Why did it fail Veeky Forums?

why did it fail Veeky Forums?

The Roman state was basically unbeatable from the end of the Second Punic war to the Crisis of The Second Century.

I am Spartacus.

Because his rebellion was a bunch of slaves. He never had support from the leading elements of the late republic.
The reason why he was so succesful to begin with was the fact that no one except crassus did want to tackle that rebellion. There was a lot to lose and not much to gain.

I thought that movie made money

Do you mean crisis of the third century?

There's indication of dissent among the slave army, their erratic movements from place to place seem to suggest this.

They actually went north and had a chance to escape through the alps (not over like Hannibal, but through an actual traversable pass) but didnt take the opportunity. They went back down south and then tried to make a break for Sicily but the Cilician (not Sicilian) pirates betrayed them and refused transport.

Crixus broke off from Spartacus with a small but substantial part of the army and marched on Rome, this divided force was destroyed and Spartacus' weakened main army crushed soon after.

Its a mystery why exactly they made the choices they did but it seems the slaves were too decentralized command-wise and had contrasting motivations, some wanting escape to their homelands, some wanting to stay and plunder the countryside for revenge and loot, thinking Rome too weak from civil strife from the crisis and dictatorship of Sulla to be able to stop them, and then perhaps others, like the ones who broke off to march on Rome truly believed in that shining ideal that by destroying Rome they could free all the slaves in Italy.

Also Spartacus is my favorite movie and I just watched it earlier today. Its not exact history, but its the most compelling movie i've ever seen.

If I remember well, there had been prior slave revolts in Sicily (Servile War) so it made sense to stay in the south

Yes, I believe Spartacus' uprising was the third servile war and the largest by far. It likely they were trying to bolster their numbers with Sicilian slaves though this still begs the question: why not head south to begin with? They made it all the way to the north of Italy from Vesuvius before turning back south rather than take the pass through the alps that was both nearby and insufficiently defended.

No it didn't at least not with hindsight and knowledge about Rome. Sicily was a deathtrap. Lets say you get across and your wet dreams come true, the whole island is yours and every slave on it commits himself to your cause while slaughtering every roman and some of the legit cities even side with you. Great. What now?

You don't have a navy, and the Romans who do have an enormous one are now all pissed because Sicily was an importany supplier of grain and N.Africa which also supplies grain to Rome loves making resupply stops on the island. To top it off Egyptian ships love the straight of messina but now its filled with uppity slaves. So you just fucked Romes grain supply. You don't do that shit, those niggers love bread.

At best Rome decides it has more important things to do and lets Sicily have independence until its convenient to land a massive force on it. At worst Pompey fucking Magnus decides thats enough of your Bullshit and breaks out the crosses right on the Sicily's beach...all of it.

Best thing to do is cross the alps and melt into gaul and german towns.

The good guy always loses

...

Americans didn't have representation for a good reason: They are Americans.

I AM SPARTACUS

Still a good guy that won

>The Roman state was basically unbeatable
Didn't they get beat in several wars during he time period you cited? I mean they would eventually go on to win future wars with the states that beat them but the defeats are still there.

>To top it off Egyptian ships love the straight of messina but now its filled with uppity slaves. So you just fucked Romes grain supply. You don't do that shit, those niggers love bread.


That's a good thing, you moron. Why do you want grain supplied to the enemy unhindered? Forcing Rome's stomach will force Rome to the delegation table. It cannot handle the lower classes in Rome rising up in food revolt once the grain doll ceases. There's too much urban poor and Rome had been torn by civil war for the past generation.

Going into Gaul runs the risk of getting ambushed and sold back into slavery. The Gauls were not kind hearted souls who listened to plights and accepted refuges.

Rome being undefeatable is a myth. Rome's great strength was not winning every battle but bouncing back in force after every defeat.

some people are slaves, some people are masters
also the major problems in the leadership of the slaves army,
the romans usual discipline and their ability to learn from losses
crassus money
the bigger resources if the roman state
spartacus all or nothing approach

Let me clarify your misunderstanding. Firstly your control of Sicily is an annoyance not a significant hindrance because you lack a navy, you cannot directly stop sea traffic. Even if you could the Roman Navy would put a stop to that rather quickly. Secondly I did mention that negotiating some sort of autonomy was a possibility however such an accord would in reality be a sort of temporary cease fire as you seem to understand:
>Rome's great strength was not winning every battle but bouncing back in force after every defeat.

A cease fire that would end with a massive Roman force landing on the island, murderkilling any army it met in the field and gleefully besieging any city that resisted all with nowhere to run or hide because you're on a fuck mothering island and in the middle of Mare fucking Nostrum.

And all of this is if you're lucky. If you're not there is no fucking negotiation and Pompey immediately lands to rape your ass.

Granted, melting into Gaul and Germania or really all places North isn't ideal and probably will be far from painless but it beats the alternatives.

>you cannot directly stop sea traffic

Except for Sicilian grain of course.

being in control of the grain supply of Rome is not a guarantee of independence, ask Egypt.

>The Gauls were not kind hearted souls who listened to plights and accepted refuges.
A lot of them WERE Gauls. In fact almost all the leaders were.

Spartacus might have been a Gaul too, Thracian is also a type of Gladiator.

I like Spartacus

Imagine if hippies tried to completely ban gas and oil and restrict the use of cars all of the sudden in America. Sure, later generations would praise them, but here's the thing: most Americans structured their lives around car-ownership as apart of living and often invest a lot in them. Most Americans would be pissed off at them. That's the servile wars.

Slavery was pretty cool if you were a free-born person. It sucked if you didn't have slaves yourself or were landless, but there was way much more social mobility for you to succeed. You might be a small plot owner with a few slaves for one year, but get lucky the next either from a bountiful and in-demand harvest or by gambling or by some other means, and you have more money to buy another. And it's not just that you can buy more laborers, but you can also get slaves that were craftsmen or train them to be apprentices to your shop or someone else'. You could start your own enterprises if you played your cards right, and rise from nothing and be somebody compared to feudal peasant societies--although they tended to be nicer in structure than slavery in general, they didn't have as much of circulation or spread like slaves did. If you were a small-plot farmer in a peasant system, you couldn't easily acquire more peasants as you could in societies that had a lot of slaves circulating in. If they were acting like cunts, your options were more limited outside of beating them (which could vary in legality) so that they don't escape again (other than chaining or monitoring them, which could be a pain if your estate isn't big). But if your slaves were acting like cunts in a slave-system, you can sell those bitches to work in the State mines and save up for some new ones--they definitely had the means to keep track and watch of them better.

He wasn't Haitian

>he doesn't know about the Parthians

the ones they beat or the ones that ran away?