An online magazine about current archaeology and classical research into the lives of inhabitants of the Roman Empire and Byzantium and the civilizations around them.
During the last two centuries of the second millennium BCE a series of settlements were established along the coastal areas of northern Portugal. Their noble elite celebrated ritual banquets and participated in an extensive network of interchange of prestige items such as cauldrons, knives, bronze vases, roasting spits, flesh-hooks, swords, axes and jewelry, from the Mediterranean up to the British Isles. But this network appears to collapse at the beginning of the first millennium and their open settlements were gradually replaced by fortified hill-forts constructed of earthen walls, battlements and ditches, which enclosed an inner habitable space. Trade dwindled to just the production of various axes and tools.
Then, beginning in the 6th century BCE, the "Castro" culture once again began to expand and widespread trade returned driven by Carthaginian merchants who brought imports of wine glass, pottery, and other goods. The Carthaginians constructed emporia that sometimes even included temples and other civic structures. While the archaeological record of the Iron Age Castro suggests a very egalitarian society, a privileged class appears to have developed with better access to prestige items as evidenced by findings of large quantities of fibulae, pins, pincers for hair extraction, pendants, earrings, torcs, bracelets, and other personal objects used to enhance personal appearance.
Their hill-forts evolved as well, becoming semi-urban fortified towns we now know as oppida that in some cases housed several thousand inhabitants. These citadels included paved streets equipped with channels for stormwater runoff, reservoirs of potable water, and evidence of urban planning. Many of them also presented an inner and upper walled space, relatively large called acrópole by local scholars and the structures were surrounded by concentric ditches and stone walls sometimes reinforced with towers. Gates to these oppida become monumental and were decorated by sculptures of warriors. Dwelling areas that have been excavated were frequently externally walled, with kitchens, sheds, granaries, workshops and living rooms ordered around an inner paved yard, sometimes equipped with fountains, drains and reservoirs.
People inhabiting the far northwestern corner of Iberia, now northern Portugal, became known as the Gallaeci. Those tribes living in what is now southern Portugal became known collectively as the Lusitani.
The people eventually encountered Rome when the Carthaginians hired them as mercenaries to fight the Romans during the Punic wars. During the Second Punic War between the years 218 and 201 BCE, Silius Italicus reports a combined Celtic contingent of Lusitani and the Gallaeci led by a commander named Viriathus raided northern Italy whenever the terrain was too rough for Hannibal's famed Numidian cavalry.
In retaliation, the Romans levied heavy taxes from the tribes. Between 209 and 169 BCE, the Roman army collected 4 tons of gold and 800 tons of silver from the locals and a number of their men were required to serve in the legions. The exploitation and extortion reached such an extreme degree that Rome had to create a special tribunal and laws, like the Lex Calpurnia which established the first permanent criminal court in Roman history, in order to deal with the growing number of crimes committed by Roman governors in the provinces.
In 150 BCE Praetor of Hispania Ulterior, Servius Sulpicius Galba joined forces with the Governor of Hispania Citerior, Lucius Licinius Lucullus and began to systematically depopulate Lusitania. Fearing a long siege and the destruction the Roman siege engines would cause in their towns, the Lusitanians sent an embassy to Galba to negotiate a peace treaty. Galba seemingly agreed but when the Lusitanians were gathered together to turn over their weapons, Galba's army surrounded them with a ditch, to prevent them from escaping. Then , Roman soldiers were sent in and began to massacre all the males of military age. Galba killed 9,000 Lusitanians and later sold 20,000 more as slaves in Gaul (modern France).
Three years after the massacre, another Viriathus appeared with an understanding of Roman military tactics and proceeded to wreak havoc among the Romans until 139 BCE when he was betrayed and killed in his sleep by three of his companions who had been sent as emissaries to the Romans. The warriors were bribed by Marcus Popillius Laenas to perform their treachery. However, when the three returned to receive their reward from the Romans, the Consul Quintus Servilius Caepio ordered their execution, declaring, "Rome does not pay traitors".
Viriathus stands as the most successful leader who ever opposed the Roman conquest in Iberia. During the course of his campaigns he was only defeated in battle against the Romans once, and from a military standpoint can be said to have been one of the most successful generals to have ever opposed Rome's expansion.
