Spartacus' revolt: Slave rebellion, or Samnite-nationalist rebellion?

[BrainGlutton]

In her historical novel Fortune’s Favorites, Colleen McCullough tells a very different version of the rebellion of Spartacus – what Roman historians called the “Third Servile War” (73-71 B.C.) – than we saw in the Kirk Douglas film: It was not a revolt against the institution of slavery, nor even primarily a rebellion of slaves. It did begin with a breakout of slave gladiators-in-training from a ludus or gladiators’ school, but by the time the war got going in earnest, most of Spartacus’ followers were free Samnites, unreconciled to Roman rule and still nursing a grudge from the Social War (91-88 B.C.). Their aim, if they could not throw off the Roman yoke in Italy, was to relocate their nation en masse to Sicily and found a new state there. So it was really a nationalist rebellion.

Does McCullough have history on her side?

[BrainGlutton]

BTW: McCullough also asserts that during the Republican period, gladiators did not fight to the death or even try to wound each other. Gladiatorial combat was just a show, like professional wrestling. Fights in earnest, and to the death, came later, under the Empire. Is that true?

[Captain_Amazing]

The Samnites were pretty much destroyed as a people by the Social War. That’s not to say that there weren’t any individual Samnites in Sparticus’s army, but as far as I know, and as far as the histories record, it was primarily a slave revolt.

At the same time Spartacus, a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator, and was in the gladiatorial training-school at Capua, persuaded about seventy of his comrades to strike for their own freedom rather than for the amusement of spectators . . .There many fugitive slaves and even some freemen from the fields joined Spartacus, and he plundered the neighbouring country, having for subordinate officers two gladiators named Oenomaus and Crixus. As he divided the plunder impartially he soon had plenty of men.

Appian-The Civil Wars

Seventy-four gladiators escaped from the school of Lentulus at Capua, gathered a large number of slaves and workhouse prisoners, began a war under command of Crixus and Spartacus, and defeated the army of praetor Publius Varenus and his deputy Claudius Pulcher.

Livy-Periochae

A man called Lentulus Batiatus had an establishment for gladiators at Capua. Most of them were Gauls and Thracians. They had done nothing wrong, but, simply because of the cruelty of their owner, were kept in close confinement until the time came for them to engage in combat. Two hundred of them planned to escape, but their plan was betrayed and only seventy-eight, who realized this, managed to act in time and get away, armed with choppers and spits which they seized from some cookhouse. . . .They then occupied a strong position and elected three leaders. The first of these was Spartacus. He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes and not only had a great spirit and great physical strength, but was, much more than one would expect from his condition, most intelligent and cultured, being more like a Greek than a Thracian…And now they were joined by numbers of herdsmen and shepherds of those parts, all sturdy men and fast on their feet. Some of these they armed as regular infantrymen and made use of others as scouts and light troops.

Plutarch-Life of Crassus

[CalMeacham]

If you want a couple of very different takes on Spartacus, try reading Howard Fast’s novel Spartacus, the book on which the film is based, but which differs significantly from the flick (despite the fact that I love Dalton Trumbo’s screenplay). I understand that neither the book nor the film are historically accurate.

Another interesting book treatment is Arthur Koestler’s The Gladiators. Very different from Fast’s or Trumbo’s.

I haven’t read McCulloch’s yet, although I’ve read others in the series.

[BrainGlutton]

Wonder where McCullouch got her ideas about the revolt, then? I mean, she’s “only” a novelist, but her knowledge of Roman history is widely reputed to be so encyclopedic that professors in the field consult with her.

[aldiboronti]

@BrainGlutton

… her knowledge of Roman history is widely reputed to be so encyclopedic that professors in the field consult with her.

Cite?

I find that highly unlikely.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Colleen McCullough is very good at knowing what the ancient sources say - and what they don’t. She often takes a lot of liberties with what isn’t known.

I haven’t heard anything of Samnite involvement. The Wikipedia article is pretty good on this topic. And my prof is cited!

[SnakesCatLady]

@BrainGlutton

BTW: McCullough also asserts that during the Republican period, gladiators did not fight to the death or even try to wound each other. Gladiatorial combat was just a show, like professional wrestling. Fights in earnest, and to the death, came later, under the Empire. Is that true?

I have read that somewhere else, but I don’t remember where. (I haven’t read that book by McCollough) IIRC, the theory was that gladiators were expensive to train, and maiming/killing them just destroyed the investment.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

I’ve never heard that gladiators weren’t legitimately killed. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve come across some inscriptions that give the ages at death of gladiators, and they’re usually quite young.

It’s true that they weren’t always killed. The Oxford Classical Dictionary says:

Prisoners of war and condemned criminals were compelled to fight as gladiators. Those who fought on a professional basis were wither slaves, bought for the purpose, or free volunteers who for a fee bound themselves to their owner by an oath which permitted him to kill or maim them (in practice a gladiator was too valuable an investment to be wasted outside the games and the life of a defeated combatant was often spared by the audience’s wish).

Of course, this means that gladiators probably got to fight in 5-10 games before they died, rather than two or so.