WI Spartacus emerges victorious?

Pirates ferry Spartacus to slave-infested Sicily, where pirates/slaves/Spartacus smash Crassus. Pompey comes home from Spain and conservatives, scared of his popularity, send the optimate Lucullus instead to Sicily and send Pompey to Cicilia, where he defeats Seleucids/Pontics/pirates and Lucullus gets smashed by a last-ditch slave ambush.

Isn't Lucullus in Asia Minor?
 
Pirates ferry Spartacus to slave-infested Sicily, where pirates/slaves/Spartacus smash Crassus. Pompey comes home from Spain and conservatives, scared of his popularity, send the optimate Lucullus instead to Sicily and send Pompey to Cicilia, where he defeats Seleucids/Pontics/pirates and Lucullus gets smashed by a last-ditch slave ambush.

Pompey returns to quash Spartacus, leaving Caesar to battle Easterners, where he traps Spartacus in Syracuse, his allies having largely abandoned him due to the slave army's objective pretty much being completed.

The Senate, having failed at every turn and having no possible available foil to Pompey, sends assassins like they did to kill the Gracchi, who kill him. His furious army returns to Rome for an extremely popular coup.

Spartacus's surly Gallic lieutenant Castus leads a pirate faction, which captures many fleeing proscription victims.

Caesar returns to Italy, and tenaciously allies Spartacus to smash Castus, free the senators, and lead a slave army to Rome where he meets various Samnite and private armies to smash Pompey's forces and return Rome to a Republican state, defeating them by offering the city's slaves freedom if they join Caesar's side.

Spartacus makes a secret deal with the Samnites to seize the city from the senators, taking their property and killing many. Caesar flees to some Roman colony or other, Spartacus's men settle down, and Spartacus wins the war!
Also, why would the senate attempt to assasinate Pompey? Surely if they even try to, it would be after he crushes the slave revolt. They seemed to have no problem with him coming in and taking the glory OTL. And as for the Samnites, they just got quashed in the social war, and are now Roman Citizens. What possible reason could they have for joining Spartacus.
 

Winnabago

Banned
Isn't Lucullus in Asia Minor?

Perhaps he's returned early, what with the rebellion and all. But replace him with any optimate, really, still works.

They would assassinate Pompey so he wouldn't have a victory. They can't quite come in and take credit, because the credit-taker just lost the battle.

Perhaps a more logical outcome would be for the furious army to blame the local Greek population (who, like Athens did with Mithrades, joined a culturally alien power out of hatred for Rome) and exterminate Syracuse with Spartacus barely escaping, capturing some rebel leader, then returning to Rome for a triumph, as I think Romans did earlier at Corinth?
 
The problem with Spartacus' cause is that he led and army composed of different type of people, with different backgrounds and objectives. The gladiators among them, many of which, like Spartacus, came to Italy as prisoners of war against Rome, wanted a measure of revenge and maybe to go home eventually.

The others in the slaves army, like the pastores or shepherds, were little more than bandits who had adjusted to a life on the edge of society and joined Spartacus' cause because there's strength in numbers.

And there were the house slaves and villa slaves and those rescued from the mines. All of them were of different ethnicities. Some were captured and became slaves in their own life-time. Others were born into slavery.

Now, those who became slaves might have been sold into slavery by their own people, or had their homes destroyed in a turf war with a rival tribe, and so returning home wasn't an option. Those born into slavery or had been slaves since childhood, had known no other way of life, and were forced to adjust to their circumstances, because slaves who failed to protect their master from being killed would have been executed by the Roman authorities had they hesitated to leave.

Not all the slaves were from Europe, or even from beyond the Alps. And if they left for Gaul, why would the Gaulish tribes welcome a large migratory band of thousands of armed and desperate runaways? Perhaps the Gaulish and German gladiators could seek out refuge, but what about the rest of them? They might risk being enslaved again.

As for Sicily, this is already a Roman province, and even if the Cilicians weren't so easily bought, and the slave army was successfully ferried to Italy, it would be a matter of time before Crassus or Pompey would follow in their wake, while the rebels are trapped in Sicily. The rebels could hide in the mountains, but again, living on the margins while the legions are in hot pursuit isn't an effective way of reaching freedom.
 
