continuous education, strict adherence to the camp and camp routine, night posts and guards, a high level of discipline made the army of slaves invulnerable for a long time. The army of the rebels went through victorious battles twice throughout the Apennine peninsula, and Spartak himself lost at the same time only one major battle - the last. That is why Spartak’s strategy and tactics attract attention. That is why it is interesting to consider those events in the military-historical perspective and to try to find out, if possible, what place Spartacus occupied in the row of talented commanders of antiquity.

Spartak, as pointed out by A.G. Bokshanin, was a former mercenary of the Roman army, and, therefore, knew all its shortcomings, its sluggishness in difficult terrain conditions and slowness, stretching on a march. He mastered the tactics of combat in mountainous and rugged terrain (for which Flohr called him a mountain robber), depriving the Roman army of the ability to use throwing equipment and the power of a heavily armed infantry in open battle. After all, it was precisely by this time that the role of a ballist and catapults in a field battle had increased, machines appeared lightened up and put on wheels, which, for example, A.A. Strokov in his "History of military art." In addition, since the time of Mary, the Roman army was strongest in open field battles. Spartak imposed war on her in mountain conditions and immediately seized the strategic initiative in her own hands.

When considering this crucial element of the strategy, it is first of all necessary to touch upon the question of Spartak’s overall strategic plan. Regarding this plan in the historical literature there are several points of view. Some historians, referring to Appian, consider the main purpose of the Spartak campaigns to be the rout of Rome. Others, sticking to the version of Plutarch, believe that Spartak sought only to bring the slaves out of Italy. Still others, for example, LB Ratner, in the article “On the issue of the reasons for disagreements in the army of Spartacus,” without denying the plan to withdraw slaves from Italy, suggested that “under favorable circumstances, Spartak did not refuse to march on Rome in order to avenge the enslaving enemies and cause them as much damage as possible. ". In general, two points should be noted in the actions of Spartacus: bypassing Rome and the desire to avoid collisions with the Roman troops. Bypassing Rome at first glance is puzzling. After all, during the first march to the Alps, Spartak, having a large army, could go to Rome, but he kept away from it. In the second campaign, when he turned back to the south, his army was again separated from Rome by the Apennines, although now, after the defeat of both consuls, it could freely go to Rome.

Was Spartacus gifted commander?


In various articles and books, the authors often look for the answer to the question: what prevented Spartacus from moving to Rome? But none of them tried to answer the question: why did Spartak have to go to Rome? Suppose he would besiege Rome. But could he hope that the Roman citizens would not offer him enough resistance, that the victorious Pompey would not move to Rome at that very hour, and that Lucoull, who had successfully fought Mithridates, would not hurry to return from Asia? On the contrary, each of them will try to do this as quickly as possible, if only to put down the rebels and dictate their terms to the senate, which Crassus and Pompey subsequently tried to do without disbanding their armies. The capture of Rome, associated with heavy losses, essentially did not give anything, since the city of Rome is not the whole state, and Roman legionnaires could be recruited to fight runaway slaves in any of the areas not occupied by the rebels. A long siege of the city could negate all efforts to rally and organize troops and turn it from a monolithic mass into separate groups of rebels and robbers. In addition, the siege of cities was uncharacteristic for the military tactics of the time, and this was sometimes done very ineptly. Hannibal, for example, writes S.I. Kovalev in the "History of Rome," besieged Sagunt for eight months.

Most likely, Spartak from the very beginning rejected the idea of ​​an attack on Rome. Such a conclusion is also made possible by the fact that no ancient author mentions the presence of siege weapons in his army. Their absence clearly indicates Spartak’s overall strategic plan: to withdraw as many slaves as possible from Italy. This is also indicated by the routes of his campaigns. Thus, having a well-defined task in front of him, Spartak tried to avoid collisions with the enemy and entered into battle only with the immediate threat of the enemy or if he impeded the advancement of the insurgent army.

To this end, Spartacus successfully applied maneuvering tactics. To avoid persecution, he often spoke at night. Here is one example. When, according to S. Frontin, the praetor Varini blocked the way to the rebels, intending to give a general battle, Spartak hammered pillars in front of his camp, to which he tied the corpses of armed soldiers, so that “they looked like a military guard for those watching from afar”, and in the camp ordered to kindle more bonfires. Having misled the Romans, at night he led his troops away. ”

Long transitions Spartak makes with exceptional speed, once again proving the organization of his troops. Sallust has an account of the further struggle with Varinius. Finding a good conductor from among the prisoners, Spartak, hiding with the army in the Pizentskiye, and then in the Ebureinskiye mountains, arrived at the Estuaries of Lucani, then at dawn on the Anniya forum, which was a complete surprise to the locals. The maneuver is very skillful, unexpected even for residents, not to mention the Roman troops, who on the same day tried to “restrain and keep silent” to attack the vacant camp of the rebels.

We can say that Spartak defeated the Romans by avoiding unfavorable battles. However, his tactics were not at all defensive in nature, but consisted in waiting for the right moment to attack the enemy. In the struggle with the praetor Claudius, the army of Spartacus made an unexpected descent from Vesuvius and suddenly attacked the Roman army. This episode is very vividly described by Plutarch. The researchers, speaking of the military talent of Spartacus, have often cited such a brilliant maneuver as an example. By the way, according to some historians, the rebels descended not from the outside of Vesuvius, but through internal crevices.



Spartak often used such a tactical technique as an ambush. It is believed that after the escape from the gladiator school, Spartak set up an ambush and broke the Roman squad. Plutarch writes the following about this: "First of all, the gladiators rushed to the detachment that came from Kapui." Such an attack is most likely an ambush. Plutarch reports on another ambush of Spartacus, when he lurked adviser Cossinius and "almost took him prisoner while he was swimming near Salin." When Cossinius managed to escape, Spartak immediately took possession of his carts and, chasing on his heels, after a "fierce massacre" seized the camp. Cossinius himself fell.

Curiously, Spartak immediately captures the Roman wagon train. Sources mention the same fact in the battle with Hell. Too big a carriage was a mistake of the Roman commanders: he tied the army, made it less mobile. In the stories of ancient authors one can often find messages that Spartak captured the camp of one or the other commander.

Especially it is necessary to emphasize the ability of Spartacus to beat the enemy piecemeal. The leader of the rebels applied this tactic already in the battles with Warinius. Plutarch wrote that the slaves, first of all, engaged in battle with one of the assistants of Varinius, Fury, and defeated him, and then the same fate befell another assistant, Kossinia.

Spartak achieved even greater success in battles with the consuls who opposed him in 72 BC. er When Spartak moved through the Apennine Mountains to the Alps, Appian writes, “one of the consuls was ahead of him and closed the path to progress, while the other was catching up behind.” The Roman generals undoubtedly had a plan to surround and destroy the rebel slaves. Then Spartak, having learned from the scouts that Lentull was ahead, stopped and entered into a decisive battle with Hell, who was following him. Obviously, Gellius did not have time to group his forces (it is possible that his army was too long on the march) and suffered a severe defeat. Then Spartak, concentrating all his forces on one direction of impact, smashed the legates of Lentulla and captured the entire wagon train. Cassius with a ten thousandth army rushed towards Spartak, moving to the Alps. In the ensuing battle, the army of Cassius was defeated, and he himself barely managed to escape. As we see, Spartak, successfully applying the tactics of crushing the enemy in parts and concentrating forces for delivering a decisive blow, won brilliant victories.



The Romans were so frightened by the defeats of the consuls that during the next election of the commander no one agreed to stand as a candidate. Then the command of the army took over the famous rich Mark Krass. "Many of the nobility went with him on a campaign due to his fame and friendship with him." The army this time was not composed of recruits, as in Varinius, but from soldiers who already have combat experience. In the army of consuls, Crassus disciplined such a punishment as decimation (penalty by lot of every tenth who escaped from the battlefield) and immediately took into account the difficulties caused by a large transport, filling up, apparently, the shortage of food and fodder among the local population. His army pursued Spartacus on the heels. However, Crassus was in no hurry to give Spartak a battle, fearing for the outcome of the battle, despite the eight legions entrusted to him, which, taking into account all the auxiliary troops, was 80 thousand people. Note that Pompey in Spain, in the war against Sertorius, had only six legions at his disposal. In addition, Crassus understood that in two years Spartak had managed to turn his army into a highly organized and disciplined army, always ready for battle.