After the death of Viriatus, the Gallaecians and Lusitanians kept fighting and as a result the Roman general Decimus Junius Brutus Callaicus led a successful punishment expedition into the North in 137 BCE. The victory he celebrated in Rome granted him the title Callaicus (“Galician”). During the next century Gallaecia was still theatre of operation for Perpenna (73 BCE), Julius Caesar (61 BCE) and the generals of Augustus (29-19 BCE), but gradually the native people acquired Roman culture and language and eventually gained the status of "Citizens of Rome". Although most of their oppida were abandoned or converted to religious sanctuaries, some continued to be occupied up to the 5th century CE when the Germanic Suevi established themselves in the region.
Rebuilt hut in the oppidum of Santa Tegra, A Guarda, Galicia earth courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Froaringus
Statue of a Gallaecian Warrior, Castro Culture, 1st Century CE, North Western Iberian Peninsula, courtesy of the National Museum of Archaeology (Portugal) and Wikimedia Commons.
Gold fibula, of long-footed form decorated with the figure of a naked warrior, wearing a Celtic helmet, with scabbard suspended from his waist and carrying a sword (scabbard and pommel are both of La Tene type), with another figure of a hunting dog jumping up to him. The eyes of both figures were originally inlaid with enamel. The arched bow has eight curls and the side panels are elaborated with running spirals and loops, also originally inlaid with blue enamel. Each end of the brooch is terminated by a dog's head. The hinge or spring and pin are now lost. The long foot of the fibula comprises two thick wires, twisted together and terminated with another dog's head, jaws agape and ears raised. The brooch was probably made by a Greek craftsman active on the Iberian Peninsular. Image courtesy of the British Museum and Wikimedia Commons.
Diadem from Moñes (Piloña, Asturias). Warriors with horned helmets parade carrying torcs and cauldrons, Castro Culture, 3rd - 1st century BCE, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Ángel M. Felicísimo
Lunula from Chão de Lamas, Coimbra (Portugal) courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Luis Garcia. (removed glare spots)
Boat-shaped earrings decorated with filigree and granules, Gallaecian, gold, from the "Bedoya Treasure", exhibited in the Museum of Pontevedra
Late Bronze Age golden helmet from Galicia courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carlos de Paz.
Iron Age Castro Culture Torcs from Asturias, Spain courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Dageno.
Head of an stone Iron Age Galician warrior, wearing a torc. Now, in the Museo Provincial de Ourense, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Froaringus.
A Castro Culture severed head sculpture courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Froaringus.
Nabia Fountain in Braga, Portugal. The deity probably had an association with water, the sky and the earth courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Snitrom
Galician Celtic Stele for the deceased, called Apana, presumably an aristocrat of the tribe of Celtic Supertamáricos courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Alexandre Gal.
Mosaic from the Casa dos Repuxos Roman villa in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Halley Oliveira
Roman mosaic with marine life in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Marta Magalhães
Mosaics in the House of the Swastika in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carole Raddato.
Roman mosaic with man and dog in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor GFreihalter (Adjusted perspective and cropped)
Mosaic in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Elisardojm. (Adjusted perspective and cropped)
Roman peristyle with mosaics in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Elisardojm
A Roman mosaic depicting Dionysus (?) in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Elisardojm.
A Roman mosaic depicting a man walking a dog (?) in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Elisardojm
More Roman mosaics in ancient Conimbriga, Portugal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Duca696.
Conimbriga is one of the best preserved Roman archaeological sites in Portugal. You can see many more of its beautiful Roman mosaics here:
Original star Andy Whitfield as Spartacus in the STARZ series Spartacus: Blood and Sand.
Image courtesy of STARZ.
In just a little over two weeks I will need to resubscribe to Starz on my Dish satellite account so I can watch the new series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. The images that have been released - gritty sweating heavily armored men with the stereotypical buxom, lascivious women - appear to be targeting the coveted testosterone-sated young male market but I'm always so desperate for any kind of historical programming I will tune in as well.