Okay, I just found some interesting new information. Apparently, according to Adrienne Mayor in Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates,

"In Italy, a gladiator named Spartacus had gathered an army of six hundred slaves, which eventuay swelled to seventy thousand and defeated a series of Roman legions. Spartacus was said to be Thracian; he may have sympathized with and apparently planned to join Sertorius's rebellion; he may have seen action in Greece when Sulla defeated Mithradates there."

So I have an idea here. Mithradates and Sertorius were allied (sertorius had even sent a couple of his generals to Mithradates along with some men) and both became the pirates' biggest allies.

First you have Sertorius not get assassinated. Instead, lets say he discovers Vento's assassination attempt and has him executed instead.

Spartacus revolts. He goes down into northern Italy, then marches south. The pirates pick him up and he lands in Sicily, and gathers more slaves. From there, the pirates pick him up and sail him to Spain with a HUGE force.

The fantastic news and tens of thousands of men joining their cause would cause morale, which was at a low in Sertorius's camp at this point, to soar. Sertorius crushes Pompey and Metellus and overruns the rest of Spain. Now Sertorius is poised to march into Italy.

Meanwhile in Anatolia, you can easily have Mithradates early losses turn into victories, and have Lucullus's army crushed. Mithradates is then able to easily overrun the rest of Roman controlled Anatolia, much to the delight of its citizens.
 
Last month, I proposed a scenario where Pompey is killed in a battle where he came close to being captured by Sertorius' men. I forget the name of the battle, but it apparently took place in 76 BCE. If Pompey dies, his three legions, which he personally pays for, just might defect to Sertorius' side.

Alternately, I thought that Mithridates VI of Pontos could get the idea (before Crassus does) to pay the Cilician pirates who were operating around Italy to support the Servile War in Italy. This idea is supposed to be a delaying tactic for Mithridates to get Lucullus to abandon his campaign in Asia in order to deal with Spartacus.

And if the Cilicians are being paid more coin by Mithridates to co-operate with Spartacus, I wondered if they could ferry the rebels to Sicily, have them assist with the capture of some ports, like Syracuse and Messina which would be held by the Cilicians, while Spartacus leads his forces into the mountains, and from there, raid the latifundia of Sicily and recruit more slaves to their ranks.

In addition to that, I'm wondering what could be done to delay the Roman cause against Spartacus. Maybe Crassus' command of eight legions causes some fear among the Senate, which may bring the Romans to the brink of civil war.

If a spate of situations were to collectively tear the Republic apart, Spartacus' band could survive for some years in Sicily as a large, semi-nomadic militant host ruling the roost in the Sicilian countryside, taking tribute from many of the cities and estates on the island. While some of them would go on to enlist in the Cilician crews that plague the waters of the Mediterranean.
 
In the hypothetical situation of Spartacus winning, what happens?
I want to know what happens AFTER he wins, not how he could win. He defeats Crassus, Pompey is defeated/dies, whatever. What then? Does he become King and found a new dynasty? Does he attempt a takeover of the Republic, sort of like how the Ottomans named themselves Caesars of Rome?
As it has already been explained in this thread Spartacus winning was unlikely, improbable. And I wholeheartedly agree.
One thing for sure - Spartacus could not take the city of Rome. No way. Even Hannibal did not try it.

So best case scanario for Spartacus was escaping from Italy with his army. His escaping to Spain or to Bosporus were discussed here.
But there was another possibility which Spartacus tried in vain - getting his army to Sicily. That was quite natural for him to try.
Sicily was the place of the First Servile War of 135–132 BC and of the Second Servile War of 104 BC-100 BC.
There was a great concentration of slaves on this island and the most cruel way of slavery - plantation barracks' one.
And during these two Sicilian Slave wars the slaves managed to create something similar to Hellenistic statehood.
Spartacus might create his state with the centre in Sicily which was fabulasly rich in agricultural products and most definetely self-sufficient. The island was relatively easy to defend.
Spartacus would found his dynasty. One of the necessities for this young country would be a strong navy so he might try to take Corsica and Sardinia or at least raid them together with Cilician pirates.
Spartacus would play a role of coordinator of all anti-Roman forces: from Bosporus to Spain; succesfull Spartacus is impossible without succesfull Sertorius and Mithridates.
Of course there would be nothing like a 'socialist' state. That would be quite a usual hellenistic monarchy. The former slaves would be proud owners of the slaves themselves.

I would give this state 10-20 years of life untill the Romans recover and beat all their enemies including their former slaves in Sicily.
But Spartacus might found a new tradition in international politics of the Mediterranean - all the forces ally against a bully who is about to threaten the fragile balance of powers.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
What else would you call them? Spartacus' people were initially gladiators and were then joined by fieldhands, labourers, kitchen staff and a handful of more sophisticated house slaves. Not just workers, but mainly low-level workers and all, servants.
It may be hard for a modern mind to get around, but most jobs, even those with skills, were handled by slaves (i.e. servants). For example, the modern habit of treating musicians as "stars" only dates from the mid 18th Century. Any visit to the great houses and palaces of Europe will reveal minstrel galleries, often screened off so that the masters of the house and guests did not have to suffer the vulgar gaze of the hired help. In Roman times one would dictate letters to one's Greek secretary, invariably a slave; send messages to one's friends by sending a slave messenger, have one's bath prepared by a slave girl (or boy as preference dictated) and be entertained by slaves who hacked each other to death in the arena or did things in the bedroom that only someone hoping for advancement could imagine.
However, slaves could not be trusted. An intimate connection to the Master's and Mistresses' activities and assets often gave them ideas above their station ( read of the problems with Claudius's slave Polyibius) and they were always tempted to steal and run away. As an Israeli you will be familiar with the book of Exodus that tells us how the Hebrew slaves "borrowed" the finery, gold and jewels of their Egyptian owners before doing a midnight flit, despite the conditions of their employment contract. They also nicked all the pack animals to cart it away. They just couldn't run off, they had to steal all the stuff as well!

"Ideas above their station"? Are you from the 1800's?

And saying the slaves "had to steal all the stuff" doesn't make them seem particularly evil to the modern observer. Seeing as how they're taking the stuff from their former owners.
 

Ancientone

Banned
"Ideas above their station"? Are you from the 1800's?

And saying the slaves "had to steal all the stuff" doesn't make them seem particularly evil to the modern observer. Seeing as how they're taking the stuff from their former owners.

Not from the 1800's although I think that I would have been comfortable there, but from a 20th century servant-employing background, although one calls them employees nowadays. I cannot see how anyone who has not had servants for many years can truly comment with any credibility--it is a bit like a trappist monk pontificating on the techniques of sexual intercourse.
I am surprised in any event that you condone larceny and embezzlement.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Not from the 1800's although I think that I would have been comfortable there, but from a 20th century servant-employing background, although one calls them employees nowadays. I cannot see how anyone who has not had servants for many years can truly comment with any credibility--it is a bit like a trappist monk pontificating on the techniques of sexual intercourse.
I am surprised in any event that you condone larceny and embezzlement.

People who have had servants are not qualified to comment in any degree. That's like asking plantation owners to comment on slavery, or convicted arsonists to comment on arson laws. Nobody cares what the answer is.

And "larceny and embezzlement?" If you own people, and those people get pissed off enough to fuck you back, don't complain. Or do; nobody cares.
 
People who have had servants are not qualified to comment in any degree. That's like asking plantation owners to comment on slavery, or convicted arsonists to comment on arson laws. Nobody cares what the answer is.

And "larceny and embezzlement?" If you own people, and those people get pissed off enough to fuck you back, don't complain. Or do; nobody cares.

This. Seriously, this.
 
Since when does employing servants make one a equivalent to a plantation owner? Crikey.

That said, Ancientone, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for their gold and silver, they didn't take. After 400 years of slavery (including at least one genocide) it was still nowhere near adequate compensation.