As a reasonable commander, trying to achieve victory with little blood, Crassus, in such unfavorable conditions for himself, takes the right decision: to deprive Spartak of freedom of movement. He blocked the narrowest point in southern Italy, equal to 15 km, the moat, above which he erected a wall of "great height and strength", thus creating the first kind of fortified line. Caesar subsequently used such fortifications during the famous siege of Alesia, after which they took a firm place in Roman military tactics and strategy.

However, Spartak overcame these fortifications of Crassus and went deep into the Apennine peninsula. In order to better understand this success of Spartacus, we must remember that he had a rather significant cavalry. In addition, he knew not only the tactics of the Romans, but he was also familiar with the basics of fighting barbarians, because at one time he fought in the troops of the Thracian tribes against the Romans. As is known, barbarian tribes widely used cavalry. In this regard, by the middle of 1 c. BC er Roman tactics changed somewhat. M. Markov in the History of the Cavalry writes that “the Romans, like the Gauls and the Germans, mixed cavalry troops with light infantry and more often than before, each rider was attached to a lightly armed soldier, whom he, in case of need, carried on a horse for myself. Such a combination of cavalry with light infantry is particularly seen in Caesar. "

It is believed that Spartak used the same technique when breaking through the fortifications of Crassus. To this he could be compelled by the fact that he had to sacrifice part of the cavalry in order to fill the moats with the bodies of dead animals. Spartak carefully prepared for this operation, and only when "he had enough riders gathered, he broke through the trenches with the whole army." Considering the numerous information in various articles and books (T. Mommzen, who wrote about “trained cavalry units” in the Spartacus army) first drew attention to the formation of Spartak cavalry, we can safely say that in the army of the rebels it was given very great importance . And if we assume that the cavalry in the army of Spartak was used as an independent branch of the military, then the speed with which Spartak moved, and its elusiveness, which led to despair of the Roman generals, becomes quite understandable. The widespread use of cavalry allowed Spartak very long to own the initiative. By the way, in the battles of Cannes (216 BC), Hannibal successfully used his more numerous cavalry, which not only threw off the weak Roman cavalry, but also participated in the encirclement and destruction of the main forces of the Roman infantry infantry, although the number of Roman troops surpassed the army of Hannibal.



For Crassus, the breakthrough of the fortifications was a complete surprise. He rashly even wrote to the Senate to be sent to help Pompey. Prior to that, the Roman commander used cautious tactics, avoiding battles, although he spoke out against Spartacus in order to, after defeating the slaves, make himself a political career. But, realizing that, without giving a major battle, he could lose his political prestige, Krasa made the decision not to shy away from the meeting.

Spartak is now in extremely adverse conditions. On the east coast of Italy, in Brundisia, the governor of Macedonia Lucull landed with the troops, the Pompeii senator hastily approaching from the north, Crassus advancing from the south. In order to prevent the unification of the Roman troops, Spartak takes the only correct decision: to give battle to Crassus. He builds his army in battle order. All the ancient authors write about the correct structure of the Spartak army. The battle initiative belonged to Spartacus.

Very curious idea of ​​this battle. Knowing that the chances of successful completion of the battle in the open area of ​​the rebels are low, Spartak decides to use a psychological trick: to kill Crass during the battle and thereby cause confusion among the Romans left without a commander. To achieve this goal, Spartak, at the very beginning of the battle, led the most prepared and well-armed detachment and ran into the ranks of the Roman army and tried to break through to Crassus. That is what Plutarch tells. However, due to the huge mass of the fighting and the wounded to get to the Roman commander did not work. The detachment, while detached from its main forces and was surrounded. Spartacus died.



This case is not the only one in history. Even Cyrus the Younger tried to use this technique in the battle with Artaxerxes at Kunaks in 401 BC. h According to Xenophon, Kira managed to injure Artaxerxes, but he himself died. The largest slave uprising led by Spartacus suffered a defeat. The main reasons for the failure of the uprising were that the Roman Empire was still strong enough, the slave-owning mode of production continued to develop and did not exhaust its possibilities. One of the main reasons for the military defeat of Spartak is that it could not cut off enemy communications, since the Romans could find a base for food and fodder anywhere on the Apennine Peninsula. In addition, Spartak could not carry out a broad strategic maneuver on a limited territory of Italy and, in the end, was forced to fight Crassus in an open area so as not to be surrounded by three Roman armies. Actually, Hannibal also encountered the same difficulties in Italy.

There is no need to talk about all the reasons for the defeat of the uprising. Our task is to show how skillfully Spartak conducted the battle. Sneakiness, speed, maneuver combined with his suddenness of attack, frequent ambushes, the ability to beat the enemy piecemeal, a brilliant way out of encirclement and courage in open battle. Maneuvering large forces, by the way, for the first time after the war with Hannibal, the use of cavalry as an independent kind of troops, the desire to seize a strategic initiative - this is what characterizes Spartacus as a strategist and tactic. It can be argued that the military art of Spartacus played a certain role in the development of military affairs in ancient Rome, and Spartak anticipated Caesar’s many military reforms.

Sources:
Fields N. The Revolt of Spartacus: The Great War Against Rome: 73-71 BC er M .: Eksmo, 2012. C.14-94.
Lobov V. Military trick. M .: Logos, 2001. C.38-40.
Kovalev S. History of Rome. SPb .: Polygon Publishing House LLC, 2002. C. 2015-224, 476-480.
Protasov S. The Antique Tradition on Spartak Uprising // Uchenye zapiski MSU. No.143. C.18-23.
Strokov A. History of military art. M .: Military Publishing. 1966. C.39-41.
Gorskov V. Military art of Spartacus // VIZH. 1973. No.8. C. 87-89.
Bokshchanin A. G. Parthia and Rome. M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1966. C.51-53.
Author:
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nix1986
    Nix1986 11 May 2016 07: 14
    +24
    We must admit the obvious from the very beginning - Spartak could not defeat Rome, the resources are simply incomparable. Therefore, the main task was to withdraw the slaves from the borders of Rome, to which he was very close. But intoxicated by success and greedy for robbery, slaves forced him to return to Italy, where his end was a foregone conclusion.
    1. qwert
      qwert 11 May 2016 07: 18
      +23
      There are among my friends (and naturally among the members of the forum) Rome fans. They never recognize the talents of either Spartacus or Hannibal. And they will persistently minus the article without even reading. If we ignore attachments and fanaticism, then go through the Roman Empire with an unprofessional army, and for so many and for a long time - this could clearly only be an extraordinary person. Although personality is possible. Surely in the army of Spartacus there were generals and something like a military council.
      1. EvgNik
        EvgNik 11 May 2016 08: 04
        +7
        Quote: qwert
        There are among my friends (and naturally among members of the forum) Rome fans

        I do not like the word "fans", this is a little ennobled "fanatics". And they differ in that they can perceive only one point of view - their own. And basically you, Edward, are right.
      2. Predator
        Predator 11 May 2016 10: 10
        +4
        Hi colleague, I’m not a fan of Rome, but I have to admit that at that time there were no stronger Roman legions (Well, maybe except for the Parthians with their armored cavalry). And Spartak knew that he would lose in a direct battle and it’s not even a matter of the commander’s talent, and in general training of soldiers (well, what else to call them), you can’t train an army in 2-3 years to the level of legions (using knives, this is not learning to fire from a gunshot and like to fall-dig in). I think he’s storming Rome did not plan at all, Rome, according to conservative estimates of historians at that time, could expose about 100 thousand only soldiers (legionnaires) and at least 200 thousand militias (citizens) and where to go to Rome with 70-100 thousand?! And behind the back are three more armies of Rome. If Spartak left with Apenin, I think that they chased him anyway wouldn’t be destroyed yet. And as a strategist, he was good.
        1. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 11 May 2016 17: 03
          0
          Quote: Predator
          And as a strategist, he was good.

