AH Challenge: How could Spartacus have defeated Crassus in Sicily?

[david3565]

I have been contemplating the last thread on this subject wondered how Spartacus could defeat an invasion force, most likely made up of Crassus' eight legions, which, at maximum, is going to be about 48,000 battle-hardened troops. Spartacus has about 70,000 ,ore poorly trained, but also battle-hardened troops, plus the support of Sicily, which was largely Greek and un-Romanized, and its slave population, which would have been newly freed. He also has access to the grain fields and industry on Sicily.

First, how long would it take Crassus to mount an invasion? I'm working with a turn-over of about six weeks, taking into account all the time it would take to gather all the ships and gather needed supplies (much of which might come out of Crassus pocket, buying whole towns outright to get everything underway). He might split his invasion force into four invasion armies, two legions each, landing on four sides of the island.

I figure the best path to victory for Spartacus' forces is to boobytrap everything that isn't nailed down; luring the legions toward what they view as ideal battleground and then using things like spike pits to break up and stop the legions in their tracks. Without coordinated shield cover, they are sitting ducks for archers, which would whittle down their numbers in a few minutes.

I figure two of the armies, or four legions, are taken out this way, leaving to, and leaving the defenders with few casualties. The other two armies deploy and figure an easy victory, not counting on the fact that the opfor is about to double and surround them. Their ships are also captured, leaving them stranded. Using traps again, they now also surround the force and slaughter them, making sure to capture Crassus alive, and then ransoming him back for a huge sum of money. Rome is now left without another invasion force in the short term to replace the one they lost, and Sicily now has the ships that sent them as well.

Now, I want to hear other peoples' opinions.

 

[MerryPrankster]

How does Spartacus get to Sicily? Do the pirates not betray him, or does he manage to defeat Crassus and Pompey and the others in the final battle and cross some other way (according to one AH-er, had he deployed his gladiators differently, he could have won)?

If Spart gets to Sicily, the Romans are in very deep trouble. Sicily was a major source of grain, plus it could serve as a HUGE manpower reserve (slaves outnumbered Romans by a large margin, I think) if there's time to train them in Roman battle tactics (Spartacus was a deserter from Thracian auxiliary forces, I believe).

 

[david3565]

I was figuring the priates don't betray him. The distance between Sicily and Italy is relatively small and with Crassus forces in the region, it means that there isn't much time to do much, except boobytrap. That is the whole scenario I set up; instead of toe to toe confrontation, they use Crassus' arrogance and lure him. They have enough experience to manuever, which is about all you need. Fielding ranks of archers and using ballista (probably built in the time it took Crassus to get there) they could whittle down the Roman forces in a matter of minutes.

 

[wkwillis]

Spartacus needed weapons as well as men

Spartacus needed weapons as well as men. Sicily had the capability to build iron implements and considerable room to manuever. The Romans couldn't conduct a Fabian strategy of retreat and demolition on an island. No place to go.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Leaving aside the problem of Spartacus's control of his army (shaky), the main difficulty here is the underestimation of Crassus. "Arrogance" was one thing he was never accused of. He was an exceptionally capable and shrewd financier. He was not a greatly gifted general but he knew his trade. We're not talking the Crassus of Carrhae here, we're nearer the Crassus of the Colline Gate. At Carrhae, Crassus was about 68 years old (his d.o.b. is uncertain), he hadn't been near an army for almost twenty years. At Waterloo, Napoleon and Wellington, by contrast, were about 45. Added to that, he had the problem of coming across in the Surenas a commander who had the simple idea of forming a permanent corps of 10,000 horse archers backed by a force of 1,000 camels devoted simply to carrying huge stocks of reserve arrows. Apparently this was the first time anything like this had been done. But against Spartacus he had a far better army than the one he led in Syria and he was still in his early forties, having not yet held the consulship. From the Roman point of view, he was in the prime of life. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to place your bets. My money's on Crassus.

 

[david3565]

I would say Spartacus's control was fairly strong, considering the type of army he fielded; a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic force of peoples that had, in some cases, a history of hostility toward one another. With the death of Crixus and his honorable treatment of his memory, he shows his personal character and with each victory, builds his reputation. Overthrowing an incredibly corrupt governor in Sicily and freeing more slaves only helps this along. My estimation is that his control would be fairly stable.

Sceond, his army already outnumbers Crassus own force by a good margin and upon freeing slaves in Sicily, the number will, at minimum, double. Second, you have the largely Greek non-slave population that will probably cooperate. With an ample supply of grain, he can sustain his army.

Third, he has the home advantage. They can scout and plan ahead for weeks, while also drilling troops and building up a stockpile of weapons. Arrogant or not, Crassus is most liley going to expect a toe to toe confrontation or a protracted siege. He is likely to feel that the defeat of this slave army is invitable. Simple tactical move on Spartacus's part: Send out a few ranks of troops to "attack" the Roman lines and then cut and run. As they haul tail, archers and ballista have been positioned to provide inter-locking fire from high ground, while traps have been set to pin down the Roman legions. Simple spike pits will grind the ranks to a halt and create holes in shield cover. The archers, quite numberous (I hope) would release a cloud of arrows that would land right on top of the Romans. The ballista just smash through the shield cover with brute force, creating more holes that archers can take advantage of. A good half hour to an hour, and a couple of Roman legions have just gone down the tubes.

The side benefit is that whole strategy is that it doesn't take a whole ot of troops, which leaves you with men to manuever around the back of the Romans and capture the ships which are still beached. They shove of again and bring them into harbors they control. The Romans are surrounded and left with no escape.

I give it a 50/50 or 60/40 chance of working. Maybe even 70/30.

Leaving aside the problem of Spartacus's control of his army (shaky), the main difficulty here is the underestimation of Crassus. "Arrogance" was one thing he was never accused of. He was an exceptionally capable and shrewd financier. He was not a greatly gifted general but he knew his trade. We're not talking the Crassus of Carrhae here, we're nearer the Crassus of the Colline Gate. At Carrhae, Crassus was about 68 years old (his d.o.b. is uncertain), he hadn't been near an army for almost twenty years. At Waterloo, Napoleon and Wellington, by contrast, were about 45. Added to that, he had the problem of coming across in the Surenas a commander who had the simple idea of forming a permanent corps of 10,000 horse archers backed by a force of 1,000 camels devoted simply to carrying huge stocks of reserve arrows. Apparently this was the first time anything like this had been done. But against Spartacus he had a far better army than the one he led in Syria and he was still in his early forties, having not yet held the consulship. From the Roman point of view, he was in the prime of life. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to place your bets. My money's on Crassus.

 

[Random Unicorn]

Is it REALLY that easy?

Roman History is not my strong suit but I think you may be missing a few things.

I would say Spartacus's control was fairly strong, considering the type of army he fielded; a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic force of peoples that had, in some cases, a history of hostility toward one another. With the death of Crixus and his honorable treatment of his memory, he shows his personal character and with each victory, builds his reputation. Overthrowing an incredibly corrupt governor in Sicily and freeing more slaves only helps this along. My estimation is that his control would be fairly stable.

However as you even admit “his control was fairly strong CONSIDERING the type of army he fielded…..†that still leaves a great deal of room for disorder. If I recall and the info was correct he had on more then one occasion had his orders ignored with nasty consequences. When compared to the Romans level of discipline I don’t think they are in the same league.

Sceond, his army already outnumbers Crassus own force by a good margin and upon freeing slaves in Sicily, the number will, at minimum, double. Second, you have the largely Greek non-slave population that will probably cooperate. With an ample supply of grain, he can sustain his army.

But what percentage of his army actually goes to Sicily. What part is seasoned warriors versus relatively untrained slaves/farmers. I am seriously asking as I don’t know.

