Spartacus, Cilician Pirates and Rome's Other Problems.

Most would agree that Spartacus' rebellion was ultimately doomed to failure, given that Rome had vast reserves of manpower to throw against them, and had much to lose if they didn't do anything about him quickly enough. I was wondering how quickly the Roman Republic could decline if Sparatcus was able to come to an agreement with the Cilicians if they were to agree to capture and divide certain regions on the island of Sicily. As a prized province and source of food, this is something the Romans won't ignore for ever, and would bring their forces to bear on the takeover as soon as they could spare the troops.

But maybe the POD that would allow for this to come to pass may not be within the slave rebellion itself, but lie elsewhere with the two concurrent conflicts of the 70's BCE: The Third Mithridatic War in the eastern Mediterranean, and the Sertorian War in Hispania.

During a certain battle of Sucro in 76 BCE, Gnaeus Pompey apparent came close to being captured by the forces of the Proconsul Quintus Sertorius after refusing to wait for reinforcements by the general Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius. If perhaps Pompey was killed in the attempt to by the enemy to take him alive, and the three legions who he had inherited from his father and served as his own private army perhaps switches sides with the Sertorian cause, giving the Ibero-Romans an upper hand in the conflict.

Reinforcements to the campaign in Asia led by Lucius Licinius Lucullus and Marcus Aurelius Cotta would be delayed further, as they combat the armies of King Mithridates VI of Pontus. Mithridates, who was in league with the Cilicians pirates, helps wear down the legions campaigning in Asia Minor.

This leaves Marcus Licinius Crassus, as one of the richest if not the richest man in Rome, who had enjoyed much success against the slave army. However, with the situation worsening abroad, I wonder if Crassus might take the opportunity to press whatever advantages he had over his peers in the Senate, in a situation where a major rival like Pompey being dead for nearly four years. If this causes a serious schism within the Republic on Italian soil, then maybe Spartacus, in that situation, might take the chance to persuade the Cilicians to work with him in capturing key cities in Sicily.

The arrangement being that the Pirates get to keep cities like Syracuse, Akragas, and Messina as bases from which to operate, while Spartacus' army would migrate into the Sicilian country, and capture a number of inland towns and villas, recruit thousands of slaves working there, and carve out some territory in which to entrench themselves and put down roots.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Crassus was already defeating the Spartacus rebels before Pompey arrived. And whilst I could see him having a political ascendancy and using this to press the advantage, Spartacus was a massive threat to the Roman Republic in, if nothing else, ideological terms. As well as the physical damage his followers had done to the Roman people as they rampaged across Italy.

Similarly, Rome would also work hard to retake Sicily even if it was taken from them. It was the breadbasket. They couldn't just abandon it to a bunch of pirates. And Crassus, hero of the hour, would be seen as just the man to undertake a mission to take it back. Alternatively, as Rome's richest man, he could probably bribe the pirates not to help Spartacus. Come to think of it, he may have done that anyway.
 
It may be true that either Crassus or the Roman Senate secretly entreated the Cilicians, through bribery, to abandon their alliance with Spartacus, which would have been the final nail in the coffin.

I wonder, though, if Mithridates VI of Pontus, or even Quintus Sertorius in Hispania, might also get the idea to offer larger bribes to the Cilicians to wreak further havoc in Italy, strategies which are ultimately designed to preserve their own realms, but which indirectly buy the Spartacan rebels some time to survive Crassus' onslaught in Italy?

Although the fallout from such a strategy would involve Rome deciding to pull troops out from Hispania and/or Asia Minor to rescue their first overseas province from the slave army.

Maybe, after the joint takeover of Sicily by the Spartacans and the Cilicians, some of the local Greek and Phoenician communities begin to collaborate openly with the occupiers and attempt to aid them in preventing the Roman reconquest of the island? It may not completely prevent the Romans from re-taking Sicily, but they'd have a long task of restoring control.
 
I think the best chances of Spartacus' survival are for him to just get out of Italy while he can. His initial goal was to escape out of Italy and IIRC, into Gaul. He had his chance, but after defeating Roman force after Roman force, his men wanted to stay in Italy instead, and that's why he turned back south.

So if you want Spartacus to survive, that's your best bet I think.
 
Crassus was already defeating the Spartacus rebels before Pompey arrived. And whilst I could see him having a political ascendancy and using this to press the advantage, Spartacus was a massive threat to the Roman Republic in, if nothing else, ideological terms. As well as the physical damage his followers had done to the Roman people as they rampaged across Italy.

