Spartacus....

Jul 2016
8,661
USA
#61
No, that's just you imagining what I know or don't know, not something that is in any way demonstrated by what I wrote. The terminology is completely interchangeable for the purposes in which it is being used in this thread, just as we might refer to a Roman soldier instead of a Roman legionary. The only one who cares about it is you, probably as an attempt to distract from your own errors and incorrect claims (e.g. not knowing the details of a battle you invoked as an example, and your terrible comparison between generalship and NFL football coaching).
Still posting I see. I guess thats to be expected. After all you revealed your complete ignorance of the ancient history in this thread and that threatens your ego and your reputation. So you'll keep acting as if you not having a clue about terminology used in military science and history isnt completely indicative of your lack of knowledge of a subject you so heartedly love arguing about.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,192
#62
I can be specific, because many sources specifically write things like "The third line of reserves" or "it came down to the Triari." So yes, we do know why they formed into three lines. We know why even though both the first and second lines would be planned to be committed to battle they were split up too, because the sources say the second line could remain outside danger range, watching, yelling encouragements, and when the first line gave out they could reinforce them and be completely fresh. And the third line would remain uncommitted until victory or loss occurred. Also coming from the sources.
Yelling encouragement? Not Roman legionaries. Their practice was to remain silent in order that commands could be heard. However the mention that 'it came down to the Triarii' does not really substantiate a fixed role for the troops in a third line. It's easy to get over-analytical about military formations (god knows there's enough of that on these forums) but really soldiers do whatever they are ordered at the time. Any army that follows a set formula will find themselves beaten sooner or later.

In the Republic, Hastati were first to fight to prove their courage
LOL. Okay, there may have been an element of that, but the point was to give these newbies real fighting experience and weed out those who weren't up to it.
 
Jul 2013
5
Michigan
#63
So we all know the story of Spartacus and how the revolt he started eventually came to an end, but what of the man himself? Did he die that day it all came to an end, did he escape and start a new life? what do you guys think?
Died with his men as the Romans said. Being a slave he would've been valued about as much as some fine furniture. For the Romans to give him a gallant death he must have made an impression that he was not a coward.
 
Jul 2016
8,661
USA
#65
Yelling encouragement? Not Roman legionaries. Their practice was to remain silent in order that commands could be heard. However the mention that 'it came down to the Triarii' does not really substantiate a fixed role for the troops in a third line. It's easy to get over-analytical about military formations (god knows there's enough of that on these forums) but really soldiers do whatever they are ordered at the time. Any army that follows a set formula will find themselves beaten sooner or later.
Roman legions in the very late Republic and Principate age remained silent, as a mark of total steadfast professionalism. Previously, Republican armies were very loud, everyone yelling and clashing their weapons. Each line of infantry would yell encouragements to their younger brothers in the line ahead of them.

Send me your email in a PM and I'll forward you Ross Cowan's article "The Clashing of Weapons and Silent Advances in Roman Battles."
 
Jan 2017
26
BC, Canada
#67
Dead. He killed his horse before the last battle, preventing him from riding off. He knew he was going to lose that battle before he started it. He started a rebellion, had some success, but ultimately failed miserably (like most slave revolts do), being responsible for the deaths of all his followers. He wouldn't even have wanted to survive. Where is he going to run off to? He's too famous to ever be not hunted down, his people were already subjugated by the Romans, so he couldn't go home. Frankly, he couldn't even risk surviving the battle. If captured it would be crucifixion (the preferred execution for disloyal slave). Even taking a serious mortal wound and not dying immediately would have been problematic to say the least, a slow death, possibly with torture added if he was caught.

Between a quick and clean death in battle, something he would have understood intimately from past experience, vs. the threat of capture and torture and/or gruesome, humiliating mode of execution, the only answer is Death in battle, no brainer. Proven by what the sources report, he fought in the front ranks and got deep enough into the Roman line trying to reach Crassus (to join him in the afterlife) that he killed two centurions before himself being brought down.
Yeah everything you said does make sense. He must have been brave to have started a revolt with just a few followers, and rather than being tortured he probably would have wanted to die. Going for Crassus himself would have probably not worked, but it was worth try. He knew he was going to be defeated, he had way less soldiers than Crassus, and he had less equipment. His body was never found. This is probably because he was already enough of a martyr, and if they crucified his body or something, then they would have seriously screwed themselves over when other slaves rebelled even after him.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
#68
This is probably because he was already enough of a martyr, and if they crucified his body or something, then they would have seriously screwed themselves over when other slaves rebelled even after him.
Let's all take a deep breath and ponder just how insane this remark is, as though slaves are sitting around reading the local "Slave Times" and fuming over the death of their supposed leader (who wasn't some champion of liberty anyway, these guys were plundering and pillaging local towns non-stop, poor and slaves included). Slaves tended to act in their self interest anyhow, and crucifying one more slave (who they were going to be killing anyway) wasn't going to make any difference given how many other slaves were crucified (not that Rome would have cared for the opinion of the slaves at any rate, they'd have crucified him no mistake if they found him... or worse). He died in the battle because he died, not by some deliberate choice on the part of the Romans (or probably even him, in the sense that he didn't really have any options like running away anyhow; his army was doomed no matter where they tried to run to, and he didn't really have the option of surrendering mid-battle).
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,192
#69
Question, is the claim that Crixus split his army up with Spartacus true?
Both he and Oenamaus (I can never spell that correctly) argued with Spartacus and split away, quickly succumbing to Roman action. They had no separate army beforehand, it was one of those "Who is with me?" moments.

He must have been brave to have started a revolt with just a few followers
He did not start a revolt, or at least, did not intend to. His escape from the school in Capua was a matter of survival. Spartacus was a felon, an army deserter, a bandit, sold off to be slain in the arena, and he knew it. His initial action was to make camp on Vesuvius (the site no longer exists) and begin operating as a bandit. The locals tried to stop him, couldn't, and appealed to the authorities for help. After that everything sort of snowballed. At no stage is there any direct evidence, historical or literal, that Spartacus wanted anything more than to act as a bandit.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2013
5
Michigan
#70
He did not start a revolt, or at least, did not intend to. His escape from the school in Capua was a matter of survival. Spartacus was a felon, an army deserter, a bandit, sold off to be slain in the arena, and he knew it. His initial action was to make camp on Vesuvius (the site no longer exists) and begin operating as a bandit. The locals tried to stop him, couldn't, and appealed to the authorities for help. After that everything sort of snowballed. At no stage is there any direct evidence, historical or literal, that Spartacus wanted anything more than to act as a bandit.
We have no idea if he was an army deserter. Its just as likely he was pressed into the auxillary and fled which would hardly be considered desertion in the modern context.

Also calling him a bandit is silly. The Romans consider a slave rebelling or escaping a criminal offense when in modern eyes it would be seen as a virtue. Would you consider Harriet Tubman or Nat Turner bandits. Of course not.

We also have no idea what Spartacus intended to do or what his motivations were. It is surmised that he wanted to continue raiding Italy because he didnt cross the alps when he had the chance, it is equally possible that he found the alps too imposing and his lands to far away to make an attempt

Not to mention is army was probably 90% italian and greek (Spartacus being more Greek than "barbarian" as well) shepards who would prefer to stay in their homeland rather than risk a trek into barbarian territory.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions