The Spartacus War [Paperback]

I have read just about all the english speaking, biographies on Saprtacus and feel that this book offers perhaps the most in-depth analysis and is the most thorough in terms of research - though is perhaps not the most exciting version on the market. A worth while read and fascinating due to the subject matter alone but could have been even better - greater insight into battle strategies of rebel 'thracian' warfare tactics/ or similar tactics by hill side warriors of the time, photos of some of the sites perhaps, greater insight into the lives of gladiators generally, less emphais on 'the wife of Spartacus' - a chapter which I felt was over-played considering the historical source material available. What does modern day Bulgaria have to say about Spartacus or Thracian life in roman times? I feel Saprtacus' decison to not cross the alps was lacking in coverage and incomplete - is it possible to get weather reports for this age? Was the weather the factor for not crossing or was heading for the north a ruse to collect an army and then head for Sicilly - the breadbasket for Ancient Rome and site of major slave rebellions prior to that of Spartacus. I felt big issues warranted more debate and proposals. I had so many questions and items I was longing and hoping to see covered but were not. A good read yes but unfulfilling in many ways - which to be fair may be as much down to the lack of historical sources as to the writer himself. Probably the most comprehensive account for those who have not read a biography on Spartacus but doesn't add a great deal to what others have already said in other biographies.

This is a very well-written and informative book about the slave revolt led by Spartacus, bearing in mind the small amount of contemporary evidence available. Because of this, Spartacus himself is just a name. The author is able to give us a reasonable picture of what went on at the time, and quite a few of the main actors can be fleshed out, but there is a lot of interpretation and probability flying about. However, the use of snippets of contemporary evidence allows the author to build a readable and plausible narrative of events. The only thing missing is the motivation of Spartacus. The author tries to show us the mind-set of the various `barbarian' tribesmen involved in the revolt, but those of us who have read Terry Jones' Barbarians know that the term is `prejudicial' at best. That's not to say the author is wrong, of course, but his is just an interpretation of what happened, albeit a readable and plausible view.

On page 166 the author asserts, "Spartacus was a failure against Rome but a success as a myth maker... Who, today, remembers Crassus? Pompey. Even Cicero is not that well remembered. Everyone has heard of Spartacus." Well yes they have but that's probably because of the Kurbick film (the one where Michael Douglas's dad played the eponymous hero). And we do remember a great deal of Roman history - Cicero has a following both factual and fictional.

Barry Strauss has written an account of the rebel slave rebellion but the problem is he has next to nothing to tell us that is not speculation. What happened between 73-71 BC is fragmented and often contradictory. Perhaps padding, Strauss presents much basic information on Ancient Rome. Often his comments are reductive to the point of being unhelpful. For example in describing the life of a gladiator, it was more complicated. As for Crassus, who dispatched Spartacus after a six-month campaign, he went on to suffer one of Romes' greatest military defeats. He was presented as a one-dimensional character.

Strauss wrote an excellent book - The Trojan War A New History - where he interpreted Homer (the Iliad and Odyssey) with the archaeological evidence and made clever deductions. He told a great story, good scholarship written with clarity. There is no significant written source or material evidence about Spartacus, the coalition of Thracians, Celts, Germans and the politics of holding a large revolt together. Drawing on bits of information, he speculates about the possible objectives of the rebels, details their flight North, then South, the near escape to Scilly. Their defeat by trained legionnaires, brutally disciplined and well equipped was inevitable. It was a bloody business, half a dozen Roman generals humiliated, skirmishes and battles. Who, when and where aside, the revolt was made far more dangerous given Rome's wars in the West (Spain) and East (Mithridates). Could Rome have imploded? No need to speculate, it did not.

I wonder if Strauss would have been better to take the "Troy formula" and apply it to an area where the written sources are better, perhaps Josephus and the Great Jewish Revolt or Caesar's Gallic War. Here is a substantive body of contemporary writings to review and interpret, apply his deductive expertise. This book is entry level Roman history. A lot of us read on holiday or on a plane, this is not a criticism rather a recommendation for this book if you want to enjoy a low intensity myth and legend history. If you know a little of Rome, this will encourage you to read further but if you know more, and it is not Strauss' fault, this is a frustrating book given the poverty of sources.