Similarly, Rome would also work hard to retake Sicily even if it was taken from them. It was the breadbasket. They couldn't just abandon it to a bunch of pirates. And Crassus, hero of the hour, would be seen as just the man to undertake a mission to take it back. Alternatively, as Rome's richest man, he could probably bribe the pirates not to help Spartacus. Come to think of it, he may have done that anyway.
This. Crassus was going to defeat Spartacus. He did defeat Spartacus, but Pompey, like he always did, arrived on the scene at the very end and did the clean up work, winning all the credit.


Also, I agree that Crassus probably bribed the pirates not to help Spartacus to begin with.
 
It may be true that either Crassus or the Roman Senate secretly entreated the Cilicians, through bribery, to abandon their alliance with Spartacus, which would have been the final nail in the coffin.

I wonder, though, if Mithridates VI of Pontus, or even Quintus Sertorius in Hispania, might also get the idea to offer larger bribes to the Cilicians to wreak further havoc in Italy, strategies which are ultimately designed to preserve their own realms, but which indirectly buy the Spartacan rebels some time to survive Crassus' onslaught in Italy?

Although the fallout from such a strategy would involve Rome deciding to pull troops out from Hispania and/or Asia Minor to rescue their first overseas province from the slave army.

Maybe, after the joint takeover of Sicily by the Spartacans and the Cilicians, some of the local Greek and Phoenician communities begin to collaborate openly with the occupiers and attempt to aid them in preventing the Roman reconquest of the island? It may not completely prevent the Romans from re-taking Sicily, but they'd have a long task of restoring control.
Crassus can offer up a hefty bribe. I doubt the Sertorians would be able to match it (assuming they hear of the bribe in the first place, which is unlikely).
 
Sextus Pompey was able to gather a force of 30,000 slaves when he invaded Sicily, so im sure Spartacus would have not have man power probelms. Also couldn't he just cut off Rome's food supply if he conquered the island.
 
Sextus Pompey was able to gather a force of 30,000 slaves when he invaded Sicily, so im sure Spartacus would have not have man power probelms. Also couldn't he just cut off Rome's food supply if he conquered the island.

Not sure why you think Spartacus wouldn't have had manpower problems based on that.

And if he somehow conquered Sicily, cutting off Rome's food supply isn't going to get anything but redoubled efforts to take him down.
 
Crassus can offer up a hefty bribe. I doubt the Sertorians would be able to match it (assuming they hear of the bribe in the first place, which is unlikely).

Hispania was known for its large silver mines, which made it an vital to the Roman economy after the Second Punic War, which may put Sertorius on an equal footing to Crassus as long as he's in charge of Hispania. However, I think Mithridates of Pontus could be in more of a position to bribe the Cilicians.
 
Hispania was known for its large silver mines, which made it an vital to the Roman economy after the Second Punic War, which may put Sertorius on an equal footing to Crassus as long as he's in charge of Hispania. However, I think Mithridates of Pontus could be in more of a position to bribe the Cilicians.

Again, why would they? They certainly wouldn't know Crassus was bribing them, and IIRC, the Cilicians had agreed to ferry Spartacus to Sicily anyway. They just never showed up.
 
I think the best chances of Spartacus' survival are for him to just get out of Italy while he can. His initial goal was to escape out of Italy and IIRC, into Gaul. He had his chance, but after defeating Roman force after Roman force, his men wanted to stay in Italy instead, and that's why he turned back south.

So if you want Spartacus to survive, that's your best bet I think.

The trouble is with the slaves escaping to Gaul is that not all the slaves came from Europe. Not all the slaves were originally enslaved by the Romans, but could have become slaves through piracy or tribal warfare before being sold on to the Romans. Some slaves would even have been born in captivity in Italy, so with a large, ethnically mixed population on the move, not all of them would have a reason to travel beyond the Alps, and nor would the Gaulish or Rhaetian kingdoms be too keen on a force of desperate wanderers appearing in their lands. They might just be as ready to attack them as the Romans are.

Going to Sicily has its drawbacks, but the island's appeal lies in the fact that it has vast grain-producing estates, with many slaves who would likely flock to Spartacus' banner, and that parts of the island could be defended. So if Sertorius or Mithridates gets the idea to offer money to the Cilician pirates operating off Italy before Crassus, maybe they could see the virtue in conspiring with a third party to force the Romans to withdraw from their lands.

Of the two forces, though, the Cilicians controlling ports in Sicily would prove to be a far bigger problem to the Republic than a band of rampaging slaves. The Cilicians could be in a prime position to attack grain-carrying ships from the Roman Province of Africa, and maybe lead to a famine in Rome.
 
Again, why would they? They certainly wouldn't know Crassus was bribing them, and IIRC, the Cilicians had agreed to ferry Spartacus to Sicily anyway. They just never showed up.

I basically said that they might get the idea before Crassus to aid an existing rebellion in Italy, to force the Roman armies in Asia or Spain to withdraw to Italy.
 
Last edited:
Top