4
The role of the leader
The individuals who led the rebel slaves play a large role in the accounts of the better documented slave revolts from antiquity, so it is necessary to look at how these men are represented in our texts. I want to look at how they assumed their role, what kind of characters they had and how effective they were depicted as being. The descriptions we possess almost certainly reflect the prejudices and preconceptions, as well as the ideals, of the writers who portrayed them, but rather than dismiss all accounts as mere fiction, it is interesting to see why some of the individuals are presented as positively as they are.1 A heroic slave leader might be the norm for a modern writer but it is not what we might expect from ancient writers, who generally, as has often been noted, do not question the necessity of slavery, which is now regarded as unacceptable in a civilized society.2
For Spartacus, the most famous slave leader of them all, Plutarch and Appian give different accounts of the start of his command. Plutarch gives us the version that records how at first 200 gladiators had planned to escape but their plan was discovered and only seventy carried it out. Once free and seizing some gladiatorial weapons they chose three leaders, the most important of them being Spartacus. Appian, on the other hand, states that Spartacus, who had been in the Roman army, persuaded about seventy of his fellow gladiators to break out. He had two subordinate commanders, Oenomaus and Crixus. Appian therefore gives a much more active role to the leader, and rather more passive ones to his followers than Plutarch.
We often read of leaders emerging or being chosen after the initial outbreak. One of Genovese’s conditions for revolt was the opportunity for leaders to arise, that is, individuals reveal themselves as possible leaders before any outbreak. This does seem to have been true with Spartacus in Appian’s account, and is most clearly seen in Diodorus’ narrative of the first slave war in Sicily. There the slaves recognized the authority of Eunus and asked him whether they should rebel. He had authority, according to Diodorus, because of his wonder-working skills, which are described as fraudulent but that were effective in giving him influence over others.3
One aspect noticeable from the ancient narratives is that they frequently portray the leaders as very able men, markedly superior to the mass of their followers, who are merely slaves. So writers could allow that there might be an exceptional figure in the leader of the slaves but, for the rest, their negative picture of slaves predominated.
In the case of Spartacus, Appian states that he had been in the Roman army, which presumably would help the Romans accept the fact of his victories more easily: they could explain to themselves how it was that he could be so successful.4 Florus’ view that fighting with slaves was disgraceful was a common one and, in a sense, the only way that the slave-owners could accept that they had allowed themselves to get into such a situation was if the slaves were led by exceptional men.5
We have this stated explicitly in the case of Bulla Felix in the late empire. In the early third century CE (206–7 CE), in the reign of Septimius Severus, Cassius Dio reports that a group of so-called brigands led by Bulla Felix were at large in Italy.6 In his narrative of Severus’ reign, Dio gave enough information for the reader to see that all was not well in the empire,7 which might be why he added the episode about Bulla. According to Dio, Bulla led a band of about 600 men and raided Italy for about two years, although forces were sent out against him. Dio describes a romantic figure who uses his brains to escape the authorities, outwitting them at every turn. We do not learn of Bulla’s own status, but at least some of those with him had once been slaves. Having tricked a centurion into following him he sent him back with the words: “Tell your masters that they should feed their slaves enough so that they do not turn to a life of banditry”.8 Dio continues: “For most of the men whom Bulla had recruited were slaves from the emperor’s household, some of whom had received little remuneration and others who had received no sustenance whatsoever”.
The account is very brief but Dio describes Bulla in what could be seen as favourable terms, since he is able to outwit his opponents easily: “Although many men pursued Bulla, and the emperor Severus himself tracked the man zealously, he was never seen when seen, never found when found, never caught when caught. In part this was because of Bulla’s great generosity with gifts and his intelligence”.9 The Greek word translated here as “intelligence”, is σοφία, which might be rendered as “wisdom”. It is a positive and striking term to be used about a rebel. Bulla was able to trick and humiliate the Romans and was defeated not by force of arms, or strategic superiority but by the treachery of a woman. He was put on trial and the praetorian prefect asked him “Why did you become a bandit?”, to which Bulla replied “Why did you become a praetorian prefect?”. There is no further comment from Dio, but some sympathy for Bulla is clear in this portrait. The message for the emperor and readers is clear, and it is similar to that in Diodorus and Plutarch, our main sources for information about rebellious slaves: treat your underlings well or you will have trouble. The role of the leader, as often in these stories, is crucial; when he was gone the band disintegrated, “so much did the whole strength of his 600 men depend on him alone”, adds Dio.10 This is a rather romantic and surprisingly sympathetic account of a rebel leader, who is portrayed as not only intelligent, quick-witted and resourceful but also very daring. Owing to his personal bravery, the Romans are humiliated. Without him, though, his men, among them runaway slaves, were lost. If any sympathy is presented in our sources, it is usually only for the leaders. They are allowed some abilities but their followers are dismissed and presented critically. In this instance, they need a leader to preserve their group.
