Slave Revolts in Antiquity

by Urbainczyk, Theresa;

  The best illustration for Sallust’s views occurs in a passage in Book 4: “Crassus concerned himself rather with criticizing his colleague than with diligently assessing what was good and what was bad for the people”.76 While this does not belong to the Spartacan narrative proper it gives us an indication of what Sallust thought about Crassus. The negative portrait fits in well with that of Plutarch and also with Sallust’s political theory, which was that it was the decline of virtus and the rise of ambitus and avaritia that destroyed the republic.77 Crassus, according to Plutarch at any rate, is the very embodiment of avaritia. The text extant from Sallust is not especially helpful except that it is at least possible that he represented Spartacus in heroic terms and Crassus in not so heroic terms, and that he did write about Spartacus at all. Spartacus appears in other writers briefly, but so briefly as to be hardly useful except as an indication of his fame.

  Others did write about Spartacus, but what survives today is so limited that it is difficult to glean much from it. Livy, who witnessed the last stages of civil war and the reign of Augustus, wrote a history of Rome from its foundations to 9 BCE in 142 books. Unsurprisingly the whole of this massive undertaking has not survived and summaries were made, perhaps in the fourth century CE, for those who did not have enough time to read the whole work. It is unclear how reliably they summarized Livy’s words and, in the case of Spartacus, the narrative is abbreviated to such an extent that the events are simply mentioned with no attitude discernible. In the fourth century CE Eutropius wrote his Breviarium covering 753 BCE–364 CE. For the Spartacan period he is assumed to be using Livy’s Epitome, but his account differs from our extant version in naming Oenomaus and calling Crassus proconsul.78 The same can be said for Velleius Paterculus (who lived from 20 BCE until after 30 CE), whose sweeping history in two volumes started with Greek mythology and ended in 29 CE. Frontinus, whose interest was purely military, writing in the late first century CE, describes tricks used by Spartacus and afterwards relates those used by Crassus to defeat the slaves. All of these, apart from Diodorus, wrote in Latin.

  On the other hand we have relatively full, and extremely useful sources in the Greek authors Plutarch and Appian, both of whom wrote well over a century and a half after the events they describe.79

  Plutarch on Spartacus

  In his Life of Crassus Plutarch describes how, after being ill-treated by those in charge of them, some gladiators planned an escape. They had armed themselves with kitchen implements but, having escaped, they came upon wagons containing weapons for gladiators, which they seized. They elected three leaders, one of whom was Spartacus, a man of great spirit and physical strength as well as intelligence and nobility of character. Plutarch added that when Spartacus was taken to Rome to be sold a snake was seen coiled around his head while he slept and that his wife, who was a prophetess of Dionysus,80 said it meant he would have a great and fearful power that would bring good fortune.81

  Plutarch thus credits Spartacus with some sense: he had only wanted to take his followers home, back to Thrace and Gaul, but his men did not listen. He personally had not wanted to face the Romans in battle but those following him became overconfident and overruled him, and he had thought of going to Sicily but had been cheated by the pirates. He fought bravely until the end, always putting the interests of his men first, never deserting them, although they did not listen to him; he was, in fact, the epitome of a great leader, even though he had been a slave. Crassus’ leadership skills, on the other hand, depended on instilling fear, not devotion into his army. Plutarch does not mention the crucifixion of survivors, although today this is a well-known aspect of the story, largely owing to the final scene in the Stanley Kubrick film.

  That is the narrative as Spartacus appears in it. More than any other single author, Plutarch has contributed to the very positive image the legend was built on. His account should be seen in a larger context. Spartacus features in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives in the Life of Crassus, paired with the Athenian general Nicias. Plutarch’s idea of comparing Greek and Roman statesmen in Parallel Lives gives us an indication of his intentions. Whatever the purpose of this work, the effect of it would almost certainly have been to show the reader (who, for the most part, would have been Greek, like Plutarch, since that was the language he was writing in) that the Greeks, although now subjects of the Romans, had their own heroes from the past who were equivalent to, or better than, the present or recent Roman ones.