Of course, no reincarnation of Spartacus could replace the classic performance of Kirk Douglas. But, I do wish some attention would be directed towards more historical accuracy, which even Stanley Kubrick ignored in his film adaptation (and I'm not just referring to Roman soldier extras wearing wrist watches!) I realize Kubrick was attempting to produce a film intended to direct attention to the civil rights issues of the day but using Howard Fast's novel as the basis introduced a very one-sided view of the story and presented Roman culture in almost an entirely negative light. Hollywood, with its fundamentalist take on sword and sandal epics of the period, did nothing to level the playing field either.
I read Fast's novel Spartacus some years ago and found it so irritating with its uncompromising interpretations of good and "evil" that I actually had to force myself to finish it. Almost all the Romans were presented as arrogant, sexually debauched and greedy while the slaves were depicted as all innocent, true-hearted and loyal (with the exception, perhaps, of Crixus). Fast carefully omitted less admirable historical information about the brutality of Spartacus' own plunder of the Roman countryside or use of crucifixion to taunt the Romans.
Furthermore, Spartacus was not a simple Thracian slave or merely a Roman army deserter. Plutarch tells us Spartacus' wife was a prophetess of the cult of Dionysos. In the tribal societies of Thrace, a prophetess would not have married a simple villager or common warrior. Spartacus must have been a nobleman who became an officer in the Roman auxiliaries where he learned military tactics and strategies. The name Spartacus (Spartocus) is found in references to archons and tribal leaders for the kingdom of Cimmerian Bosporus, a Greek colony settled by the Milesians in the 7th or early 6th century BCE on the shores of the Black Sea. According to Diodorus Siculus, the kingdom was taken over by a Thracian tyrant, Spartocus, in 438 BCE.
Thracian peltast 5-4th century BCE. Drawing - ballpen on the white paper by Dariusz t. Wielec.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The Spartocid dynasty endured until 110 BCE with several successive rulers called Spartocus. The last Spartocid, named Paerisades V, offered to hand over the kingdom to Mithridates the Great of Pontus in exchange for help with warring tribal factions. Mithridates appointed his son, Machares, to administer the then Thracian kingdom but Machares allied with the Romans against his own father. Spartacus could have very easily been involved in these machinations as a member of the formerly noble house. The real irony in all of this is that the kingdom of Cimmerian Bosporus gained much of its prosperity from the sale of slaves. As a nobleman, Spartacus himself probably had household slaves.
Of course, the big question is what on earth did he do to get sold into slavery himself? If we think about Arminius, who dealt with similar circumstances a century later in Germania, we can speculate that perhaps Spartacus attempted to lead a tribal rebellion against the Pontic usurper, even though Machares was a Roman ally at the time. This might account for Spartacus being referred to by Appian as a man who had once served as a soldier with the Romans. This might also account for evidence discussed by Barry Strauss in his book "The Spartacus War" that Spartacus was not reviled by later Roman historians.
[Image - Mithradates VI of Pontus. Photographed by Eric Gaba at the Louvre in Paris, France.]
“Enemies were usually portrayed as monsters,” Strauss explains. “Take Hannibal. He was called untrustworthy, obsessed and bloodthirsty. But Spartacus was called patriotic.” Strauss continues, “I was personally struck by the degree to which later Roman writers presented him as a good guy. They respected him and blamed themselves for the war."
So the famous escape from the gladiator school in Capua was probably just that - an escape. Not a slave revolt. As it turns out, however, Spartacus and his initial conspirators started plundering the countryside to gain needed resources. Human nature being what it is, a chance to grab "a piece of the pie", so to speak, was probably the main reason so many other slaves and the poor joined him. His initial victories created even more excitement and having a prophetess for a wife probably didn't hurt either.
I just finished reading Harry Turtledove's "Give Me Back My Legions!". In it, he has Arminius ponder the reason so many of his countrymen joined with him in the massacre of the Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius realizes that most of the warriors took part for merely the chance to grab the prized Roman goods in the baggage train and not for any higher sense of desire for independent nationhood. Although the book is fiction, I think Turtledove hits the nail squarely on the head. Plunder was viewed in ancient society as a bona fide "right" of the strong over the weak and did not appear to have any particular moral implications. Plunder was even recognized by conquering armies as an accepted method used to pay their soldiers. So the slaves and poor attracted to Spartacus would have had no qualms about depriving other people of their possessions (or their lives) and, in fact, would view it as a fortuitous change of events, not the social class struggle implied in Kubrick's film.