By way of contrast, this was not so on Chios after the death of Drimakos, where the rebels carried on in a far less restrained manner than previously. As noted before, Drimakos was described as severe and Athenaeus quotes Nymphodorus as claiming that the slaves were more afraid of him than of their former masters (showing perhaps that terrifying them was the effective way to deal with slaves).11 Drimakos emerged as leader; we are told that he was a brave man and good in battle and therefore became the leader of the runaways.
It was he who proposed an accommodation with the owners so that they might agree a truce, which would be more beneficial to both sides than the existing situation of continual warfare. He devised weights, measures and a seal and promised that his men would not steal more than a certain amount, and then would seal up the storehouses and leave them in peace. He agreed to return slaves to their masters if they could not show that they had been ill treated. Slaves were apparently less inclined to run away than before because they dreaded his questioning, strange as this may sound. We are also told that his followers obeyed him as a military officer. He punished the disobedient and also refused to allow any plundering apart from whatever he ordered. As narrated in Athenaeus, all this action was his idea and was due to his planning.
He also shows strength of character by choosing the manner of his own death. The Chians had promised a big reward to anyone who brought him or his head to them, so when Drimakos was quite old, he called his lover to him and told him to cut off his head. He said he had lived long enough whereas his lover was young still. After showing some seemly reluctance, Drimakos’ lover cut off his friend’s head, received his reward, and left for his own country, a free man.12
Once Drimakos was gone, Nymphodorus said, the Chians were wronged by their slaves again, that is, all restraint that the slaves had shown with regard to property was abandoned. Although this might seem to be some sort of disintegration, it was only so from the point of view of the property-owners. Without this leader the community of runaways did not disappear;13 its nature changed but it did not collapse, and one might argue that it became more powerful than before, in that it caused more distress to the slave-owners than previously.
After their initial outbreak, the slaves in the second Sicilian slave war formed an assembly and elected a leader
, whom they called a king.14 This was Salvius, who, like Eunus, had religious associations in that he foretold the future and played the flute at women’s religious festivals. Despite these rather peculiar characteristics, he seems to have had good leadership qualities. He is also portrayed as austere; we read that he ordered his men to avoid cities because they were sources of laziness and excess. He trained and organized the slave army efficiently, divided them into three with their own commanders and instructed them to raid and in this ordered manner the slave army soon acquired enough equipment for 2,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry. Salvius thus behaves very methodically to gain supplies for slaves numerous enough to form a substantial army. Spartacus likewise forbade the importation of gold and silver, distributed his booty equally and did not accept deserters into his camp.15
The subordinates are always more shadowy characters. Spartacus’ subordinates have often been presented as arrogant, and are described as splitting the army, but there is no direct confirmation for this in the ancient evidence. In the two wars in Sicily Cleon and Athenion showed themselves to be trustworthy lieutenants.
Diodorus, in the narrative preserved by Photius, gives a decidedly unfavourable picture of the leader Eunus, who is not represented as sympathetically as the mass of the slaves, although he was wily enough to impress them; he claimed to tell the future and some of his prophecies turned out to be true thus enhancing his reputation, while those that did not were forgotten, says Diodorus sharply. He tricked people into believing that he could breathe fire by placing some embers in a pierced hollow shell and blowing through it so that sparks and flames burst from his mouth.16 Just before the war, Eunus claimed that the Syrian goddess had told him he would be a king and the narrative follows this with an episode at a banquet where Eunus is teased by his master and guests about his future kingship and some gave him scraps of food and asked to be remembered for this act of kindness.17
Eunus did repay this favour but it is only in Excerpts of Constantine that we read what this repayment consisted of: he spared their lives. On being made king he ordered all the slave-owners to be executed, except those who had treated him well in his days of slavery. So Eunus repays a tiny favour in the past, being given scraps of food, by saving their lives. The summary says: “Here was an amazing thing: a sudden small shift in fortune and the fact that a favor granted for such a small thing should be repaid with such a great gift and at such a critical time”.18
Generally there is a less negative picture of Eunus in Constantine’s Excerpts; an advisor, Achaeus, objected to the savagery of the slaves towards their ex-masters and declared that they would be punished. Eunus not only did not execute him for his moderation but gave him the house of his former masters as a gift. Bradley comments: “Achaeus understood that continued acts of violence by slaves in revolt would bring retaliation against them as a matter of course”.19 This is a rather surprising explanation for Achaeus’ actions. The slaves would all be killed anyway, not for individual acts of violence but because they had revolted. There would be retaliation regardless of the behaviour of the slaves, and this is what makes Achaeus’ and Eunus’ action all the more remarkable and why, one would think, the excerptors recorded it.
