Spartacus actually crosses Alps

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Problem is that servile armies couldn't bypass Italy at this point.

It's worth noting that this lack of organisation, and probably supply issues as well, led to much diverse goals : if some wanted to flee Italy (probably Gaul and Germans enslaved after Cimbri/Teutoni defeats), some others wanted to plunder it (maybe a social revenge part : don't forget that a large part of servile armies included free but poor Italian peasants).

With all these divisions (Crixios/Spartacus division being only the tip of the iceberg, possibly made trough an agreement in order to have less suppying issues on the way North), roman military pressure (no matter how many defeat, there were always fresh troops to fight) and supply...

Eventually, if we trust Appian, Spartacus' troops were simply not fit for undergoing this without some reorganisation.

I'd think, giving the disparate description of the events, that you didn't had a single servile leadership, even less one clear goal : I'm under the impression of a really opportunistic progression, pressed by different groups (Gallo-Germans, Italians, etc.) with their own ambitions; that Romans just decided to ignore in order to placate their own conceptions on a group that had to be a bit like them, rationalizing it as such to explain how a ragtag army of not-really-humans managed to defeat them again and again.

Anyway, what if at least one main part of the servile armies managed to cross the Alps?
Well, I'd think that Pompey would have made a show in Transalpina as soon as possible : he was clearly closer, the servile army would have suffered the crossing of Alps with a most reduced supply, and nobody wanted to see a return (even if fantasmed) to Cimbri campaigns.

Crassus would definitely loose most of the prestige he had IOTL, and Pompey would be even more of a politically central figure in Rome.

The risk of a Barbarian/Servile alliance, even if there again more fantasmed than anything, could have lead to an earlier Roman focus in Alpine and Celtic regions, in order to take control of possible trouble regions.

It's likely you'd see other Servile War ITTL, blostered by at least partial success (even if I don't believe in a definitive Servile success in Gaul)*, maybe more centered in Southern Italy with ephemere servile kingdoms (as in Sicily during the Second Servile War).

*In fact, it's quite possible you had servile revolt up to augustean era that were simply ignored by a scholar intelligentia controlled by the emperor.
 
Not understanding what is meant by " couldn't bypass Italy at this point"?

If the objectives of the slaves had been to disperse beyond the Roman frontiers then they could have made a better attempt at it. And probably succeeded in 72 BCE.

But the motivation for the slave side of the war is always a bit unclear.

If it did happen then you might get an increasing reluctance to use slaves in Italy with perhaps an early version of the coloni of the later roman empire
 
Not understanding what is meant by " couldn't bypass Italy at this point"?
Northern* Italy. Cisalpine Gaul, if you will.
For reasons mentioned above : lack of real organisation, many divisions, pretty much limited supplies even before going for Alps.

If the objectives of the slaves had been to disperse beyond the Roman frontiers then they could have made a better attempt at it. And probably succeeded in 72 BCE.
It's more than probable at least one group/faction/part of the servile armies wanted that, especially people enslaved in the recent war and that could hope return into their lands.

But the Third Servile War involved people from different origins, foreign slaves up to Italian popers, and nothing points that armies were gathered by nations at all. For all we know some slaves indeed managed to get back to Gaul or Germania while Spartacus had to go back to Italy.

If it did happen then you might get an increasing reluctance to use slaves in Italy with perhaps an early version of the coloni of the later roman empire
I don't think that would be the case : the economical (and ideological, as it was one of the markers of Roman domination) need for slavery was too important to be written off.

As for coloni, they existed way before the Late Empire, and were present already at this point, being the rough equivalent of tenent (which, especially in Southern Italy, may have joined servile groups as most of technically free but socially cornered people).
 
LSCatilina said:
It's worth noting that this lack of organisation, and probably supply issues as well, led to much diverse goals : if some wanted to flee Italy (probably Gaul and Germans enslaved after Cimbri/Teutoni defeats), some others wanted to plunder it (maybe a social revenge part : don't forget that a large part of servile armies included free but poor Italian peasants).

Derek Pullem said:
If the objectives of the slaves had been to disperse beyond the Roman frontiers then they could have made a better attempt at it. And probably succeeded in 72 BCE.

Given the choice of working for a living or living off plunder there is little contest. Which is why Spartacus's horde turned back from the Alps. Forget the tales of Hollywood freedom fighters fighting tyranny, they were a bandit army and sonner or later they were going to be stuffed by the legions.

LSCatilina said:
The risk of a Barbarian/Servile alliance, even if there again more fantasmed than anything, could have lead to an earlier Roman focus in Alpine and Celtic regions, in order to take control of possible trouble regions.
No chance of an alliance without a charasmatic leader like Arminus the German plus serious Roman pressure. Spartacus is not the former: in spite of the Romans his army moved and fought by factions.
 
Given the choice of working for a living or living off plunder there is little contest.[...]
Forget the tales of Hollywood freedom fighters fighting tyranny

I think you didn't read too much deeply our posts. Nobody really denied that Servile Wars were about Good vs. Evil, or neither we used Kubric as a prime source.

However, and while we're tributary of prime sources that have generally a wholly negative point (we're talking about people seen as cattle, and everyone joining them as irremediably bad people) as for slave revolts in general in societies using slavery widely (Zanj Revolt to Turner Rebellion).

Using a-critically this viewpoint is at best dubious, especially when we beneficy from different viewpoints even if bathed in the general take, as with Plutarch. For instance the whole thing with Spartacus about to plunder Rome is essentially a fantasy of a people traumatized by the Italian success of servile armies.

Likewise, labelling these ones as PLA's anticipation, or organised banditry are both projections on a momvement we don't know much about and critically not their goals : the best we can attempt is to look at their moves and try to make sense out of it. It's why many studies focus on the inner divisions and disparities of servile armies, rather than painting them as a hierarchically organized revolt, following Roman models too closely to be that believable.

Long story short, removing a label just to replace it by another isn't that much sensible, especially when it's based on "Humans are like that" or "I know what I'll have chosen"-style generalisation.

Critically when most of the slaves were from Gaul and Germania, enslaved in the wake of Cimbric War, and pretty much able to find back homes, instead of being systematical pressure, risk of enslavement of death, and with poor supply even with plunder.

Spartacus is not the former: in spite of the Romans his army moved and fought by factions.
It seems that even Romans had to integrate Spartacus on their accounts (often by making him some sort of son of a Roman/King, adding weird stories, in order to explain his dominance).

That Spartacus had charismatic domination over at least part of the Servile armies is mostly unchallenged. What is is which kind of domination : on this, we don't know how deep and how general it was, or not.

I don't see much reason why he should be different of an Eunus/Antiochus as for power, once removed the obvious geostrategic difference, when Romans didn't made that : we could speculate a lot about this, but for good or worse, we're dependent of sources that certainly don't depict Spartacus as only a minor chief among the whole armies. (That said, they mention other chiefs as Crixios that probably had equal standing).
 
Top