Customer Reviews

The Spartacus War

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a wonderful book. A page-turner. An eye-opener for those whose eyes are filled with the movie 'Spartacus.' In clear, exciting, often times poetic prose, Barry Strauss gives us the true story as best it may be known from the scant historic record. After all, as the quote goes, history is written by the victors. But did Spartacus truly lose in his heroic and daring bid for freedom from his Roman oppressors? His name remains vivid and vital on the lips of men down through the centuries unto our present day. He may have lost the war wherein he and his army of slaves held Rome at bay for two long years - but he most assuredly won the history writ in the heart of man. This book is tangible proof of that immortality.

The book reads as bravely and briskly as Spartacus fought for the freedom all peoples dream of. The only things that would have made the book all-the-better would have been a few maps outlining stategic movements in the gladiator-rebel's numerous battles with the enemy - especially of the last battle, speculative as it might have been to reconstruct. Also, there is a bit too much geographical description that, rather than clarifying key locations of the story, tend to confuse it. I would have liked to have learned more about Rome itself - it's history, it's day-to-day life in the days of Spartacus; also a deeper delving into the origins of crucifixion (which plays a huge part in the end game of the gladiatorial revolt) would have been welcome. Who first practiced it - and why? What actually kills a man on a cross? There is no analysis as to why the captured 6,000 did not fight to the death - or commit suicide - knowing what awaited them once they laid down or lost their weapons.

Despite these few matters, Mr. Strauss has given us the living man Spartacus whose Life is every bit as compelling as his Myth. Thumbs up on this one (even though we learn within the book that thumbs up actually signalled death for the defeated.)

You know the name Spartacus, probably from the many fictional descriptions of his life, especially Kirk Douglas playing the title role in the 1960 film by Stanley Kubrick. There are novels about him, too, and a ballet by Khachaturian. Ronald Reagan was no scholar of Roman history, but in an address in Britain, he referred to the rebellious slave Spartacus as a symbol of the fight against totalitarianism. Spartacus's name seems as if it will resound forever, and so a case could be made that we ought to know more about him than the "facts" presented in a Hollywood biopic. Here are the facts: _The Spartacus War_ (Simon and Schuster) by classicist Barry Strauss. It is a compelling story, the sort of history that makes sense of the far-distant Roman world while being frank about how little we can know for sure. Strauss has authoritatively put together facts from the original ancient documents, or the ancient documents citing older documents now lost, and has judiciously filled in the gaps. Spartacus didn't write a biography, of course, but his followers didn't write about him either, and it is only from a few Roman or Greek writers that we get some idea of what Spartacus did. Those writers were writing from the point of view of those who had put down Spartacus's rebellion. We can't even put together some of his battles with certainty; those around Vesuvius, for instance, were more than a century before the volcano had its famous explosion in 79 AD, and the terrain was changed completely. Nonetheless, Strauss's narrative is compelling, and the excitement of the story combined with its detail make this a superb history.

Spartacus was a Thracian who fought in the Roman army. He deserted, and was later captured, made a slave, and condemned to become a gladiator. In 73 BC he convinced seventy other slaves to revolt from their gladiator school, using kitchen knives as weapons. Spartacus and his growing army (perhaps as many as 100,000 at one point) began his two years of ravaging the countryside and defeating one Roman army after another. The Romans underestimated the power of the slave revolutionaries, and the first armies sent out against Spartacus were badly defeated. They finally sent in Marcus Licinius Crassus, who He took over the troops in the most forceful of ways, literally decimating any deserters; 500 runaways were divided into fifty groups, and nine men clubbed the selected tenth man to death. He was hungry for a victory, not least because he wanted to win before his rival Pompey could return from battles in Spain and take some of his glory. Crassus pursued the slave army, splitting it and eventually gaining a victory for Rome. The Romans seem to have admired Spartacus, for all the threat he was to their entire society. He was clever and brave. His end came mostly because he was betrayed by pirates he had commissioned to get his army out of the Italian peninsula and into Sicily. He was not, despite what Hollywood might show, crucified. Crassus did crucify 6,000 of the captured slaves, hanging them up along the Appian Way. Spartacus, however, died on the field of battle. The Romans loathed slaves and had contempt for their rebellion, and it is only Roman commentators who wrote about that final battle, but they all commented in awe upon his bravery, and that of his slave troops: "They met with a death worthy of real men," wrote one.

Strauss writes, "Spartacus was a failure against Rome but a success as a mythmaker. No doubt he would have preferred the opposite, but history has its way with us all. Who, today, remembers Crassus? Pompey? Even Cicero is not so well remembered. Everyone has heard of Spartacus." Yes, and almost everyone has sparse ideas about the facts of the man, who was a genuine hero. Strauss's book, which is both about Spartacus's history and about the limits of history, brings as much truth to the tale as we are ever going to get. It also provides surprisingly satisfying excitement.

Professor Strauss has done it again - producing a serious addition to the historian's bookshelf that is readable and enjoyable by those without a graduate education in classics. This is not to say that Strauss has "dumbed down" his work, but more that his writing style and contemporary analogies make for a remarkable enjoyable read - an enjoyable page-turner.

