Spartacus and the revolt of Roman Slaves.

[Majhudeen]

Now I've always had somewhat of a fetish for revolutions, underdogs and generically impossible odds being broken. Who deosn't? Who cares.

Regardless, say Spartacus had the resources, manpower and support to actually succeed in his dominance of Rome and actually free the vast majority of slaves. Say he managed to not only get the masses of slaves and lower class citizens and provincial subjugates under his flag, but also key military officials who wish to exploit his rise of power to take over Rome.


Now then. Spartacus and his allies have taken a major power surge in Roman politics and instead of being a revolt of 60,000 slaves that were put on the cross, lets say he had not only slaves and lower classes but also actual soldiers to help him, ensuring his take over.


What do you think would happen if he managed this? Would the empire crumble under a decadence of poor management, would the empire thrive under a new, popular ruler who has guided the oppressed to freedom? Or is there another probability?

 

[Feragorn]

Likely the poor management. It's quite hard to go from a strong, stable government to a loosely organized government with no experience whatsoever. However, his military inefficiency should have been evidence that he wouldn't have been a great leader.

 

[Archonsod]

Spartacus had no interest in taking Rome Most likely scenario would be as soon as he got the chance he'd bugger off into the wilds of Gaul, with Rome descending into the usual internecine power struggles till a dominant player emerged.

 

[Dvalin]

Even if Spartacus did succeed in devastating Rome's military it is near impossible to believe that any Roman be it citizen, senator, or soldier would ever kneel to the throne of a barbarian slave. Roman spirit was still full of pride and vigor during the time of his revolt and I doubt greatly that he would be able to submit the republic to his rule even with military might.

 

[!!noice!!]

Why not look to those Sicilian slave revolts that actually - if temporarily - succeeded? If my, admittedly thin, knowledge of history is to be trusted, they ended up as petty kingdoms, which Rome swallowed up again as soon as she rearranged her forces.

I mean, even if we hypotize that S could take Rome, could he possibly have kept it? The heart of the empire, unser the foot of a slave? It's simply too unfeasible, at least to me. Maybe, like the Sicilians, he could have carves out a small kingdom/country in a place further away from Rome itself, but even then I have trouble imagining it lasting very long.

 

[Winterz]

Well Spartacus intentions were to reunite an army, then with all the roman legions pression he decided to get some reinforcements from Sicily, but the pirates that were to transport betrayed them for roman gold.

Now, why would the soldiers help Spartacus? They were paid, they fought for their nation, which was a mighty one. And ofc they had that thoughts that slaves and barbarians were inferior species. There was no reason whatsoever for the roman lower class soldiers would join Spartacus ranks.

Then with a force only of bad-trained slaves and weak peasants, Spartacus couldn't attack Rome even though Rome was a bit weak due to their armies being in Hispania fighting other revolts(but they came to reinforce Rome later)......
Even weak Rome managed to dispatch many legions against Spartacus, some who finally defeated/destroyed them.

A bunch of slaves and peasants were never a match for a well leaded group of roman legions, even though Sparatacus was a great tactician.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Now, why would the soldiers help Spartacus? They were paid, they fought for their nation, which was a mighty one. And ofc they had that thoughts that slaves and barbarians were inferior species.

Ha ha ha!

Roman soldiers hardly fought for their nation after Marius' reforms. They fought for their pay and their general, moslty. If they really fought for their nation, they would never have followed a "rebel" general like, say, Marius himself, Sulla, or Caesar.

There was no reason whatsoever for the roman lower class soldiers would join Spartacus ranks.

Pay. And Spartacus had none to give.

A bunch of slaves and peasants were never a match for a well leaded group of roman legions, even though Sparatacus was a great tactician.

Which he was not.

We don't really know much about Spartacus, our only source are highly suspicious Roman accounts written, most of them, centuries after these events.

But, given what the Romans are telling about him, his only intentions were, probably, just fly away with all those people he had fred.

Still, Spartacus' fred slaves didn't want to free all slaves. They wanted to live like Romans and have slaves themselves. Spartacus seems to be the only one who despised this idea.

