Roman Gladiators: Part 2 - Who are They?

Surprisingly, the prospect of being ripped to shreds by people or animals in front of a cheering crowd of thousands didn't bring in many applicants. So how did they manage to find all these gladiators to participate? Considering the nature of the work, they would have to hire a lot of new people. The gladiator industry has a high turnover. 

To fill the ranks they would grab people from all over the Roman Empire. A large number of them were slaves and others were defeated warriors that refused to capitulate to Roman rule. The gladiators tended to be the lowest of the low in the Roman world; people to look down upon and not feel for when they're being gutted in the arena. Yes, a man may be getting killed in a violent, terrible fashion in front of you, but... he's a bad man, so it's at least moderately OK. At the very least, it allowed those at the bottom to work their way back - albeit rarely and with great difficulty. The pay was exceedingly low, but you could develop a modest living and free yourself from the title of slave if you win enough matches. You may not be considered a person in good standing, but people like their winners, and you would no longer be the bottom rung. 

A grossly misshapen man (left) lightly strokes his opponent on the back.
A soon-to-be-victor (right) utilizes the ramp that was recently
installed to get an advantage on his adversary. (Background) A
model flexes his hot bod.

Oddly enough, the thoughts of higher-ups on gladiators was mixed. While most looked down upon them as the scum of the empire, many looked at their bravery in the face of death as admirable. Since Romans valued strength and combat prowess so heavily, it was sometimes hard not to look at a gladiator and feel they did have some redeemable characteristics. 

Eventually as time passed it wasn't only these lower people anyway. A few went willingly, thinking they could have a shot at fame and fortune that the rest of life couldn't provide. A few were wealthy members of the upper class that for one reason or another upset the emperor. For the aristocrats it wasn't just a risk to life and limb, but a means to shame and degrade them, putting them in the realm of those that are well below their station. (Personally, I'd be more worried about death.) 

Regardless of where you came from, you would first sign an oath. It would be a pledge to the god of the underworld, accepting death in the arena, and saying you will train to fight as a gladiator. Naturally, most of these were signed under duress, save for those that decided that this veritable death sentence sounded like a reasonable business venture. Once you've signed, it wasn't like you were just tossed into the arena right away; the gladiators were an industry, and you would be shipped off to a lanista, a man who would house, train, buy and sell gladiators as a commodity. 

From that point on all the gladiators would do was train, eat and sleep. To be fair, they were typically pretty well taken care of. Purchasing gladiators didn't come cheap, and if the purchaser spent good money on them they would want to assure that they survived. That meant training them well, feeding them a large amount of food to make up for the excess of training that would surely burn up plenty of energy, and keep them medically fit and capable of fighting. Winning gladiators cost more and would be around the next time they were needed, assuming they won. It was a delicate game; a lanista would want them to battle difficult opponents, as that was where the money was. However, a loss meant the possible annihilation of one of your prized fighters. It was a game of having them shoot as high as they could but still win the fights, which was a difficult level to hit. As for the gladiators? They would keep about 25% of the winnings. 

A retiarius on the left fights a man sporting
his finest battle-diaper.

As for the training itself, it wasn't simply getting in top physical condition. They would learn how to fight in one of a number of different styles, typically based on what weapons they held. While in the early days of gladiators every fighter would have a spear and shield, other styles came through to bring a variety to the battles (seeing someone stabbed with a spear became old hat, so now it was time to see someone stabbed with a sword!). A laquearius, for example, used a lasso. A retiarius, a net to ensnare their foe and a trident to stab them. Others simply had a sword and shield, or, if you're going for looking cool rather than practicality, two swords. Usually these brackets wouldn't fight each other, as some styles were superior to others and wouldn't make for fair fights. (I can't picture the lasso guy would have won very many.) Their armour was typically pretty light; a helmet, leg and knee protection, but little on their chest for the dual purpose of showing off their masculinity as well as showing submission to the emperor through a bare, unprotected chest. 

It was a different time. I don't get it either.

The fighting tactic of lying facedown in the dirt
was quickly abandoned after poor performance.

