II. The Cause of Defeat in Spartacus' Uprising

In order to try to find out this "Something" of Spartacus' Upris­ing, this paper is to start with probing the cause of the defeat of the uprising. This might seem as a rather roundabout way, but to be effective to approach the problem.

Why were the Roman rulers able to put down Spartacus' Uprising? The cause of defeat was said due to the immatuality of the objective circumstances surrounding the uprising. In the first century B.C., for the sake of the poor productive power of labour, slave uprisings could not destroy the social structure based on slavery, and construct a new mode of production. Therefore, the slaves could not hold the intention of freeing themselves by the way of becoming colonus ⁽¹⁾ . They did not understand the class-consciousness and the true meaning of uprising ⁽²⁾ . Therefore, the slave uprisings had such characteristics, as to broken out spontaneously, sporadically and locally ⁽³⁾ . Those points should be counted as the cause for their defeat. Even though it is very important to study the uprising on their social, economic and political back­ground, putting these problems aside, this paper is to find out the cause of this defeat by the means of analyzing Spartacus' Army and its subjective conditions. On the way of analyzing those subject matters, their background would come up subsequently.

In this study, I would not take up the problem as class consciousness of spontaneousness of slave uprisings in general, but would deal with definite conditions specific to Spartacus' Army. Most modern historians have thought the cause of defeat as discord and disagreements within Spartacus' Army. Nobody would oppose to admit this discord as the cause of defeat if we would disregard the objective matters of the uprising.

What were the bases for judging this discord as the cause of defeat? Firstly, after the slave army, led by Spartacus, dominated South Italia, they started to march back towards the North to let the slaves go home lands. At that time, a unit led by Crixos separated from Spartacus, main force, and was destroyed by a Roman Army ⁽⁴⁾. Secondly, when Spartacus' Army failed to cross to Sicilia, they broke through a siege by a Roman general Crassus, and they tried their last effort to march to Brundisium. But then, Cannicus and Castus separated from the main force and were consequently destroyed by the Roman Army ⁽⁵⁾ . Both these occasions were taken palce on turning-points for Spartacus' Uprising ⁽⁶⁾ . These are the reasons that the historians think them as a result of discord and disagreements among Spartacus' Army.

Concerning the cause for this discord and disagreements there are various opinions among the historians. In an opinion, the cause for the discord is pointed as a conflict between Spartacus and the mass of slaves. W. Drumann, C. Neumann, L. Ferrero, C. O. Ward and H. Wallon are of this opinion. Drumann says, "die Sclaven verwirrten und vereitelten seinen Plan; er wilnschte ihnen ein Vaterland wiederzugeben, und sie verlangten nach Beute und Rache.... ⁽⁷⁾."

Neumann ⁽⁸⁾ , Ward ⁽⁹⁾ and Wallon ⁽¹⁰⁾ also have a similar opinion as Drumann's. By Ferrero, "Spartacus was a military genius and had worked miracles; but his heterogeneous army could not hold out indefinitely. Discord and desertion came to Crassus' aid,........... ". ⁽¹¹⁾ This opinion is derived from ancient writers', praising Spartacus as a hero and genius, while looking down the mass of slaves as a foolish crowd. Therefore, they take this discord of Spartacus' Army to be a conflict between genius Spartacus and the contemptible slave mass ⁽¹²⁾ .

In a second opinion, they point out the cause of discord as racial and tribal conflicts in his army. T. Mommsen, J. Most, R. Bonghi, W. E. Heitland, M. Ollivier and J. Vogt support this opinion. S. J. Kovalev of Soviet Russia also has this opinion ⁽¹³⁾ . For, by Mommsen, "wovon wohl die Ursache darin zu suchen ist, dafi die sicilischen Sklaven in dem gemeinsamen Syrohellenismus einer gleichsam nationalen Einigung-spunkt fanden, die italischen dagegen in die beiden Massen der Hellenobarbaren und der Keltogermanen sich schieden. Die Spaltung zwischen dem Kelten Krixos und dem Traker Spartacus — lahmte die Benutzung der errungen Erfolge und verschaffte den Romer manchen wichtigen Sieg ⁽¹⁴⁾ ." According to J. Most, "Den Zankapfel bildete die Nationalitatenfrage: .....  Was fruher auf Sicilien wiederholt geschah, das unterblieb hier; es wollte sich kein Anfiihrer dem andern unterordnen. Die Kelten wollten von dem Thrakien Spartakus nichts mehr wissen und kampften unter der Leitung ihres Landsmannes Krixos auf eigene Faust. Dieser Eigensinn trug bald traurige Friichte ⁽¹⁵⁾." By Bonghi, "ma ne da principle erano stati concordi ed malanimo tra i Galli e Germani da una parte e i Traci dall' altra non aveva fatto che crescere...........  — La vittoria di Crasso fu resa piu facile da cio, che il seme di discordia nell'esercito di Spartaco era ripullulato. La diversita di patria, tra quegli i quali ne facevano parte di costumi, di voglie, compressa per poco, ripiglio lena, come suole quando la fortuna scema ⁽¹⁶⁾ ."