          And as a talented organizer.

          Quote: Predator
          If Spartak had left the Apennines, I think that all the same, he would have been chased until they were destroyed.

          I will put forward a version that the army of Spartacus could move either to Spain, where it could join with Sertorius, or continue the work of Savmac in Sicily. In both cases, if Spartacus were lucky, Rome got problems up to his nostrils. Still, I think that the Marians were behind Spartak. From there and "aimless" campaigns from the north to the south of the Apennine Peninsula.
        2. cheap trick
          cheap trick 11 May 2016 17: 03
          -3
          I wonder why during the siege of Rome, the Germans did not put up 100 thousand + 200 thousand militias? And they took the city just like a gate opened.
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 11 May 2016 17: 35
            +2
            I do not agree with the estimate above, but I'm afraid you have beguiled the centuries.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 11 May 2016 20: 38
            -2
            Quote: cheap trick
            I wonder why during the siege of Rome the Germans did not put out 100 thousand + 200 thousand militias?

            And why, when the Turks took Constantinople, the city was defended by 5000 people with a population of 50?
            And the capture by the Romans of Jerusalem? With a million people?
    2. Riv
      Riv 11 May 2016 08: 18
      0
      Then, as a consequence, it must be admitted that Spartak was not such a "commander". What is this military genius controlled by his own soldiers? :)

      In fact, everything is not so simple. Spartacus really threw the Romans on the cheek for a long time. But even the Roman "conscript" knew a lot. He even joined the legion sometimes with his weapons and armor, and after a short training he turned into a very serious fighter. To overthrow this fighter, there is not enough numerical superiority. You need discipline. Is it easy to introduce it into the army of yesterday's slaves? A slave can be made into a soldier only if he fears his commander more than the enemy. That is, the order of Spartak had to be not just harsh, but how harsh the arctic fox. Until the shooting in front of the formation for improperly tied laces.

      And with such discipline, the question of disobedience, or the imposition of their will on the commander by the soldiers, could not even arise.
      1. Predator
        Predator 11 May 2016 10: 13
        0
        My friend! Read about the citizen in Russia!
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 12 May 2016 18: 25
        +1
        Quote: Riv
        And with such discipline, the question of disobedience, or the imposition of their will on the commander by the soldiers, could not even arise.

        I heard about decimation among the Romans.
        How was this with Spartak?
        In general, I think that while Spartak was numerically superior, he managed to smash the enemy. What can two Roman terbats do with the reserve commander against 20-30 thousand gladiators?
        But when regular troops with experienced generals went into business, everything fell into place. Yes, and the army was diluted with shepherds and cooks
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 11 May 2016 20: 43
      0
      It is interestingly written in Valentinov's book "Spartacus". There are many assumptions and explanations of actions.
      In general, the history of successful uprisings did not seem to be. At least not supported by the population.
    4. Portolan
      Portolan 12 May 2016 02: 04
      -2
      according to the latest research by Fomenko and Nosovsky, it is noted that there have never been GOLDEN DEPOSITS in Italy, there were no gold deposits in Europe (except for northern Europe), and there would be no gold coins either, and if we take into account the REMOTE OF ITALIAN ROME from trade routes , as well as the complete INABILITY to conduct business considering Roman numerals, the very existence of the "Roman Empire" becomes doubtful, to put it mildly.
      There are already too many objections to the existence of this historical phantom. Not to mention all sorts of "Spartaks, Hanibals" and "Punic wars", so the discussion of hallucinations is second order schizophrenia.
      1. Anglorussian
        Anglorussian 12 May 2016 05: 04
        +3
        Look at the buildings left over from phantoms. Even now it’s impressive. Or is it all the lizards from Nibiru?
        1. Portolan
          Portolan 12 May 2016 08: 00
          -1
          Quote: Anglorussian
          Look at the buildings left over from phantoms. Even now it’s impressive. Or is it all the lizards from Nibiru?


          EVERYTHING is not at all those dense centuries, these ruins fall into the Middle Ages, but the "Colosseum" was built like that in the 19th century, the real Colosseum is located in Istanbul
          1. Anglorussian
            Anglorussian 12 May 2016 11: 21
            +3
            What is Istanbul? In Kiev! In Istanbul, a miserable copy! And if it’s serious, then the great Ukrainians, in comparison with some visitors to the site, are the top of the adequate.
            the real coliseum is in Istanbul
            1. Portolan
              Portolan 12 May 2016 11: 54
              -1
              Quote: Anglorussian
              What is Istanbul? In Kiev! In Istanbul, a miserable copy! And if it’s serious, then the great Ukrainians, in comparison with some visitors to the site, are the top of the adequate.



              Fig. 5. Brickwork of the Colosseum arena. It can be seen that the edges of the bricks are upholstered in a very ordered manner and the upholstery was made BEFORE the masonry, and not over the centuries (which they tried to depict). Bricks are fastened together by a composition very reminiscent of 2007th century cement. Photograph of XNUMX.



              Fig. 4. The brick wall of the Colosseum arena is laid out “antiquated” from brick with specially upholstered edges. Moreover, almost all the brickwork of the Colosseum arena is just that. Photograph of 2007.

              http://loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=51871&p=1
              1. Anglorussian
                Anglorussian 12 May 2016 12: 22
                0
                Have you seen this very Colosseum in real life? And the concrete dome of the Pantheon? That's it. But the Romans just led and invented concrete, and masonry techniques by the way, too.
                1. Portolan
                  Portolan 12 May 2016 14: 18
                  -3
                  Quote: Anglorussian
                  Have you seen this very Colosseum in real life?


                  I am not, but I am the same as millions of those who have seen and who DID NOT SEE. It is easy to conduct ordinary people in such matters, just say that the masonry is "old" and people hawala. That's why you need to read the books of those who look at problem from a different angle.

                  Quote: Anglorussian
                  And the concrete dome of the Pantheon? That's it. But the Romans just led and invented concrete, and masonry techniques by the way, too.


                  Well, this is an unsubstantiated statement, and if the "Roman Empire" is an induced hallucination, then all these types of "Roman" antiquities automatically leave for other times, and maybe the "great and clever" Roman people themselves are aggressive aliens of the 17th century, who simply destroyed Etruscans-Rus, well, they appropriated their merits.
                  1. Pomeranian
                    Pomeranian 12 May 2016 14: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Portolan
                    . Ordinary people are easy to lead in such matters, just say that the masonry is "old" and people hawala.

                    Interesting version. Now, if you explained in detail to the "people" why these fakes were made, it would be happiness for us, people.
                    1. Portolan
                      Portolan 12 May 2016 15: 17
                      0
                      Quote: Pomoryanin
                      Interesting version. Now, if you explained in detail to the "people" why these fakes were made, it would be happiness for us, people.


                      amusing to you? well, take and read the FN "secrets of the colosseum" and you will understand everything, maybe
                      1. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 12 May 2016 16: 30
                        +2
                        Quote: Portolan
                        well, take and read FN "secrets of the colosseum"

                        That is, you do not have your own thoughts ???
                        I will add, I KNOW how and when and why the so-called "New Chronology" appeared. bully And I read it at the end of 80's almost in handwritten form. It already seemed to me delirium to me then. At the present time, I'm just sure of that.
                        And yet, if you have something to say, explain in your own words: why did you need to fake history in such resource-intensive ways as the construction of the Coliseum and the Great Wall of China? Although I suspect you have nothing to say. Like your idols.
                      2. Portolan
                        Portolan 12 May 2016 18: 28
                        -1
                        Quote: Pomoryanin
                        That is, you do not have your own thoughts ???


                        You might think you came up with a new historical concept. However, some sort of gag can always be blurt out, but here's to prove the problem.

                        Quote: Pomoryanin
                        And yet, if you have something to say, explain in your own words: why did you need to fake history in such resource-intensive ways as the construction of the Coliseum and the Great Wall of China?