Now that we've looked more closely at Howard Fast's Spartacus, let's examine Fast's treatment of his novel's antagonist, Marcus Licinius Crassus. To maintain a crisp demarcation between the noble Spartacus and the reviled Roman general Crassus, Fast did not include any sympathetic information about Crassus' background either such as the loss of his family and fortune in the Marian purges in December 87 BCE.
[Image - Sculpture of Marcus Licinius Crassus. Photographed by cjh1452000 at The Louvre in Paris, France. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.]
Crassus was descended from a consul and censor, Publius Licinius Crassus Dives, best known for being Pontifex Maximus (from 212 BC to his death 183 BC) and consul (in 205 BC) and political ally of the Roman general and statesman Scipio Africanus (the general who defeated Hannibal). So Crassus could claim a distinguished lineage. His father had inherited immense wealth, although he kept his family, that included Crassus and his two older brothers along with all of their wives and children in a very small modest house. One of Crassus' brothers died during the Social War between Rome and other peoples of the Italian peninsula. Crassus dutifully stepped forward and married his brother's widow.
Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla were two very successful Roman generals who were competing for control of the Roman state in the late Republican Period. Crassus' father and brothers supported Sulla, a fellow patrician who favored a return to a patrician-controlled Senate. Unfortunately, the forces of Gaius Marius gained control at one point and Marius' co-consul Cinna ordered proscriptions of many of the supporters of Sulla. Proscription lists were issued and entire families named on the lists were hunted down and murdered and their goods confiscated. Crassus' father and remaining brother were killed or committed suicide to evade capture . Crassus narrowly escaped death himself and had to hide in a dank seaside cave in Hispania (Spain), living off of provisions clandestinely supplied by a family friend.
[Image- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. Photographed by Wikipedia user Bibi Saint-Pol]
After Cinna's death in 84 BC, Crassus joined Sulla when Sulla invaded Italy to retake the Roman capital. After Sulla regained power, he gave Crassus command of the right wing in the Battle of the Colline Gate when remaining pro-Marian supporters marched on Rome in one last attempt to oust Sulla. Crassus and his troops ensured Sulla's ultimate victory and Crassus demonstrated he had military leadership capabilities.
If there was one lesson Crassus learned, though, from his early political experiences was that family name or aristocratic lineage alone could not protect you from fickle Roman politics. But money, if you had enough of it, could. From that point on, Crassus' entire life seemed to have been a series of choices to not only restore his families wealth but increase that wealth to a point where he and his family would no longer be vulnerable to the political winds of change.
The ancient sources tell us Crassus garnered much of his wealth when the tables turned and Sulla came to power and ordered his own proscriptions. As one of Sulla's lieutenants, Crassus took full financial advantage of this sudden turn of fortune. Crassus also engaged in a "fire sale" scheme where he would send his clients equipped to fight fire to the site of a burning building then ask the owners of surrounding properties if they wanted to sell their endangered properties (at a distressed price) or watch them burn as well. This may sound like a Mafia-style protection racket but as a wealthy man, Crassus would have had large numbers of clients obligated to do his bidding. The fact that he chose to purchase endangered properties rather than offer the services of his clients to extinguish the blaze was his prerogative. Although some rumors spread at the time that his client firefighters got overzealous and actually started fires near choice properties, no convincing evidence was ever presented in the Roman law courts to prove this accusation and quite honestly, fire was such a hazard in Republican Rome (remember it did not become a city of marble until the reign of Augustus) that fires were commonplace because of the cheap construction, especially in the Sburra district.