  It is quite common for Plutarch to portray both Greeks and Romans as good generals, but the Greeks are more often marked out as also being good men. Generally, and this is surely unsurprising from a Greek writer, the Greeks are morally superior to their Roman counterparts. Romans from the distant past usually came off better from Plutarch’s pen than the more recent ones. Where Romans are praised it is often because they behave like Greeks or show respect to the Greeks and their culture.

  For instance, in the comparison of Lycurgus and Numa, Numa is praiseworthy for his treatment of slaves, precisely because he behaved like a Greek:

  Whereas, if we must admit the treatment of the helots to be a part of Lycurgus’ legislation, a most cruel and iniquitous proceeding, we must own that Numa was by a great deal the more humane and Greek-like legislator, granting even to actual slaves a licence to sit at meat with their masters at the foot of Saturn, that they also might have some taste and relish of the sweets of liberty.82

  And about Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, he writes: “She had many friends and kept a good table which was always thronged with guests: Greeks and other learned men frequently visited her, and all the reigning kings exchanged presents with her”.83

  The Romans who show a deep respect for things Greek receive far better press from him than those who despise the Hellenic culture (compare, for example, the Life of Cicero with that of Marius).84 Spartacus was not the subject of a life as he was a mere slave but he appears in a heroic light in the Life of Crassus, although not in order to glorify Crassus.85 It should be noted that Plutarch also describes Sertorius in very favourable terms, a man who was a rebel against the Romans fighting at the same time as Spartacus.86 Plutarch was not afraid to portray enemies of Rome in a heroic light, and, in turn, not infrequently depicts the Romans as less than virtuous.

  Crassus himself is a good example of this. He is described as being excessively greedy in the first paragraph of Plutarch’s Life of Crassus. He acquires his wealth by buying burning houses in Rome and then repairing them. He owned silver mines and estates and also earned money from the work of slaves. Plutarch comments, “Crassus was not right, however, in thinking and in actually saying that no one could be called rich who could not support an army out of his income”.87

  The life Plutarch describes in parallel to that of Crassus is that of the Athenian general Nicias, whose main fault is that he is excessively pious, a vice, if such it can be termed, hardly on a par with greed.88 Indeed, there is an implicit contrast with Nicias in the first paragraph of Crassus’ life where we learn that he was suspected of a liaison with a Vestal Virgin. This rumour was a result of the fact that he was pursuing the woman because he wanted her house cheaply. Plutarch says he was acquitted of any wrongdoing with her (presumably sexual) because the judges knew how greedy he was and ends the story saying that he did not cease to pester her until she sold him the house. Nicias, then, is excessively pious and pays too much attention to omens and oracles; Crassus is so impious through his greed that he harasses a Vestal Virgin.

  Also early on, while establishing Crassus’ character, Plutarch stresses the vast numbers of slaves he possessed, and used as a source of revenue. The stress on the huge numbers of slaves that Crassus owned and exploited appears to be deliberate on Plutarch’s part, drawing attention to the irony that he would later find himself fighting them, and indeed hover on the brink of being defeated by them. In the comparison of the Greek and Roman, Plutarch has very little positive to say about the latter.89 Nicias was also wealthy but used h
is wealth to serve the public, and this is illustrated in the Life of Nicias, where only after hearing of his benefits do we learn that he was wealthy because he owned silver mines, whereas the issue of Crassus’ wealth is stressed immediately.

  The argument here is not that Plutarch is manipulating facts but rather, owing to his judgement of the two men, putting a different emphasis on their deeds. For him, Nicias’ donations were more noteworthy than his excessive wealth. Plutarch does not hide that the Greek was wealthy and that he owned many slaves. In fact, this is important for his parallel with Crassus, but it is the different attitude to wealth that was significant for Plutarch. Nicias has his faults, being too timid and addicted to omens, but whereas Nicias had been reluctant to undertake the Sicilian expedition that was his downfall, Crassus had been eager to go to Parthia. Both were disastrous campaigns but Crassus rushed to his doom and Nicias had to be dragged. Plutarch is thus portraying the Roman in the harshest light and, whatever one thinks of Nicias, no one could come away from Plutarch’s Lives considering him to be as despicable as Crassus.