                        As a rule, falsifiers do not create a phenomenon out of the blue - there is not enough mind, the same stonehenge in which a concrete pillar looks through the chipped plaster, most likely strongly modernized, i.e. a temple-structure supplemented with new stones - details. The Colosseum very possibly also has at the base some ancient ruins, which were then built on with a remake. Tutankhamun's tomb, as Nosovsky wrote, who examined the interior frescoes, was able to grasp with a trained eye that the frescoes had already been painted in antiquity, although other artifacts are most likely genuine. Schliemann forged Priam's gold, but at the same time took advantage of the very real Turkish ruins, calling them "three." The pyramids are made of concrete, which has been proven, a chemical analysis of the samples has been made, and it can be seen that the "ancient stone" crumbles like bad plaster.
                        As for the coliseum, that is, the real coliseum in Istanbul, which is confirmed by old maps and old ruins that have survived to this day.
                        Quote: Pomoryanin
                        Although I suspect you have nothing to say


                        say something and say on the case is a big difference, usually people like you talk a lot and consider it a manifestation of the mind, but this is not so meaningless talk can not be smart, not useful.
                      3. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 12 May 2016 18: 51
                        -1
                        Due to soil erosion, some of the parts of Stonehenge fell and were reinstalled. (Yesterday in the 20th) But according to the pagans that they use the Stonehenge as a temple at the solstice, they are allowed to go there for free as believers, there are no concrete details there.
                        usually like you talk a lot
                        I repeat, I saw this memorial myself.
                      4. Portolan
                        Portolan 12 May 2016 18: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: Anglorussian
                        I repeat, I saw this memorial myself.


                        and what's that? where did you look
                      5. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 12 May 2016 19: 14
                        +1
                        The real stone. And because of soil erosion, they needed to be stabilized. What under Thatcher and do. Or is Stonehenge also false, like the Colosseum? Is the Kremlin really real? Then Mona Lisa, too, after restoration to the wallpaper is suitable ..
                      6. Portolan
                        Portolan 12 May 2016 19: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Anglorussian
                        amenya real. And because of soil erosion, they needed to be stabilized. What under Thatcher and do. Or


                        Arctic fox, you don’t even believe your eyes, if only to support the TI, then that the Bradiks of brains have not been clear for a long time, but the fact that they are also eyeless, everything becomes clear on a large number of examples. fool
                      7. t7310
                        t7310 22 May 2016 18: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Anglorussian
                        The real stone. And because of soil erosion, they needed to be stabilized. What under Thatcher and do. Or is Stonehenge also false, like the Colosseum? Is the Kremlin really real? Then Mona Lisa, too, after restoration to the wallpaper is suitable ..


                        in color photographs of the 20s, the Kremlin was white so maybe the Kremlin that is now a remake and the original was destroyed during WWII
                        https://youtu.be/z8Ja2lGYHb0
                  2. Maegrom
                    Maegrom 12 May 2016 19: 12
                    +2
                    There is a poured piece of concrete, there is a series of photographs of the work on pouring this concrete. Very interesting work from an engineering point of view. It is not striking, if not concerned, but guarantees security. Previously, in this cavity they took a lot of fun and just liked to sit - they decided to seal it out of sin.
                2. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 12 May 2016 21: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Portolan
                  say something and say on the case is a big difference, usually people like you talk a lot and consider it a manifestation of the mind, but this is not so meaningless talk can not be smart, not useful.

                  Nude Nude. About the chatter you to the point. laughing Maybe your grace deigns to answer a specific question: why did you need to build the Coliseum in the 19 century and V.K. A wall in 20, as your associates and like-minded people say? I repeat: FOR WHAT? Will there be an answer?
                3. Portolan
                  Portolan 12 May 2016 21: 35
                  -1
                  Quote: Pomoryanin
                  Will there be an answer?
                  Reply Quote Report Abuse

                  what is not clear? under the special paradigm of history, special objects were built around the world, the rate is the highest POWER over the world ...
                4. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 12 May 2016 22: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Portolan
                  rate the highest POWER over the world ...

                  Okay. How does Machu Picchu influence your postulate? Or Stonehenge?
    5. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 12 May 2016 15: 18
      0
      It seems that you have an induced hallucination, but it’s absolutely nonsense of a staging (a big medical help)
      type "Roman" antiquities automatically leave
      1. Portolan
        Portolan 12 May 2016 15: 20
        -1
        Quote: Anglorussian
        It seems you have induced hallucinations


        when it seems to be baptized
        1. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian 12 May 2016 15: 39
          0
          Are you in the kitchen crushing cockroaches with a slipper and they intellect you?
          when it seems to be baptized
        2. Portolan
          Portolan 12 May 2016 16: 08
          0
          Quote: Anglorussian
          Are you in the kitchen crushing cockroaches with a slipper and they intellect you?


          what a cheap thing, on historical subjects such as you say anything, just off topic
        3. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian 12 May 2016 16: 25
          0
          Then there is no need to tell stories about religion to me. Although the statement about the construction of the Roman coliseum in the 19th century explains a lot.
          what a cheap, historical theme
  • The comment was deleted.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 11 May 2016 07: 32
    +7
    What a sin to hide, Spartak drank blood from the Romans ... Thanks to the author, a good analysis ...
  • surrozh
    surrozh 11 May 2016 07: 52
    -2
    The strategic goal - the withdrawal of the rebellious slaves from Italy - could easily be achieved before the encirclement of the armies of Rome. In addition, in his native Thrace with such an army, Spartacus could easily become king, but for some reason he did not. Also, the body of Spartacus was not found, there are vague doubts about the future fate of the leader. To "walk" in rich Italy with an ever-increasing army is the whole strategic goal.
    1. Sarmat149
      Sarmat149 11 May 2016 08: 33
      +7
      To become a king "in native Thrace", you need to kill the local king. Alas, the place is occupied and will not get it without a fight. Even having withdrawn his army from Italy, Spartak would have to advance in any territory with battles. It is not a fact that the passage through the lands of other states and tribes would have been bloodless.
      But in any case, I sympathize with Spartak.
    2. ver_
      ver_ 11 May 2016 09: 11
      -13%
      ...The Roman Empire. When the first campaign of the Huns - the Brothers of Yuri George Dolgoruky and his younger brother Yaroslav John to Europe took place - no Roman Empire existed at all .. The Roman Empire was "drawn" much later .. Taking for Gaius Julius Caesar George Yuri, and Caesar only the firstborn .. Because Dolgoruky was the eldest son of Vsevolod .. The Roman Empire is a phantom .., yeah, a fairy tale is a beautiful reflection of real events invented in the 15th century to confirm the antiquity and importance of the rulers of Italy. I'm waiting for a bunch of minuses ..
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 11 May 2016 10: 10
        +2
        Quote: ver_
        ... I'm waiting for a bunch of minuses ..

        And please ...
        1. Army soldier2
          Army soldier2 11 May 2016 11: 45
          +3
          It would be nice for you, dear ver_, to take a ride through modern Italy and look at the historical monuments of the "nonexistent empire".
          1. ver_
            ver_ 11 May 2016 12: 31
            +1
            ..all of these monuments were born in the 15th century ..
        2. Army soldier2
          Army soldier2 11 May 2016 11: 45
          +1
          It would be nice for you, dear ver_, to take a ride through modern Italy and look at the historical monuments of the "nonexistent empire".
      2. Pitot
        Pitot 11 May 2016 10: 25
        0
        I agree and support all 100%.
        By the way, for a similar opinion, they horrified me. Are they eyewitnesses of events or what?
      3. guzik007
        guzik007 11 May 2016 11: 13
        0
        .The Roman Empire. When the first campaign of the Huns - Yuri Brothers ....
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thanks to Seliger, the history of the world is shamelessly distorted. 99% of the population think with cliches driven from childhood. And as it actually was, I'm afraid we will never know. Although there are already our contemporaries who are trying ...
        I suggest to Thomas the unbelievers "Russia which did not exist" from Bushkov. You will not regret the time spent. It will make many people think.
        1. bandabas
          bandabas 11 May 2016 13: 18
          +1
          You will also suggest "Popadantsev". By the way, about Bushkov. I remember in the mid-90s his books were read voraciously, normally written action. I remember buying from bookstores. And now, 90% of what has been written is just about nothing. You can read the dung. The impression that the author is a different person.
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 11 May 2016 18: 11
          +4
          Quote: guzik007
          Thanks Seliger World History

          Poor Scaliger. Ek has twisted you ...
      4. Velizariy
        Velizariy 11 May 2016 11: 50
        -7
        The Roman Empire. When the first campaign of the Huns - the Brothers of Yuri George Dolgoruky and his younger brother Yaroslav John to Europe took place - no Roman Empire existed at all .. The Roman Empire was "drawn" much later .. Taking for Gaius Julius Caesar George Yuri, and Caesar - only firstborn .. Because Dolgoruky was the eldest son of Vsevolod .. The Roman Empire is a phantom .., yeah, a fairy tale is a beautiful reflection of real events invented in the 15th century to confirm the antiquity and significance of the rulers of Italy
        Drink some water - let go.
    3. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 11 May 2016 18: 06
      +5
      Quote: surozh
      To "walk" in rich Italy with an ever-increasing army is the whole strategic goal.

