Antiquity gave the world a great many outstanding commanders and heroes. More than once they saved their homeland, smashed enemy armies, destroyed other people's cities. But with all the wealth of choice, it is difficult to find a more romantic and tragic figure than Spartacus. Mark Antony called his rival Octavian by his terrible name, and Cicero called Mark Antony and the tribune of the people Clodius. But with him in a panegyric, calling Spartacus a military commander skilled in military affairs, the Roman historian Fronton compared the emperor Trajan.
Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, 1960 film
So, Spartacus, "great in his strength and body and soul" (Sallust).
Distinguished by “not only great courage and physical strength, but intelligence and humanity. In this he was significantly superior to others, being much more like a Hellene”(Plutarch).
“The deserter turned robber” (Flor).
"A low gladiator, destined to be a cleansing sacrifice in the circus for the Roman people" (Synesius).
Kirk Douglas as Spartacus
The despicable slave who, in the words of Lucius Florus, “was killed and died, as befits the quasi imperator -“the great emperor”(in this case, the Roman author means the honorary title awarded to the victorious general by the soldiers of his army: from that time he could add it to your name.”This informal title did not give any benefits and privileges, but was considered the highest award and the highest achievement of any military leader).
A man whom the Thracian prophetess and priestess declared to be a god, which many, both slaves and Romans, believed.
And even more so. Here is what Augustine the Blessed wrote about the rebellious slaves:
“Let them tell me what god helped them from the state of a small and despised bandit gang to go into the state of the state, which the Romans had to fear with so many of their troops and fortresses? Will they tell me that they did not use the help from Above?"
Augustine the Blessed, city of Trogir, Croatia
Think about these words! Christian author of the late 4th-5th centuries from R. Kh. asks his readers what god came to Italy in the summer of 74 BC. under the name of Spartacus? Mars, Apollo, Hercules or the unknown god of a foreign country? Or maybe the rebellious slaves were helped by the One whose Son will soon be crucified in Jerusalem, and 6,000 crosses on the Appian Way - this is just a rehearsal of another, the Main Crucifixion?
Crucified slaves, film "Spartacus", 1960
Let's leave the mysticism and think about something else: where did this strange name - Spartacus come from? Why, having blinded the haughty Romans with its terrible brilliance, is it not found in any other source - not a single person wore it in Rome, Greece, Thrace, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Asia, either before or after our hero. And is that even a name? There are more questions than answers. Let's try to answer at least some of them.
According to the most widespread version, Spartak was a Thracian. Plutarch writes: "Spartacus, a Thracian, descended from a tribe of nomads." In this short phrase, a contradiction immediately catches the eye, which undermines the credibility of the source: the fact is that the Thracians have never been “nomads”, that is, “nomads”. Some researchers have suggested that we are dealing with a scribal error, and suggested reading this phrase as follows: "Spartacus, Thracian from the tribe of honey."The tribe of honeys in Thrace, indeed, lived - in the middle reaches of the Strimona (Struma) river. The capital of this tribe is believed to have been located near the modern city of Sandanski.
Monument to Spartak in the town of Sandanski, Bulgaria
Athenaeus claimed that the leader of the rebellious gladiators was a slave from birth. But Plutarch and Appian report that Spartacus was a Thracian warrior (perhaps even a commander of a low rank), fought against Rome and was captured.
Florus, the Roman historian and author of the Epitus of Titus Livius, considers Spartacus to be a Thracian mercenary who deserted from the Roman army. It was this version that Rafaello Giovagnoli used in his famous novel: his hero, the Thracian Spartacus, fought against the Romans, was captured, but for his bravery he was enlisted in one of the legions, and even received the title of dean. However, he did not fight against his fellow tribesmen, fled, but was caught, and only after that he was sold into slavery.
Thrace on the map of the Roman Empire
The Thracians both fought with Rome and served in its troops as mercenaries, and during the uprising of Spartacus, the Roman army, led by Mark Licinius Lucullus, fought in Thrace. There were enough prisoners of war and slaves from this country in Rome, so the versions of Plutarch, Appian and Florus are quite plausible. The only weak point of these hypotheses is that not a single Thracian known to us bore this beautiful and sonorous name. Even after the news spread all over the world about the unheard-of victories of Spartacus, the inhabitants of Thrace did not call their boys to them, which is very strange: it’s so natural to name a son in honor of the great countryman-hero. Trying to resolve this contradiction, some researchers put forward the assumption that we are talking about a representative of the Thracian royal family of Spartokids, who ruled at one time in the Bosporus kingdom located on the territory of the Crimea.