  Spartacus, a slave and one of the class of men exploited by Crassus in his own household, is held up by contrast. His character is noble; he cares about his men, about honour, about equality. Crassus emerges as the more barbaric character (and notice, as befits such a barbarian, he hates Cicero, who is one of the most favourably portrayed Romans in the Parallel Lives90). In portraying Spartacus in this way, Plutarch is continuing the negative portrayal of the Roman, since even a slave has more nobility of character than this Roman. There is no such negative contrast in the Life of Nicias.

  In the comparison Plutarch starts by saying that the acquisition of Nicias’ wealth was more blameless than that of Crassus. In his discussion of the comparison, Timothy Duff interprets this as follows: “It seems fairly clear in this synkrisis that Plutarch’s instincts were to prefer Nikias”.91 I would argue that Plutarch’s instincts throughout Parallel Lives were to prefer the Greeks, as well he might.

  Plutarch was using the opportunity of the Spartacus episode to throw light on the character of Crassus. Plutarch liked and used comparisons, not just in the formal sense.92 For instance, in the Life of Antony, Cleopatra, another famous Roman hate-figure like Spartacus, is given extended treatment to highlight Antony’s faults. The Roman is putty in her hands; she is clever and manipulative and he is stupid and driven by his passions. For Plutarch’s purposes, she was also Greek, as was Alexander. Spartacus, I would argue, had the nobility of character that one would expect from a Roman of Crassus’ rank but that Crassus so signally lacked. An indication of Plutarch’s intentions in his portrayal of Spartacus is given when he introduces him as a character:

  He not only possessed great spirit and bodily strength (ῥώμηυ) [rhōmēn], but he was more intelligent and nobler than his fate, and he was more Greek than his [Thracian] background might indicate. People tell the following story about him when he was brought to Rome (Ῥώμην]) [Rhōmēn] to be sold as a slave.93

  For Plutarch this is praise. Plutarch admired intelligent people, individuals such as Sertorius, Cleopatra and Alexander, but had very little time for the stupid and insensitive such as Marius, Sulla and Antony. Most telling of all is that Spartacus was ἑλληνικώτερος [more Greek] than his people. This is perhaps the most flattering thing from the pen of Plutarch.94 Plutarch writes well of Cicero too, and much of the praise comes in the form of describing Cicero’s respect for Greek culture.

  The quotation above mentions him going to Rome, and I have included the last sentence because it is worth commenting on the Greek words. In the original passage the words ῥώμην and Ῥώμην are physically very close to each other. They refer to totally different things but they are the same word. One means strength, the other is the name of the city of Rome, and in Greek one can see the similarity straightaway. That Plutarch was conscious of the meaning of the name can be seen in the opening words of his Life of Romulus, where he relates that some say that the Pelasgians named the city Rome because of their strength (Ῥώμη) in arms. One thus could say that Spartacus embodies the very essence (Ῥώμη) of Rome, although he is only a gladiator. He possessed strength and many other laudable qualities; Crassus on the other hand was despicable in his lust for money and small-minded rivalry with Pompey. Spartacus thinks only of his men and even when they do not listen to him he does not abandon them but does his best. When he realizes all is lost, he stabs his horse and, charging straight for Crassus, kills two centurions and dies fighting surrounded by enemies, even after his own men had fled.95 There is little doubt where Plutarch’s sympathies lay in this story.96