"The danger from fire in Rome inherent in a large-scale utilization of easily combustible building materials was greatly increased by negligent and imprudent methods of building. Owing to limitations in the building area selected and a tendency to follow lines of least resistance at the lower levels between and around the hills, houses and shops were built close together on narrow, tortuous streets and alleys •from ten to twenty feet wide. Moreover, a population much too dense for the area occupied led to a great increase in the height of houses (Vitruvius II.8.17), with their huge upper timbers, balconies, bow windows, and other projections, which with frightful quickness caught the flames and communicated them. Thus fires were trebly dangerous, on account of the materials used for building, the height to which these were elevated (so high that water could not be raised by the firemen to the upper stories), and the narrowness of the streets on which the buildings stood. Narrow streets, of course, allowed little protection against the spread of flames, whether the building was low or high; but the tenement houses of many stories, with their small rooms, thin partition walls, wooden panels, and lattice work, were especially liable to burst into a blaze from exposure to any near-by fire." - Conflagrations in Ancient Rome By H. V. Canter University of Illinois
Rome had a city fire department of sorts, whose members were called the vigiles, that was established during the early Republic. But as time went on and the city grew so haphazardly, the servi publici were unable to cope with the huge number of fires and companies of familiae privatae were used to assist, although these assistants were not always paid - a woefully inadequate approach to a serious problem.
Crassus also engaged in silver mining ventures and the slave trade. But he found that wealth alone would not buy him back the lost respect he craved, especially in view of some of the dubious ways he acquired it. Also even though most aristocratic families had indirect connections with business ventures, it was considered inappropriate for members of the elite to openly engage in business and Crassus had wantonly crossed the line on this social taboo as well. So he searched for a way to prove once and for all that he possessed the civic virtue required of the First Man in Rome.
Although he had the family lineage to assure progress up the coursus honorum, the top leadership positions were usually reserved for men with demonstrated military achievements. Crassus had commanded troops under Sulla but engagements against fellow Romans were viewed with rancor. Furthermore, experienced field commanders like Lucius Licinius Lucullus and Pompey the Great had managed to corner most of the action fighting Mithridates in the East and Quintus Sertorius, a Marian general who had sought to establish an independent Roman Republic, in Hispania.
Initially, little attention was given to Spartacus' escape from Capua, even though he and his followers ravaged the surrounding countryside. At the time, most of the legions were engaged elsewhere. So Rome dispatched a quickly recruited militia under the command of a praetor to handle what was considered a "policing" matter. When that force was surprised and nearly annihilated, a second praetorian expedition was ordered to the scene. Spartacus, with more tactical experience than the Senate realized, again defeated the second group and more importantly, captured their supplies and military equipment. With plunder to be had, more slaves, as well as local herdsmen and shepherds, flocked to Spartacus, swelling his ranks to almost 70,000 men.
As Dr. Barry Strauss pointed out in his recent book, "The Spartacus War", Capua was also filled with descendants of people who had actually abandoned their support of Rome and allied with Hannibal in 212 BCE during the second Punic War. When Hannibal finally withdrew, Rome had punished Capua by eliminating its local governance and placing it under the administration of a Roman governor. So anti-Roman sentiment was fairly widespread there.
In the Spring of 72 BCE, when this sizable force came out of winter quarters and headed north, Rome flew into a panic. Two consular legions were quickly dispatched and met initial success with the defeat of Crixus and about 30,000 slaves near Mount Garganus. But the remaining group of slaves under Spartacus once more routed the Romans.
Finally, Crassus' historic opportunity had arrived. Not only did the Senate need a victory but they needed manpower that they didn't have currently available and couldn't afford. Crassus not only volunteered for the command (the only volunteer I might add), but he personally recruited and paid for eight legions (some sources say six) - approximately 40,000-50,000 trained soldiers.
We've considered the effect of Spartacus having a wife who was a prophetess of the god Dionysos. Now let's look at the religious affiliation of Crassus. Although Crassus was extremely rich, he also quite dutifully donated one-tenth of his earnings to a local temple. But it wasn't Jupiter Optimus Maximus or Dionysos. According to Plutarch, Crassus donated a significant portion of his substantial wealth to the temple of Hercules. In other words, Crassus worshiped the ultimate hero.
Initially, Crassus and Spartacus clashed in a series of running battles, forcing Spartacus further and further south. Crassus only suffered one major setback when his overzealous legate Mummius, against orders, engaged Spartacus and was routed.