---

I like the Sicily idea, or alternatively, Spartacus escaping East and being enfranchised by Mithridates as some sort of allied-client King on the frontier.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Since when does employing servants make one a equivalent to a plantation owner? Crikey.

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said that the opinion of the "servant-employing" on servitude shouldn't be taken into account, and that the opinions of slavers on slavery shouldn't be taken into account. Not saying that the former is as immoral as the latter, just that people with a vested interest in the outcome of an argument, and who are therefore quite likely to form skewed views, should be kept out of that argument. I'm not quite certain why we're discussing servants to begin with.


Ancientone seems to have made three separate points:

1. Disgruntled servants in the modern day who retaliate against their employers are terrible people, just the scum of the earth.
2. Ancient slaves who retaliated against their owners are somehow equivalent to the aforementioned servants, and are terrible people.
3. Ancientone is of a wealthy lineage, or at least claims to be such; his family were of the "servant-employing" class and he therefore supports slave owners' property rights while opposing slave rebellions.

Frankly, it was a terrible post and reeks of trolling.
 
As it has already been explained in this thread Spartacus winning was unlikely, improbable. And I wholeheartedly agree.
One thing for sure - Spartacus could not take the city of Rome. No way. Even Hannibal did not try it.

So best case scanario for Spartacus was escaping from Italy with his army. His escaping to Spain or to Bosporus were discussed here.
But there was another possibility which Spartacus tried in vain - getting his army to Sicily. That was quite natural for him to try.
Sicily was the place of the First Servile War of 135–132 BC and of the Second Servile War of 104 BC-100 BC.
There was a great concentration of slaves on this island and the most cruel way of slavery - plantation barracks' one.
And during these two Sicilian Slave wars the slaves managed to create something similar to Hellenistic statehood.
Spartacus might create his state with the centre in Sicily which was fabulasly rich in agricultural products and most definetely self-sufficient. The island was relatively easy to defend.
Spartacus would found his dynasty. One of the necessities for this young country would be a strong navy so he might try to take Corsica and Sardinia or at least raid them together with Cilician pirates.
Spartacus would play a role of coordinator of all anti-Roman forces: from Bosporus to Spain; succesfull Spartacus is impossible without succesfull Sertorius and Mithridates.
Of course there would be nothing like a 'socialist' state. That would be quite a usual hellenistic monarchy. The former slaves would be proud owners of the slaves themselves.

I would give this state 10-20 years of life untill the Romans recover and beat all their enemies including their former slaves in Sicily.
But Spartacus might found a new tradition in international politics of the Mediterranean - all the forces ally against a bully who is about to threaten the fragile balance of powers.

What would be the perfect time for Spartacus to go to Sicily? Would it before crassus gains control of his army of 60,000 men? And If Spartacus does take Sicily that would change everything. 10-20 years? Sicily would be the perfect base however I feel factional infighting would insue since there will be different ideal and ideas(Crixus and Spartacus).It would fascinating if that happened. King Spartacus and his army of 200,000 vs Rome. With the large slave population in Sicily would have an army of at 200,000. If Rome takes it back it would be a bloody campaign lead by Pompey or Caesar.
 
I like the Sicily idea, or alternatively, Spartacus escaping East and being enfranchised by Mithridates as some sort of allied-client King on the frontier.

Well if you keep Sertorius alive longer, that's SPartacus's originally intended destination. If he takes his army to Spain, Pompey should be crushed. Then Sertorius can march on Italy.

What would be the perfect time for Spartacus to go to Sicily? Would it before crassus gains control of his army of 60,000 men? And If Spartacus does take Sicily that would change everything. 10-20 years? Sicily would be the perfect base however I feel factional infighting would insue since there will be different ideal and ideas(Crixus and Spartacus).It would fascinating if that happened. King Spartacus and his army of 200,000 vs Rome. With the large slave population in Sicily would have an army of at 200,000. If Rome takes it back it would be a bloody campaign lead by Pompey or Caesar.

Didn't Crixus already take some troops from Spartacus and go on his own only to be crushed?
 
Top