  Appian’s account of the Spartacan war

  A near contemporary of Plutarch, Appian lived c.90–c.160 CE, and was also Greek but from Alexandria in Egypt.97 In his history of the civil wars he describes the revolt of Spartacus, after that of Sertorius.98 He uses the episode to highlight the tensions between Crassus and Pompey. Spartacus is introduced as having served as a soldier with the Romans but then being taken prisoner and sold for a gladiator, thus arriving in the training school in Capua. He is credited by Appian with the idea of escaping and he and about seventy others do so and flee to Mount Vesuvius.99 Appian wrote that there were many fugitive slaves and even some free men from the fields who joined them. Spartacus had two subordinates, Crixus and Oenomaus, and because he was a fair leader and divided the plunder equally, he had plenty of men following him. The Roman commanders Varinius Glaber and then Publius Valerius were sent with hastily raised troops but both were beaten.100

  We also see a more ruthless side to Spartacus than presented in Plutarch’s narrative, as Appian describes how he ordered the sacrifice of 300 Roman prisoners on the death of his general, Crixus, killing the rest and the pack animals. He crucified a Roman soldier to set an example to his men and, possibly, the Romans.101 It may be that for Appian such measures are the sign of a good general, since he also reports that Crassus had his own soldiers executed. Appian remarked that once he had made his own men realize he was more dangerous than the enemy they beat Spartacus in the next battle. This could either be praise or blame, depending on one’s attitude, but the point is that Crassus is ultimately successful and Appian gives him a favourable description. He is described as distinguished by birth and wealth, beats Spartacus brilliantly (λαμπρω̑ς) and in the next engagement killed 6,000 of the slave army in the morning and the same number again in the evening, losing only three of his own, with seven wounded.102 Crassus, when facing the prospect of Pompey stealing his victory at the end of this campaign, is the first to offer reconciliation.103

  The episode of Spartacus comes at the end of Book 1 of Appian’s Civil Wars, just after a description of Sertorius’ activities and Pompey’s victory in Spain. The war against Sertorius was against a Roman, who had set himself up independently in Spain after Sulla’s victory because earlier he had been on the opposing side. Appian draws a picture of a great general and attributes his failure to him turning to women and drink and alienating his own men so that he was assassinated by his general, Perperna. Appian ends the description saying the war would have lasted longer had Sertorius lived longer.

  Appian uses the story of Spartacus to illustrate the burgeoning conflict between Pompey and Crassus. Pompey had been victorious against Sertorius, and Crassus against Spartacus; both now wanted to be consul. There was a stand-off when neither disbanded their army, although Crassus made peace first and war was averted for a while. Overall Appian’s account is less favourable to Spartacus than Plutarch’s, with fewer gratuitous asides about his noble character.

  In our sources, then, Spartacus is credited with sensible plans, and mistakes were only made when his men did not obey him. The Romans could be generous about individuals but not about a whole army. It would seem improbable that much of substance can be gleaned from our sources about the historical slave leaders, but more importantly, perhaps, we can begin to understand how their enemies viewed t
hem; in the case of Spartacus this was as a great general, as befits someone who had caused them so much damage.104 But the rebellion had to be seen as the creation of an individual who was a virtual genius, not the collective action of the Romans’ own slaves.

  One individual was built up and heroized so that he could also be demonized and, more importantly, so that their own slaves could be made safe again. The Romans had to live with their slaves after the uprising so it helped them to think that without such a genius as Spartacus to lead them they would be docile and harmless. It makes sense, then, that usually one has a name on which to pin all the threat and the danger.

  Helot leaders

  It is interesting to contrast the examples we have seen so far with the case of the helots, in which the name of no particular individual is famous beyond all others. This may not be without influence on some scholars, who argue that the helots did not in fact rebel as much as our ancient sources report that they did. Richard Talbert, for instance, goes so far as to cast doubt on the ability of the helots to form any resistance:

  In brief we should expect helots to have been relatively ignorant, simple people, almost without education or awareness of the outside world. Few, if any, can even have gained the chance to develop the skills, let alone the sophistication, to make them natural leaders or agents for change.105