In this opinion, when the cause of discord was explained as disagreement between Celts and Thracians, or Hellenistic barbarians versus Celts and Germans, in either case it is recognized as racial and tribal conflicts within the salve army.

On the other hand, the opinion of Heitland ⁽¹⁷⁾ , Ollivier ⁽¹⁸⁾ and Vogt ⁽¹⁹⁾ is: This racial and tribal conflict was easily brought forth by the structure of Spartacus' Army which had been divided by each racial group. That is to say, in the Army, there was a unit of Celts and Germans, and another unit of the Thracians. And the former unit wanted to keep fighting with Romans and march into Roma, while the latter unit wanted to let slaves go home. This view is interesting because they attributed the conflict to the structure of the Army. But this opinion is same as Mommsen's, Most's and Bonghi's on the point of taking the cause of discord due to the racial and tribal conflict.

Third opinion is represented by A. W. Mischulin's ⁽²⁰⁾, attributing the cause of discord to conflicts between slaves and peasants who joined this army. He has a hypothetical idea that downfall peasant class might have joined the army in a large scale, and the conflicts between slaves and peasants should have to be the cause for the discord. Namely, he takes Spartacus as a representative of slave class and Crixos and other leaders as representatives of those peasants. As they were in unity with the slave mass, Spartacus' group had an intention to make the slaves free and go back home. Meanwhile, Crixos group was keeping the tie with peasants... So their plan was to expel the large landowners, to acquire the land, and to share it among them in the end. This means Spartacus' Uprising had been assigned double tasks. And these tasks should have been carried out under the leadership of the slave class. But peasants did not understand that their aim would be accomplished only after the dissolution of the society based on the slavery. Under this condition, it was impossible to satisfy both slaves and peasants at once. Mischulin thinks that the difference of the programs between slaves and peasants caused the discord in Spartacus' Army, and the failure to unify these two groups led Spartacus' Uprising into defeat.

This view of Mischulin's is very attractive and much better than other two opinions because it refers the cause of discord to the background of its society. Soviet historians, such as V. S. Sergeev, N. A. Maschkin, etc. agree with his view on the point that the cause of discord as not in racial and tribal but in social background ⁽²¹⁾ .

These are the three basic opinions which conclude the discord was due to the structure of Spartacus' Army itself. There is an other view which takes the cause as a compound of the primary factors in the above three opinions. For instance, Hidemichi Ohta points out two factors, such as difference of slaves' home lands and difference of the standpoint between salves and peasants to be the cause of discord and disunity ⁽²²⁾ . And then there is another opinion like P. Oliva's, Czechoslovakian historian. He finds the cause in the difference between the slaves who had lived long in Italia and the other slaves who kept remembering their living conditions at home lands ⁽²³⁾ . According to Oliva, those slaves who had been in Roma for a long time, wanted to gain freedom in Italia... that is... to fight against Roma. And the rest of the slaves wanted to go back home lands. Even though there are some varieties, the cause of discord could be explained in above three opinions.

From these three opinions, we learn one element common to them. Though the first one take the cause of discord between the slave leaders and the mass of slaves, the second one between Celts-Germans and Thracians, the third one between slaves and peasants, they all think the cause due to the difference and contradiction of the plans and purposes in the army. The salve leader Spartacus in the first opinion, Thracians in the second, and the slaves in the third opinion, wanted to go back home lands. On the other side, slave mass, Celts-Germans, or the peasants wanted to stay, plunder and revenge in Italia and to have land-shares, and march into Roma. However, among the historians of the second opinion — that is, taking the cause of discord as racial and tribal conflicts — there is one like Vogt who refers the racial conflicts lay in the difference of their executing programs. But there are another group of historians like Most and Mommsen, who deny the direct relations between the two, even though they are conscious of the problem among Spartacus' Army men, whether they should get out of Italia or stay in Italia. Most refers the former as "Die Minderheit" and the latter as "Die Mehrheit", and non of them have direct relation to racial conflicts. He thinks that Spartacus' Army moved back and forth between those two according to the balance of their powers ⁽²⁴⁾ . Mommsen pointed out that "der Mangel eines festen Planes und Zieles" played a very important role for their defeat. Thus, attributing the cause of discord on racial and tribal conflicts, he did not connect this idea with the disagreements in the program for their action. His opinion was caused from the historical facts which suggest that the cause of discord was, basically, not originated from racial and tribal conflicts. But let me mention it later. Moreover, Plutarch says, "Spartacus handled the affair adequately and tried to let the slaves free from the Alps to their home lands, but his subordinates would not listen to him and raided around Italia ⁽²⁵⁾ ." And Sallutius says, "Spartacus' men ignored the order and revenged, plundered and acted mercilessly toward the natives in full vigour ⁽²⁶⁾ ."