Third, he has the home advantage. They can scout and plan ahead for weeks, while also drilling troops and building up a stockpile of weapons. Arrogant or not, Crassus is most liley going to expect a toe to toe confrontation or a protracted siege. He is likely to feel that the defeat of this slave army is invitable. Simple tactical move on Spartacus's part: Send out a few ranks of troops to "attack" the Roman lines and then cut and run. As they haul tail, archers and ballista have been positioned to provide inter-locking fire from high ground, while traps have been set to pin down the Roman legions. Simple spike pits will grind the ranks to a halt and create holes in shield cover. The archers, quite numberous (I hope) would release a cloud of arrows that would land right on top of the Romans. The ballista just smash through the shield cover with brute force, creating more holes that archers can take advantage of. A good half hour to an hour, and a couple of Roman legions have just gone down the tubes.

Agreed the home court advantage is very important. However is their any evidence that Crassus was that this arrogant or impulsive? After seeing Spartacus lay waste to several previous roman armies I find this unlikely. Do you have any evidence otherwise. I may be wrong but come now. Chasing after a few ranks of skirmishers into this “trap seems very unlikely.


If you were Crassus would you charge into a valley after a few ranks of Spartacus's men on an Island he has had several months to prepare without suspecting a trap?!?! I sure wouldn’t. Do you have any info that those Romans in charge were likely to make such a mistake?

Even if he falls for this obvious trap and I see NO evidence he would (If you have some please post it as I am curious if he was that bad of a leader.) there are several things that may not make this plan a success.

First off archers of the time period seem less effective against Roman troops then say British Longbow men vs. their enemies 2 millennia later. Did Spartacus even have any sizeable number of skilled archers? That seems like an unusual weapon for roman gladiators and slaves to be skilled at and to posses.

Ballista’s are on the large side and I don’t see much chance of them laying a hidden trap that is likely work. At least not that simple. And once again were those he led even skilled enough to make seige weapons in any quantity

Would the spikes really do anything to troops in normal formation marching at a normal pace? Aside from a few men maybe falling in.

If they are chasing after them, and thus more likley to fall in, how do those being chased avoid the spiked pits and not alert the pursuing Romans that "Hey there are traps ahead." All it takes is 2 or 3 of those being chased to miss the signs and they give it all away.

From my understanding spiked pits and the like were primarily used in defense of a position against a charge. I hardly see the Romans charging in mass into this situation.

This isn't counting the fact that the Romans simply withdraw a few hundred feet back after the trap is sprung, with the resulting couple of hundred in losses or that Roman scouts who are ahead of the main force don't spot said ambush.

The side benefit is that whole strategy is that it doesn't take a whole ot of troops, which leaves you with men to manuever around the back of the Romans and capture the ships which are still beached. They shove of again and bring them into harbors they control.
The Romans are surrounded and left with no escape.
I give it a 50/50 or 60/40 chance of working. Maybe even 70/30.

I think you are truly underestimating the Romans at this point. They have 8 Legions. Surely 1 legion if not 2 or 3 are left with the ships behind a classic Roman fortification. From my understanding these are QUITE impressive, Far more then a few spike pits and some balistas, and not likely to be breached. If your claim that a small contingent of Spartacus's men on a normal hill top could rip apart a couple of Roman legions in ½ an hour just think what a single Legion of Romans in an actual fortification could do to Spartacus’s men. Can we say “This is an Ex Spartucus.â€

I don’t know what the chances are but I think you may have created a little bit of a straw man here.

 

[david3565]

Roman History is not my strong suit but I think you may be missing a few things.

However as you even admit “his control was fairly strong CONSIDERING the type of army he fielded…..†that still leaves a great deal of room for disorder. If I recall and the info was correct he had on more then one occasion had his orders ignored with nasty consequences. When compared to the Romans level of discipline I don’t think they are in the same league.

And yet, by your own admission, they beat Roman forces is decisive victories on multiple occassions. Second, unless they're all collectively brain damaged, they're learning from past mistakes. Loosing twenty thousand Gauls to subborn pride is going to hammer something hard into your head if your grunt who having to decide who to follow. Third, looking upon some of Spartacus' actions of respect, throwing a banquet and games for fallen Crixus the Gaul and leaving 3000 Roman prisoners unharmed, only engenders respect for him. He's above board and there seems to be, looking on the historical record, little reason for his own people to resent him. Lastly, he has time, and a good bit of it, to drill and train and he has men with combat experience to lead that training.

But what percentage of his army actually goes to Sicily. What part is seasoned warriors versus relatively untrained slaves/farmers. I am seriously asking as I don’t know.

Since they never got to Sicily and the historical reocrd doesn't say otherwise, I have to assume 100%. And logic would also dictate this, as anyone left behind would be killed and they had full knowledge of that.

Agreed the home court advantage is very important. However is their any evidence that Crassus was that this arrogant or impulsive? After seeing Spartacus lay waste to several previous roman armies I find this unlikely. Do you have any evidence otherwise. I may be wrong but come now. Chasing after a few ranks of skirmishers into this “trap seems very unlikely.

There is the typical Roman attitude of viewing slaves and foreigners as being beneath them ("uncivilized") and the fact that Crassus had never personally fought them (would he have even learned the details of their victory?). Second, who said "only a few skirmishers"? Total, your looking at something around a 150,000 troops in Sicily, give or take, which is about half the Roman army's maximum strength at this point. Numbers are on their side. I figure they would field a decoy army to attract the Romans.

And I wouldn't expect brilliant insight from Crassus himself, as he was a general of mediocre quality. He would expect fortification. He would expect an organized force. But would he expect elaborate traps?

If you were Crassus would you charge into a valley after a few ranks of Spartacus's men on an Island he has had several months to prepare without suspecting a trap?!?! I sure wouldn’t. Do you have any info that those Romans in charge were likely to make such a mistake?

The Roman army simply never faced threats like that. They certainly used traps of their own, but most of their time was spent conquering inferior forces or armies organized a lot like themselves. Traps are not in all that regular usage at this point.

Even if he falls for this obvious trap and I see NO evidence he would (If you have some please post it as I am curious if he was that bad of a leader.) there are several things that may not make this plan a success.

Not in the context of the period, when warfare is based around the phalanx and the seige. Yes, traps were used in sieges, but not as an intergal part of and offensive strategy and infantry formations.

First off archers of the time period seem less effective against Roman troops then say British Longbow men vs. their enemies 2 millennia later. Did Spartacus even have any sizeable number of skilled archers? That seems like an unusual weapon for roman gladiators and slaves to be skilled at and to posses.

I'm assuming the demographic breakdown of the slaves would afford at least a few hundred, which is a fearsome number, considering the firing rate of a long bow. Second, what is the typical usage of the bow in Europe. As I understand it, the Romans didn't really field archers all that much, to the point where I am assuming Crassus had none. Going through the whole of Sicily, with its multi-ethnic make up of slaves and the 70,000 Spartacus brought with him, I would hope for quite a few.

Second, the reason that archers weren't effective was the coordinated shield cover that Roman soldiers trained in. Blast holes in the shield cover and mess up their ranks, as you can hit them. Give those arrows iron tips, as they become more deadly.

Ballista’s are on the large side and I don’t see much chance of them laying a hidden trap that is likely work. At least not that simple. And once again were those he led even skilled enough to make seige weapons in any quantity.

Ballista's are small enough to hide (made in varying sizes as well) and they only need to be operated from a fixed positioned, preferably high ground. Slaves made up the bulwark of Rome's craftsmen and laborers and considering the hodgepodge nature of his army and the addition of Sicily's labor pool, they can produce ballistas in bulk.

Would the spikes really do anything to troops in normal formation marching at a normal pace? Aside from a few men maybe falling in.

Yes. The densely packed troops of the phalanx would suffer quite a shock from having the ground fall from beneath them. At minimum, it stops their advance. Which means they either have to turn around or sit there.

If they are chasing after them, and thus more likley to fall in, how do those being chased avoid the spiked pits and not alert the pursuing Romans that "Hey there are traps ahead." All it takes is 2 or 3 of those being chased to miss the signs and they give it all away.