Despite these differences, the overall impression from both versions is that Eunus responded to the slaves, and took advantage of the situation, not that he took the initiative and manipulated them into rebellion. Photius depicts Eunus as having won great authority with his peers through what the reader knows are merely tricks. Eunus was not chosen king, according to Diodorus’ narrative in Photius, because of his courage; we find out from his actions at the end of the war that he was a miserable coward, hiding in caves with his cook, baker, bath masseur and master of entertainments at drinking parties. The Romans found him and imprisoned him and he died a horrible death in Morgantina.20
Unlike Drimakos or Spartacus, Eunus is not presented as having been chosen for his military abilities but because he was a successful master of illusion and because his name seemed to be a good omen, since the Greek “Eunus” means “friendly”, and the slaves hoped he would be “friendly” to his subjects. Eunus then puts on a diadem and takes up other symbols of kingship and calls his partner a queen and also had royal counsellors.21 We find out at the end of the narrative that he called himself Antiochus when he became king and he called his men Syrians.22 It seems rather curious that he changed his name, which had been one of the reasons, according at least to Diodorus, for his popularity with the other slaves.
It is usually assumed that most of the slaves were indeed Syrians and that this enabled them to revolt since they had a bond and a common language. Diodorus only tells us that Eunus and his wife were Syrians. Cleon, the other leader, was Cilician and Achaeus, his advisor, was Achaean, says Diodorus. There is another Syrian, Sarapion, who betrayed the slave-held Tauromenium to the Romans,23 but apart from that we are given no indication of the nationality of most of the slaves.24
The other slave leader, Cleon, by contrast, is represented neutrally in Photius’ summary, which simply says that on the other side of the island, about a month after the original uprising, Cleon, a Cilician, started another revolt of slaves. We also learn that Cleon had a brother who was captured by the consul Rupilius as he tried to escape Tauromenium.25 Photius’ narrative goes on to tell how Rupilius went from Tauromenium to Enna and besieged it and that Cleon fought heroically (ἡρωικω̑ς)26 but was killed fighting. The city was taken, again by betrayal, with the added detail that it could not have been taken any other way because of its fortifications. The detail of Cleon nobly resisting Rupilius’ attacks contrasts with the behaviour of Eunus, who in Photius’ account fled with a bodyguard of 1,000 men.
In the Excerpts, however, Cleon is described as having been a bandit from childhood who, in Sicily, had become a herder of horses, robbed travellers and committed many murders.27 We learn that: “on hearing the news of Eunus’ success, and of the victories of the fugitives fighting with him, he [Cleon] rose in revolt”.28 Although generally the Excerpts do not accord such an active role to the slaves, in this instance we see clearly the individual described as using a critical situation to very good effect.
In the second war, the leader, Salvius, is presented as shrewd and effective. When the slaves attacked Morgantina and then the Roman army, which had captured their empty camp, Photius’ narrative tells us that the Roman army fled. It is here in the text that it is reported that Salvius announced that if the fleeing Romans dropped their arms they would not be killed. Quite surprisingly most of the Roman soldiers accepted his offer and so only relatively few lost their lives, whereas 4,000 were taken prisoner. The slaves thus regained their camp and acquired more weaponry. Diodorus describes Salvius’ offer as humane29 and the slave leader is thus represented positively and as a good judge of character. His ploy is successful because the Romans are cowards.
After this success, slaves flocked to the rebels, doubling the size of their army, which attacked Morgantina again. Salvius appealed to the slaves in the city to join them but misjudged them because they believed their masters, who promised them freedom if they helped in the defence of the city. Diodorus adds: “When the Roman governor later rescinded these grants of freedom, most of the slaves ran away and joined the rebels”.30
In the northwestern part of the island around Segesta and Lilybaeum, there was another revolt led by the Cilician Athenion. He too was skilled in predicting the future and was renowned for his bravery (ἀνδρεια̣ διαφέρων), so here we have a positive portrayal of a rebel leader.31 Athenion was a steward on an estate and certainly seems to have had authority over those who were working for him. He persuaded 200 slaves who worked under him to join him and then recruited slaves on neighbouring farms until within five days he had more than 1,000 with him. Here for once we have evidence for a slave already in a leadership role naturally assuming similar duties on the rebellion, having acquired the authority to persuade others to rebel.
Diodorus also tells us, not that he assumed command, but that the slaves chose him as their king, adding:
Athenion conducted his rule in a manner that was opposite to that of all the other rebel groups. He did not accept all slaves who went into revolt, but turned only the best of them into soldiers. He forced the others to remain at their former tasks and had each of them take care of their own household managerial tasks and work assignments.32
Like Salvius, Athenion was a careful and methodical leader. In this way he provided for his soldiers and said that the gods had told him he would be king of Sicily so he wanted to look after the plants and animals as they now belonged to him.33
Bradley argues that the outbreak led by Athenion should be seen as completely independent of Salvius’ revolt: “There is no evidence whatsoever that the revolts of Salvius and Athenion were anything but uncoordinated, entirely separate uprisings”.34 If we accept Bradley’s view of the situation, this might lead us to suppose that outbreaks of slave rebellion are in fact much more frequent than we had assumed. If this was merely a coincidence, then it would seem slaves constantly rose up against their masters and it so happened that two of them coincided and were successful. It seems more likely, however, that Athenion was taking advantage of the Romans being occupied with slaves in a different part of the island and that the events were similar to the previous war, where we are told explicitly that Cleon decided to rebel when he heard about Eunus.35
Slave Revolts in Antiquity Page 8