Worst case scenario for Rome in the third Servile war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War
The Third Servile War, also called by Plutarch the Gladiator War and The War of Spartacus, was the last in a series of slave rebellions against the Roman Republic, known collectively as the Servile Wars. The Third was the only one directly to threaten the Roman heartland of Italia. It was particularly alarming to Rome because its military seemed powerless to suppress it.

The revolt began in 73 BC, with the escape of around 70 slave-gladiators from a gladiator school in Capua; they easily defeated the small Roman force sent to recapture them. Within two years, they had been joined by some 120,000 men, women and children; the able-bodied adults of this band were a surprisingly effective armed force that repeatedly showed they could withstand or defeat the Roman military, from the local Campanian patrols, to the Roman militia, and to trained Roman legions under consular command. The slaves wandered throughout Italia, raiding estates and towns with relative impunity, sometimes dividing their forces into separate but allied bands under the guidance of several leaders, including the famous gladiator-general Spartacus.

The Roman Senate grew increasingly alarmed at the slave-army's depredations and continued military successes. Eventually Rome fielded an army of eight legions under the harsh but effective leadership of Marcus Licinius Crassus. The war ended in 71 BC when, after a long and bitter fighting retreat before the legions of Crassus, and the realization that the legions of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus were moving in to entrap them, the armies of Spartacus launched their full strength against Crassus' legions and were utterly defeated. Of the survivors, some 6,000 were crucified along the Appian way.

Plutarch's account of the revolt suggests that the slaves simply wished to escape to freedom, and leave Roman territory by way of Cisalpine Gaul. Appian and Florus describe the revolt as a civil war, in which the slaves intended to capture the city of Rome itself. The Third Servile War had significant and far-reaching effects on Rome's broader history. Pompey and Crassus exploited their successes to further their political careers, using their public acclaim and the implied threat of their legions to sway the consular elections of 70 BC in their favor. Their subsequent actions as Consuls greatly furthered the subversion of Roman political institutions and contributed to the eventual transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
 
To be honest, how the war was managed already was pretty close of a worst-case scenario for Rome, at the point slaves managing to flight away could almost look like it would have been better.
Arguably, if Crixos isn't defeated and if his objective was to plunder its way North and eventually leave Italy while Spartacus does the same, it would give much ideas to remaining slaves and low rural classes, which would be dealt against much more quickly and seriously in the upcoming Fourth Servile War by Romans who would cease to treat servile revolts as upset rubble and will crush them with the subtlety of a T-34 in Nazi Germany.
 
I doubt a band of slaves could really do anything to seriously threaten the Roman Republic at the height of its power. Sure they kicked the militias around and whooped a consul when he let his guard down, but once the government realized how serious the revolt was, they put the boot in and Spartacus was crushed. I agree with the above post, OTL was probably close to the worst case scenario. The ingrained class-structures of the Republic weren't about to be overthrown by some angry gladiators, especially when there were significant legions in Spain and Greece which could be recalled to Italy in a pinch to overwhelm the rebellion (especially given their superior discipline and supply)
 
I doubt a band of slaves could really do anything to seriously threaten the Roman Republic at the height of its power. Sure they kicked the militias around and whooped a consul when he let his guard down, but once the government realized how serious the revolt was, they put the boot in and Spartacus was crushed. I agree with the above post, OTL was probably close to the worst case scenario. The ingrained class-structures of the Republic weren't about to be overthrown by some angry gladiators, especially when there were significant legions in Spain and Greece which could be recalled to Italy in a pinch to overwhelm the rebellion (especially given their superior discipline and supply)

OTL Rome proved pretty helpless against Sulla´s First March on Rome, in 88 BC, against Cinna´s rebellion against Gaius Octavius in 87 BC, or against Caesar crossing the Rubicon with a single legion in January 49 BC.
 
OTL Rome proved pretty helpless against Sulla´s First March on Rome, in 88 BC, against Cinna´s rebellion against Gaius Octavius in 87 BC, or against Caesar crossing the Rubicon with a single legion in January 49 BC.

That analogy doesn't exactly hold up because those men were all powerful Roman citizens with strong military records, considerable wealth, and command of numerous loyal legions. By the time Caesar actually got to Rome in 49 BCE, he had raised a several additional legions. Sure Spartacus was able to train his men reasonably well, but the discipline wielded by an actual provincial legion would outmatch a poorly equipped slave revolt pretty handily (as happened IOTL). Furthermore, what would Spartacus gain by marching on Rome? Sulla, Cinna, and Caesar gained political legitimacy from controlling Rome, but it would definitely be impossible for a band of slaves to gain any kind of legitimacy in the eyes of the Roman state.
 