It is all dependant on the organization of the troops, the contours and lay of the land, and how they communicate, which means that is more the specifics of the plan than an actual hurdle. Maybe the traps are load-bearing and triggered by pulling a rope.

From my understanding spiked pits and the like were primarily used in defense of a position against a charge. I hardly see the Romans charging in mass into this situation.

Who says they have to be used that way?

This isn't counting the fact that the Romans simply withdraw a few hundred feet back after the trap is sprung, with the resulting couple of hundred in losses or that Roman scouts who are ahead of the main force don't spot said ambush.

Except they have to run around, exposing themselves. Moving dozens of hundreds of ranks of men takes coordination and time and withdrawing leaves you vulnerable. Also, how do they now advance forward? Are there any other traps?

Consider this scenario: Legions march toward one of Sicily's major cities, being held by Spartacus' forces. He has hidden a smaller group of veteran troops outside the city, with explicit orders to ignore the scouts and the regular army until they are ahead of them, attacking from behind. They launch an attack, purposefully designed to fail, but to give the Romans bait to chase them. The Legions shift to chase the troops and the troops fall back to a prepared postion, with rigged traps that Roman troops can stand on top of, but collapse with the pull of a rope. Seated on elevated terrain are archers in hiding. The traps are pulled, blasting holes in their ranks. The archers fling arrows into those holes, making them wider. And now additional forces attack from behind, disgorging from the occupied city.

I think you are truly underestimating the Romans at this point. They have 8 Legions. Surely 1 legion if not 2 or 3 are left with the ships behind a classic Roman fortification. From my understanding these are QUITE impressive, Far more then a few spike pits and some balistas, and not likely to be breached. If your claim that a small contingent of Spartacus's men on a normal hill top could rip apart a couple of Roman legions in ½ an hour just think what a single Legion of Romans in an actual fortification could do to Spartacus’s men. Can we say “This is an Ex Spartucus.â€

The Roman army was a formidable force of its era, but in Spartacus' actions i see a grasp of uncovential tactics, able to find the weakness in the Roman strategy and utilize it. In that sense, I don't underestimate the Romans, but take into account one or two glaring weaknesses they did have.

 

[Random Unicorn]

Blind Leading The Blind

For the purpose of this discussion you seem to want to give the Romans no benefit of the doubt and Spartacus every one. Please note the two comparisons

Second, unless they're all collectively brain damaged, they're learning from past mistakes. Loosing twenty thousand Gauls to subborn pride is going to hammer something hard into your head if your grunt who having to decide who to follow.

There is the typical Roman attitude of viewing slaves and foreigners as being beneath them ("uncivilized") and the fact that Crassus had never personally fought them (would he have even learned the details of their victory?)

And I wouldn't expect brilliant insight from Crassus himself, as he was a general of mediocre quality. He would expect fortification. He would expect an organized force. But would he expect elaborate traps?

Notice you give Spartacus troops wonderful brains and insight yet you gave the very Romans who DID defeat Spartacus - mediocrity and stupidity.

I'm assuming the demographic breakdown of the slaves would afford at least a few hundred, which is a fearsome number, considering the firing rate of a long bow. Second, what is the typical usage of the bow in Europe. As I understand it, the Romans didn't really field archers all that much, to the point where I am assuming Crassus had none. Going through the whole of Sicily, with its multi-ethnic make up of slaves and the 70,000 Spartacus brought with him, I would hope for quite a few.

You are drawing a conclusions based purely on Assumptions and once more short changing the Romans.

Please note that you don’t know if he had bowmen. Let alone Actual bows which from my understanding takes a TRAINED craftsmen weeks or months to make. Let alone that he had Longbows which is still one step farther. Yet you Give him the Benefit of the Doubt. The Romans you say didn’t field many archers so you biasedly assume that means Crassus had none.

Hmmm I don't know if Spartucus had Archers but lets assume he did.
I know The Romans had Archers but lets assume Crassus did not.

Since they never got to Sicily and the historical reocrd doesn't say otherwise, I have to assume 100%. And logic would also dictate this, as anyone left behind would be killed and they had full knowledge of that.

Again with the assumptions, In this case apparently Wrong. Actually historical records from Plutarch say:

“Meeting with some Cilician pirate ships in the straits, Spartacus decided to send a small force to Sicily, where a slave rebellion had been extinguished only a few years earlier. By landing two thousand men in Sicily, Spartacus hoped to rekindle the fire which had so recently been smothered, and which seemed to need only a little fuel to set it blazing again. But after the pirates had struck a bargain with him, and collected their payment, they deceived Spartacus and sailed away.â€

Notice that your Assumption failed. Could that be the case with the rest of your Assumptions?!?

And I wouldn't expect brilliant insight from Crassus himself, as he was a general of mediocre quality. He would expect fortification. He would expect an organized force. But would he expect elaborate traps?

Who knows if Crassus would expect this. Since we have no facts lets ASSUME he does

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Unicorn
If you were Crassus would you charge into a valley after a few ranks of Spartacus's men on an Island he has had several months to prepare without suspecting a trap?!?! I sure wouldn’t. Do you have any info that those Romans in charge were likely to make such a mistake?

The Roman army simply never faced threats like that. They certainly used traps of their own, but most of their time was spent conquering inferior forces or armies organized a lot like themselves. Traps are not in all that regular usage at this point.

Is this another you assume they never faced such a threat OR a you have researched Roman history and KNOW they never faced such a threat?

This isn't counting the fact that the Romans simply withdraw a few hundred feet back after the trap is sprung, with the resulting couple of hundred in losses or that Roman scouts who are ahead of the main force don't spot said ambush.

Except they have to run around, exposing themselves. Moving dozens of hundreds of ranks of men takes coordination and time and withdrawing leaves you vulnerable. Also, how do they now advance forward? Are there any other traps?

They don’t have to advance they can flank around or retreat.

Consider this scenario: Legions march toward one of Sicily's major cities, being held by Spartacus' forces. He has hidden a smaller group of veteran troops outside the city, with explicit orders to ignore the scouts and the regular army until they are ahead of them, attacking from behind. They launch an attack, purposefully designed to fail, but to give the Romans bait to chase them. The Legions shift to chase the troops and the troops fall back to a prepared postion, with rigged traps that Roman troops can stand on top of, but collapse with the pull of a rope. Seated on elevated terrain are archers in hiding. The traps are pulled, blasting holes in their ranks. The archers fling arrows into those holes, making them wider. And now additional forces attack from behind, disgorging from the occupied city.

Lets see
1) the Scouts are automatically blind and miss finding these traps which number in the 100’s or 1000s of square feet.
2) The same scouts also miss this decoy ARMY and pass them by.
3) The archers and ballista’s automatically are not spotted by the same group of scouts

Who are these scouts Ray Charles and Helen Keller???

\ \

3) When attacked the main force automatically pursues as opposed to regrouping.
4) The main force runs headlong into a trap taking Extreme Casualties!

Spartucus has the luck of the Gods in this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Unicorn
I think you are truly underestimating the Romans at this point. They have 8 Legions. Surely 1 legion if not 2 or 3 are left with the ships behind a classic Roman fortification. From my understanding these are QUITE impressive, Far more then a few spike pits and some ballista’s, and not likely to be breached. If your claim that a small contingent of Spartacus 's men on a normal hill top could rip apart a couple of Roman legions in ½ an hour just think what a single Legion of Romans in an actual fortification could do to Spartacus ‘s men. Can we say “This is an Ex Spartacus.â€

The Roman army was a formidable force of its era, but in Spartacus' actions i see a grasp of uncovential tactics, able to find the weakness in the Roman strategy and utilize it. In that sense, I don't underestimate the Romans, but take into account one or two glaring weaknesses they did have.

So lets see Spartucus uses Balistas, Traps but no fortifications in an untried and unconventional way and You ASSUME they work against the romans. The Romans Use the same sorts of Traps and Balistas as Well as Fortifications, water filled ditches, Etc in a proven to work tequnique and you ASSUME they fail.

