The Spartacus War

by Barry S. Strauss

The Spartacus War is the extraordinary story of the most famous slave rebellion in the ancient world, the fascinating true story behind a legend that has been the inspiration for novelists, filmmakers, and revolutionaries for 2,000 years.

Starting with only 74 men, a gladiator named Spartacus incited a rebellion that threatened Rome itself. With his fellow gladiators, Spartacus built an army of 60,000 soldiers and controlled the southern Italian countryside. A charismatic leader, he used religion to win support. An ex-soldier in the Roman army, Spartacus excelled in combat. He defeated nine Roman armies and kept Rome at bay for two years before he was defeated. After his final battle, 6,000 of his followers were captured and crucified along Rome's main southern highway.

The Spartacus War is the dramatic and factual account of one of history's great rebellions. Spartacus was beaten by a Roman general, Crassus, who had learned how to defeat an insurgency. But the rebels were partly to blame for their failure. Their army was large and often undisciplined; the many ethnic groups within it frequently quarreled over leadership. No single leader, not even Spartacus, could keep them all in line. And when faced with a choice between escaping to freedom and looting, the rebels chose wealth over liberty, risking an eventual confrontation with Rome's most powerful forces. The result of years of research, The Spartacus War is based not only on written documents but also on archaeological evidence, historical reconstruction, and the author's extensive travels in the Italian countryside that Spartacus once conquered.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, War, Roman History, Military History, Biography

Audible Audio

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Barry Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, is a leading expert on ancient military history. He has written or edited several books, including The Battle of Salamis, The Trojan War, The Spartacus War, Masters of Command, The Death of Caesar, and Ten Caesars.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Încep abrupt ca retorii romani: Barry S. Strauss a redactat o carte excelentă, deși a pornit de la documente puține. Cronicile istoricilor contemporani cu răscoala (Sallustius, Titus Livius) nu s-au păstrat. Iar cronicile care s-au păstrat (Plutarch, Appian, Frontinus, Florus, Orossius) sînt cu secole bune posterioare evenimentelor (pp.252-253). În pofida puținătății surselor, Strauss a construit o prezentare foarte plauzibilă a omului Spartacus și a epocii sale.

Nu există nici o îndoială. Spartacus s-a născut în Tracia ca om liber. A făcut parte din trupele romane auxiliare, a luptat, așadar, pentru Roma. E greu de explicat cum a ajuns sclav în școala de gladiatori din Capua. A fost luat captiv de dușmani și vîndut ca sclav? Atunci de ce nu a fost răscumpărat și lăsat liber. A încercat să dezerteze? Nu lupta din obligație, era plătit. Acest detaliu din viața lui rămîne obscur.

Există o imagine mult idealizată a sclavului gladiator. O știm din filmul lui Stanley Kubrick (1960), o știm din romanele (nu tocmai reușite) ale lui Raffaello Giovagnoli și Howard Fast. Ele oferă portretul unui erou romantic, cu idealuri nobile și universale. Noblețea lui Spartacus e neîndoioasă: și-a sfătuit tovarășii să nu ucidă, să nu violeze, să nu dea foc satelor. Mulți luptători nu i-au urmat îndemnul. În schimb, idealismul lui a fost unul moderat. Nu și-a propus să reformeze societatea romană și nu s-a gîndit niciodată la abolirea sclaviei. În anul 73 î.e.n, o astfel de idee „revoluționară” era de neconceput. Nu a fost eliberatorul săracilor și obidiților, un martir pentru Libertate.

Scopul lui Spartacus a fost mai modest. Dorea să-și conducă trupele în afara Italiei, să treacă Alpii și să revină în Tracia. Din păcate, nu s-a înțeles cu celelalte căpetenii mult mai însetate de sînge decît el. Oastea lui era foarte pestriță: gali, germani, celți. Unii voiau să asedieze Roma, alții să jefuiască în continuare Italia. Intențiile nu au coincis. Cetele răsculaților s-au despărțit. Cu doar 30.000 de luptători, l-a înfruntat pe generalul Marcus Licinius Crassus, în bătălia finală de pe rîul Silarus. A hotărît să nu lupte pe cal (o idee nefericită), a condus infanteria și a fost ucis. Nimeni nu știe de ce a primit această confruntare directă și nu și-a continuat luptele de gherilă (în care se dovedise foarte abil). Sclavii prinși de Crassus, cam 6000, au fost crucificați pe Via Appia.

Fapt foarte ciudat: istoricii romani i-au deplîns soarta. Sallustius îl considera „un mare bărbat, un erou și un patriot” (p.236).

În concluzie, un volum care se citește cu plăcere...

P. S. Am „pierdut” deja o recenzie (și vreo 50 de „voturi”). Așa-mi trebuie! Goodreads, fii blestemat :))

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A detailed narrative of the Spartacus slave revolt. As not much is known of the man Spartacus nor the specifics of his campaign, this two hundred page treatment is padded with geographical details and anecdotes of tangential relevance. Strauss writes clearly and unpretentiously, however, and he paints a vivid picture of this important event within the context of the wider world of the late Roman Republic.

[Traveller · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Revised review
This book is not quite an academic treatise, and not quite a "popular" reconstruction of events, but something in-between; a work that is purely evidence based but written in a casual tone with a lack of textual references in a way that makes it very accessible to the casual reader. In short, a work of “popular history “in the vein of the plethora of popular science works out there.

But do not mistake it for creative non-fiction. Since a lot of the evidence relating to the subject is only circumstantial and according to hearsay and since Strauss is obviously committed to sticking to facts only, the work is inevitably interspersed with speculative discussions putting forth educated guesses where sources diverge or is of uncertain veracity. In these cases, the author addresses the various possibilities (“Maybe this… maybe that...”).

However, he definitely does not do this in the “creative fiction” style. I myself am not a lover of creative fiction at all - I have my own imagination and prefer not to be treated to someone else’s when it comes to history, so although Strauss’ style does not lead to a very flowing narrative, I appreciated the honesty and lack of phony made-up scenarios that creative fiction tends to consist of to bring a scenario “to life”.

I originally gave this book 5 stars, because I felt that since it was so well-researched, the writer so knowledgeable about the era, and so much work went into it that I felt it deserved 5 stars for the enormous effort (Strauss personally visited many of the geographical sites where events supposedly took place) and hard work and thoroughness with which the topic was tackled.

But on second thought if the book was really all that comprehensive, it would, in retrospect, have given me more background about causes and context, the what and how and why of things, less than so much the when and where of things, the latter which seems to be Strauss’s most pressing preoccupations.

Firstly, I find myself more mystified about Spartacus the man, after reading this book, than I had been before reading it. I know that not much information is left about him as far as first-hand accounts go, but scientists often look at the effect of things and the behavior of things to divine more about the nature of that thing.