The author, an historian and scholar of note, is in top form meshing (near) contemporary accounts, his own research, and such illustrative anecdotes as the myth of Scylla and Charybdis to make the ancient story come alive for the modern reader.

This historical example of insurgency - which has become a modern strategic theme of note - is a must read for military professional an amateur historian alike.

Here's another in what is rapidly becoming the "must have" series of books on ancient military history. Strauss follows up his works on Salamis and the Trojan War with a look at Spartacus that is equal parts entertaining and eye opening. His insights and ideas are fascinating, yet they're perfectly balanced with his usual flair for storytelling. It's a must buy for anyone who loves military history, but also for anyone who can quote the movie from memory.

Little more than 4000 words about Spartacus survive from ancient texts. Placed alongside what we know about other events or aspects of Roman history, this is a paltry amount. It's not much information to write a book around. Yet that is what Barry Strauss has done. And boy, has he done a good job. Many textbooks are dry, hard-to-read affairs with little attraction to the average reader. The Spartacus War, on the other hand, is richly detailed. The late Roman Republic is described very well, allowing the reader to picture the scene readily in his/her mind's eye.

We're told about the day to day happenings of gladiator life and the background to Spartacus' rebellion, given vivid descriptions of the warlike Thracians (to the Romans, they were "worse than snow") Gauls and Germans. Where there are gaps, Strauss admits to them, before filling them in with a deft and believable touch. Examples include most of the battles which Spartacus and his men fought - if I remember correctly, it was nine major ones against the Romans. In all of these, the slaves were victorious - even when they faced both consuls and their legions. An incredible achievement by anyone's standards.

Ultimately, however, Spartacus did not escape over the Alps as he could have done. Why he didn't is one of history's great unanswered questions. Strauss discusses in depth the possible reasons why, and his theories hold a lot of water in my opinion. If you want to read an excellent study of one of the greatest rebellions of all time, buy this book. You won't be disappointed. Even the bibliography is a goldmine of further texts to consult. If you're after a good, short synopsis, or another book about Spartacus, look no further than Spartacus and the Slave War.

Ben Kane, author of Spartacus: The Gladiator.

Many reviews state the obvious to this book and any others on Spartacus. There is limited reliable information on Spartacus. However Barry Strauss does bring the real Spartacus to life. While I am a huge fan of the Hollywood movie with Kirk Douglas, it has created a romanticised view of Spartacus. Barry Strauss cuts through the idealized Spartacus and attempts to place him in his time and shows the real man. I learned a great deal on the slave revolt with Spartacus because of this great book. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Spartacus.

Not only does the author should great knowledge of his subject area (which any idiot can manage) he also shows a great ability to make his work interesting always a daunting task. While I have an interest in the period of the Roman Republic my only knowledge of Spartacus's revolt comes from the movie. The reader is given a birdseye view not only of the battles but also of what goals may have been behind the revolt in the context of the Roman Empire as a global power.

What do we really know about Spartacus the man?
How did he win his battles?
What contributed to his ultimate downfall?
Who were the major players and why exactly were they major players?

This style of ½ front line reporting and ½ psychoanalytical history is all the rage in the field today and I have found there is no middle ground with this the author either does a wonderful job or an awful job and Strauss is one of the best.

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.

A lot of reviewers have criticized Barry Strauss for engaging in a lot of speculation in The Spartacus War, and I think to some extent that's justified. Strauss does engage in speculation, exploring potential alternatives when we simply lack the evidence for decisive conclusions. However, I think overall that speculation is informative rather than fruitless. Like any good historian, much of historical sleuthing comes from making inferences based on the little we do know. I felt he never forces any one speculation on readers. For example, when discussing why the pirate ships abandoned Spartacus, he raises the interesting possibility that Crassus paid them off, but admits that it is only speculation.

Strauss is sympathetic to Spartacus, and probably not unduly so. He seems eager to assume the best of the man and highlights the many instances in which he insisted the troops share loot equally. He even records Spartacus as reluctant to allow his men to loot and only giving in under duress. I wasn't as convinced with his version of Spartacus' march towards the Alps and eventual retreat. Strauss sometimes makes Spartacus out to be the only reasonable person in the room. Nonetheless, I think Strauss does adequately draw the line between inference and conclusive historical fact even here.

More importantly, Strauss's account addresses characters too often lost in the typical Spartacus narrative and places events in context. This is perhaps the first book about ancient Rome I've read that does not treat Crassus as a fundamentally evil and worthless being. Crassus is given some respect as a military and political leader - even if a somewhat amoral one. Crixus, Spartacus' chief lieutenant and a Celt, also receives more attention as a leader in his own right. Finally, Strauss highlights the role of a Thracian woman believed to have been Spartacus' wife in rallying the troops.

Overall, this is an accessible popular history of a mythologized but poorly understood war.

What a great book for a novice like myself. Unpretentious, written in a very understandable style, fast paced and very informative. I've read Strausses other books on Salamis and the Trojan War, and he's just a very good writer and historian (not the same thing by any means!). Can't praise him enough. Books short enough that it can be read in a day or two. Awesome.