Are Space Bats Helping Spartucus??? Inquiring Minds want to Know!



Random Unicorn

 

[wkwillis]

Crassus in Desert vs Crassus in Mediterranean

Crassus did let himself be defeated in the desert, but he had a great deal of experience in Mediterranean climate zones. He also had some competent officers who had the opportunity to study Spartacus and his army. I won't assume he makes any mistakes. Assume that Spartacus also makes no mistakes. Does that automatically mean he will lose because he is outnumbered by an empire?
No, they face different strategic dilemnas. Rome was everywhere in ascendency, and ascendency based on raw power. They had no friends and few allies. Considering the position of Rome at the nexus of the trade and information routes, they could always get the jump on the opposition. The problem for Rome is that if they don't smash Spartacus, the opposition will have the time to set up and launch a simutaneous attack on all the Roman frontiers. This will also loosed Rome's control of it's slaves as their masters are called away from garrison duty overawing slaves to defending the Romans in outlying areas from being taken as slaves themselves.
Rome has to smash Spartacus fast. Even if they have to take chances. Even if they have to fight in the wrong season, in the wrong place, with the wrong forces. The whole world hates Rome. With reason.
Still, Rome will fight professionally. They have lots of trained troops. The strait of Messina is only a few miles wide. Two, I believe. They can land lots of troops over a wide front, dig in, and land more. Assume that they can support maybe one hundred thousand troops by stripping the whole of the Med of galleys and troops, leaving only one hundred thousand troops at home and two hundred thousand troops on the frontiers. Keep in mind that Rome has not granted citizenship even to the whole of Italy yet, let alone the whole of the Republic's territory in Gaul, Iberia, Illyria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Libya, etc. Most of the Roman territory has been captured in a single person's lifetime. There are old men who can tell about when it wasn't certain that Rome would win and conquer.
That's it. Not trained troops, but the whole of the Roman citizenship that has slaves and is willing to fight to keep them. All the slave owning males over 20 and under 40, which is pretty much the limit for physical combat. That still isn't as many men as Spartacus has, and he isn't limited by ship based transport.
Can Spartacus arm them, can he get the iron ore and the charcoal and the furnaces to make the iron, let alone the smiths to forge it into swords and armor? Forget about compound bows and long bows, just simple bows and iron arrowheads?
One other and possibly crucial factor. The individual Romans can always go home to the Italian peninsula. The rich Romans are the ones with villas in Gaul and Iberia. Even the slave owning Romans in Italia can just go home and still lead a decent life. That's not an option for Spartacus and his army. It's win, and confiscate the Roman landowners' land and settle down as farmers in a nice climate. The alternative is to die on a cross.
It's going to be a hell of a fight.

 

[monkey]

I reckon spartacus would fight them on the beaches.

 

[david3565]

For the purpose of this discussion you seem to want to give the Romans no benefit of the doubt and Spartacus every one. Please note the two comparisons

It's called a military blunder. They happen, and fairly often.

Notice you give Spartacus troops wonderful brains and insight yet you gave the very Romans who DID defeat Spartacus - mediocrity and stupidity.

Arrogance breeds stupidity in even the sharpest minds and there are many intelligent men through history that have made some very idiotic mistakes. Now, consideri all the factors here: Unchecked growth of Roman borders, near-absolute victory on the battlfield for every Roman campaign for two or more generations, the Roman attitude of cultural dominance, and the ascent of a Roman political elite that would lead to the debauched rule of the Caesars. It is a perfect environment for breeding arrogance.

Now, there is the counter weight of Spartacus blooding them in battle in multiple decisive victories. They are learning, but it sits on the edge between retreating into their own egos or learning from their mistakes. Considering that most of the generals of this time, are, for lack of a better term, spoiled (rich politicians in uniform), some of them are going to retreat into their own egos. What remains to be seen is if Crassus will do the same as others. Now, I have weighted things too far in Spartacus favor, but he does have assets on his side. So, lets put them on equal ground.

Lastly, they defeated him becuase he was pinned without any other options. Brilliance or no brilliance, he couldn't go anywhere. However, even when Crassus attacked head on, he still broke though his lines ot make it to a port city and was caught by surprise when Pompey's troops were unloading. So, when facing Crassus toe to toe, he could beat him.

You are drawing a conclusions based purely on Assumptions and once more short changing the Romans.

It's called extrapolation. Educated guess-work. It doesn't mean my conclusions are going to be perfect, but it doesn't mean I am pulling it completely out of my butt either. I am basing it on factual information. Sometimes some of that information may be erroneous or obscured, so posting in a forum like this irons that out.

Please note that you don’t know if he had bowmen. Let alone Actual bows which from my understanding takes a TRAINED craftsmen weeks or months to make. Let alone that he had Longbows which is still one step farther. Yet you Give him the Benefit of the Doubt. The Romans you say didn’t field many archers so you biasedly assume that means Crassus had none.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Romans fielded none. They had ballista and other variant siege weapons which were over-sized crossbows, but they regular Roman army didn't field bows. They may have fielded mercenaries with archers, but unless someone can show Crassus brought foreign mercenaries with him, he didn't have any.

Hmmm I don't know if Spartucus had Archers but lets assume he did. I know The Romans had Archers but lets assume Crassus did not.

Spartacus has a greater chance than Crassus. And until someone can dig up a link of the slave demographics, I'm going to go with a hunch and give him that. Its the flip of a coin on that one.

Again with the assumptions, In this case apparently Wrong. Actually historical records from Plutarch say:

“Meeting with some Cilician pirate ships in the straits, Spartacus decided to send a small force to Sicily, where a slave rebellion had been extinguished only a few years earlier. By landing two thousand men in Sicily, Spartacus hoped to rekindle the fire which had so recently been smothered, and which seemed to need only a little fuel to set it blazing again. But after the pirates had struck a bargain with him, and collected their payment, they deceived Spartacus and sailed away.â€

Notice that your Assumption failed. Could that be the case with the rest of your Assumptions?!?

Quit harping on the assumptions part, as your making the assumption that everything I am saying is assumption, when if you dug deep enough, you would realize a lot of it is extrapolation. This isn't a perfect scenario. It has holes. Nearly everything posted by eveyrbody here has holes in the first few versions.

I could equally say your assuming the Romans would win, which, looking upon what Spartacus has, is not such a sure thing. Second, I was extrapolating from erroneous information on my part, so it wasn't entirely an assumption. Thank you for correcting that erroneous information, though.

Who knows if Crassus would expect this. Since we have no facts lets ASSUME he does

Is this another you assume they never faced such a threat OR a you have researched Roman history and KNOW they never faced such a threat?

They don’t have to advance they can flank around or retreat.

Lets see
1) the Scouts are automatically blind and miss finding these traps which number in the 100’s or 1000s of square feet.
2) The same scouts also miss this decoy ARMY and pass them by.
3) The archers and ballista’s automatically are not spotted by the same group of scouts

Now your assuming the details of the plan I set down. 1) If the traps are camouflaged by foilage correctly, you aren't going to see anything. Period. That is fact. 2) The decoy army is not out in the open. A secluded position from which to attack is best. 3) The archers and ballista on in an entirely different location, away from the current battlefield. Why would they see them, since they're headed in entirely different direction?

I said they could retreat, but that involves a period of vulnerability as they shift directions. Trying to flank when you have been shocked into stopping also means that it takes precious minutes. Either one leave them dangerously vulnerable.

Who are these scouts Ray Charles and Helen Keller???



3) When attacked the main force automatically pursues as opposed to regrouping.
4) The main force runs headlong into a trap taking Extreme Casualties!

Spartucus has the luck of the Gods in this one.