True, the title of the book is not “Spartacus”, but “The Spartacus War”, and it does seem to be exactly that- an account of the war, but an account seen very much from the Roman side. But even as that, I feel it falls a bit short as far as background and context is concerned. Yes, Strauss does continue on after the death of Spartacus to give us the aftermath of the war insofar as Roman leadership is concerned; but the book in general tells us very little of the societal, political and historical background to the war. There it’s more a book about Roman generals than about the world in general.

I wanted to know more about questions like: What was Rome’s exact relationship with Thrace, Macedonia and Greece? Which other wars was Rome engaged in, that distracted attention from the slave rebellion? How was the political structure of Rome put together in the 70’s BCE? (He does deal a little bit with governmental structure, but he doesn’t really go to great lengths to put it in context.) How did slavery work, and how did class structure work, all things that definitely had a bearing on the how and why of the “Spartacus War”. These were things I would have liked him to deal with and put in context, if, then, the book was more concerned with “The Spartacus War” as seen from the Roman side.

But why see it from the Roman side only? Why not deal a bit more with the nature and background of the man whose name is borne by the rebellion, the “Spartacus War”, namely, Spartacus?
For a character so famous that he became the mascot of many freedom fighters and liberation movements, Strauss seems hardly interested in the nature or character of Spartacus – speculative as it may be.

The famous runaway slave Spartacus was a complex and enigmatic character. Most likely having been a Thracian conscript in the Roman army, he was slapped into slave chains most likely when he tried to desert. He was forced to become a murmillo, a heavyweight gladiator, another job which he obviously disliked.

According to Plutarch (one of our few remaining sources regarding Spartacus), he was “possessed not only of great courage and strength, but also in sagacity and culture superior to his fortune, and more Hellenic than Thracian.” (In those days, being called Greek or Hellenistic was to confer an air of distinction upon someone or something, because the Romans came to greatly admire Greek civilization. So for Plutarch to describe him thus, he was sort of saying that Spartacus was more civilized, genteel and/or educated than the average Thracian. The Thracians consisted of a great kingdom of many tribes, but it was thought that Spartacus came from one of the more warlike, nomadic tribes, so there is speculation that he was a nobleman from that tribe.)

I couldn't help getting an idea of Spartacus's character between the lines of the historical evidence, and started liking the man. In spite of the fact that he was a great fighter and tactician, and excelled at both hand-to-hand combat and as a battlefield commander, and the fact that he definitely did not come short where courage and bravery was concerned, he also seemed to have a soft side to him. Or did he have a soft spot in the form of a woman? Plutarch tells us that Spartacus had a Thracian prophetess as a companion. (People were extremely superstitious in ancient times, and consulted their various gods about literally everything they were about to do in life. A priestess or prophetess like Spartacus’s woman would intercede with the gods and receive prophecies from them – in this case, from the god Dionysus.)

Spartacus was apparently a very good orator, and was well able to inspire people to throw off their slave-chains, revolt against the aristocracy and follow him, and yet he often seemed to lose personal arguments.

The latter is shown time and again where Spartacus got involved in arguments with the non-Thracian leaders, where he wanted to go North, but where they in return preferred to go south through Italy on a killing and pillaging spree. Now, one of the things that had been puzzling me, was why Spartacus seemed to have so little control over his followers, given that he was supposedly a good orator, charismatic and able to inspire people into action. He must also have been very intelligent and resourceful, taking into account all his tactical savvy, as well as strong-willed, taking into account his persistence in the face of adversity.

Why, if he was so charismatic that he could inspire his fellow slaves to revolt, could he not control them? Is it because the type of followers he mainly had (being besides his fellow Thracians, also Gauls, Germans and Celts), were savage warriors who were proud, enjoyed fighting and would rather die than to be slaves or to become mere farmers? That seems to be rather likely. Maybe they also thirsted for revenge against the Romans, and this was their overriding passion?

There is a theory put forward that Spartacus was actually just one of the four or five rebel leaders, and was never really the overarching leader. Ethnic divisions obviously played a strong role. Spartacus would undisputedly have been the leader of the Thracians, but the other leaders were mainly Gallic- as a lot of the slaves/gladiators had been.

Yet it was Spartacus’s name that endured through history, and his name that defined the slave war, so he definitely must have had some dominance, not to mention that he was obviously more battle-savvy than the other leaders – since they got defeated where he kept managing to outfox the Romans.

Maybe his woman advised him to rather stay in Italy and fight? – as an oracle (or message-bringer of the gods), her word would probably have carried considerable weight.

So, contradictory as it might sound, Spartacus was both rebellious and strong-willed, yet also “soft” (idealistic - noble, even?). All he really wanted was to go back to Thrace and make a decent living there as a free person, and that is what he wanted for the slaves he had freed as well - to flee from Italy and go back to their countries of origin and just live their lives as normally as possible.

Strauss comes to the conclusion towards the end of the book, that : "Spartacus failed".

No bone thrown to the poor underdog that perhaps the reason why Spartacus eventually failed in a military sense or in the fact that he could not convince his followers to flee from Italy over the Alps was, that in spite of his brilliance, Spartacus was too noble and not brutal enough to have complete control over his underlings. (Perhaps too trusting as well, such as with pirates who tricked him). Maybe the Alps simply seemed too daunting to people who didn’t have a specific place to go to on the other side of them.

At least, unlike the brutal Crassus (Spartacus’s eventual conqueror) who used base tactics to discipline his men, Spartacus was inherently a good, or “humane” man. For example, he tried to stop his followers from killing, looting, raping and pillaging - but sadly Spartacus seemed unable to stop them. Of course they did need to loot food and implements and weapons. But Spartacus instructed his people not to rape and kill innocents; to no avail.

Military-wise, Spartacus was a genius where tactics were concerned, and before Crassus came along, Spartacus was the undisputed the king of the Italian countryside, and had beaten every single Roman force sent against him for two years, so in many, many battles, he had not been a failure.

So after reading a lot of tantalizing facts about Spartacus, I felt a bit frustrated to be left wondering, at the end, as to why Spartacus was not more forceful with his followers. I would have preferred Prof Strauss to have done a bit more elaborate speculation on that point, as well as on another point:

The actions Spartacus took just before and during his last battle also puzzled me. I suppose we will never know why this brilliant man ritually sacrificed his own horse before the battle, and then proceeded to storm into the Roman fray on foot, towards his rival, General Crassus, only to be, unsurprisingly, struck down by the Roman hordes around him as well as by members of Crassus’ personal guard.
The decision to dispense with his horse obviously put Spartacus at a tactical disadvantage, and his actions in charging toward Crassus without a horse seems like a suicide mission.

