Why Spartacus' Fate Was Inevitable

After watching the Starz series movies about Spartacus, that Thracian gladiator who led a major slave revolt against the Roman Republic, certain conclusions came to my mind. The series movies are: ‘Blood and Sand’, ‘Gods of the Arena,’ ‘Vengeance,’ and ‘War of the Damned.’ Historically, the revolt lasted from 73 to 71 BCE.

I love to watch movies that I’m interest in. You might wonder how I manage to watch movies in spite of my tight schedule and increasing responsibilities. Well, we create the time to do what we’re seriously interested in. when you hear someone say she/he is too busy to do something, it means the person isn’t really interested in that thing. A professional womanizer would create the time for pursing his interest, no matter how busy he’s. Likewise, a book lover will create the time to read, no matter how busy she/he is. 

I’m not going to make comments on the many controversies surrounding the character of Spartacus, nor would I comment on the fact that some critics doubt whether Spartacus’ motive was to really liberate all the slaves in the then Roman world or he wanted to enforce some reforms. I’d simply explain why Spartacus’s fate was inevitable: why he lost to Romans in the end.

Spartacus had a just cause for his rebellion, and he, along with his other experienced gladiators (Oenomaus, Castus, Crixus, Gannicus, etc ) enjoyed initial successes as they carried out their vengeance against the Romans. Rome did tremble. Unfortunately, the timing was wrong. The rebellion started at the time that Rome was destined to become stronger and stronger until it became an empire. It was the longest lasting empire in the world history.  How could Spartacus had attained permanent success when the Roman Republic was bound to become the Roman Empire – an Empire that lasted 500 years? So it’s no surprise that the uprising he started was destined to fail at last. The Roman Empire later spread around the Mediterranean in Europe, and to Africa and Asia.

After decades of rule, the Empire became weak and stated to decline.  If someone had begun a Spartacus-like uprising when the Empire was weak and disintegrating, he surely would have succeeded permanently. He’d even have succeeded in overthrowing the Roman government.

Apart for the fact that Spartacus started his rebellion at a wrong period, he’d have considered the option of leaving the Roman world - he and his cohort. At the height of his strength and initial successes in battle, he’d have led his followers and fellow gladiators away from the holdings of the Roman Republic. He’d just need to go far away into an unknown territory, dominate those that could’ve been found there, and started a new life. It might happen that Romans wouldn’t bother to send an expedition after him, for they might be glad that he was away from their territory. Even if Romans decided to smell him out when he was no longer in their territory, they’d then suffer for that, for he and his followers would be able to defend themselves triumphantly.

Spartacus and his cohorts saw themselves as freedom fighters, but Romans saw them as doomed rebels. Spartacus couldn’t have stayed within the holdings of the Republic that was destined to become an autocratic Empire and hope to fight and fight until he overthrew the Republic. He could’ve left their world, and started a new world of his own. By doing this, he’d have started a new country and live happily with his followers as totally free citizens.

http://literactworld.com/author-submissions/