Granted, it doesn't make sense the whole force would go after the decoys. They would probably break off a flanking force to pursue and then keep marching. That flanking force WOULD pursue them and might run head long into a trap because the rear attack was meant to seem like the trap in the first place. Having an entrenched position waiting is a conventional back up plan. They now have little reason to assume yet another trap. In fact the officers might assume this was some ploy to drain men off so that Spartacus forces could disgorge from the city and attakc a split force. So, the trap might fail, or the Romans may assume the flanking force was a negligible investment and that they didn't fall for the original perceived ploy, at which point they simply order the flanking force to lay seige to keep those troops pinned in. Seiging means massing troops around a fortification, which is ideal for springing any variation of pit traps.

So lets see Spartucus uses Balistas, Traps but no fortifications in an untried and unconventional way and You ASSUME they work against the romans. The Romans Use the same sorts of Traps and Balistas as Well as Fortifications, water filled ditches, Etc in a proven to work tequnique and you ASSUME they fail.

Are Space Bats Helping Spartucus??? Inquiring Minds want to Know!

Random Unicorn

For him it is untried, but that is all he has. Desparation is going to make you consider every unconventional idea. But sitting here more than 2000 years later, which know of many examples of such unconvential which did succeed, and since Spartacus did seem to have a strong grasp of the unconventional (his first victory employing a steep mountain side to attack legions from behind...fact, not assumption; above statement being extrapolation), then it is safe to take an educated guess that it has more than a small chance of working.

Second, the Romans are the attacking force, and as wkwillis pointed out, they don't have the time so to set up fancy fortifications and traps (and they used traps...I didn't say they used the same types) and they are the attacking troops, which means that they haven't any set up as is. And just becuase they use traps doesn't mean they are the regular recipients of them. Most likely, they aren't expecting them to be used; foreign slaves, barbarians, and uncivilized. I can guarantee you that is how they view them. And despite even being able to learn from Spartacus resroucefulness, they have never seen what he is capable of when he is entrenched.

However, the flip side is that those with more clarity may be cautious enough to check for extensive traps. Particularly skilled officers are going to send scouts to areas they could be used for ambushes. It becomes a game of chance. Lets lower the odds of victory to 40/60 or 50/50.

Lastly, the one thing Spartacus can leverage in great number are craftsmen. By marching across Italy, he has taken a cross-section of its most skilled labor: blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, farmers, book-keepers, etc. Many of those people of course are going to be mere house servants, but even they are no strangers to general labor. You have a work force as capable of engineering and building as the Roman Army, for all intents and purposes. The chances are good, again, based on extrapolation, that there are those who know how to make styles of bows from their native home land. They do not have to be fancy or complicated. They have to fling an arrow upward in an arc accurate enough to hit in very large group of densely packed men.

 

[david3565]

Very interesting analysis. Just a couple of other observations:

--Sicily supplies grain to Rome, which gives Rome extra incentive to free Sicily.

--Spartacus has smashed a not-too-small fraction of the Roman Army, which places strain on a force already trying to hold the Empire together and expand it at the same time. The Roman Army, according to wikipedia, was anywhere from 250,000-300,000. To anyone who can answer, what was the number during this period?

--If Crassus and Pompey are defeated, it could take years to mount another invasion, at which time the slaves will be on more equal footing.

--It might be that the more clear-thinking among them we'll see what a quagmire Sicily has become (if Spartacus did win), decide to leave them alone for a while, and then focus on how they are going to prevent and put down slave revolts, which will be an easier position to maintain their tenuous borders.

Crassus did let himself be defeated in the desert, but he had a great deal of experience in Mediterranean climate zones. He also had some competent officers who had the opportunity to study Spartacus and his army. I won't assume he makes any mistakes. Assume that Spartacus also makes no mistakes. Does that automatically mean he will lose because he is outnumbered by an empire?
No, theym face different strategic dilemnas. Roe was everywhere in ascendency, and ascendency based on raw power. They had no friends and few allies. Considering the position of Rome at the nexus of the trade and information routes, they could always get the jump on the opposition. The problem for Rome is that if they don't smash Spartacus, the opposition will have the time to set up and launch a simutaneous attack on all the Roman frontiers. This will also loosed Rome's control of it's slaves as their masters are called away from garrison duty overawing slaves to defending the Romans in outlying areas from being taken as slaves themselves.
Rome has to smash Spartacus fast. Even if they have to take chances. Even if they have to fight in the wrong season, in the wrong place, with the wrong forces. The whole world hates Rome. With reason.
Still, Rome will fight professionally. They have lots of trained troops. The strait of Messina is only a few miles wide. Two, I believe. They can land lots of troops over a wide front, dig in, and land more. Assume that they can support maybe one hundred thousand troops by stripping the whole of the Med of galleys and troops, leaving only one hundred thousand troops at home and two hundred thousand troops on the frontiers. Keep in mind that Rome has not granted citizenship even to the whole of Italy yet, let alone the whole of the Republic's territory in Gaul, Iberia, Illyria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Libya, etc. Most of the Roman territory has been captured in a single person's lifetime. There are old men who can tell about when it wasn't certain that Rome would win and conquer.
That's it. Not trained troops, but the whole of the Roman citizenship that has slaves and is willing to fight to keep them. All the slave owning males over 20 and under 40, which is pretty much the limit for physical combat. That still isn't as many men as Spartacus has, and he isn't limited by ship based transport.
Can Spartacus arm them, can he get the iron ore and the charcoal and the furnaces to make the iron, let alone the smiths to forge it into swords and armor? Forget about compound bows and long bows, just simple bows and iron arrowheads?
One other and possibly crucial factor. The individual Romans can always go home to the Italian peninsula. The rich Romans are the ones with villas in Gaul and Iberia. Even the slave owning Romans in Italia can just go home and still lead a decent life. That's not an option for Spartacus and his army. It's win, and confiscate the Roman landowners' land and settle down as farmers in a nice climate. The alternative is to die on a cross.
It's going to be a hell of a fight.

 

[Random Unicorn]

Spartucus = McGuiever

It's called a military blunder. They happen, and fairly often.

Yes they happen, However if your only response to possible problems to your timeline is Military Blunder, Luck and Romans are Arrogant and impulsive (When the evidence starts to point otherwise) then I think your Alt Timeline is mighty weak.

I could equally say your assuming the Romans would win, which, looking upon what Spartacus has, is not such a sure thing. Second, I was extrapolating from erroneous information on my part, so it wasn't entirely an assumption. Thank you for correcting that erroneous information, though.

That’s where you WOULD be wrong. I most certainly DON’T Think the Romans would win. I DON’T think Spartacus will win. I will freely admit that I don’t know. I just don’t like to see Alt Timelines that use straw man arguments and nonexistent data to reach a conclusion.

As I have already said and shown you seem more then willing to assume that Spartucus’s traps and Unproven bowmen will decimate the Romans yet in the same breath you claim that proven roman fortifications at their beachhead will fail against untried tactics. You provide no evidence for this other then repeated claims to “ARROGANT ROMANSâ€

Now your assuming the details of the plan I set down. 1) If the traps are camouflaged by foilage correctly, you aren't going to see anything. Period. That is fact. 2) The decoy army is not out in the open. A secluded position from which to attack is best. 3) The archers and ballista on in an entirely different location, away from the current battlefield. Why would they see them, since they're headed in entirely different direction?

1- No that is not FACT. Camouflage even when done correctly does not always work. Your definition of “Fact†is lacking. If you can show me a single Reference, Just one that correctly applied Camouflage Always (Implied by your use of the word Period) works, I would love to see it.

2 - Yes but still in a position that the roman scouts Keller, Stevie and Charles will not find. Yep Hiding 2000 men the secret trap force and all these traps.

3 - Romans sent out, from my understanding, scouts in all directions. This was not only to check for the enemy (Yea don’t send any scouts off to the sides. We aren’t worried about being outflanked.) but also to Gather information (Lets not talk to the locals some of whom are loyal roman citizens. They don’t know anything.) Gathering food (Were Romans we don’t need no Stinking Food.)