Did his Thracian woman give him a prophecy which said that he would, in fact, be successful in reaching Crassus single-handedly and kill him? Did he, on the other hand, perhaps lose his Thracian woman somewhere along the way and was inspired by grief? Or did he perhaps despair that his followers would ever follow his commands with more discipline, let alone follow him over the Alps to freedom and did he consequently decide to take a gamble with death, which if lost, would at least give him an honorable death?

Who knows what would have happened had Crassus not been on the scene? It’s likely that General Pompey would have beaten him in the end, but it’s also likely that Spartacus could have invaded the city Rome itself as his followers seems to have wanted, before Pompey would have caught up with him.

The fates did seem to decide against Spartacus on many counts, but at least, if wanting an honorable fighter’s death is what Spartacus sought, at least in that, he had succeeded.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Nearly Men

The Spartacus Revolt, or Third Servile War took place between 73 and 71 BC. It started due to a Thracian called Spartacus led a group of gladiators out of a training school near Capua and went on a two year spree which rocked the Roman Republic. It was eventually put down by Marcus Licinius Crassus in a race against time to gain the full credit, fame and fortune before Gnaeus Pompeius Magus (Pompey) reached Italy. This story is told really well in Barry Strauss’s ‘The Spartacus War’ who provides a vivid account and brings to life the major players in this most famous of slave uprisings.

The Spartacus War begins with an exploration of Spartacus’s origins and the harsh realities of the Roman gladiatorial system. Strauss crafts a vivid picture of the social and political context, explaining how the systemic exploitation of slaves set the stage for such a dramatic revolt. He combines historical rigor with narrative flair, describing Spartacus not only as a fierce warrior but also as a cunning strategist and charismatic leader.

Strauss acknowledges the limitations of ancient sources, many of which are fragmented or biased, but he uses them thoughtfully to reconstruct events. He balances the historical narrative with informed speculation, offering insights into Spartacus’s motivations, the internal dynamics of his army, and the challenges he faced. Strauss’s portrayal of Spartacus as a complex figure—a man both extraordinary and fallible—adds depth to the story.

The Spartacus War also sheds light on the Roman response to the rebellion, emphasizing the political and military challenges it posed to the Republic. Strauss captures the drama of the conflict, particularly the cat-and-mouse game between Spartacus and Roman generals, culminating in the rebels’ ultimate defeat. The detailed descriptions of battles and tactics highlight the ingenuity of Spartacus and his fighters, as well as the eventual overwhelming force of Rome.

While The Spartacus War is primarily historical, Strauss also draws subtle parallels to contemporary issues, such as the fight for freedom and the dynamics of power and resistance. Although this adds a layer of modern relevance, for me it detracts from the historical focus. Furthermore, you may find the book’s speculative moments occasionally off putting, as Strauss sometimes fills gaps in the historical record with educated guesses. While these speculations are clearly marked and grounded in evidence, they may not satisfy those seeking a strictly factual account.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with The Spartacus War. Strauss’s writing is clear and easy to read and as a result he has produced a compelling and accessible work that blends scholarship with storytelling. It brings the legendary figure of Spartacus to life while offering a nuanced perspective on one of history’s most fascinating episodes. If you are interested in ancient history, military strategy, or the enduring struggle for freedom, this book is a solid choice. Relatively short but enriching and informative.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

At 212 pages before notes and a reasonable font, Barry Strauss wrote a great explanation of the most famous slave rebellion in the ancient world .

It is known as the Third Servile War, or the Spartacus War.

Spartacus came frome Thrace. This is an area that would be residing in the area, which is now considered Bulgaria.

Spartacus was trained as a mercenary soldier while in his own country.

Spartacus did not write, nor did any of his rebel followers. His existence is only recorded by the Romans, who were the victors in killing him and wiping out the rebellion. The information is sparse for the most obvious reason that until the Roman general Crassus took on the rebellion, Rome was getting its can kicked.

While he was still in Thrace, Spartacus was captured by the Romans. Never passing up a good fighter, he was used in allied service in the Roman army.

It was in this service that Spartacus learned the Roman formations, use of weapons, and fighting strategies.

He had no loyalty to Rome.
It is not known exactly what offense he committed to be sent to the gladiator school.

This could not come at a worse time. It is believed that 20% of the Roman State consisted of slaves.

This would put the figures at between 1 - 1.5 million slaves. Rome had become very lax about this population. It was a powder keg waiting for a spark.

Spartacus went from a Roman soldier to a gladiator after being re captured it is believed likely due to desertion or some type of rebellious conduct.

He became a trained murmillo.

This was a type of gladiator in the Roman Empire known for their heavy armor, which included a large oblong shield (scutum) and a distinctive helmet with a high crest and broad brim.
The armor weighed about 30 lbs.

The murmillo gladiator's primary weapon was the gladius, a short, stabbing sword. This averaged anywhere from 10 to 15 lbs.


His strength and skill as a fighter led him to be trained in one of the best gladiator schools in Capua, where he eventually led an escape and sparked the Third Servile War.

The revolt began in 73 BC, with the escape of around 70 slave gladiators.

They easily defeated the small Roman force sent to recapture them, and within two years, they had been joined by some 120,000 men, women, and children.

The able-bodied adults of this large group were a surprisingly effective armed force that repeatedly showed they could withstand or defeat the Roman military, from the local Campanian patrols to the Roman militia and even to trained Roman legions.

This army of slaves grew and roamed across Italy, raiding estates and towns with relative ease. They sometimes divided into separate but connected bands with several leaders, including the famous former gladiator Spartacus.

As the slave army grew, and more Roman forces were defeated, their weapons were confiscated and added to the slave arsenal.

As the followers of Spartacus humiliated the Roman Generals, Marcus Licinius Crassus was brought into the war against Spartacus after several Roman legions had already been defeated.

The Senate turned to him out of desperation. Crassus, a wealthy and ambitious senator, volunteered to lead and equip his own new army at his own expense.

In exchange for his resources, Crassus was given a praetorship and the sole command of the war against Spartacus, allowing him to eliminate rivals and consolidate power.

The Senate gave him the command to crush the rebellion.

Markus Licinius Crassus commanded an army of approximately 40,000 to 45,000 soldiers, primarily composed of seven Roman legions, along with 4,000 cavalry and 4,000 light infantry, that had been used -for his Parthian campaign. Other sources estimate his force to be as high as 40,000-50,000 .

Spartacus had planned to escape Italy with the help of bribed pirates. They took the bribe and took off.

The ships were long gone when Spartacus got there with 2000 men.

Crassus used his legions to block the escape routes for Spartacus's army, forcing them south into a corner of Italy.

With no ships to escape, they were finished. Spartacus was killed, but his body never recovered by Rome.