Bosporan Kingdom on the map
Golden stater of Perisad V, the last king of the Bosporan kingdom of the Spartokid dynasty
However, the Spartokid dynasty was well known to the Romans, they could not confuse the names Spartacus and Spartok. Moreover, if it were possible to identify the leader of the rebels with a member of the royal house of the Spartokids, this would certainly have been done. After all, the Romans themselves did not harbor any special illusions about this war and did not hesitate in expressions. The poet Claudian, for example, says about Spartacus:
"With fire and sword he raged along all Italy, in an open battle he more than once met with the consular army, taking away their camp from the weak rulers, he often defeated his valor of the lost Eagles in shameful defeat with the weapons of the rebellious slaves."
Another poet, Appolinarius of Sidon, also does not spare the feelings of his fellow citizens:
“Oh, Spartacus, the customary consuls to disperse troops. Your knife was stronger than their sword."
But who is "dispersing" the consular armies? If the overseas prince, then there is nothing special in these defeats - anything happens in war. Defeat against a worthy opponent is not insulting, and victory over him is a great honor. For example, today Hannibal is driving proud quirits across Italy, and they are driving him tomorrow - across Africa. What will the Roman historians write in the end? The enemy commander, of course, is a hero and a fine fellow, what to look for, but he could not take advantage of the fruits of his victories, and because the strategist Scipio is better than Hannibal, and Rome, as a state, is better than Carthage. But if the Roman legions are "dispersed" by the gladiator Spartacus, this is a completely different matter, it is a catastrophe fraught with the loss of the status of a world power. Even the war with slaves in Sicily was not as shameful in the eyes of the Romans as the war with gladiators. The fact is that both the Etruscans and the Romans revered gladiators as people who had already crossed the threshold between the worlds and belonged to the spirits of the underworld. They were cleansing sacrifices for some important nobleman (if his heirs could afford such an expensive sacrifice), or for the whole people. Figuratively speaking, for the Romans, Hannibal was a fire-breathing dragon that flew in from across the sea, and Spartacus, whom Orosius compared with Hannibal, was a sacrificial bull who escaped from the altar and destroyed half of Rome. And no future victories could atone for the shame of defeat. Let us recall the famous decimation of Marc Crassus, which literally shocked everyone: the armies of the republic suffered heavy losses, and Rome trembled with fear. And in these conditions Crassus executes every tenth soldier of the defeated legions. And he does not just execute him - he sacrifices his soldiers: according to Appian, these executions are accompanied by gloomy rites of dedication of the unfortunate to the underground gods. Perhaps Crassus's goal was not to punish the "cowards", but to try to win the favor of the rulers of the afterlife? Perhaps he wanted to win them over to his side, so that they would refuse to help their clients - already their gladiators. And it was precisely for this appeal to alien and terrible gods that he was not awarded a triumph after the victory over the rebels - just a standing ovation (but in a laurel wreath). Because the triumph is a solemn ceremony of gratitude to Jupiter Capitoline, whose help Crassus actually refused, turning to gods alien to Rome. And maybe it was precisely because of his appeal to the underground gods that Crassus was so hated in Rome?
Mark Licinius Crassus, bust, Louvre, Paris
Enough mysticism for today, let's talk about other versions of the origin of the name of our hero. Some researchers have suggested that Spartacus is a Greek name that comes from the name of the mythical people of Sparta, which grew from dragon teeth sown by the Theban Cadmus. It could be worn by both a Hellenized Thracian and a Greek. After all, we remember the words of Plutarch that Spartacus was "much more like a Hellene."