      I suspect that Spartak was simply not up to the strategy. The behavior of his army fits best into the model of shark behavior. The shark must swim all the time, even in a dream, otherwise it will die from a lack of oxygen.
      Spartak's army was in almost the same position, and it was not for nothing that the enemy convoy was primarily captured. I just had to eat something! Alas, behind Spartak there was no material and technical community of suppliers of armies of the Roman Empire. What he grabbed, he ate, nothing more. And robbery is only beautiful in the movies. In reality, it is difficult, time consuming and ineffective.
      In general, having assumed responsibility for gladiator friends and in general for the mass of slaves, the leader was trapped, from which he did not see a way out. Apparently, he tried to make the troops mobile enough to simply crumble, melt, scatter on the Roman border.
      Because banal hunger would have made his people robbers and enemies already in the lands of barbarians, had they come there with a single force. Crassus understood all this very well as a practical person. I just couldn’t hold my position ... In general, Spartak and his neighbors could get lost on the battlefield. It’s simply not able to continue to fight in this network without an exit.
      1. ver_
        ver_ 12 May 2016 05: 06
        +1
        ... the shark does not have a swimming bladder, which does not prevent her from breathing .., for a nap she sleeps at shallow depths at the bottom, and the water in the seas and oceans is not stationary, but moves (there are currents everywhere) ... On there is a movie on this topic ..
  • Riv
    Riv 11 May 2016 08: 09
    -5
    Well, as always, five cents from the technofascist? :)

    So it's worth starting with the fact that the terms "tactics" and "strategy" in the modern sense of these words did not yet exist at that time. Basic tactical principles were just beginning to be developed and applied. For example, Epamenondas first used the concentration of forces on the battlefield in the direction of the main blow somewhere 200 years before the uprising of Spartacus. Just nothing. In the battles of Spartacus, it is not noticeable that he had ever heard of this. For the first time, Julius Caesar more or less formalized the tactics, and modern tactics originate from Suvorov and Napoleon.

    In fact, Spartak's only technique is a frontal strike by a well-motivated light infantry supported by cavalry on the flanks. Breakthrough to the camp, robbery of the convoy. No "ticks", "boilers", deep detours and other delights of the 41st year. About walking through the slopes of Vesuvius is a fairy tale. Incidentally, such a breakthrough was by no means devoid of meaning. Without a convoy, the army of that time began to plunder the population and turned into a crowd of robbers. Crassus's decimations were precisely due to the fall of discipline.

    Well, about the strategic goals of the rebellious slaves, it’s even funny to talk.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 May 2016 09: 00
      +4
      Tactics arise even when a group of men with sticks tries to fight in formation. And the Roman army is already a very complex organization, which then cancerized all of Europe and the Mediterranean. Then a similar level of combat readiness and strength was reached only at the end of the Middle Ages.

      In those days, it’s difficult to talk about strategy, such a continuous stream of replenishment as in the era of mass mobilization armies, solid front lines, concentration of forces in the direction of the strike simply did not exist. The whole supply is either what you take with you, or plundered in settlements along the way. That is, the task was to force the enemy into battle in favorable conditions for themselves, and this is purely tactics. This is the army of the 20-th century, well, or even the 18-19-th can be deprived of the supply of fuel and ammunition and it will simply lose its combat capability when the gunpowder runs out, well, and a tank, or even a cannon on a tractor, is spending its combat potential just by moving diesel fuel, and equipment for any movement will have to leave. But you will not deprive the army with knives of combat capability by simply standing on the road along which you can deliver food, of course, if you block such an army, then sooner or later it will have to do something about it, but how long will it take? In the case of Spartak, who is anyway in the minority, and who can always be scored simply by pulling more forces from other provinces, there is no suggestion at all of any other strategy than avoiding possible battles.

      And yes, he was not going to leave anywhere, then in Rome they lived well in comparison with the other world, it’s better to break a couple of legions, so the enemy can find it easier to negotiate, will, citizenship, etc. than to spend even legions that are in Unlike various local auxiliaries, they tried to protect as much as possible.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 May 2016 08: 23
    +7
    The un gifted managed to score before they hit the pages of history.
  • qwert
    qwert 11 May 2016 08: 46
    +7
    Quote: Riv
    About going around the slopes of Vesuvius is a fairy tale.

    So with a flick of the wrist, one of the most famous moments of Spartak’s campaign turns into a fairy tale laughing As Alexander Bushkov says, it is strange when today's "historians" say that the witness to the events of a bygone era is wrong, but they, who live thousands of years later, know better how it was. hi
    1. Pitot
      Pitot 11 May 2016 10: 24
      +1
      It follows from here for me - was there such a person at all? Maybe about him and his rebellion - it's just works like ours from a series of fiction, fantasy?
    2. Riv
      Riv 11 May 2016 12: 33
      +1
      And this is like with the famous pigeons of Princess Olga, with whom she burned Korosten. Also a fairy tale, my little friend. First: a dove with a burning wick tied to its paw flies away from the nest. Stupid bird, but enough brains for it. And secondly: for you this is a pigeon - a bird of the world, and for drevlyans - it’s two hundred grams of well-digestible meat. Any bird that ventured to build a nest under the roof of the Drevlyansky hut was waiting for one fate - soup. There were no such stupid pigeons then.

      So it is with Spartak. Imagine the situation: a short Italian night. The darkness is only three hours. You need to climb down two hundred meters down the vines, then your gladiators will repeat this trick, then march (at night, Karl!) Eight kilometers around the mountain (and Vesuvius is rather big), prepare for the attack, attack many times more numerically adversary in a fortified camp and defeat. In my opinion, only a five-year-old child can believe this.

      The Romans can be understood. They were ashamed that they had missed Spartak, and so they came up with a story about how they got around from the rear. But we do not face such gullibility.
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 11 May 2016 12: 43
        0
        There is such a film, "The Legend of Princess Olga," I watched in Vick - 1983 edition.
        I watched it a long time ago. I don't remember much, but there Olga “herself” says that it’s all nonsense about birds, which bird will fly into the nest with fire ...
      2. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 11 May 2016 16: 53
        0
        Quote: Riv
        Imagine the situation: a short Italian night. The darkness is only three hours.

        Do you know for sure that the uprising began in June? And with the year of the uprising itself, not everything is clear either. There, Toynbee calls the period all the way from 75 of the year.
        Now imagine the December Italian night of 74, Carl ... winked
        1. Riv
          Riv 12 May 2016 12: 09
          +1
          Have I even said a word about summer ???
          I don’t remember who wrote (isn’t Appian?) That Spartak and his team were supposed to play games dedicated to Mars. Equirius, one of the main Roman holidays, was dedicated to Mars. Just at these games the gladiator was the easiest to die. It could have been easy and simple to provoke gladiators to escape.