Crassus legions found and captured the estimated remaining 6,000 slaves.

Rather than sell them, they were crucified along the Appian Way, a brutal display deliberatly meant to deter future rebellion.

Five Stars

[Mircea Petcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totul a pornit de la 74 de sclavi evadați, înarmați doar cu câteva ustensile de bucătărie. Precum bulgărele de zăpadă care devine din ce în ce mai mare cu fiecare rostogolire la vale, gloata răsculaților se lărgea cu fiecare victorie. Răsculații au avut câtiva ași în mânecă:

- au exploatat tensiunile din societatea romană. Pe lângă sclavi au atras și țărani liberi.
- romanii au subestimat constant abilitățile și determinarea răsculaților. Pretorul trimis să-i nimicească nu s-a obosit să își păzească tabăra noaptea.
- calitățile de comandant ale lui Spartacus. Înainte să fie luat în sclavie, Spartacus a fost probabil comandant de trupe de "auxili" în Tracia. "Auxili" erau recrutați din triburile locale. Nu aveau dotările și pregătirea legionarilor și serveau ca trupe complementare, în special cu cavalerie, armata romană fiind în principal o forță de pedestrași.

Recomand

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finally got round to reading this because I was watching the TV show Spartacus with my other half and he kept asking how accurate I thought the show was being. My usual reply was that the show is entertaining, but that it's accuracy levels are pretty low, being based on lurid conjecture not on fact. However as I didn't know all that much about the slave rebellion led by 'Spartacus' I figured it was about time that I read the one book sat on my shelf that could add to my knowledge on the subject. I was very glad that I did. The book makes no bones about the fact that what little we know about Spartacus and his rebellion is drawn exclusively from the view point of the Romans, and almost all of it comes from secondary (at best) sources, the originals having been lost/destroyed etc. However despite this, Strauss manages to draw together the details that are known, and manages to come to reasoned conclusions about probabilities when information is missing. This is done by comparing the rebellion of 73-70BC with earlier slave rebellions, which seemingly were reasonably common in the Roman Republic, as well as linking Roman responses to slave political awareness to their response to other challenges faced by the Republic at the same period. I was able to discover that, while the TV show certainly filled any knowledge deficit with ridiculous sex scenes, it actually did far better than I had thought with accuracy. Key figures that I had assumed were mere invention seem to have had some basis in historical fact. Although there were some scenes such as a Roman commander being surprised while taking a bath, or the decimation of 50 men from the Legion of Crassus, that I thought the TV show would seize upon; which in fact were ignored or toned down. Over all it did pretty well. The book made some very important points about the nature of freedom in ancient Rome, as well as providing a clear and very readable history of a subject that is simply fascinating. A model of how histories of the ancient world should be written.

[paper0r0ss0 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Saggio deludente, dal tono discorsivo e discretamente superficiale. D'accordo le fonti sull'epopea degli schiavi di Spartaco (73-71 a.C.) non abbondano, ma ripetere gli stessi concetti per tutte le 200 pagine mi sembra eccessivo. Qualche chicca pero' la si trova nonostante tutto: le tecniche e le consuetudini gladiatorie, le tradizioni religiose dei ribelli, i problemi causati dalla diversita' etnica dei fuggitivi, il ruolo femminile tra queste popolazioni, la sonnolenta e inesorabile potenza di Roma. Troppo poco pero'.

[Dimitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

History is written by the victors, so Barry Straus needs to be forgiven for an insane degree of “probably, maybe, possibly” in any tale of tragedy from the other side. Especially the Thracian snake-sorceress remains an enigma.

The story as spun however, is an adrenaline-rich chase.

Spartacus’ first refuge after escaping from gladiator school was the high ground of Vesuvius, a day away. On the way, he recruited mainly sturdy latifundia slaves. Rome’s weak reaction was by the book. It was only slave revolt n°Y by a runaway gladiator/ex-auxiliary. Sending a preator and locally settled veterans of Sulla in pursuit had been sufficient before. They weren’t too concerned that as an ex-auxiliary, Spartacus knew how to fight as a Roman, but they did underestimate the infusion of Thracian mountain guerilla tactics. It led to a Hannibalesque threesome of military disasters: first the Roman camp was attacked at night, next a second Roman force en route, while a third column was given the slip.

Once out of action, the slave army proved impossible to control – looting was vengefully widespread – and equally impossible to feed. The best option was to leave Italy, but the roads to the Alps were multiple. A quarter of the mass went its separate way under second-in-command Crixus, but the main followed Spartacus, who undeniably succumbed to Victory Disease & turned to the city of Rome itself. A siege was beyond his capabilities & once he was at the gates, reinforcements would surely be used to block his route north. Maybe Sicily or Africa was the better option... But Sicily was also heavily garrisoned after two major revolts against its notoriously corrupt governor Verres (who was still in power – but would face Cicero in later years).

Either way, Spartacus performed a U-turn, with “decimator” Crassus hot on his heels to pin him down somewhere in the mountaneous south, between himself & the sea. A construction of fixed defences was begun, to strap the trap, but Spartacus broke through to turn for Samnium via the Via Appia route. Here, another split occurred. The Celtic-Germanic part decided to head north again – only to be promptly sandwiched between two Roman camps near Salerno. Lured in by a cavalry force, they were slaughtered while a cavalry screen nearby kept Spartacus at a distance. Reportedly, 5 (!) Eagles were recovered. With all arms pointed at Spartacus’ own wing, he made for the port of Brindisi, but was blocked again by fresh troops. His final destination was Venosa, but some of his lieutenants pushed for a fight instead; they were tired of running after 6 months.

Near OLIVETO CITRA, Spartacus dug a trench against Crassus’ cavalry and positioned his troops in a standard ‘Roman’ deployment, but with the cavalry dismounted. This sacrifice of mobility is identified as a tactical reason for his final defeat. During the life-or-death melée, Spartacus attempted to reach Crassus, but was surrounded & slaughtered.

[Nicky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written speculation about Spartacus, painting a picture of him that's honestly quite different to what I was expecting. Of course, it makes sense: he couldn't have done what he did if he weren't a good general, skilled at inspiring men and drawing up battle plans. This book makes that clear, though, and traces the things he did to hold his army together and train them.

From the little information available, Barry Strauss really did a good job here, while emphasising that most of it was speculation. And it was fun to read, which isn't always the case even with the most fascinating subjects when it comes to non-fiction. I actually read almost all of it in one go.

[andrea ✨]

i’m currently watching the show Spartacus on netflix and after finding out that a lot of the characters featured on the show were actually real people, and that the war being fought in the show was also real, i’ve gotten sooooo interested in them and the war and ancient rome during the gladiator period as a whole and now i want ALL THE BOOKS written about this time and these people. i just find it all so interesting and intriguing.