Much has been made out of Crassus' subsequent brutality when he ordered 500 men from Mummius' failed attack, who were deemed to have shown cowardice, to select by lot one in ten of their number to be beaten to death by their comrades. This ancient form of discipline called decimation was first described by Livy in reference to disciplinary action taken in 471 BCE during the early wars against the Volsci. It was also used in the 3rd century BCE and recorded by Polybius. Plutarch claims decimation was also used later by Marc Antony and Suetonius claims even the noble Augustus used it to discipline troops in 17 BCE. The last recorded Roman use of the practice was 20 CE when Lucius Apronius used decimation to punish a full cohort of the III Augusta after their defeat by Tacfarinas, according to Tacitus. So it was not unheard of by any means and was probably accepted at the time as an extreme measure taken to cope with an extreme situation. It is also credited by some historians as one of the primary reasons for Crassus' ultimate victory so it obviously had the desired effect.
As for crucifying 6,000 slaves along the Via Appia? I think this action accomplished three important objectives. First, Crassus used this horrific sight as a visual deterrent to the largely illiterate people inhabiting the rural farms and villages between Capua and Rome. Remember it was not just slaves who had joined Spartacus but the rural poor and disaffected peoples around Capua. Secondly, at the time, about 20% of the Roman population were slaves. Even though Spartacus had made no effort to free urban slave populations, the Roman public had equated his struggle with slave disobedience. The rotting corpses lent assurance to the free population that the Roman state had the resources and determination to ultimately protect them and their homes and property. Lastly, this memorable demonstration would serve as visual proof of who actually quelled the rebellion and brought the overall threat to an end.
Towards the end of the revolt, Pompey the Great had returned from Spain and had intercepted a group of Spartacus' followers that had broken away from the main body of men. However, since the altercation took place closer to Rome than the last great battle between Spartacus and Crassus, Pompey's victory occurred sooner and was more readily visible. Pompey did not hesitate to capitalize on this fact with the "press".
As for Crassus' taste for both "snails and oysters," as it was so delicately put in the director's cut of the Kubrick film that was released on DVD, there was no indication in the sources that Crassus had any homosexual tendencies. Even if he did, I don't understand why using that type of innuendo to further make Crassus seem more villainous is an acceptable choice by the director. It seems incongruous to me for Kubrick to use the disparagement of one minority group to promote the agenda of another.
In conclusion, I'm not saying I particularly admire Crassus, I'm only saying I think I understand some of the factors that motivated him. I think Crassus viewed putting down the Spartacan revolt as simply an urgent necessity and a career builder but not as some glorious definitive statement of Roman superiority.
I'm sure none of these more subtle issues will be explored in the new miniseries. But I do hope an entire culture is not vilified in an attempt to simply generate profitable ratings by resurrecting old stereotypes.
Update: "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" was wildly popular and the series continued for three more years despite the death of its star, Andy Whitfield in 2011 from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. I found this composite of most spectacular battle sequences from the series up on YouTube:
Suggested reading (A Kindle preview):
More suggested reading:
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
An interesting reference to Roman clashes with the Jews on Cyprus during Trajan's reign:
[Photo: My image of a bust of Trajan at the Capitoline Museum in Rome. All of my images are freely available for noncommercial use with attribution on Flickr]
"Under Roman rule Cyprus remained in peace or "pax romana" as it was known for over three hundred years until 115 AD. At this time the Jews inspired by a belief that the coming of their Messiah was imminent started a revolt against Rome on the Island. They were led by a man called Atermion a Jew who had taken a Greek name as was the custom at the time. There were hardly any Roman troops stationed in Cyprus at this time which explains why the revolt grew so quickly. The Roman emporer Trajan dispatched one of his generals to the Island and the rebellion was quelled. Historians say that 24,000 Jews were massacred on the Island by this roman army but there is a likelyhood that the actual numbers were significantly less. Following the revolt a decree was issued that Rome would forbid any Jew to ever set foot in Cyprus ever again even if shipwrecked." - Destinations
Livius.org gives us much more details:
The revolt started in Cyrene, where one Lukuas -sometimes called Andreas- ordered the Jews to destroy the pagan temples of Apollo, Artemis, Hecate, Demeter, Isis and Pluto, and to assail the worshippers. The latter fled to Alexandria, where they captured and killed many Jews. (With a population of some 150,000 Jews, Alexandria was Judaism's largest city.) In 116, the Jews organized themselves and had their revenge. The temples of gods like Nemesis, Hecate and Apollo were destroyed; the same fate befell the tomb of Pompey, the Roman general who had captured Jerusalem almost two centuries before.