          This holiday fell on the last days of February (there were also days in March dedicated to Mars, but not the essence). However, February is not December. At three in the morning it is already quite light, and at five the sun will already rise.
          1. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 12 May 2016 14: 35
            +1
            Quote: Riv
            that Spartak and his team were supposed to perform at games dedicated to Mars.

            In fact, Spartak could not participate in these games, since it was ore at 74 for a year. The version is not very, albeit quite logical.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 May 2016 12: 49
      +1
      It’s better not to comment on the concepts of Bushkov himself in history and much more.
  • King, just king
    King, just king 11 May 2016 10: 50
    +1
    No, well, the author does not burn for children!

    Well, where, where does information about the organization and tactics of the army, relations inside and outside, love stories, if it can be called that (army) of alleged Spartacus (it is not known what it is, maybe the nickname of a gladiator)? Yes, about this Spartacus "official" information is less than that of the gulka you know what, but the writings, volumes and volumes, the authors of the money on Spartacus hit hard.

    THREE, THREE numbered paragraphs at Plutarch, here, in general, it’s also
  • erased
    erased 11 May 2016 11: 09
    +1
    The article could be limited to the first part of the title:
    Was Spartak? ..

    All events until the 10th century N.E. according to the Scalligerian reckoning, unreliable. And the stories of ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, India, China and others - there is a fairy tale. On what is based - hell even understand. Either on the alterations of later events, or on the echoes of the real past.
    But to disassemble the grand wars of 3-4 millennia BC, of ​​course, is easier. Write anything there, everything in color. For no one will check. And troops of 2-3 million are normal. And you can 10 million.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 11 May 2016 16: 41
      +2
      Quote: erased
      For no one will check.

      This is if you are not an expert. For a specialist, for example, using an earthenware shard to calculate the approximate population of the excavated village is not difficult.
  • ver_
    ver_ 11 May 2016 11: 20
    -2
    Quote: Pitot
    I agree and support all 100%.
    By the way, for a similar opinion, they horrified me. Are they eyewitnesses of events or what?

    It's just that either the national peoples whose ancestors owned the Universe and ruled the world from their ulus, or inadequate people - who cannot distinguish grains from chaff and who are stinking from fairy tales like crows from shiny trinkets .. there is a proverb ".. a little fool, but red. these individuals lack logic and sense of proportion. Stubbornness is a characteristic feature of donkeys .. At least write them in the eyes - it's still God's dew .. On this they stood and will stand .. Now we will see how many minuses there will be ..
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 11 May 2016 12: 42
    +1
    Quote: ver_
    Quote: Pitot
    I agree and support all 100%.
    By the way, for a similar opinion, they horrified me. Are they eyewitnesses of events or what?

    It's just that either the national peoples whose ancestors owned the Universe and ruled the world from their ulus, or inadequate people - who cannot distinguish grains from chaff and who are stinking from fairy tales like crows from shiny trinkets .. there is a proverb ".. a little fool, but red. these individuals lack logic and sense of proportion. Stubbornness is a characteristic feature of donkeys .. At least write them in the eyes - it's still God's dew .. On this they stood and will stand .. Now we will see how many minuses there will be ..

    Try your own wonderful quote to your beloved and apply. In my opinion, great.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 11 May 2016 15: 43
      -1
      ..this is your way, but not my way ..
  • Nix1986
    Nix1986 11 May 2016 12: 48
    0
    Quote: qwert
    There are among my friends (and naturally among the members of the forum) Rome fans. They never recognize the talents of either Spartacus or Hannibal. And they will persistently minus the article without even reading. If we ignore attachments and fanaticism, then go through the Roman Empire with an unprofessional army, and for so many and for a long time - this could clearly only be an extraordinary person. Although personality is possible. Surely in the army of Spartacus there were generals and something like a military council.

    If you read Polybius, Josephus Flavius, Tacitus and other reliable sources, you can come to the following conclusion that the success of the Roman legions lay on 3 pillars: 1) The best preparation, armament and discipline of the Roman legionary (the legionary of the period of the empire was the best soldier of the era, a professional on a contract with good motivation and training) 2) Roman centurion - the ridge of the legion 3) competent tactical division of the legion and the organization of camp and engineering.
    But with the commanders and senior officers it was the other way around, the stands were young representatives of the nobility who had a short service life in order to receive civilian pretensions, and legates, often appointed due to personal ties or the desire to quickly become famous for the sake of a further political career. Therefore, it is fair to say that victories to the legions brought the qualities of a legionnaire and a centurion, despite the shortcomings of the legates and tribunes.
  • Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 11 May 2016 12: 49
    +1
    I read the previous materials about the uprising of Spartacus.
    And then he himself climbed to look for subtleties, nuances. The network climbed.
    And stumbled. http://culturgy.livejournal.com/595.html
    To whom it will be interesting - read.
    Get crazy, that's not much to say.
    ...
    Who was behind the rebellion of Spartacus? (1 from 9)

    Note: this text was written as part of an experiment as a response to bloggers. It is allowed to reprint any of its parts on any sites for free access, provided that authorship is preserved (Sergey Kornev) and a link to the author’s blog (culturgy.livejournal.com or kornev.livejournal.com).


    http://culturgy.livejournal.com/595.html


    ANCIENT ROME WITH THE EYES OF THE XXI CENTURY

    .
    I myself read in one go.
    Since I am distrustful of traditional history, this material was also very informative for me. (Actually - to the new chronology and the Laboratory of alternative history - also with distrust).
    But.
    But.
    I emphasize again - we artificially attribute our own modern attitude, mentality to the ancient era!
    And this is a mistake.
    Even our youth has a different mentality, their own language, their own preferences. Especially for bare ankles and torn pants with underpants.
    And what was two thousand years ago?
    ...
    Only basic instincts and feelings do not change - hunger, hatred, fear, love.
    Everything else is MAYA.
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 11 May 2016 19: 50
      +1
      Oh, I read it for three hours intermittently. Interesting. But reading, one must be in the subject, especially the civil wars of Rome.
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 11 May 2016 20: 12
      +1
      Interesting. But it is very controversial for a number of reasons.
      For example, contrary to familiar studies in the field of Roman economy. But I read further.
      E.Y. Official history as a science does not need trust. Everything there, if desired, is provable and verifiable within the framework of strict logic - this is science, regardless of the fact that those who are lazy to seriously study it would not write. The volume of the Empire, or even Fomenko’s entire work, could be read without checking (and if you would have checked it would have lost faith) it is several orders of magnitude easier.
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 11 May 2016 22: 12
        0
        So after all, and this is just a version. Although the logic for constructing conclusions is good, it is impressive. But what was actually there in the skull of a citizen of Spartak ....
    3. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 12 May 2016 14: 44
      0
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Everything else is MAYA.

      It is a pity that I did not come across this material before. My version is overgrown with meat! Hooray! I press you up arrow.
  • ver_
    ver_ 11 May 2016 12: 55
    -1
    Quote: Army 2
    It would be nice for you, dear ver_, to take a ride through modern Italy and look at the historical monuments of the "nonexistent empire".

    ..analysis of the bronze from which the she-wolf was cast who nurtured the brothers Roma and Remulus, the founders of Rome, showed that this sculpture was made in the 15th century .. So do not believe your eyes and do not be like "brothers" from 90 years old ..
  • Chisayna
    Chisayna 11 May 2016 13: 09
    +1
    ver.A where do you get your fantastic versions?
    1. ver_
      ver_ 11 May 2016 14: 49
      0
      ..there is such a type of memory - parasitic .., this is when the facts, data, which are of interest, remain for life - they are not forgotten ..
  • Svyatoslav
    Svyatoslav 11 May 2016 15: 06
    +1
    Information for consideration:
    Some facts. So:
    1. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, (1854-1946), Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, "History of mankind in natural-scientific coverage" (the work is known as "Christ". 30s, 5 thousand pages. A new periodization of ancient and medieval history is given ...
    2. Popular presentation of this work: "Another history of the Middle Ages" S. Valyansky and D. Kalyuzhny. 2001.