[Jovi Ene · Rating 4 out of 5]

„Spartacus a eșuat împotriva Romei, dar a dat naștere unui mit. Fără îndoială, el ar fi preferat să fie invers, dar istoria ne poartă pe toți pe cărările știute numai de ea. Cine, în zilele noastre, și-i mai amintește pe Crassus sau pe Pompei? Nici măcar despre Cicero nu prea se mai știe. Toată lumea a auzit însă de Spartacus.”
Da, dar și Spartacus a fost făcut mare mai mult de Hollywood decât o cercetare istorică exhaustivă care să fi ajuns până pe meleagurile noastre. Așa că Barry Strauss îi face oarecum dreptate, în sensul că studiază atent toate informațiile istorice care au supraviețuit, făcând analogii inspirate, cercetând istoria antică și mergând inclusiv la fața locului pentru a-și da seama unde s-au întâmplat anumite lupte, unde s-au retras sau pe unde au acționat legiunile sau sclavii. Este o încercare complicată, pentru că s-au păstrat foarte puține mărturii directe despre omul Spartacus, despre ceea ce gândea odată ce a pornit la luptă, despre viața și moartea lui, dar încercarea este una reușită, Barry Strauss construind o carte care se citește cu plăcere și în care adună o mulțime de informații care fac istoria mai interesantă.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

"No one presents the military history of the ancient world with greater insight and panache than Strauss. His latest work tells the story of a gladiator who in 73 B.C. led an uprising of 700 gladiators that eventually attracted over 60,000 followers. Strauss depicts Spartacus as a charismatic politician, able to hold together a widely disparate coalition of Celts, Thracians, Germans and Italians. As a general, he was a master of maneuver and mobility, keeping the ponderous Romans consistently off balance. Strauss reconstructs the rebels' movements across southern Italy and their development into an army good enough to overcome Rome's legions in battle after battle. Not until Marcus Licinius Crassus was given command of Roman forces did Spartacus face an opponent who could match him. Spartacus forced a battle that resulted in complete defeat and his anonymous death. But the uprising he sparked left a permanent mark on the Roman psyche and made Spartacus himself a figure of myth as well as history.

Spartacus and the struggle he led have served as the inspiration for movies, an opera, and several fictionalized accounts. He has also been adopted as a symbol of freedom by political movements of both the Left and Right. Yet the historical Spartacus remains a murky figure, while the details of the revolt remain subjects of historical dispute. Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, has made an admirable attempt to fill in some of the gaps in the historical record in a compelling but highly speculative effort. Strauss admits the lack of reliable primary sources has forced him to engage in some tricky conjectures regarding the character and motivation of Spartacus. Still, many of his assertions are credible, and his efforts to portray the political and social milieu of Italy during the late Republic are superbly done. Strauss sees Spartacus as a brave and charismatic leader who was limited by some personal shortcomings."

[Craig Chapman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book on romes greatest slave revolt. And best look at Spartacus we can get. Fantastic for anyone interested in roman history

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barry Strauss has produced an excellent history of Spartacus, the leader of the most successful slave rebellion against Rome, despite the dual obstacles of trying to obtain facts where scant original material exists, and attempting to accurately portray a subject which has been depicted in writing and on film either in romantic terms or as a shining hero of conflicting political beliefs.

Strauss is a professor of classics at Cornell; he has written two popular histories, about the Battle of Salamis, and the Trojan War. This book continues and builds upon the tradition of the first two books by injecting fresh perspective into ancient history while adhering to high academic standards of research.

Strauss needs to extrapolate probable courses of action and motives of the protagonist and his followers from sketchy historical records, some of which were actually written a hundred years after these events occurred. The problem isn't so much the antiquity of the sources as the subject matter. Slaves were the lowest rung on the Roman social order. Gladiators were a special class of slave who were hero-worshipped by the citizenry in certain notable instances, but they were still slaves who were expected to give up life and limb for the amusement of the masses. Victorious Roman generals had their exploits carved in stone. Victorious slave generals, well, were incomprehensible in the Roman order of things. When they actually occurred, as in the case of the two slave wars in Sicily prior to these events, or in the case of Spartacus, they were the object of derision and terror in the popular mind, and no one missed their passing.

Strauss does a wonderful job of producing a picture of Rome when Spartacus led a slave army up and down the Italian peninsula between 73BC and 71BC, in the late Republic. More specifically, he provides fascinating detail on the lives of gladiators. He creates a picture of Spartacus as he would have been placed into this world. Most of those who know his name refer to the way he is portrayed in the famous Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick film. We find out, however, that Spartacus didn't serve as a slave in copper mines, as portrayed by Douglas. He was from an area of Thrace situated in present day Southern Bulgaria. His country had been on the losing side of continuous conflict with Rome. Many people would be surprised to learn that he had actually served in battle on the side of the Romans. Subject countries of Rome were often required to supply military units to serve as auxiliaries to the Roman legions, as payment of being dominated by Rome. The Thracians had a long, proud history of warfare, particularly as mounted calvary, and Spartacus had been among many subject people who fought war for the Romans, while deeply resenting their second-class status compared with Roman soldiers, about ten years before the famous slave rebellion.

There is no doubt, however, that Spartacus, as an individual, possessed formidable strengths. Physical strength was a given, as demonstrated by his survival to this point in a violent world. The record does not explain how he was placed into slavery, then became a gladiator at the House of Vatia in Capua. He really must have got on someone's bad side to fall so far, from even his meager beginnings. He also had to have extraordinary charisma, possibly heavily reinforced by showing bravery and fearlessness in the face of mortal threat. How else to explain his influence in getting up to 200 slaves in the gladiator school (78 made it to freedom) to take on their keepers armed with only kitchen implements and make their escape to near-by Mount Vesuvius.

History does not record why Spartacus incited a rebellion against Rome. This was not intended to free the slaves, or to follow any other noble plan. Spartacus and his peers just wanted their freedom. Among the gladiatorial slaves who formed the core group, there were Celts, Germans and Thracians. Whatever Latin they spoke no doubt was their common language. Their various motives probably varied: honor, vengeance, loot. The Celts in particular were prone to pursue the spoils of a looting army. They were led by Crixus, who seems to have had almost a co-leader status with Spartacus originally. Spartacus' tactic of avoiding Roman armed forces in direct frontal battles was challenged by Crixus, who took his followers, possibly numbering by then about a third of the sixty thousand freed slaves, on a separate path to disaster.