Do you have any evidence that such traps in a similar situation (Chasing after an enemy) in the 500+ years since Spartacus worked on this scale. If so what were the casualties?
I am seriously asking this question as you seem to be placing far mare emphasis on traps in Massed plains Warfare then I have ever heard. Please let me know your source.

Granted, it doesn't make sense the whole force would go after the decoys. They would probably break off a flanking force to pursue and then keep marching. That flanking force WOULD pursue them and might run head long into a trap because the rear attack was meant to seem like the trap in the first place. Having an entrenched position waiting is a conventional back up plan. They now have little reason to assume yet another trap. In fact the officers might assume this was some ploy to drain men off so that Spartacus forces could disgorge from the city and attack a split force. So, the trap might fail, or the Romans may assume the flanking force was a negligible investment and that they didn't fall for the original perceived ploy, at which point they simply order the flanking force to lay seige to keep those troops pinned in. Seiging means massing troops around a fortification, which is ideal for springing any variation of pit traps.

If I understand your description and outcome, assuming this plan works, you now have a two thousand Romans attacking and maybe taking heavy losses in the trap ambush. You have 18,000 Romans starting the preparation for Siege Warfare and fortifying their own positions. I can see this as a possibility and will readily agree that the Romans will take some Casualties (up to 1% in any March on the Cities) assuming NO massive engagements occur.

Second, the Romans are the attacking force, and as wkwillis pointed out, they don't have the time so to set up fancy fortifications and traps (and they used traps...I didn't say they used the same types) and they are the attacking troops, which means that they haven't any set up as is. And just becuase they use traps doesn't mean they are the regular recipients of them. Most likely, they aren't expecting them to be used; foreign slaves, barbarians, and uncivilized. I can guarantee you that is how they view them. And despite even being able to learn from Spartacus resroucefulness, they have never seen what he is

Where does wkwillis say they don’t have time for Fortifications and Traps. The Romans could produce these in a matter of Days or Weeks. This was a time when wars were fought on a scale of Years! All evidence I have seen is that the Romans protected their supply line. Do you have evidence otherwise.

However, the flip side is that those with more clarity may be cautious enough to check for extensive traps. Particularly skilled officers are going to send scouts to areas they could be used for ambushes. It becomes a game of chance. Lets lower the odds of victory to 40/60 or 50/50.

The Traps are NOT what will take out Spartucus’s army if it attacks. (You sound like some of my fellow gamers who are GM’s. Grimtooths anyone. ) It’s the Fortifications. How does Spartacus get around these to capture the fleet.

Lastly, the one thing Spartacus can leverage in great number are craftsmen. By marching across Italy, he has taken a cross-section of its most skilled labor: blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, farmers, book-keepers, etc. Many of those people of course are going to be mere house servants, but even they are no strangers to general labor. You have a work force as capable of engineering and building as the Roman Army, for all intents and purposes. The chances are good, again, based on extrapolation, that there are those who know how to make styles of bows from their native home land. They do not have to be fancy or complicated. They have to fling an arrow upward in an arc accurate enough to hit in very large group of densely packed men.

Yes A very densely packed group of Armored and Shielded men. Who have successfully faced TRAINED PROFESSIONAL ARCHERS, You seem to put a great deal more Reliance on a bow that may not even have existed. Spartacus fought for over 2 years in Italy and you have produced no evidence that he used a bow. Let alone bows on a tactical scale. Yet suddenly upon reaching Sicily in a matter of a month he manages to build equip and train an army of archers.

Building Bows and Making Traps. Are you sure we aren’t talking about McGuiever here!

 

[Random Unicorn]

Other Allies

Are there any groups with sufficient Strength that Spartucus could Ally himself with.
They would probably need to meet the following criteria
1) Be able to assist in a matter of Moths or 1-2 Years at most.
2) Be someone Spartucus AND his men would be willing to cut a deal with

If so what could they bring to the table, What would they want, and What is the Outcome.


Random Unicorn

 

[MerryPrankster]

WK is right...there are probably many in this period who don't like Rome. Since Spartacus is currently sitting on one sizable chunk of Rome's grain supply (Sicily) and is astride the trade routes of another chunk (North Africa), people are going to flock to him, "the strong horse."

However, something tells me the Romans will have Sicily pretty blockaded. That could make assembling allies difficult. However, if lots of troops are being stripped for a Mediterranean Armageddon between Spartacus and Crassus, I foresee lots of unrest and possibly even an incursion from outside (the Britons in Claudius's day thought they could push Rome around on the matter of deserters, and there's always the Germans).

I think there were two incidents in Spartacus's campaign where one big group split off along ethnic lines and was exterminated. The possibility exists that this could happen again, though if everyone's corralled on one island and there's no chance they can go wandering back to the homeland (I imagine Crixus and the Gauls figured they could slip out and get back to Gaul), it's less likely.

Still, people can be very stupid sometimes. There might be some North African slaves who think they could run the blockade and get back to Carthage.

Hmm...could the Parthians theoretically make some move in the Middle East to take advantage of Rome's preoccupation with Spartacus? That'd be a very big problem for Rome. Would Spartacus and his associates have any qualms about dealing with them?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Was Crassus especially arrogant? I read about him and it described all the virtues he had (if anyone ever needed a place to stay, they could come to his house), but it said that his one vice, greed, overshadowed all his virtues. The chronicler (I can't remember who) said that greed, not pride, was his main vice.

Now, the Romans have been winning every war for generations, so I suspect he might have something of a swelled head, but Spartacus has also mauled several Roman legions thus far. He might be inclined to NOT be an egomaniac on the issue.

Perhaps Spartacus can take advantage of Crassus's greed by spreading rumors that perhaps all the treasure taken by Spartacus's men in their battles with Rome is stored in a particular location. That might be sufficient bait to affect Crassus, at least subconsciously, and lure him into a trap.

 

[david3565]

Yes they happen, However if your only response to possible problems to your timeline is Military Blunder, Luck and Romans are Arrogant and impulsive (When the evidence starts to point otherwise) then I think your Alt Timeline is mighty weak.

You seem to keep harping on the "arrogant and impulsive" point, evne though parts of discussion. Second, I am assuming some luck. Military blunders are generally situations of chance; a wrong move or series of wrong moves resulting in a completely unexpected defeat.

That’s where you WOULD be wrong. I most certainly DON’T Think the Romans would win. I DON’T think Spartacus will win. I will freely admit that I don’t know.

Fair enough.

I just don’t like to see Alt Timelines that use straw man arguments and nonexistent data to reach a conclusion.

Despite the fact I have rebutted a few of your points? And you keep coming back to subjects that this discussion has passed.

As I have already said and shown you seem more then willing to assume that Spartucus’s traps and Unproven bowmen will decimate the Romans yet in the same breath you claim that proven roman fortifications at their beachhead will fail against untried tactics. You provide no evidence for this other then repeated claims to “ARROGANT ROMANSâ€

You seem to keep ignoring two facts: The Roman cultural view toward slaves and foreigners and and the current Roman political dominance, both of which would tend to breed arrogance in Roman commanders, many of whom were the powerful elite of the day (that alone does breed arrogance and one need only look upon the long history of debauchery among the Caesars to see that). Those are facts. My conclusion was a extrapolation. I also admitted that it may be counter-acted by Spartacus' success. So I'm not making it a certainty.

1- No that is not FACT. Camouflage even when done correctly does not always work. Your definition of “Fact†is lacking. If you can show me a single Reference, Just one that correctly applied Camouflage Always (Implied by your use of the word Period) works, I would love to see it.

True. i should have rephrased my statement to say it has a very good chance of working when correctly applied. Murphy's law tends to make "full proof" plans anything but. But if you need examples of decisive camouflage applied on a large scale and working, one need only look to WWII. Many of the same materials are available to Spartacus.

2 - Yes but still in a position that the roman scouts Keller, Stevie and Charles will not find. Yep Hiding 2000 men the secret trap force and all these traps.