    3. Izoriya is written in accordance with the chronology of Scaliger (died in 1609)
    4. Here is data from Josh McDowell's book "Indisputable Evidence". By columns: Author - Time of writing (Trad. BC) - Oldest list (AD) - Difference (years) - Number of lists:
    -Caesar. 100-44. 900
    -Plato. 427-437. 900.1200. 7
    -Tacitus. 100 AD 1000. Less than 900
    Thucyditis. 460-400. 900
    -Svetonius. 75-160. 950
    Herodotus. 480-425. 900
    -Sofokl. 496-406. 1000
    -Demosthenes. 383-322. 1100. 1500.200
    -Aristotle. 384-385. 900
    There are NO genuine written evidences of antiquity, because there were none.
    7. The great scoundrel Heinrich Schliemann declared: "I was looking for the city of Troy, and I found the city. So this is Troy." (As you know, whoever pays calls the tune). This is how "indisputable" discoveries in archeology are made.
    8. History has never been and never will be an exact science.
    And you say "Fomenko !?"
    1. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 11 May 2016 16: 41
      +1
      I wondered once - how much one can believe in Traditional History.
      I scored a phrase in the search engine - falsification of history.
      How much has got out, mothers do not grieve.
      Already such materials have been laid out in the open, for example - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wella,_Giuseppe..died in prison. One must think for fraud.
      ...
      Asked a search - counterfeiters Titus Libya .. there were 115 thousand answers.
      ...
      And as the apotheosis of "noodles on the ears" - the unforgettable Poggio Bracciolini, 1380 - 1459, who already in those years was accused of authorship All authors of antiquity.
      Both Mark Tullius and Josephus Flavius ​​were equally accessible to this bowl, and ... anyone, in short.
      And he dug up all his "ancient" manuscripts in some ancient monasteries, which, damn it. such annoyance, they were destroyed exactly after he pulled out the books from there.
      ...
      I’m thinking at times, what quality of ink or paints should have been, what are the books of Herodotus or Anaximander there. could live up to the time when they began to rewrite.
      AND - WHERE? the most important thing ...
      Who will undertake now to rewrite, for example, Magnitsky's Arithmetic, say. And this is just the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th.
      We will believe that somewhere, in a cluttered cell, they found a half-rotten manuscript eaten by cockroaches and chevars - and with great enthusiasm they began to rewrite it - without understanding a single gram in the letters and text.
      Believe it?
      1. mroy
        mroy 12 May 2016 14: 25
        +1
        The collection of the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts of Matenadaran in Yerevan dates back its history from the XNUMXth century AD.
        As for the Roman texts, they were written in Latin, well known to the monks and used by the Catholic Church until now. And in the X century, probably still preserved. After all, the manuscripts of the VIII century reached us.
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 11 May 2016 18: 09
      +1
      How did you get it all! Are there really no specialized sites for Fomenkovites and others "as an amateur, I know better" historians?
      1. mroy
        mroy 12 May 2016 14: 11
        0
        There is nothing to be done, the test for fomencoid has not yet been invented during registration. And like any sectarian, they are aggressive, warlike and do not accept any point of view other than their own. And they are trying to carry their "true knowledge" to the masses.
        1. Bashibuzuk
          Bashibuzuk 12 May 2016 19: 38
          0
          Funny comments, no strength.
          You don’t want to, but you have to smile.
          Do you bros even understand - what am I talking about?
          And what do you hang your labels on - Fomenkoids, homunculi and the rest ... sectarians.
          ..
          By the way, I didn’t say a word about Fin and NH, nor a word about LAI.
          And he did not closely touch on the theme of the Middle East manuscripts and, holy, holy, is the Matenadaran Institute.
          Not a word about alternativeism.
          ..
          What are you talking about?
          About freedom of speech, religion, etc., etc. you know Or how?
          ...
          Extreme rejection of an opinion different from established - called retrograde.
          In your case, in general - dense, terry, rooted, STANDING.
          Sucks, in short, full.
          ...
          All historical works, facts, as there ... Vladimir said ... you can check and count.
          How to count? By whom? Check how?
          Quoting links to each other?
          ...
          Where did the Russian land come from? Story?
          From the Radzivilov Chronicle.
          Known in a dozen distinct lists.
          Is this evidence in your opinion?
          And everything else - rehash of the same manuscript.
          ...
          And I never met that such advanced historians like you would take and combine this same Radziwill balcony and the work of Mavro Orbini, Archbishop of Raguzh (who is not supposed to lie by vow).
          Or met like that?
          ...
          Met, give a link - check.
          And if that turns out to be true ...
          Then later, in public, on Red Square in Moscow, I will send myself.
          On an erotic journey.
          ...
          In the meantime .... there are others ..... Kritikanov.
          Traditional historians.
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 12 May 2016 23: 37
            +1
            There is a science of analyzing sources for a large number of objective parameters. It is quite strict and statistically verified. If you read academic publications, starting with Tikhomirov, you would have completely different questions.
            1. Bashibuzuk
              Bashibuzuk 13 May 2016 19: 55
              0
              Again, you will not understand what I mean.
              From the fact that we analyze ALL materials based on ONE source, nothing will change for us.
              The picture will be unshakable. History, respectively, too.
              The wise men from the "ivory tower" said that there are no stones in the sky - as they cut them off.
              Well ... no, then no.
              Then comets, meteors, meteorites and fireballs were discovered. It happens.
              ...
              Here the Greeks wrote that psiglavtsy and monopods live on the territory of Russia, who have one leg, but like a pancake, a pancake. They, they say, lie on the ground and are closed from the sun by this blade. Aki with an umbrella.
              As they swore on the cross - yes, yes. Just such. They even painted.
              Then only showed up .. lies. Cheap.
              ...
              To read. To read. To read.
              ...
              Well, let's say I read Gumilyov.
              So what?
              In addition to the fact that the indicated author really wanted to introduce a new term, they were personally invented by him, I learned nothing more.
              Why should I believe that Tikhomirov or someone else who did not do exactly the same thing? They promoted their stillborn opinions, thoughts and undercurrents of desire - to annoy anyone there in revenge.
              ...
              I also read Lem's Navigator Pirx. Stanislav, who.
              So he, very well ... in this cycle, as well as in others ... it is precisely this situation that is described.
              I hope you do not need to talk about S. Lem. And about his works.
              ...
              Just common sense.
              And the complete lack of application of data from ... and links to materials of eastern origin and storage.
              Slavia, Artania, Kuyavia .... where are these states in Russian history?
              And where do historians look?
              ...
              ...
              Yes, and completely missed.
              The protesters against F&N are aware of how much material, staff and mathematical apparatus was used during the "study of narrative texts"?
              Regardless of research results.
              And the result - zilch? Or HX ... so, no?
              1. Maegrom
                Maegrom 13 May 2016 20: 11
                -1
                So you philosophize, I used to love it the same way, then I began to listen and read relatively serious historians - it was completely removed. So I understand you perfectly, but I urge you not to put a barrier with your own restriction, but to continue to develop in a direction that seems to be of interest.
                1. Bashibuzuk
                  Bashibuzuk 15 May 2016 20: 23
                  0
                  Vladimir, but I have nothing else left.
                  Only philosophize.
                  I try, as I may, not to pour out bile. Malice does not come.
                  ...
                  I read the works of Fin. I read a lot. What to say?
                  As usual - the first thing in the series is the strongest.
                  There are no exceptions.
                  So here.
                  They would dwell on the facts. The ambiguities of reading zodiacs. And mentions of comets.
                  No ... they suffered in building their own universe.
                  Then ... everyone and a kayuk. The Lord alone is able to create universes.
                  ...
                  And this direction no longer interests me. Alas....
                  I still could not get rid of deja vu at school .... then the great migration of peoples (From East to West). And obliquely ... to whom it seems to your mind.
                  That ... the Huns flooded to level the Romans. From East to West.
                  That Mongols flooded. From East to West.
                  That Tamerlan popper .... where from where? Yes from East to West, smash Bayazet.
                  That Arabs .... these crap guys in general, all directions were on the shoulder. In addition to the north, for some reason ...
                  ...
                  Already at that time a strange feeling arose that it was one and the same thing. But, by someone’s will, divided at different times.
                  ...
                  Interestingly ... there is a reverse flow:
                  That Macedonian "smoothes" everyone - from West to East.
                  That the Romans perform exactly the same procedure.
                  That crusaders do not sit still, the culture of stone castles with straw on the floor and thatched huts are carried to the East, faced with glaze and smeared with incense.
                  That ...
                  I hope the line of thought is clear.
                  .
                  And then I was covered, as they say, - there is no truth in life.
                  One illusion.
                  It is a pity.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 11 May 2016 16: 37
    +1
    "The main reasons for the failure of the uprising were that the Roman Empire was still strong enough," I can say with confidence that this state during the war of Spartacus was equal in strength to a dead cockroach, for the Roman Empire did not yet exist at that time. laughing
    In general, the article is decent.
    From my point of view, such a lasting success could be due to the help of Spartacus of the Roman opposition, for example, the Marians.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 11 May 2016 18: 04
      0
      That is, given the presence of a certain business of aristocrats on the territory of the peninsula, they turned a blind eye to the loss of their property, or Spartacus approached the villa, hung up a shield, and was like: “We don’t rob here, we don’t free slaves, the owners are our own”? All the same, the simplest explanation is underestimation as an army. In my opinion.
      1. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 11 May 2016 18: 52
        0
        Quote: Maegrom
        Spartacus approached the villa, hung up a shield, and was like this: "We are not robbing here, we are not freeing slaves, the owners are our own"?