Meanwhile, the Cyrenaican Jews plundered the Egyptian countryside, reaching Thebes, six hundred kilometers upstream. The future historian Appian of Alexandria records that he made a providential escape from a party of Jews pursuing him in the Nile marshes (more...). There was nothing the Roman governor Marcus Rutilius Lupus could do, although he sent a legion (III Cyrenaica or XXII Deiotariana) to protect the inhabitants of Memphis.
Trajan sent out two expeditionary forces. One, consisting of VII Claudia, restored order on Cyprus; the other was to attack Lukuas' rebels and was commanded by Quintus Marcius Turbo. The Roman general sailed to Alexandria, defeated the Jews in several pitched battles and killed thousands of enemies, not only those in Egypt but also those of Cyrene. It is unclear what became of Lukuas, except for the fact that according to our Greek source Eusebius he had styled himself 'king' (= Messiah?). After this war, much of northern Africa had to be repopulated. The emperor Trajan and his successor Hadrian confiscated Jewish property to pay for the reconstruction of the destroyed temples.
Trajan was afraid that this revolt would spread to the Jews in the rebellious eastern provinces. Perhaps, there was some cause for his anxiousness. After the end of the revolt in Mesopotamia, someone had written the Book of Elchasai, in which the end of the world was predicted within three years. Of course, Trajan did not read this book, but he may have sensed that the Jews remained restless.
Therefore, he ordered the commander of his Mauritanian auxiliaries, Lusius Quietus, to clean the suspects out of these regions. Quietus organized a force and killed many Cypriote, Mesopotamian and Syrian Jews - in effect wiping them out; as a reward, he was appointed governor of Judaea. (He is one of the few blacks known to have made a career in Roman service.) He was responsible for a forced policy of hellenization; in response, the rabbis ordered the Jewish fathers not to teach their sons Greek (Mishna Sota 9.14).
Meanwhile, Trajan had reached his military aims and returned home. On his way back, he fell ill, and not much later, he died (8 August 117). His successor Hadrian gave up the newly conquered countries and dismissed Lusius Quietus, who was killed in the Summer of 118."
We are supplied with the following sources:
The revolt against Trajan is the subject of a book by Marina Pucci, La rivolta Ebraica al tempo di Traiano (1981 Pisa). Another discussion of this rebellions can be found in Gedaliah Alon's The Jews in their land in the Talmudic age (1980 Harvard).
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
some years ago and found it so irritating with its uncompromising interpretations of good and "evil" that I actually had to force myself to finish it. Almost all the Romans were presented as arrogant, sexually debauched and greedy while the slaves were depicted as all innocent, true-hearted and loyal (with the exception, perhaps, of Crixus). Fast carefully omitted less admirable historical information about the brutality of Spartacus' own plunder of the Roman countryside or use of crucifixion to taunt the Romans.
" that Spartacus was not reviled by later Roman historians.
". In it, he has Arminius ponder the reason so many of his countrymen joined with him in the massacre of the Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest. Arminius realizes that most of the warriors took part for merely the chance to grab the prized Roman goods in the baggage train and not for any higher sense of desire for independent nationhood. Although the book is fiction, I think Turtledove hits the nail squarely on the head. Plunder was viewed in ancient society as a bona fide "right" of the strong over the weak and did not appear to have any particular moral implications. Plunder was even recognized by conquering armies as an accepted method used to pay their soldiers. So the slaves and poor attracted to Spartacus would have had no qualms about depriving other people of their possessions (or their lives) and, in fact, would view it as a fortuitous change of events, not the social class struggle implied in Kubrick's film.
