Why did the rebellion of Spartacus fail?

Home Forums History Why did the rebellion of Spartacus fail?

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #55607
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why did the rebellion of Spartacus fail?

    • #55608
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No goal to speak of. They just roamed throughout Italy until they met generals who could beat them.

    • #55609
      Anonymous
      Guest

      All rebellions face an uphill battle against an entrenched and organized power structure with significant resources at their disposal. It’s why so many would-be revolutionaries desperately beg for foreign aid, since all the useful resources in their area are, y’know, being hoovered up by the powers-that-be.

    • #55610
      Anonymous
      Guest

      He didn’t know and therefore couldn’t apply Scientific Socialism. If he knew (like, for example some isekai reincarnation or something), he would succeed.

      • #55631
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >if only he knew-
        >Roman legion BTFO’s him

    • #55611
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because he gently caressing turned around

    • #55612
      Anonymous
      Guest

      His goal was to escape, but he took too long doing so. If he had immediately made for the Alps, then it is unlikely that anyone could have stopped him

      • #55614
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >His goal was to escape, but he took too long doing so.
        Yes but more than likely he knew of the last two major slave uprisings that had happened and that both had occurred on Sicily. It’s probably why he tried going there.

        > If he had immediately made for the Alps, then it is unlikely that anyone could have stopped him

        Except for his own army. His men were of largely mixed ancestry from all corners of the known world. The gauls would have either done what they did and turned around to keep on sacking Rome or sold the rest out to their tribes when/if they came in contact with them. Just going over the alps came with exactly 0 assurances other than pissed off tribes wanting to kill you for now contaminating their lands with your bullshit. Going over the alps meant melting away into the countryside with the only guarantee any of them had of not getting enslaved by some barbarian chieftain (their organized combined arms) gone. In this scenario taking Sicily and fortifying the gently caress right out of it actually doesn’t seem so bad.

        • #55619
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It was still their best bet, despite the potential risks you list. Perhaps if they had been able to have the Cilician pirates transport them into the east, they could have gotten away, but that seems even less likely. Carving out their own domain on Sicily was probably the worst possible idea though, as taking the bread basket of the Romans would guarantee that the Romans would send everything they had at them. Even trying to sack and destroy Rome itself was a smarter move in that case

          • #55621
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Well no not really. It’s their best bet with hindsight knowing how they ended up. From their pov their only reinforcements have been slaves, their only resupply from plantations and homes whose slaves have joined them. Going into Gaul, Germania or Dacia comes with no promises of any kind least of all that his army would remain an army.

            But you’re also assuming a level of intellect and academic knowledge on their part regarding the Roman state. From their pov Sicily is surrounded by water, it has more than enough food for them all and even more slaves to join their ranks. Whether or not they thought they could bring Rome to the negotiating table is separate from being able to have a little breathing room in the immediate future. Surely if they thought they could sack Rome they would have done so.

            • #55623
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Yes anon, I understand the gap of information available to them. But you are basically answering why they did what they did. Is not arguing with the benefit of hindsight the whole point of these what-if scenarios after all? Plus as far as I know, they did eventually decide to make for the Alps after all, so in that sense it is not THAT far-fetched. If they actually had made it there, we would probably not know for sure what became of them and Roman authors would have given various alternative theories of their various fates

        • #55632
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >the gauls would have turned around to keep sacking rome
          >’barbarians were the true civilized people!’

    • #55613
      Anonymous
      Guest

      From a historical perspective:
      >Spartacus lost because his forces were outmaneuvered and eventually outfought by several Roman legions

      From an analytical perspective:
      Spartacus’ rebellion seemed to be poorly organized with it being unknown whether or not Spartacus himself actually led the rebellion or was merely one of many leaders among it. No written records survive from the rebels pov that would tell us their motivations, organization or political aims if any existed. All we know is that the horde they assembled ran around Italy sacking and pillaging whatever they could, they then split into several different forces one of which seems to have been under Spartacus’ direct or at least nominal leadership and this force would seek passage to Sicily, fail to attain it, and then be surrounded and destroyed by the Romans.

      He seems to have failed because his entire campaign was within Roman territory, among Roman forces with no resupply or reinforcement available from anywhere and that shortcoming seems to have caught up to him. Since unlike the Romans who could fail repeatedly he only had to fail once for his whole enterprise to come crashing down.

    • #55625
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why is the third servile war so overrated, LULZ? It was like the least impactful of all the roman civil wars taking place in its own century, neverthless is the third most talked about behind only Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon and Augustus’ win over Antony after Actium.

      • #55626
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Probably due to the prominent part played by two of the future Triumvirs, along with the Romans’ general fear of slave revolts and it being the last of a series.

        One may as well ask why the Second Punic War gets more attention when it was really the First that was the decisive one

        • #55629
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Anyway to add to that, the most succesful revolt was arguably the last Social War since the rebels essentially achieved their objectives despite losing the conflict

      • #55627
        Anonymous
        Guest

        because it’s the only one that threatened Rome

        • #55628
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Only in the paranoid mind of Romans

          • #55630
            Anonymous
            Guest

            And they’re the ones that wrote shit down so same difference.

    • #55633
      Anonymous
      Guest

      From what I understand, he started something that snowballed into an uncrontrollable mass of raiders. It’s like Paul Atreides and his helplessness against the Jihad

    • #55634
      Anonymous
      Guest

      He didn’t ally with China, the most powerful country in the world at the time.

      • #55635
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Kek

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.