        And why, in fact, could not be so ??
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 11 May 2016 19: 12
          0
          It could not, but unlikely. It is very difficult to carry out any kind of massacre to stop, break a model of behavior on a certain basis. Moreover, each group of soldiers from a completely non-professional army. The uprisings of Razin and Pugachev can, to a certain extent, given the economic model, in this case be remotely approximate models.
          1. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 12 May 2016 12: 06
            0
            Quote: Maegrom
            It could not, but unlikely.

            Incidentally, I have repeatedly put forward, not only in this forum, that the Spartak uprising was not pure improvisation, but was prepared and most likely led by opponents of the Sullan regime. I will probably be spat upon soon along with the Fomenkovites, but this is MY version. am If we take into account the "aimless" transitions of Spartak's army first to the Alps, and then an unexpected sharp rush towards Sicily, then there is nothing improbable in the fact that the villas and property of Gaius Maria's supporters could not only not touch, but also, like the Timurovites, help in collecting what - some olives. Joke.
            So not "unlikely", but at least "likely".
  • Sascha
    Sascha 11 May 2016 23: 07
    +2
    Quote: Pomoryanin
    Quote: Riv
    Imagine the situation: a short Italian night. The darkness is only three hours.

    Do you know for sure that the uprising began in June? And with the year of the uprising itself, not everything is clear either. There, Toynbee calls the period all the way from 75 of the year.
    Now imagine the December Italian night of 74, Carl ... winked



    I’ll tell you, Kisa, as an artist to an artist .... Italy is not St. Petersburgh, and in the month of June, in Italy, darkness at night ... lasts not three hours.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 12 May 2016 12: 08
      +2
      Quote: Sascha
      Italy is not St. Peterschburch, and in the month of June, in Italy, darkness at night ...

      So let it know, damn it, Riv- u !! wink
      Subtropics, however. The nights are darker than in Siberia.
  • Mengad
    Mengad 11 May 2016 23: 18
    0
    Come on, was not Spartak or what was his name there? or maybe it wasn’t, you can write a lot beautifully. And the fact that historians often fool people is understandable. In Italy there are a lot of questions about Pompey and Vizuvius, well, the statement In 2006, Anna Maria Karruba about the sculpture of the she-wolf herself (Capitoline wolf) they couldn’t have done it before the 5th – 1021th centuries, and before that they shouted that it was the 1153th century BC, and according to the results of analyzes somewhere in the area between XNUMX and XNUMX they created it. Stonehenge was restored after the Second World War ... or maybe they still built an unknown question ... and a lot of other things can be seen lying and attributed.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 12 May 2016 16: 34
      +1
      Quote: Mengad
      Yes, and a lot of what else can be seen lying and attributed.

      Well, at least you tell me: FOR WHAT ???
      1. Mengad
        Mengad 12 May 2016 17: 29
        0
        You are now witnessing how they write the history of Ukraine ... Great Ukrainians ... Assigning the main role of the USA in WWII in defeating fascism .. plus ... there is such a human factor .. with all that it implies ... nothing personal .. just business.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 12 May 2016 19: 19
          0
          So, with serious study, propaganda cliches come out. That field is not enough, then the multiple discrepancy between the number of losses in the total number of troops.
          It’s one thing that they teach at school, another thing that academics are talking about. The first is really much less relevant to reality. The second, fortunately, on much of the Earth - to a much greater extent. So far, the universal implementation of anti-utopias has not survived, thank God.
        2. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 12 May 2016 21: 18
          +1
          Quote: Mengad
          You are now witnessing how they write the history of Ukraine ...

          This is a logical observation. However, it’s one thing to remove a couple of movies, write pieces of paper or posts on the Internet, and it’s another to build the Great Wall of China or the Colosseum (look above, there citizens are directly confident at 100500% of their rightness), but no one can say why they should spend fantastic money on construction and stylization of antiquity of different structures? What gives, for example, the remake Stonehenge of the same British Empire? Tourism income? Not funny. Can you tell me - enlighten?
          1. Mengad
            Mengad 13 May 2016 16: 14
            0
            I think it’s giving Stonehenge ... magic .. protective of the British Empire)) Just kidding) Your irony is inappropriate ... you yourself understand that Stonehenge is primarily a tourist mecca. Or will you tell me another purpose of modern Stonehenge? I will be glad to hear.
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 13 May 2016 22: 31
              0
              Quote: Mengad
              I will be glad to hear.

              I still believe that all versions regarding fakes of historical objects are untenable. Stonehenge, yes, a tourist cluster. Like Loch Ness. But why these buildings were intended in ancient times, in my opinion, no one has an answer. There, near Ryazan, too, they found something similar not so long ago. However, this topic has no relation to the article.
  • Velizariy
    Velizariy 12 May 2016 10: 53
    +4
    [quote = ver _] .. I can throw a thin thread .. Sartak-Spartak ..
    Sartak Batu’s son, sort of like that .. Khan Batuy-Yaroslav ..
    Sartak -Spartak .. Alexander Nevsky = Macedonian .. According to some gossip, Ioana Kalita = Khan Batu was poisoned in the Vatican, which he founded .. Alexander Nevsky = Macedonian did not return to Russia, ... and was buried in Crete ..
    Those wishing to rummage in these wilds - God is to help .. [/ quote
    In so it can be! And you say - protoukry from the mind survived ...
  • Mengad
    Mengad 14 May 2016 19: 13
    0
    Quote: Pomoryanin
    Quote: Mengad
    I will be glad to hear.

    I still believe that all versions regarding fakes of historical objects are untenable. Stonehenge, yes, a tourist cluster. Like Loch Ness. But why these buildings were intended in ancient times, in my opinion, no one has an answer. There, near Ryazan, too, they found something similar not so long ago. However, this topic has no relation to the article.

    Yes, you’re right, we don’t know this, and historians often have to think up a gag and then pass it off as a fact, and when people make authority on themselves, they uncle with a diploma screaming that he is the next professor.
  • Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 16 May 2016 10: 27
    +1
    As a fan of Rome, the article was minus !! And if, honestly, the very first lines in the style of the American press pissed off. "It is known that Spartak possessed a well-armed and trained army of 70 thousand people." Who knows? Auto RU? Was he crushed in this army? Where are the sources? Links? 14 armed and manned legions? Where are the weapons from? Got it in battle? Is it okay that the main arsenals were in Rome? And nothing that, no matter how you arm a slave, is still not a warrior. And what about supplies, repair shops, management? 70-100-200 thousand people are not an army! And, good soldiers and gladiators do not work! Read at your leisure! And even Mithridates' money will not help here. You must write carefully and not turn the story into fiction!