Inspired by this. So far as I can tell, it’s just like this and this – adaptations of Howard Fast’s novel, and based on the assumption that the Third Servile War was a rebellion against the institution of slavery as such – the which is quite intolerable presentism and completely nonsensical and preposterous and incomprehensible in the context of Spartacus’ time and place, when civilization in all the Mediterranean world depended on slaves and always had, and where and when the ambition of all slave rebels was to own slaves as opposed to being slaves.
I much prefer the interpretation of Colleen McCullough in Fortune’s Favourites, wherein Spartacus, despite his own origins (probably a Roman centurion condemned to slavery for some unspecified crime) opportunistically winds up leading what amounts to a Samnite national rebellion against Roman rule. Let’s see a movie about that!
Something tells me the guy who wrote the first article hasn’t finished the series …
Personally, I’d say that the death of most of the characters, title character included, kinda precludes the production of further episodes. Not to mention that, after censoring the explicit language, nudity, and some of the overt violence, each episode will be about 7 minutes long on basic cable.
I don’t see why you can’t make a historically accurate movie about Spartacus. You’d have to make certain assumptions about what happened, so no single interpretation would be accepted by all historians, but that’s a given with any historical event.
The problem is that I think a true-to-life version would be a real downer. Slaves escape, have some unexpected early victories and are ultimately killed. From a TV executive point of view (where you not only want to make the movie, you want to make money), you kind of have to doctor that story up with some kind of modern ideals or at least lots of supermodel slaves having sex.
I suppose it’s possible to make an historically accurate film about Spartacus, but it’s not likely, given that such a film would not be popular. Frankly, I prefer the over-the-top peplum films with lots of naked slavegirls thrown in. “Spartacus vs. The Dancing Girls of Mars,” yeah, that’s the ticket!
There was another famous novel besides the Howard Fast one – The Gladiators by Arthur Koestler. It was arguably a bit more historically accurate. But everyone has some sort of axe to grind in this – the Kirk Douglas/Stranley Kubrick/Dalton Trumbo film wasn’t entirely faithful to Fast’s novel (Douglas himself, I believe, wanted to make it relevant to the oppression of the Jews. I’ve long suspected that the formerl;y blacklisted Trumbo, stuck a few lines in there out of spite – “Come with me,” says Ustiinov as Batiatus," See to it that I don’t misuse the money." “Don’t be ridiculous,” says Laughton as the made-up Gracchus, “I’m a Senator!”). Koestler probably colored his version according to his political views. Fast’s isn’t completely accurate.
I’m sure you could make a version that is more in line with what we know or surmise*, but it wouldn’t have the dramatic sweep of the other versions. “God,”
as Peter Stone recalls a fellow writer saying, “Writes lousy drama.”
*Despite what Wikipedia may say, it’s not even certain that Spartacus was from Thrace. The term Thracian\ also referred to a style of gladiatorial fighting and weapons.
When the Starz series was on, I used to Google as many other sources as I could to see how many of the plot elements were ‘historical’. And you know, given how few details there are about the real Spartacus, the Starz series seemed to be about as accurate as you could want.
The basic plot points (Spoilers!):
Spartacus was a Thracian soldier captured by the Romans and forced to be a gladiator. It’s true that ‘Thracian’ was also a fighting style, so that interpretation could work, but Plutarch specifically said he was a Thracian, and two other major sources called him a Thracian who became a Roman soldier. That’s what he was in the series.
Spartacus was trained in a Ludus owned by a Roman named Lentulus Batiatus. He organized a revolt and breakout of gladiators from the Ludus.
Spartacus and Crixus were allies who later differed on strategy and split their forces. Two other prominent characters in the series, Gannicus and Oenomaus, are recorded in the history books as being members of Spartacus’ rebellion. This is all consistent with the series.
A key plot point in the series - Spartacus retreating to Vesuvius, being besieged there by Gaius Claudius Glaber, and defeating him by daringly repelling down the back side of the mountain and surprising his soldiers, is straight out of the history books.
Spartacus was eventually defeated by Marcus Licinius Crassus, a wealthy man who was also a brilliant tactician and somewhat brutal. Starz’ depiction of Crassus’ revival of decimation to restore the fighting spirit of the Roman legions is straight out of Plutarch.
Even the ending of the Starz series matches the historical record, which did record Crixus’s death but has no record of Spartacus’s death. Other events in history, such as Spartacus hiring pirates to take him to Sicily (and then being betrayed) were in the show.
So how was the Starz series not historically accurate? Obviously, there are many characters and events in the series that are totally fictitious because the historical record doesn’t mention them at all, but that’s not the same as being historically inaccurate.