Denis Fuatier, Spartacus (1830). Marble. Louvre, Paris
But maybe Spartak is not a name, but a nickname? Historians know the Thracian city of Spartakos. Could Spartak be a native of it? Quite convincing and quite logical. But, if we are talking about nicknames, then why can't this nickname be a nickname? Moreover, a contemptuous nickname - after all, gladiators were the most disrespected class of Rome. In this case, a dog's nickname: just like that, Spart or Spartacus was the name of one of the three dogs that torn apart their master - Actaeon, turned into a deer by Artemis. That is, Spartacus is a dog-man who torments his Roman masters! A very interesting magic of names, but the slave leader was called that way even before the uprising. But why, unlike others, could this gladiator get an "inhuman" name? The explanation may be as follows: Spartacus is not a slave from birth, and not a prisoner of war, previously he was a free man, not even an Italic, but a Roman. In this case, he could not perform in the arena under his own name: unnecessary questions could appear to the owner, and the former Roman citizen understood that by becoming a gladiator, he disgraced his family. And from Italy, perhaps, Spartak did not leave precisely because he had nowhere to go. We remember that for some reason he turned back from Cisalpine Gaul, and allegedly failed to come to an agreement with the pirates. Maybe he just didn't want to leave? It was not the soldiers who pleaded with him, but, on the contrary, he persuaded the commanders of his army to stay and go to Rome. But, the sale of citizens of the Roman Republic into slavery was prohibited by law. Moreover, it was impossible to sell a Roman citizen to a gladiator. Gladiatorial battles were considered in Rome to be an occupation so shameful that even ordinary slaves could not be forced to take part in them without good reason. Cicero puts gladiators on a par with the most disgusting criminals when he says that "there is no such poisoner, gladiator, bandit, robber, murderer, forger of wills in Italy who would not call Catiline his friend." The same Cicero in his "Tuskulan Conversations" writes: "Here are gladiators, they are criminals or barbarians."It is not surprising that the word "lanista" (owner of a gladiatorial school), translated into Russian, means "executioner".
Gladiators, mosaics, Villa Borghese
Gladiator, mosaic, Villa Borghese
The luckiest of gladiators could be extremely popular, but nevertheless remained pariahs - the most despised members of society.
Training of gladiators, still from the movie "Spartacus", 1960
For what could Spartacus be sold to gladiators if, in fact, he was a Roman citizen? How did he deserve such a heavy and shameful punishment? And was this even possible at the time?
The years preceding the uprising of Spartacus were very difficult and unpleasant for Rome. More recently, the so-called Allied War (91-88 BC) ended, in which Rome was opposed by indigenous tribes who tried to create the state of Italy on their lands. The victory did not bring relief to the Romans, because almost immediately the First Civil War (83-82 BC) began, in which many of the Italic policies came out on the side of Mary against Sulla. And, talking about the army of Spartacus, Sallust claims that it included "people free in spirit and glorified, former fighters and commanders of the army Maria, illegally repressed by the dictator Sulla."
Plutarch also reports that some of the rebels were imprisoned "in a dungeon for gladiators as a result of the injustice of the master who bought them, who dared to send into the arena the Roman citizens who heroically defended freedom from the tyranny of Sulla."
Sulla, against whom, according to the reports of Sallust and Plutarch, some fighters and commanders of the army of Spartacus previously fought, bust, Venice
Varro directly says that "Spartacus was unjustly thrown into gladiators."