Again, you're assuming that these troops are some how sitting a few hundred yards from the road. It depends on the contours of the land and what measures they take at obfuscation. Again, you need examples of large scale hiding, look at WWII, or look at the Viet Kong's efforts in Vietnam, when they had one of their main HQs hidden under an American base during a Christmas celebration. The same basic materials or similar ones are available to Spartacus.

3 - Romans sent out, from my understanding, scouts in all directions. This was not only to check for the enemy (Yea don’t send any scouts off to the sides. We aren’t worried about being outflanked.) but also to Gather information (Lets not talk to the locals some of whom are loyal roman citizens. They don’t know anything.) Gathering food (Were Romans we don’t need no Stinking Food.)

Thanks for that morself of information, but are we talking about blanketing an entire region or just a given area of operation? And yes, those definitions vary with the size of the army.

Do you have any evidence that such traps in a similar situation (Chasing after an enemy) in the 500+ years since Spartacus worked on this scale. If so what were the casualties? I am seriously asking this question as you seem to be placing far mare emphasis on traps in Massed plains Warfare then I have ever heard. Please let me know your source.

Well, I can't point to any ancient examples, as I haven't studied the history of traps, but a modern example is the Viet Kong, who blooded American troops with regular use of traps, and the materials ffor several of the regularly employed designs are availiable to Spartacus.

If I understand your description and outcome, assuming this plan works, you now have a two thousand Romans attacking and maybe taking heavy losses in the trap ambush. You have 18,000 Romans starting the preparation for Siege Warfare and fortifying their own positions. I can see this as a possibility and will readily agree that the Romans will take some Casualties (up to 1% in any March on the Cities) assuming NO massive engagements occur.

Granted, it is going to take more than one major strike of that nature to whittle away the Roman force, but taking out 5% of the enemy (captured or killed) with far fewer casualties is a very good thing. Ultimately, it was only an example. I'm not a tactician, but I was only making a quick example of how it could work. In reality, it is going to require a more comprehensive strategy built around the principal of subterfuge. And yet there is also another strategic angle which Spartacus might consider.

Employing a "defenseless defense", choosing complete mobility with no points of control. It allows them to attack and then melt away, wearing down a entrenched Roman force rather quickly. Its splits the concentration of troops, preventing them from bringing significant force to bear and the mobile force moves faster than a Roman phalanx, meaning they slip away before the Romans can respond.

The Romans could produce these in a matter of Days or Weeks. This was a time when wars were fought on a scale of Years! All evidence I have seen is that the Romans protected their supply line. Do you have evidence otherwise.

Again, in the first days or weeks of engagement, they haven't built or finished fortifications. Second, they have to watch the clock. Rome could starve and the political scene is not the most stable. They have every reason to try and rush this. And Spartacus, now amply familiar with Roman strategy, is not going to let them gain a foot hold.

The Traps are NOT what will take out Spartucus’s army if it attacks. (You sound like some of my fellow gamers who are GM’s. Grimtooths anyone. ) It’s the Fortifications. How does Spartacus get around these to capture the fleet.

If he attacks with in a short time after they land.

Yes A very densely packed group of Armored and Shielded men. Who have successfully faced TRAINED PROFESSIONAL ARCHERS, You seem to put a great deal more Reliance on a bow that may not even have existed. Spartacus fought for over 2 years in Italy and you have produced no evidence that he used a bow. Let alone bows on a tactical scale. Yet suddenly upon reaching Sicily in a matter of a month he manages to build equip and train an army of archers.

Did he ever had a need for archers before? In Sicily he has a very different set of challenges and a very differnet set of needs. Second, they successfully faced off archers because of SHIELD COVER, which I stated before. If you blast holes in the shield cover (using traps) you have holes in to which to shoot arrows.

 

[david3565]

Ok, let us wipe the slate clean.

We know a few things:

1) Spartacus has some time, but not a lot. (Estimate) Minimum: One month. Maximum: Three months.

2) If he can win over the majority of the population, he gains control of the island, and he has all the demogrpahics and politics in his favor: A largely un-Romanized population, large slave population, and a rampantly corrupt governor.

3) Sicily holds some serious assets for his army: A developed iron industry and vast grain supplies. However, it is an island. He only has so much room over which to move.

4) Spartacus is a strategic genius and is capable of uncoventional thinking and facing trained Roman troops.

5) His slave army is also a cross-section of Rome's labor pool, including skilled labor from important trades. However, while his army is now made up of vetetans who have faced off against Romans in several decisive victories, they aren't professionally trained, and new people coming in aren't trained or blooded at all.

6) Crassus is not an average commander of troops, but competent. He has skilled officers under his command.

7) The Roman forces are outnumbered by the slaves and need to be supplied by sea, at least in the first part of the campaign. However, they are better trained and probably better armed overall.

8) There are potential allies who might supply Spartacus forces.

9) The Romans have some very major reasons to end this as quickly as possible, which may mean they either lay a very large smack down on Spartacus or rush in and make some major mistakes.

10) The Romans have a cultural prejudice toward foreigners and, even more so, slaves. However, they also have reason to be cautious when dealing with Spartacus.

11) OTL, Spartacus slave army stood toe to toe against the Romans and won decisively, even in a desparate situation.

12) Anything anyone else can add.

So, knowing this, what can be reasonably expected?

Well, we can expect Spartacus to have a few potential goals in mind:

1) Delay a Roman landing. Attack and attack hard as they land, when they are most vulnerable, and push them back into the sea, before they fortify.

2) Bleed off Roman forces. Break down their phalanx formations by what ever means possible. If traps can be used, use traps. If raids can be used, use raids. Both of those strategies can be particularly effective against the phalanx, if successfully executed.

3) He might not be able to do this alone. He needs allies.

 

[Random Unicorn]

You seem to keep harping on the "arrogant and impulsive" point, evne though parts of discussion. Second, I am assuming some luck. Military blunders are generally situations of chance; a wrong move or series of wrong moves resulting in a completely unexpected defeat.

That’s because YOU keep mentioning them being Arrogant. Just three pargraphs below you mention it and not in responce to my saying it. “…the current Roman political dominance, both of which would tend to breed arrogance in Roman commanders,…â€

YOU are the one who initially claim they are arrogant. YOU are the one who uses it as an excuse. You continue to do this to try to justify that the Romans will underestimate Spartacus. This seems to be one of YOUR main cries with little evidence that by the point in history you are talking about this arrogance made them under estimate Spartacus.

Lets try a few more FACTS.
For an arrogant Roman they were so sure of themselves that most Romans REFUSED to take him on.
Yes these Romans were so arrogant and full of themselves. They underestimated Spartacus so much that the one person who finally volunteered needed a 2-1 advantage to take him on. Yea this sounds like a group that is REALLY underestimating Spartacus!!!!
Get real. Read the real history of this.

Origionally Random Unicorn “ I just don’t like to see Alt Timelines that use straw man arguments and nonexistent data to reach a conclusion.â€

Despite the fact I have rebutted a few of your points? And you keep coming back to subjects that this discussion has passed.

You have replied to some of my points. I don’t think you have proven any of my points incorrect. If you have then please post them in the space below and I will acknowledge them.

You seem to keep ignoring two facts: The Roman cultural view toward slaves and foreigners and and the current Roman political dominance, both of which would tend to breed arrogance in Roman commanders, many of whom were the powerful elite of the day (that alone does breed arrogance and one need only look upon the long history of debauchery among the Caesars to see that). Those are facts. My conclusion was a extrapolation. I also admitted that it may be counter-acted by Spartacus' success. So I'm not making it a certainty.

Please read 2 paragraphs up for a reply. I think that swings the pendulum heavily in favor of the Romans as a whole being cautious

True. i should have rephrased my statement to say it has a very good chance of working when correctly applied. Murphy's law tends to make "full proof" plans anything but. But if you need examples of decisive camouflage applied on a large scale and working, one need only look to WWII. Many of the same materials are available to Spartacus.