In the beginning, however, the rebel forces were much smaller. The amazing story here is how the small nucleus became a cause for thousands of slaves throughout the land to run away from their farms and pastures to join them. The Kubrick movie almost makes it seem easy, as droves of runaways joined the rebels and submitted to mass sword practice. In reality, it must have been a monumental task to build a force which could take on a Roman legion, even the disorganized ones Rome sent originally. Added to this task was the realization that the rebel force contained many women and children, and had to constantly move to keep ahead of pursuers. It was impossible to maintain standards of behavior for this large body of people, and much property destruction and instances of rape accompanied their travels.

Readers of history, and film directors, are captivated about the manner in which Spartacus, the rebel general, moved through Italy for almost two years, destroying everything Rome threw at his force. Part of this was the refusal of the Roman Senate to take the rebel slaves seriously as a threat to the country's security. That's why a posse formed to chase escaped slaves, and then an army loosely assembled and lacking proper discipline, were the first to confront the slaves, and to meet with disaster. The two Consuls, Gellius and Lentulus, then took to the field with legions which were more capable, but still lacked the toughness of Rome's battle-seasoned legions which were busy fighting campaigns outside the country. This would be the equivalent of a President of the United States personally taking charge of an army engaged in combat. Their performance showed they were better politicians than generals.

The Senate had by now become so alarmed about the rebel threat that it assigned a heavyweight to hunt down the rebels. Marcus Lininius Crassus is remembered as a character as compelling as Spartacus. Crassus led forces about ten years earlier in service of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. He became a great hero for driving back Sulla's enemies and saving the day at Rome's Colline Gate. Sulla became dictator of Rome and Crassus confiscated extensive estates belonging to Sulla's former enemies. Becoming one of the wealthiest men in Rome, Crassus was now ready to lead his own army to glory and future political grandeur.

All of Crassus' plans fell into place when a desperate Senate gave him a special command with almost unlimited power, called proconsular imperium. This placed him one-up against his main political enemy, Pompey, who was being recalled to Italy with his legions to join the fight against Spartacus.

The end of the story then became dependent on the generalship of the two rival leaders. Crassus, with considerable personal wealth and the resources of the state at his disposal, raised six new legions; combined with the remnants of Gellius and Lentulus, he had about 45,000 legionaries in his command. He may have been outnumbered by his enemy, who may have had 60,000 slaves on his side (the proportion of actual warriors to others is unknown). Crassus trained his army, from the lowest soldier to the highest officers, with ruthlessness; he kept his forces focused on their objective by making them fear him as much as the enemy. Rather than rushing into conflict at the first opportunity, he followed a strategy, stretching over six months, of maneuvering his forces to reduce the rebel forces gradually while he waited for the opportune time to use geography to force Spartacus into a final battle. It reached the point where Pompey, the wild card, forced both of them to commit to action. Crassus needed to finally finish Spartacus off before Pompey could bring his forces into the field, and rob him of credit for victory; Spartacus needed to take his chances against Crassus' legions before he had to face both Roman generals and their armies combined.

Spartacus, with his high intelligence and his knowledge of Roman military capabilities, must have known that the odds were almost insurmountable against victory when he faced Crassus at Lucania in April, 71 B.C. His Thracian heritage gave him the courage to exhibit ferocious bravery; that, and undoubtably, his satisfaction in making the hated Romans pay with thousands of their lives one last time. He killed his horse before the battle, telling his men that he wouldn't need it if he lost, and there would be plenty of good replacements if they were victorious. The manner of his death in this battle has been passed into legend, how he hacked his way into the Roman line, personally killing two Centurions, while pushing toward Crassus, mounted on his horse. A leg injury caused him to turn his advance into defense and he was consumed in the raging battle. His body would have been anonymously disposed of with his fellow rebels.

Almost all of the rebels were killed on that day. The Romans captured about six thousand; Crassus disposed of them by crucifying all of them, placing their crosses along the entire distance of the road from Capua to Rome. Another group of five thousand rebels got away, and were intercepted and killed by Pompey in modern day Tuscany. He predictably used this smaller victory to claim equal status with Crassus as Rome's deliverer.

Spartacus' name appears in the writings of Julius Caesar and Horace, as well as the Roman historians Sallust and Livy. More tangible to the ordinary citizen, as speculated by Strauss, is the effect that the huge number of possible remnants of six thousand discarded crosses had on a population which believed in the magical value of a nail or cord, or piece of wood, used in a crucifixion. Through oral and some surviving written history of the era, whatever the route, Spartacus' name has survived to the present day as an example of resistance to oppression, having been invoked by, among others, Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan. This is a story which will continue to be retold for generations.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who has read Barry Strauss' book "The Trojan War" knows how he can create interesting history from bits and pieces of hard evidence. There are only a handful of written primary sources (some very short) that mention Spartacus, the warrior gladiator. What Strauss does in this book is an historical tour de force.

He takes the few fragments on Spartacus and weaves a story around those, based on his knowledge of Rome and the larger Roman World of the era. In short, he takes those fragments and weaves a story around them, based on his view of what a reasonable person, like Spartacus, would do under the circumstances.

And, based on his analysis, we should not take the Spartacus of Kirk Douglas in the movie version too seriously. As one reads the book, one also gets a sense of key players of the time in Rome (a view of people such as Crassus, Cicero, Pompey, and so on), the social and political contours, the daily life of people on the Italian Peninsula.

Some will be put off by the extensive recreation of Spartacus and his slave army and the lack of very much concrete evidence. However, given the scant record of Spartacus, I see Strauss' work, as earlier noted, as an historical tour de force.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is speculative history. The sources for the person Spartacus and for the slave revolt he lead are so limited and most if not all are non-contemporary accounts add this to the fact that for the majority of the conflict the eventual winning side was losing and losing to what they considered the lowest of the low and you can understand why there is little information on it. This however doesn't stop the author. He speculates wildly on a thousand different topics that may or may not be at least tangentially related to the stated subject matter. If I had to read another, "might have", "Could of Possibly", or "maybe" I think I might of thrown the book away and then just paid the library for it's loss.

The only reason I give it two stars as opposed to 1 or 0 is that I actually did learn stuff from the book, Don't get me wrong, I didn't learn anything concrete about the actual supposed subject of the book, but I did learn stuff like how a Dionysian priestess dresses and the types of gladiators and how to distinguish them among other neat titbits of information. It was also well sourced and the glossary was really well done. This work would of been better as a Historical fiction account as opposed to a serious history, even a serious history for the lay reader.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spartacus is probably one of the most famous rebels from antiquity. Here, Strauss tells the story of the rebellion. Since original sources are scarce, there's a lot of speculation and supposition. It makes for an entertaining read though.