In short, taking the historical condition of the time into account, the point where these three opinions have differentiated would depend upon how to understand the relation between the following two facts or to estimate them on a whole course of the historical conditions of those days; one fact is that Spartacus' Army had separating groups on an important time and that some of his members repeated revenges and plunders towards the inhabitants in the other fact.

These opinions that attribute the discord of Spartacus' Army to its structure, take difference of structure and disagreements of executing programs as related to each other. If the relation was not direct, they had to accept it as the actual disagreements in their programs. There­fore, it enables us to attack the problem from the other side, namely, from the point of the disagreements of their actual programs.

Even when the varieties of the structure of Spartacus' Army was the cause of discord, other factors would enlarge this discord. For instance, Kovalev points out insufficient regulations in Celts-Germans elements ⁽²⁷⁾ . M. Beer points out the desire of plunder in Spartacus' Army. ⁽²⁸⁾ Ward points out the personal envy of Crixos against Spartacus ⁽²⁹⁾ . E.G. Kagarov points out the disagreements and distrust between Spartacus and ambitious Crixos who had come to doubt the other as a traitor ⁽³⁰⁾ . But, the more important suggestion was pre­sented after the World War II.

L. Pareti of Italia points out that the breakup was only superficial. He refers the so-called 'breakup' between Spartacus and Crixos as the distribution of their duty and responsibility. For, after the 'breakup', when Crixos died in the battle, Spartacus mourned and hold a ritual, honoring his spirit. This should be a good proof that they were in a good term till the end. And as for Castus and Cannicus, they were not deserters but they were only separated as a rear-guard unit ⁽³¹⁾ . J. P. Brisson agrees with this opinion ⁽³²⁾ . According to him, there was no conflicts between slave leaders and slave mass, the Celts-Germans and the Thracians, nor slaves and peasants, and there was no conflicts basically in the Army.

A. A. Motus and D. B. Ratner of Soviet Russia have almost similar opinion. Both of them have such a view that there was no disagree­ments existed in the program of slave liberation in Spartacus' Army. The disagreements only existed in their maneuvering procedure and strategic plans or tactics ⁽³³⁾ . Criticizing the second and the third opinions which take the cause of discord as conflicts among races and tribes, or slaves against peasants, Motus takes those two tactical plans as a mere contrast of slaves geting out from Italia and of marching toward Roma. And these two plans should be understood as a whole in the programs of the slave liberation, not as hostility between them, for without destroying Roma, there could not be an escape from Italia ⁽³⁴⁾ . In the process of the uprising, Spartacus had to decide which maneuver would be better under the situation. Restricted by the slaves' action, his plan would be changeable... sometimes to march into Roma, and other times to get out from Italia as the situation varied ⁽³⁵⁾ . According to interpreting the situation along with tactics and strategies, there grew a discord. The basis of discord did not lie in a conflict like racial disagree­ments or slaves against peasants, but was formed by complicated factors in the problems among the conquered slaves, the Roman born slaves, as well as among the cultural level of the slaves and peasants who had joined the uprising ⁽³⁶⁾. Both Ratner and Motus think that Spartacus planned a strategic escape from Italia as a basis of liberation program, but did not oppose to march toward Roma to work out this strategy effectively, and to give a great damage to Roma. The quarrel between Spartacus and Crixos was not arisen from their programs nor their common aims, but from the tactics of fighting with the enemy  ⁽³⁷⁾ . According to this opinion, discord and disagreement did not exist on the basis of program, but remained only as a secondary or subordinate problem. Therefore, they were not considered very important for the defeat of Spartacus' Army. In this way, there are some differences ei­ther in the opinion regarding the cause of defeat as discord in the Army, or in the opinion insisting no disagreement in the Army, although the latter is trying to find a rational interpretation of the sepa­ration and discord in the historical materials. In order to criticize these opinions, let me start with analyzing the structure of Spartacus' Army first and see if there was any cause for the discord there.