In favor of the not quite ordinary origin of Spartacus, the fact that slaves constantly rebelled in Rome, the army was indignant every now and then, the gladiators, until the appearance of our hero, surprisingly, remained submissive to their unenviable fate. And even after the example shown by Spartacus, the excellently wielding weapons and doomed to certain death gladiators tried to rebel only twice - both times unsuccessfully. During the reign of Nero in the city of Preneste, the gladiatorial revolt was suppressed by the guards. Under the emperor Proba (III century), gladiators managed to break into the street - but that was all. But when the school of Lentula Batiatus was "unjustly thrown" there (Varro) and similar to the Hellene (Plutarch) Spartacus, the gladiators suddenly revolted, and not only broke free, but began to crush the Roman legions. Spartacus, of course, had to be a skillful and strong warrior, but there were many of those among his comrades in misfortune. Another thing is surprising: as a commander, Spartak was far superior in military talents to all his rivals. Sometimes it is difficult to believe that a former slave, or a simple mercenary or an ordinary Thracian soldier, could command an army that was flawlessly maneuvering in the most difficult conditions. It is also unclear where the stranger, locked in the four walls of the gladiatorial school, has such knowledge of the roads and terrain of Italy, both North and South. Mountains, turbulent rivers, forests and swamps - for Spartacus, these obstacles do not seem to exist. He is always where he wants to, and always ahead of the enemy. Let's not forget that Spartacus is smart, clearly has some kind of education and, according to Plutarch, is distinguished by humanity (in comparison with his colleagues, of course). But, on the other hand, why shouldn't the unjustly repressed Roman citizen who received his freedom, a person "free in spirit and glorified", after the first victories not announce his real name and declare to potential supporters that he is going to Rome in order to restore justice? After all, he must have supporters. Here is Guy Julius Caesar, for example. The family of this young ambitious person suffered greatly from the repressions of Sulla, and he himself barely escaped at that time. Now Caesar is a military tribune and a favorite of the Romans, why should he get involved with, to put it mildly, unpopular Crassus, if he has such a powerful ally? Rafaello Giovagnoli in his novel considers such an alliance quite possible: it is Caesar who warns Spartacus that the conspiracy of the gladiators has been revealed. Alas, neither Caesar nor anyone else will agree to an alliance with Spartacus. Firstly, he would have compromised himself too much by supporting the rebellious slaves, and secondly, Sulla's supporters are no less than Maria's, they will not return the land, estates and houses received from the dictator, they will not give up their posts. A new civil war will begin. In this case, Rome will not be destroyed by the rebellious slaves, but by the Romans themselves. Caesar understands this and therefore in no case will Spartacus's offer, and all surviving relatives of the "glorified" person will probably be destroyed.
But the version about the Roman origin of Spartacus comes into clear contradiction with the numerous testimonies of very, very respected historians, who almost unanimously claim that he was a Thracian. And how could Spartak manage to "pass for his own" among the real Thracians?
In addition, some Roman historians (Synesius, for example) call the "Thracian" Spartacus "Gaul": "Crixus and Spartacus, people from Gaul, people from low gladiators."
Orosius does not agree with him, he clarifies: "Under the command of the Gauls of Kriks and Enomai, and the Thracian Spartacus, they (gladiators) occupied Mount Vesuvius."
That is, Crixus is a Gaul, but Spartacus, as other authors report, is a Thracian. Where does this confusion come from? Many researchers quite reasonably believe that Gaul gladiators and Thracian gladiators were not necessarily real Gauls or Thracians: it may not be about nationality, but about the weapons of the fighters. Gladiators who received Gallic weapons automatically became "Gauls", Thracian - "Thracians".
Plutarch writes: "A certain Lentulus Batiatus had a school of gladiators in Capua, the majority of whom were Gauls and Thracians."
The question arises: are we really talking about immigrants from Gaul and Thrace? Or - about the representatives of the conditional "teams" (corporations) of Gaul and Thrace? But among the gladiatorial corporations there were also "Samnites", for example. Didn't Spartacus' gladiatorial specialization deceive his later biographers? Perhaps they were misled by the fact that in the circus arena the Thracian Spartak played in the "team of Gauls"?
He lived in the I-II centuries. AD Roman historian Flor claims that Spartacus belonged to the myrmillon gladiatorial corporation (by the silver fish on their helmets). However, at the time of Spartacus, such a corporation did not yet exist. But there were gladiators similar in armament and they were called … Gauls! So, Spartacus, indeed, could play "in the team of Gauls", and then, calling our hero a Thracian, Athenaeus, Appian, Plutarch, Orosius and Flor still meant his nationality, and not the gladiatorial specialty. By the way, in the equestrian portrait of our hero, discovered in Pompeii in 1927, he is holding in his hand an unusual short wide sword, similar to the Gallic one - but not a combat one, but a gladiatorial one (the Gallic combat sword is longer and not so wide).
Fragment of a wall fresco in Pompeii, reconstruction
Plutarch writes that gladiators gladly exchanged their "shameful" weapon for a real one - combat. After a series of victories, Spartacus, of course, could choose for himself any trophy sword, the most expensive or beautiful, but he apparently went to the last battle with the weapon he owned best.
So who really was Spartak? Perhaps someday historians will discover documents that will shed new light on the identity of the famous leader of the Roman slaves.