I’m not sure what camouflage during WWII your talking about. (This is an area I am knowledgeable in.). Snipers, Decoys for European Invasion Battleship Camo, Camo Netting. What are you referring to? Most of these have nothing to do with 1000+ man units and huge numbers of traps being spotted from a few yards to a mile away. (The distance most of this will take place at). Please be specific.

Again, you're assuming that these troops are some how sitting a few hundred yards from the road. It depends on the contours of the land and what measures they take at obfuscation. Again, you need examples of large scale hiding, look at WWII, or look at the Viet Kong's efforts in Vietnam, when they had one of their main HQs hidden under an American base during a Christmas celebration. The same basic materials or similar ones are available to Spartacus.

NO I AM NOT ASSUMING THEY ARE A FEW HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE ROAD. I have said FOR THE 3rd TIME NOW. Scouts would have a reasonable chance. Scouts and supply missions scour country sides. They DON’T just go a few hundred yards from the Road. They ride in land up to at least several miles. They need to supplement their food and gather intelligence. When you are talking about 8 Legions (10,000men per legion) you tend to send out at least a FEW scouts more then a FEW hundred feet from the road.

As for your example do you know how long this base took to build. I doubt it was less then a year. Spartucus has a few weeks at best and maybe as little as a few days to lay a trap. Additionally trying to apply 20th century Vietcong JUNGLE WARFARE scenarios in a 30+ year long war is stretching it as an example to a Roman invasion in its first few weeks.

Originally Posted by Random Unicorn
Do you have any evidence that such traps in a similar situation (Chasing after an enemy) in the 500+ years since Spartacus worked on this scale. If so what were the casualties? I am seriously asking this question as you seem to be placing far mare emphasis on traps in Massed plains Warfare then I have ever heard. Please let me know your source.

Well, I can't point to any ancient examples, as I haven't studied the history of traps, but a modern example is the Viet Kong, who blooded American troops with regular use of traps, and the materials for several of the regularly employed designs are availiable to Spartacus.

So in essence your just winging this with little in the way of facts. You keep objecting to my information and opinions BASED upon research I have done, Yet seem unwilling or unable to do research when I ask you for sources.

OK I did your research for you again. In Vietnam Pungee stick Traps Resulted in 2% of all Casualties and from 0 to less then 1% of deaths. Please note that the Death rate was not even listed so it may well have been 0. All I know is it is listed in whole percentages so it could be as high as 0.99%. So while there was a casualty listing of 2% there was NO listing for deaths. Assuming we use the most inflated 1% deaths of the total deaths is due to spikes and that this is are best comparison that means the following.

If some how Spartacus manages to eliminate a 10,000 man roman legion he will find less then 100 were caused by these pit traps. So much for your one example showing any significant losses to Pit traps.

Granted, it is going to take more than one major strike of that nature to whittle away the Roman force, but taking out 5% of the enemy (captured or killed) with far fewer casualties is a very good thing. Ultimately, it was only an example. I'm not a tactician, but I was only making a quick example of how it could work. In reality, it is going to require a more comprehensive strategy built around the principal of subterfuge. And yet there is also another strategic angle which Spartacus might consider.

Yes. IF it works. But I have already thrown serious doubt that such an ambush would work. You are basing your assumption on Bows that thus far you have failed to show exist. Based upon traps that I found data for showing they won't effect the Romans to any significant levels and Scouts that scour the country side that you assume are blind. Could this trap work and destroy 1% of the Roman army. Maybe. Is it likely from any sources other then your gut instinct. No.

Employing a "defenseless defense", choosing complete mobility with no points of control. It allows them to attack and then melt away, wearing down a entrenched Roman force rather quickly. Its splits the concentration of troops, preventing them from bringing significant force to bear and the mobile force moves faster than a Roman phalanx, meaning they slip away before the Romans can respond.

If Spartacus controls no points then Romans take cities, take grain fields starve, most of Spartucus’s men into submission and then pursue the remainder over a few years time as they did in previous PROVEN campaigns. They don’t need to eliminate Spartacus any time soon. Only the threat of his large army.

Again, in the first days or weeks of engagement, they haven't built or finished fortifications. Second, they have to watch the clock. Rome could starve and the political scene is not the most stable. They have every reason to try and rush this. And Spartacus, now amply familiar with Roman strategy, is not going to let them gain a foot hold.

Agreeded on the Politics not being the most stable. Do you have any evidence that at that time thier were food shortages of a nature to make the Romans abandon their NORMAL defences!!! Please post it here.

Actually the basic fortifications are completed in 1 day. I was talking about advanced fortifications. 20 foot deep pits, 10 foot tall embankments followed by 20 foot walls with watch towers. The sort of stuff that once built falls into the category of ALMOST unbeatable with anything less then a 10-1 advantage.

The Romans NIGHTLY built the following defenses

“ First an embankment was thrown up on all sides. Outside of this was a trench, from which the earth for the embankment was taken. On the outer edge of the embankment a row of strong stakes or palisades (valli) was driven firmly in. The rampart thus made (vallum) was several feet high and wide enough for the soldiers to stand on behind the palisades. The ditch (fossa) was from twelve to eighteen feet wide (cf. II. v. 21-23), and from seven to ten feet deep."

Originally Posted by Random Unicorn
The Traps are NOT what will take out Spartucus’s army if it attacks. (You sound like some of my fellow gamers who are GM’s. Grimtooths anyone. ) It’s the Fortifications. How does Spartacus get around these to capture the fleet.

If he attacks with in a short time after they land

:
The coastline is several hundred miles long. The Romans can disembark. Build emplacements and have been working on ADVANCED fortifications for 3 or more days BEFORE Spartacus can force march his men into range.

HE RUNS INTO THIS FORTIFICATION
“ First an embankment was thrown up on all sides. Outside of this was a trench, from which the earth for the embankment was taken. On the outer edge of the embankment a row of strong stakes or palisades (valli) was driven firmly in. The rampart thus made (vallum) was several feet high and wide enough for the soldiers to stand on behind the palisades. The ditch (fossa) was from twelve to eighteen feet wide (cf. II. v. 21-23), and from seven to ten feet deep."

if not something even worse and 80,000 PISSED OFF ROMANS to boot. His army of 80-120k defeat this HOW!!!!!.

I doubt that Spartacus, Mcguyver and Ash from the Evil dead movies could take this on and leave more then a bloody splat of there bodies on the ground. Ok maybe with Ash the could take it. “Hail to the King, Baby!â€

Originally Posted by Random Unicorn
Yes A very densely packed group of Armored and Shielded men. Who have successfully faced TRAINED PROFESSIONAL ARCHERS, You seem to put a great deal more Reliance on a bow that may not even have existed. Spartacus fought for over 2 years in Italy and you have produced no evidence that he used a bow. Let alone bows on a tactical scale. Yet suddenly upon reaching Sicily in a matter of a month he manages to build equip and train an army of archers.


Did he ever had a need for archers before? In Sicily he has a very different set of challenges and a very differnet set of needs. Second, they successfully faced off archers because of SHIELD COVER, which I stated before. If you blast holes in the shield cover (using traps) you have holes in to which to shoot arrows.

So you provide once again No Proof and No evidence. I searched Google and could come up with NO information that Spartacus had Archers let alone archers in quantity. You either failed to search or couldn’t find evidence but hey Lack of evidence is good enough for you to assume he had them.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative. I can’t definitively prove there were no archers of Quantity. However you with the simple goal of showing he had them has yet to do so, Yet you rely as your response on, the impossibility of my proving a negative, as your proof.


I am personally am finding this to be rather futile. Feel free to make a reply and deffend your points, I will read it as I am curiouse if you have valid information on any of my questions. But don't expect any response as I feel I am doing your research for you as you just shoot down my researched opinions with what thus far appears to be unfounded generalizations, Assumptions and gut instinct as opposed to facts and proof. I'm not angry or upset, just a little disapointed.

Random Unicorn