(1)    P. Oliva, Die Charakteristischen Ziige der grossen Sklavenaufstande zur Zeit der romischen Republik, Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte der Alten Welt II, Berlin, 1965, S.86; E. M. Schtaerman, Rascvet rabovladelceskisch otnoschenij v Rimskoj respublike, Moskva 1964, P.248; S. A. Zebelev and S.J. Kovalev: Velikie vosstanija rabov II-I w. do n. e. v. Rime, IGAIMK 101, 1934, P.180

(2)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p.  180; Hajime Tamaki, Slave Uprising in Ancient Roma, Shakaigaku Zasshi, no.44, Tokyo 1927, pp. 78-79

(3)    Schtaerman, pp.241, 248; Kovalev, Veli. vosst, p.180; Tamaki, pp. 78, 79; K. M. Kolobova, Vosstanija rabov v anticnom obschestve V-I w. do. n.e., Problemii vceobschei istorii, 1967 p.25

(4)    Plutarch, Crassus 9; Livius XCVI; Appianus, B. C. I. 117; Orosius V, 24,4

(5)    Plutarch, Crassus 11; Livius XCVII; Orosius V, 24,6

(6)    M. Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus Servile War, Senshu Shigaku 1,1968, pp.64, 92-94; At the first period, the point of debate was - either they should march up toward North or stay in South Italia ... And then in the second period, either march to Brundisium to leave from Italia, or stay in Italia and march toward Roma.

(7)    W. Drumann, Geschichte Rows in seinem Ubergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, 1838, IV, S.75

(8)    Carl Neumann, Geschichte Roms wdhrenddes Verfalls der Republik, 1884, S.92

(9)    C. O. Ward, Ancient Lowly, New York, 1888, p.266, p.273, p.277

(10)    Henri Wallon, Histoire de I'esclavage dans I'antiquite, Paris, 1879, p.425 (Russian Translation)

(11)    L. Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome, I, p.174

(12)    E. G. Kagarov, Spartak, Moskva, 1924, p.19; As for the contradiction between Spartacus and slaves, he contrasts them as "long-sighted" and "short-sighted." But referring them as related to the program of their aim and   action, he does not take the view of "hero" Spartacus and "contemptible" slave mass. Kolobova p.25 agrees with the view that the cause of discord existed in contradiction between Spartacus and slave mass.; G. Paladino, Laguerra del Gladiatori, Napoli, 1909

(13)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p.166; He points out that discord germinated on the soil of hostility among races; Tamaki, p.77 says, an army of heterogeneous slaves couldn't keep holding its unity; H. H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, London, 1959, p.95; B. Balwin. Two aspects of the Spartacus slave revolt, The Classical Journal, Mensha/Ohio, 1966, p.290; He also takes the cause of discord as racial conflicts.

(14)    T. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, III SS.86-87

(15)    J. Most, Die socialen Bewegungen in Alten Rom und Casarismus, 1878, S.93

(16)    R. Bonghi, Spartaco, Napoli, 1880, p.17, p.23

(17) W. E. Heitland, The Roman Republic III, Cambridge, 1923, p.13

(18)    M. Ollivier, Spartacus, Paris, 1929, pp.99-100

(19)    J. Vogt, Struktur der'antiken Sklavenkriege, Wiesbaden, 1957, SS.37-38; But G. Tibiletti is criticizing Vogt, saying - it is no use trying to uplift the racial sentiments. Gnomon, Bd.31, Heft. 2, 1959, pp.149-152

(20)    A. W. Mischulin, Spartakovskoe vosstanie, Moskva, 1936, pp.134-141; Mischulin, Spartacus, Berlin, 1952, SS.65-74; Mischulin, Revoljucija rabov i padenie Rimskoi respubliki, Moskva, 1936 pp.78-83, 84, 27; H. J. Diesner agrees with Mischulin, Kriege des Altertums, Berlin, 1971, S.155

(21)    Schtaerman, p.242

(22)    Hidemichi Ohta, Mass and Hero, Lectures on History, III Tokyo, 1956, p.73

(23)    P. Oliva and V. Olivova, Spartakus, Praha, 1960, S.88

(24)    Most, S.92

(25)    Plutarch, Crassus 9

(26)    Sallustius III, 98

(27)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 166

(28)    M. Beer, Allgemeine Geschichte des Sozialismus und sozialen kampfe (Japanese Translation) p.101

(29)    Ward p.265

(30)    Kagarov, p.20; F. A. Ridley, Spartacus, Kent, 1963; He also relates the disagreements among leaders with racial discord.

(31)    L. Pareti, Storia di Roma, Torino, 1953, III p.695,696,p.703

(32)    J. P. Brisson, Spartacus, Paris,  1959, pp.212-218; Schtaerman p.242 is skeptical about Brisson's opinion as he didn't accept the actual facts of disagreement between Spartacus and Crixos.

(33)    A.  A. Motus-Bekker,  Iz istorii vosstanija Spartaka, Uttchenie Zapiski Leningradskogo Cos. Instituta 68, 1948, p.68; A. B. Ratner, K voprosy o pricinach raznoglasij v armii Spartaka, UZ Karelo-finskogo Universiteta vol.HI. H. I., 1948, p.56

(34)    Motus, Iz istorii, p.71, p.74

(35)    Motus, Iz istorii, p.77

(36)    Motus, Iz istorii, p.74

(37)    Ratner, p.56, p.59