That analogy doesn't exactly hold up because those men were all powerful Roman citizens with strong military records, considerable wealth, and command of numerous loyal legions. By the time Caesar actually got to Rome in 49 BCE, he had raised a several additional legions. Sure Spartacus was able to train his men reasonably well, but the discipline wielded by an actual provincial legion would outmatch a poorly equipped slave revolt pretty handily (as happened IOTL). Furthermore, what would Spartacus gain by marching on Rome? Sulla, Cinna, and Caesar gained political legitimacy from controlling Rome, but it would definitely be impossible for a band of slaves to gain any kind of legitimacy in the eyes of the Roman state.
Execute all the Romans, live there? The survivors from Spartacus forces would need to defend against the inevitable counterattack from the legions away from Rome, though
 
Execute all the Romans, live there? The survivors from Spartacus forces would need to defend against the inevitable counterattack from the legions away from Rome, though

There were probably upwards of 500-800,000 people living in Rome at the time there's literally no way they could have taken the city let alone killed all of them. But even if they had done it, it would only be a matter of time before the full weight of the legions bore down on the (now empty) Rome. There's literally no way that they could have held Rome for long from sheer numerical inferiority, let alone their vast tactical inferiority. Many of Spartacus' number would wise up to this and probably desert or worse, defect. That outcome is borderline ASB, but even if it came to pass, the long-term effects would be minimal (besides maybe some more walls being built around Rome)
 
Execute all the Romans, live there? The survivors from Spartacus forces would need to defend against the inevitable counterattack from the legions away from Rome, though
How are they supposed to take Rome without siege engines, tough?
They couldn't take the city, and it had been suggested AFAIK that cities that were effectively tributary to the servile armies in Southern Italy weren't as much taken than ransomned and bullied into this (probably due to their immediate countryside being plundered).
 
Could a Slave revolt break out if Spartacus decided to siege the city ?
Giving that Spartacus' army was an army almost always on the move and depending on plunder for its logistics, I'd say that maybe not a revolt, but a split from the servile army is all the more plausible IMO that a good part of it was far from being professional or even this trained.
 
Wasn't Spartacus trying to cross to Sicily at one point? What if he had made it there? Would the cities have risen against Rome?
 
While we are at Servile Wars, what about the earlier two ones? At that time, Rome was weaker, and these uprising had even more men. Seems to me that they should have a bigger chance of succeeding.
 
While we are at Servile Wars, what about the earlier two ones? At that time, Rome was weaker, and these uprising had even more men. Seems to me that they should have a bigger chance of succeeding.

The thing is, they were just that, revolts, they had no structure, no order, no real plan, it was just a band of slaves and laborers causing havoc around Sicily, the only reason they held out for as long as they did is because Rome underestimated the rebels, once it caught wind of the gravity of the situation, a proper army was sent to dispatch them right away.
 
Wasn't Spartacus trying to cross to Sicily at one point? What if he had made it there? Would the cities have risen against Rome?

The cities? Unlikely. People in the fields? Perhaps. In that case, the only chance they had to survive was to join the Cilician pirates, which is probably what Spartacus was aiming for in the first place.
 
I recall Mithridates of Pontus sent a lot of gold to Spartacus to help him wreck Italy, but the Romans intercepted the shipment.
I guess with that money he could hire more mercenaries.
 
I recall Mithridates of Pontus sent a lot of gold to Spartacus to help him wreck Italy, but the Romans intercepted the shipment.
I guess with that money he could hire more mercenaries.

I don’t remember Mithridates doing this, considering that by the time voice of this revolt had reached him Lucullus must have been closing in on him. In any case, if that gold did reach Spartacus, he would have had it stolen by the pirates just like in OTL. Italy didn’t have mercenaries, the most professional soldiers Spartacus’ army could ever get were gladiators, not even renegade soldiers from the Marian faction would have joined him.
 
I don’t remember Mithridates doing this, considering that by the time voice of this revolt had reached him Lucullus must have been closing in on him. In any case, if that gold did reach Spartacus, he would have had it stolen by the pirates just like in OTL. Italy didn’t have mercenaries, the most professional soldiers Spartacus’ army could ever get were gladiators, not even renegade soldiers from the Marian faction would have joined him.

He was besieging Cyzicus at the time Spartacus rebelled, but you're right I had misremembered and was thinking of his support for Sertorius in Iberia.
 
He was besieging Cyzicus at the time Spartacus rebelled, but you're right I had misremembered and was thinking of his support for Sertorius in Iberia.

Yeah I thought so, that gold did actually reach Sertorius, 4000 talents give or take, albeit a bit too late to be of any real use.
 
Top