[Michael Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

+++ Spartacus is an important figure of classical antiquity, having led a long-lived uprising against the Roman empire.
+/--- The historical fact seems accurate and the book includes several historical interpretations where facts cannot be established. Unfortunately, we simply don't know enough at the moment to fill up a book - perhaps a synopsis of 10-15 pages would have been more appropriate.
+/--- In trying to analyze the situation for a general audience, using contemporary views, the writing becomes simplistic and at times appears to be callous. For example, on page 38, "By the standards of Roman slavery, gladiators were privileged. If it was ironic that they, of all people, should spark a slave uprising, it was also typical. Throughout history, privileged slaves have often led revolts, perhaps because they have high hopes."

[Sean DeLauder · Rating 4 out of 5]

tl;dr

My dog greatly enjoyed this book. I came upstairs to discover she'd eaten the cover.


Here's a photo of the villain caught unrepentant in the act of her latest villainy: luring two unsuspecting children to certain doom. What a monster.

--

When your historical references about an event are either biased, tangential, or removed by 100 years or more, the task of assembling a convincing work on the subject will prove challenging. Nevertheless, Strauss paints a compelling picture of the world at the time and builds a sensible timeline of events based on what we do know, inferences about what we know of the social environment of the Roman world, the character of those involved in the revolt, both Roman and "barbarian", and does excellent work setting the scenes for the plot to develop.

As with these low direct-reference works, the author relies upon limited digression to describe what we do know. And that, to my mind, is great. Putting flesh on the plot saves me a fabulous amount of time looking things up on Wikipedia or elsewhere. "Often books speak of books," according to Umberto Eco, and it's nice when we don't necessarily have to read all of them to pick up the threads of conversation.

On the other hand, the paucity of certainty sometimes proved frustrating. This is no fault of the author--unless we expect him to imagine events rather than speculate. As a result, the book was very circumlocutive. You never witnessed a battle, but you could see one army or the other march past on its way to the fight. You knew the rebels through the behavior of the Romans. Imagine trying to determine what was going on on the other side of a lake by watching the ripples on your side. The book could be this way.

As a consequence, The Spartacus War is comparatively short at just over 200 pages (there are many additional reading/comments on sources pages that pad this number), and it fills them well, but we never get to know Spartacus as we might like, we only get to view his shadow. This is probably why Strauss calls his book The Spartacus War rather than Spartacus: The Authorized Biography. To do otherwise would be disingenuous.

Strauss makes frequent reference to contemporary city names, which makes sense if one wants to look at a contemporary map to get a sense of where events occurred. He even mentions the location of events with reference to an existing highway, as though he's talking to you while stopped at the roadside as part of a travel tour. He paints images of locations in detail, allowing the reader to see the world as though standing in the hills and valleys where Spartacus and Crassus walked. This should come as no surprise because Strauss has himself already done so, as evinced by the attribution of several photos of Italian historical locations to himself.

In the end, the end is rather anticlimactic and inevitable, as history often proves to be. Spoilers: the Titanic sinks, the Cubs lose, Spartacus dies, the rebellion fails. M. Night Shyamalan did not write this, so there's no surprise, twist ending. Neither did J.J. Abrams and Friends, so there aren't 10,000 unresolved storylines either. In fact, Strauss tells us the end was likely dramatically uneventful. And that's somehow very satisfying. Not everything must end in a supernova. Some stars simply sputter out. The tragedy isn't in the glory of Spartacus' death, but of his almost success. The longer he stayed in Italy, as Strauss asserts, the more inevitable this end became. All that remained is what might have been, the Roman efforts to quash it in such a way that it never happened again, and the exploitation of events by the victors. That's not the happy ending we want, but it's the truth. Honesty is more healthy for us anyway.

It isn't really until after the climax that we get our first surprising tidbit, and that is the possible cause of Spartacus' legend. Romans and their people, as no doubt were many others then and now, were religious and superstitious. They erected temples and monuments to everything, turned most anything into a relic, and notably created a demigod out of a politician responsible for currency reform. So it was with Spartacus and his followers--a large number of which made themselves ripe for the reliquary being strung out on crosses for some 100+ miles between Rome and Capua.

In that respect Rome did themselves a disservice. Never again did the slaves rise in revolt, as was the intent. But the legend of Spartacus, whose specter turned up again and again as a warning in later Roman writing (just as Hitler does now any time someone wants to complain about X Politician on the internet), never lost its menace. And when Rome itself faded away, the legend of the gladiator who rose up against a budding empire remained.

This is a good history, given what Strauss had to work with. But if you want a great one, in terms of both writing and literary value, read Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon.

[Violet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spartacus is my historical boyfriend since I was eight.

I had an illustrated history book, with entire chapter devoted to Spartacus rebellion and there was a picture of a muscled man in tiny white panties climbing down the Mount Vesuvius on a rope, made from vine and that delicious tingling started and hadn't stopped ever since.

And then there was that Kirk Douglas movie with all I AM SPARTACUS and I was all, oooh, I want to go to there. Never mind growing up in former USSR, with Spartacus becoming an ideological icon for all things communists, sports events named "Spartakiadas", sports teams "Spartak" and other ideological rubbish, as I've always been able to identify and reject ideological brainwashing.

This book is speculative history. Barry S. Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, applies high academic standards of research and does a really wonderful job, painting a vivid picture of Rome when Spartacus led a slave army in the late Republic, between 73BC and 71BC. We get fascinating detail on the lives of gladiators. Author writes about Spartacus, creating a picture as he - a historical personality - would have been placed into this world. Spartacus was without doubt a charismatic leader, a skilled tactician of the battlefield, an outstanding fighter and deserves his historical legacy.

My love for my historical boyfriend aside, the book is great military strategy analysis. Also, it is very well written and easy to read for a history book. The narrator was made an excellent work.

Oh, Spartacus. You'll be forever in my heart.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written, somewhat informal history of Spartacus’ slave revolt. Strauss does a good job bringing together all the information that is known about Spartacus and the revolt. He also writes relatively well, and provides good portraits of Spartacus and his nemesis Crassus.

The book is dry, with little momentum or energy. The book plods along, with the tedium unbearable at times, but as a history it is still reliable. Strauss is also hampered by the quality of the sources: since history is written by the victors, and since no Roman really wanted to remember a dangerous slave uprising, the lack of sources is unsurprising. Spartacus humiliated the Romans repeatedly during his uprising, discouraging the Romans from remembering the incident or writing detailed histories of the event. The Roman generals were all after glory in far-flung lands, and probably viewed putting down Spartacus as one would view cleaning up the mess made by an annoying pet: “I’d rather do something else, but somebody has to…” So Strauss is often forced to speculate, but his speculations are always reasonable and backed up.

If you’re looking for a book on Spartacus, make it this one.

[Caterina · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5/4

Popüler tarihle detaylı analizler arası bir yerde kalmış bir eser. Bazı yerlerde hissettiğim referans eksikliği yanında yazarın kitabın sonunda Spartaküs savaşına dair yaptığı yorum düşündürdüğü için 3,5, mecburen 4. Strauss'un konu üzerinde yoğun araştırmalar yaptığı ve döneme dair kaynak sayısının azlığı göze alınınca verdiği bilgiler değerli. Yazarın kullandığı dil de akıcı olduğundan rahatlıkla okunuyor.