 

[Winterz]

Ha ha ha!

Roman soldiers hardly fought for their nation after Marius' reforms. They fought for their pay and their general, moslty. If they really fought for their nation, they would never have followed a "rebel" general like, say, Marius himself, Sulla, or Caesar.

Because they were not trying to destroy Rome nor the Empire(NATION).

Pay. And Spartacus had none to give.

So? You just clarified my point. 

Which he was not.

We don't really know much about Spartacus, our only source are highly suspicious Roman accounts written, most of them, centuries after these events.

But, given what the Romans are telling about him, his only intentions were, probably, just fly away with all those people he had fred.

There are many people who think he was, which might also indicate that he was a soldier once.
Also, the Roman generals that he faced might have done many errors but they were still Roman generals, trained in the art. Also, it was their atittude towards this rebels that made 'em choose such failure tactics.

 

[Gothic Knight]

Well Spartacus intentions were to reunite an army, then with all the roman legions pression he decided to get some reinforcements from Sicily, but the pirates that were to transport betrayed them for roman gold.

Now, why would the soldiers help Spartacus? They were paid, they fought for their nation, which was a mighty one. And ofc they had that thoughts that slaves and barbarians were inferior species. There was no reason whatsoever for the roman lower class soldiers would join Spartacus ranks.

Then with a force only of bad-trained slaves and weak peasants, Spartacus couldn't attack Rome even though Rome was a bit weak due to their armies being in Hispania fighting other revolts(but they came to reinforce Rome later)......
Even weak Rome managed to dispatch many legions against Spartacus, some who finally defeated/destroyed them.

A bunch of slaves and peasants were never a match for a well leaded group of roman legions, even though Sparatacus was a great tactician.

To be honest, the Roman soldiers would only help their generals who paid them. Why would they have loyalty to Rome? Most of them were poor plebians who were given a chance and a job as soldiers by Marius and later Roman generals.

Actually, Crassius' legions destroyed Spartacus' army, still, Spartacus was able to defeat detachments of armies filled with legionaries who were armed with lorica hamatas and gladii. The guy deserves some props.

 

[Winterz]

You do know that legionaries had to pay for their own equipment, right? So they can't be that poor.

 

[Rigadoon]

After the Marian Reforms, didn't the state provide them with their equipment? Before the reforms they had to get their own equipment, and to become a Roman soldier you needed to have at least 3500 sesterces worth of property which explains why they were able to get their own equipment. The Marian reforms allowed Capite censi, low class citizens with no property, to enlist as Roman soldiers.

 

[Gothic Knight]

You do know that legionaries had to pay for their own equipment, right? So they can't be that poor.

Nope. Their generals and the state paid for their equipment. Why do you think every legionary had the same kind of equipment after the Marian reforms?

The most dramatic and influential changes Marius made to the Roman army were named the Marian Reforms. In 107 BC, shortly after being elected as Consul, Marius, fearing Barbarian invasion, saw the dire need for an increase in troop numbers. Until this time, the standard requirements to become a Roman soldier were very strict. To be considered a soldier in the service of the republic, an individual had to be a member of the 5th Census Class or higher and own property worth over 3000 sesterces in value. Furthermore, soldiers were required to provide their own arms and uniform for combat. Marius relaxed the recruitment policies by removing the necessity to own land, and allowed all Roman citizens entry, regardless of social class (Plutarch, The Life of Marius). The benefits to the army were numerous, with the disenfranchised, unemployed masses enlisting for military service alongside the more fortunate citizens. Poorer citizens were drawn to life-long service, as they were rewarded with the prospect of settlement in conquered land. This also 'Romanized' the population in newly subjugated provinces, thus reducing unrest and lowering the chance of revolt against the Roman Republic. The new Roman army, its numbers vastly bolstered by lower class citizens whose future was tied to their permanent career, was always able to provide reserves in times of disaster. In addition, the growth of the army ensured continued military success due to the high number of fresh soldiers available for each campaign. Even though the army increased in size considerably, Marius also sought to improve organization among his troops.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

You do know that legionaries had to pay for their own equipment, right? So they can't be that poor.

