Spartacus escapes to Sicily

What if the Cilician Pirates whom Spartacus had paid to take him to Sicily hadn't bailed on him, and took him to Sicily?
 
Crassus and Pompey have an arm wrestle/sword duel/massive political struggle which threatens to engulf the Roman Republic and cause Marcus Tullius Cicero to make an epic speech over who gets the fleet over and crushes Spartacus once and for all.

Still, who knows? If Crassus gets the command for the final charge, and the ensuing Triumph, maybe he hates Pompey a bit less for stealing his victory. Maybe his legionaries discover the nefarious activities of Gaius Verres, and are somehow not bribed off? (Thus, the said M. Tullius Cicero may not gain a position of any prominence at all.) Who can say...
 
It might be a temporary reprieve for the slave army, but the Romans ruled Sicily as well, and would only deploy a couple of legions there in persuit. To be truly shot of the Romans, Spartacus and his followers would have to be taken away further than Sicily. And being of very diverse origins, there are plenty of different places that the renegade slaves would want to go.
 
It might be a temporary reprieve for the slave army, but the Romans ruled Sicily as well, and would only deploy a couple of legions there in persuit. To be truly shot of the Romans, Spartacus and his followers would have to be taken away further than Sicily. And being of very diverse origins, there are plenty of different places that the renegade slaves would want to go.

I believe Spartacus himself came to the conclusion that if they were to split up and go home, they'd just be picked off a few at a time.
 
I believe Spartacus himself came to the conclusion that if they were to split up and go home, they'd just be picked off a few at a time.

Spartacus actually reached the Alpine regions before turning back to wreak further havoc across Italy. Its possible that Spartacus wasn't in complete command of the Slave Army, and may have simply shared the leadership role with the Gauls Crixus and Oenomaus, who reportedly wanted to remain in Italy for plunder. If their forces remained intact when they traversed the Alps, that would have been a better way to escape the Romans vengeance, than entrusting their lives to Cicilian pirates whom could have just re-enslaved them anyway.

Because the Slave Army's leaders from warrior cultures like the Celts and Thracians, they probably felt the humiliation of enslavement, and preferred to seek vengeance against their captors more than anything else.
 
I think everyone is ignoring why he wanted to go to Sicily. It had a large population fo slaves Spartacus would have encouraged to rise up.
 
I think everyone is ignoring why he wanted to go to Sicily. It had a large population fo slaves Spartacus would have encouraged to rise up.

Though I imagine if Spartacus and his slave army would make it to Sicily and entice the slave population there to rebel against the Romans there and manages to set up some form of slave state in Sicily, it won't last long. It would be Crassus, Pompey or even Caesar demanding to have command of the army to destroy the revolt. So you kill off a couple tens of thousands of slaves. Big deal. Now the POD is interesting as to how it affects the dealings of the late Roman Republic.
 

mowque

Banned
Though I imagine if Spartacus and his slave army would make it to Sicily and entice the slave population there to rebel against the Romans there and manages to set up some form of slave state in Sicily, it won't last long. It would be Crassus, Pompey or even Caesar demanding to have command of the army to destroy the revolt. So you kill off a couple tens of thousands of slaves. Big deal. Now the POD is interesting as to how it affects the dealings of the late Roman Republic.

Can you up the size of the font please. Its hard on my eyes.
 
Sicily I think was still pretty important to the Romans for their food supply even if Egypt was the bigger deal.

Some of my reading suggests Sicily was a powder keg--it had a gigantic slave population and an inept, corrupt government. If Spartacus and his army landed there, the Roman control of the island would be in serious trouble.

Thing is, I remember we discussed this subject much earlier and someone said there were a lot of places for the Roman pursuit forces to land and that Spartacus would not be able to garrison all of the points sufficiently to stop the landing.
 
Crassus and Pompey have an arm wrestle/sword duel/massive political struggle which threatens to engulf the Roman Republic and cause Marcus Tullius Cicero to make an epic speech over who gets the fleet over and crushes Spartacus once and for all.

Still, who knows? If Crassus gets the command for the final charge, and the ensuing Triumph, maybe he hates Pompey a bit less for stealing his victory. Maybe his legionaries discover the nefarious activities of Gaius Verres, and are somehow not bribed off? (Thus, the said M. Tullius Cicero may not gain a position of any prominence at all.) Who can say...


First of all Cicero was a commited pacifist who apart from a brief stint during the Social Wars didn't want to have anything to do with the legions.

As for the war in general, if Spartacus is successful in instigating a general revolt right across Sicily, no matter what Crassus does, he will be unable to put it down completely before Pompey or Marcus Lucullus the proconsul of Macedonia shows up to steal some of the credit. If Marcus Lucullus is more successful than the other two we might actually see his elder brother Lucius Lucullus actually come out of the Third Mithradatic War as the greatest Roman general since Scipio Africanus instead of the gluttonus 'Xerexes in a dress'. All this might see the entire populares cause be set back quite a few years. Heck it might even butterfly away the empire completely.
 
I think everyone is ignoring why he wanted to go to Sicily. It had a large population fo slaves Spartacus would have encouraged to rise up.

Faeelin

Quite possibly. If I recall rightly Spartacus's revolt was the 3rd Servile uprising as they were called and the other two had been on Sicily. It was a very important grain producing area for the empire, similar to N Africa. Egypt was a much greater producer of grain but still outside direct Roman rule at this stage.

It does seem rather like a dead end even so. The rebels, unless they think they can hold off the empire indefinitely would have to escape from Sicily in turn, which would probably mean trying to get to N Africa. Not sure of the political situation there as that would also be hostile being under the control of either Romans or their allies.

Probably the best option would have been escaping to the north into the lands beyond imperial control. What they would do then however?

Steve
 
I think everyone is ignoring why he wanted to go to Sicily. It had a large population of slaves Spartacus would have encouraged to rise up.

Spartacus' Rebellion is also known as the Third Servile War, the first two were (as mentioned) in Sicily and not that long ago (I think the second was about 50 years earlier). In fact, IIRC the Pirates were hired to transport part of the slave army there to forment another rebellion. Under no circumstances could Rome let any other force get any sort of foothold in Sicily. Thus Rome would be forced to either split the army or crush the rebellion on Sicily first letting the rest run amok in Italy. Recalling legions from overseas to crush the rebellion leaves that territory unguarded and ripe for plunder. None of these options are good for Rome, meaning the rebellion has to be crushed and crushed fast. Any tactic that draws this out puts Rome in danger.
 
Absent a friendly outside power willing to provide a navy, the slaves are doomed in any case. Rome will simply cross over and crush them. In my THE THIRD HITTITE EMPIRE timeline, there is a friendly outside power (Hatti) which transports the slaves to Sicily and then protects them from Roman pursuit. Spartacus is able to set up a slave kingdom in Sicily which lasts for quite a while, until Hittite weakness permits Rome to put an end to it, once and for all.
 
Absent a friendly outside power willing to provide a navy, the slaves are doomed in any case. Rome will simply cross over and crush them. In my THE THIRD HITTITE EMPIRE timeline, there is a friendly outside power (Hatti) which transports the slaves to Sicily and then protects them from Roman pursuit. Spartacus is able to set up a slave kingdom in Sicily which lasts for quite a while, until Hittite weakness permits Rome to put an end to it, once and for all.

Except the Hittites would be long extinct by this point. Pontus or the Ptolemaids could do it.
 
Top