İngilizcesini okudum, Türkçesi Kronik Kitap'tan çıktı okurunu bekliyor. :)

[Vlăduțu Alexandru · Rating 5 out of 5]

Foarte bine scrisă. Povestea lui Spartacus are multe lacune, dar autorul reușește cu succes sa umple golurile și să scrie o poveste extraordinar despre eroism și libertate. Apreciez detaliile oferite în legătură cu drumul urmat de răsculați, am simțit nevoia să citesc cartea cu o hartă lângă mine și a meritat.

[Mac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Borrow.

A history and commentary grounded firmly in what we do and do not know about Spartacus. Strauss has clearly walked the ground himself and uses his experiences to make judgements on what may have transpired all those years ago.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is unclear exactly what led the author to write this book as a classicist who bemoans the lack of good sources and firm knowledge and has to resort to all kinds of speculations and guesses about important elements of the war, but there are at least two possibilities.  For one, Spartacus is well-known as a mythical figure supporting freedom from tyranny and oppression, and it might have been impossible for the author to resist the chance to write at least some work that dealt with this mythos and its historical origin.  Likewise, the author may have sought out an opportunity to write a work on ancient history that allowed him the chance to exercise his speculative mind, as some other books of his, like his work on the death of Julius Caesar, showed that the author has an interest in historical mystery.  Both of these and other motivations are entirely possible, but while the resort is less firm than I would appreciate when it comes to works of this kind, the result is certainly worthwhile in that it places the Spartacus War and its waging in a complex context that includes Roman political and diplomatic history during the first half of the 1st century during the twilight years of the Roman republic.

The author organizes his tale in a generally chronological fashion, sometimes writing a bit more at length about various people involved in the Spartacus War in some fashion, demonstrating that although the Roman army didn't bring their A-team to fight Spartacus and his fellow runaway slaves that it was the opportunity for at least some people to win some military glory, including such figures as Crassus, Cato the Younger, and Octavian (the father of Emperor Augustus).  After an introduction that laments the lack of good texts on this part of Roman history, the author divides his work into four parts.  The first part (I) deals with the breakout of Spartacus and others from slavery as gladiators (1) as well as some religious support from his doxy, who happened to be a priestess of Dionysus (2).  After that the author talks about the attempted vengeance of the Roman republic against the slaves (II), with initial attacks from unsuccessful scratch forces brought by some praetors (3), the successful efforts of the slave army to move through the hilly countryside of southern Italy thanks to pathfinders (4), and the efforts of Cato the younger and others to overcome the rebellion (5).  This leads into a discussion about the retreat of Spartacus' army after its failure to escape Italy to the north (III), which includes a discussion of Crassus efforts at increasing Roman morale through the ancient practice of decimation (6), the betrayal of Spartacus' army by pirates (7), and author's hypothesis about a standoff on the Melia ridge (8).  The author then closes the book with a discussion of the fight to the death (IV) that ended the war, including chapters on the defeat of the Celtic section of the army that had split off from Spartacus' main force (9), the last battle of Spartacus himself (10), and the portrait of the Roman victors (11), along with a conclusion that looked at various mopping up efforts and the consequences of Spartacus' revolt.

I must admit that while I am familiar with the name of Spartacus and his role as a runaway slave that I have not seen any of the movies that take advantage of the mythic view of Spartacus as a liberator to present a more egalitarian view of the subject than was the case in history.  The author does a good job in this book at pointing out the little we know about him and his deeds, making generally good guesses about what he does not know, and pointing out of the ways in which he was either strategically or tactically sound and how he was not quite as much of a freedom lover as he was made out to be, given his lack of interest in gaining the support of urban slaves and his obvious favoritism for other gladiators or rural slaves.  The town & country divide among slaves is something that has always been of interest to me in my own studies on slavery and this book does help in that regard.  If you have an interest in the late Roman republic or in the history of slavery and slave insurrections this book is definitely a worthwhile book to read.

[Molly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seems that Hollywood and Kirk Douglas did Spartacus proud. Fun read!

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a story of the gladiator, Spartacus. He was brought from Thrace (Bulgaria) to fight in an area in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius. In about 73 to 71 B.C. Spartacus and seventy other gladiators broke out armed with kitchen utensils. For two years he led a growing band of runaway slaves in a revolt. Strauss points out that Spartacus was a Murmillo gladiator who had served as a Thracian auxiliary to the Roman Army where he learned Roman military tactics.

Strauss is a Professor of Classics at Cornell University. Strauss has a fine balance between accessibility and scholarship, imagination and responsibility. It is not always an easy balance to strike but Strauss did a good job. The book reads like a thriller but grounded in history. Strauss wove history into an exciting story.

The author points out that the goal of the rebellion was vengeance not to abolish slavery. Strauss stresses that Spartacus had exceptional principles and he liked the idea of equality. Spartacus died charging the Roman general Crassus who led the campaign against him.

Strauss has not only created a history of the slave war but a campanian travelogue. The book was well written and easy to read for a history book. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Roy Grover narrated the book.

[Myke Cole · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Spartacus War is a well written chronicle of the Third Servile War, the greatest slave revolt in Roman history. I assume that the publisher forced the awful title on the grounds that everyone has heard of Spartacus, and no casual reader knows what the hell a Servile War is.

Strauss has a gift for cliff-hangar chapter endings, story beats and how to write narrative prose that is engaging in spurts. But only in spurts. Strauss also has a meandering style, going down rabbit holes that distract from the central narrative. Worse, he runs out of story, and pursue tangents in an effort to pad the narrative. The overall effect is a book that could be 20% shorter, and a lot of time spent learning about places, people and details that have nothing to do with the central narrative, but that Strauss clearly felt were instructive.

This above all, he gives short shrift to the people. I am left not knowing who Spartacus was in his core, why he led the rebellion and what he hoped to accomplish. Strauss is limited by the paucity of the record, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately I didn't learn much from this book that I couldn't have gotten from a Wikipedia article.

[Sean O'Hara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is what history should be -- short, concise, and no long digressions on the history of sandals or the archaeological significance of potsherds. When Strauss discusses motivations of various figures, he tells us what ancient sources said, what modern scholars think, his own view, and he makes clear that this is all speculation. Likewise, if the record is unclear about where or when an event took place, he gives the evidence and lays out the most likely answers -- but, again, he lets the reader know that this is conjecture.

After reading far too many histories where the author makes sweeping claims as though stating facts instead of speculation, this was a nice breath of fresh air.