The Roman State provides them with equipment, but I think they need to pay for it. They don't bring their own equipment. The State makes the armour and the weapons, and the new soldiers pay for it with their own future wages.

After the Marian Reforms, didn't the state provide them with their equipment? Before the reforms they had to get their own equipment, and to become a Roman soldier you needed to have at least 3500 sesterces worth of property which explains why they were able to get their own equipment. The Marian reforms allowed Capite censi, low class citizens with no property, to enlist as Roman soldiers.

Before the reforms, you had to pay the State for your own equipment. Yes, it's the same. The difference is that pre-Marian Roman soldiers paid, or already possessed, their equipment, because they were rich enough. Post-Marian legionaries paid for the equipment through their wages.

You do know that legionaries had to pay for their own equipment, right? So they can't be that poor.

Nope. Their generals and the state paid for their equipment. Why do you think every legionary had the same kind of equipment after the Marian reforms?

And before as well. As I said, the Roman State produced armour and weapons and sold them to the soldiers-citizens. Equipment was stadarised.

In Greece happened the same.

 

[Gothic Knight]

And before as well. As I said, the Roman State produced armour and weapons and sold them to the soldiers-citizens. Equipment was stadarised.

In Greece happened the same.

Who are you talking to? I already know this.

 

[MMontage]

Roman soldiers hardly fought for their nation after Marius' reforms. They fought for their pay and their general, moslty. If they really fought for their nation, they would never have followed a "rebel" general like, say, Marius himself, Sulla, or Caesar.

Marius hardly belongs to the same group with the other two, since he never used the legions under him to gain political power. Yeah, in his last years he took part in the conquest of Rome alongside Cinna, but with some irregulars from Etruria, not with his veterans setled in Africa.

Poorer citizens were drawn to life-long service, as they were rewarded with the prospect of settlement in conquered land.

Not really. Armies where still raised specifically for the campaign at hand and discarded after it. They also didn't receive land automatically before Principate, since it was up to the senate to grand it.

In addition, the growth of the army ensured continued military success due to the high number of fresh soldiers available for each campaign.

Even Crassus could not recruit enough soldiers for his Parthian campaign without conscription , and he was supposed to fight in east, which at that time meant easy war and lots of loot to come home with.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

And before as well. As I said, the Roman State produced armour and weapons and sold them to the soldiers-citizens. Equipment was stadarised.

In Greece happened the same.

Who are you talking to? I already know this.

Well, excuse me, sir. It seemed like you were stating that standarised gear was a post-Marius thing, not existing before him. I just wanted to make my point.

 

[Gothic Knight]

And before as well. As I said, the Roman State produced armour and weapons and sold them to the soldiers-citizens. Equipment was stadarised.

In Greece happened the same.

Who are you talking to? I already know this.

Well, excuse me, sir. It seemed like you were stating that standarised gear was a post-Marius thing, not existing before him. I just wanted to make my point.

Oh. Yes, I was not aware of that.

 

[Rigadoon]

After the Marian Reforms, didn't the state provide them with their equipment? Before the reforms they had to get their own equipment, and to become a Roman soldier you needed to have at least 3500 sesterces worth of property which explains why they were able to get their own equipment. The Marian reforms allowed Capite censi, low class citizens with no property, to enlist as Roman soldiers.

Before the reforms, you had to pay the State for your own equipment. Yes, it's the same. The difference is that pre-Marian Roman soldiers paid, or already possessed, their equipment, because they were rich enough. Post-Marian legionaries paid for the equipment through their wages.

I didn't know that, thanks!

 

[LastRoman]

Also, the Roman generals that he faced might have done many errors but they were still Roman generals, trained in the art.

No, not really. If you imagine some kind of Roman military schools where all generals learn tactics and such, then you're wrong. Of course they followed Roman military traditions, but it was more up to the individual man's skills, qualities and flexibility. And his willingness to learn from others.

 

[Majhudeen]

Thats why the Roman army was flexible, but also poorly managed due to the fact of commanders inputting too much of their own stride on things.