Obviously, with all the weapons and nature of the fights and regardless of how carefully a lanista would plan, gladiators would die. Talking strictly numbers, you would have about a 10% chance of death upon entering the arena. Later, it rose to about 33% when bloodthirsty fans became more ravenous. The reason why it's not 50/50 is because there were a number of ways it could go: the first is simple, in that you go and win; the second is you're killed; the third is you surrender defeated and are subsequently killed anyways, for not putting up a fight that was deemed entertaining enough for survival; the fourth was you were shown mercy and survive, typically for fighting hard and bravely but just not having what it took; the final is a draw, where both sides leave battered but alive. Obviously it's a painful survival rate, but all things considered I expected lower. The average fighter would fall somewhere between 5-35 fights in his lifetime, probably a few a year. One man, Asteropaeus, won no fewer than 107. 

So, we have a number of hyper-manly men fighting it out for glory and honour, but where are all the chicks, right?! Well, they did exist, but it was few and far between. Many didn't like the prospect of it as it was an insult to masculinity, but sometimes they were trotted out to fight as comic relief. It wasn't a very... progressive time, so to speak. They probably didn't even allow members of the LGBTQ community to participate either. Ugh. Disgusting.

The Byzantine Empire: Part 3 - Justinian and his General

518-566

In 518 the emperor Justin came in at a time where things were going fairly well. And no, that's not Justinian whom you may have heard of, but rather his uncle, the first of the dynasty. He's probably best known for his nephew Justinian, but who at the time of his birth was named Peter Sabbatius. The emperor saw potential in the boy and gave him the best possible education and advantages, and Peter, never forgetting that, eventually took the name Justinian in recognition of all that his uncle had done for him. Through Justinian's reign Byzantium would see massive amounts of construction, an influx of wealth, a system of laws finally put together properly and at long last some success in wartime. But all that had to be paid for.

Justinian really amped up the taxes, which, true to modern day, angered pretty well close to everyone. In spite of winning land outside their borders (his general Belisarius, who I will show to be one of my new favourite historical figures, was winning fight after fight in Persia) the general population just couldn't stand to be having that kind of money stripped from them. The people got progressively more frustrated until all the anger culminated into a revolt while Justinian was visiting the hippodrome (an arena for horse racing, and to my disappointment, hippo-free). He was forced to flee to his palace, and very well may have been killed were it not for Belisarius who was waiting to be deployed to go clear out the Vandals who had defeated the aggressively stupid Basiliscus not long ago. Belisarius then went to the hippodrome and, as the Roman youth say, kicked their faces in. Except with swords. While there would be no chance at a rebellion of the like again soon, as if you kill all those willing to revolt it tends to leave a very small number willing to give it another go, the idea that the people were so enraged as to rise against him must have shaken Justinian.

The Hagia Sophia is quite the building. I wonder if I could buy
a Belisarius bobblehead there.

He loosened the reigns on the lower class, giving them heavy tax breaks in comparison to what it was like before, but the nobility were not so lucky. Believing that they were hampering him at every turn, he overtaxed the nobility excessively or, more simply, had them murdered. And in the wake of all of this bloodshed...

Another Byzantine golden age! With the treasury overflowing, Justinian builds the massive, beautiful Hagia Sophia, a marvel of architecture and cultural beauty amidst a number of other construction projects. But it wasn't just the home life he was taking care of - he had a few scores to settle, and he had just the man to take care of it.

Sending Belisarius against the Vandals worked brilliantly. They happened to attack at a good time, managing to catch them out of sorts as they were returning from quelling an uprising within their borders. Belisarius pretty well wiped them out entirely, returning the entire treasury and the piles of plunder they had stolen from raids on the empires over the ages. For this he was given the highest honour a general could receive. Of course, this is Belisarius. Belisarius! He wasn't done yet.

Justinian set his sights on retaking the Western Roman Empire, or at least the territory that formerly held that name. Deciding on a two-pronged assault, one general would attack from the north while Belisarius would attack from the south. The gothic king was almost ready to surrender on the spot but was spurred on to battle by the northern general's foolish death (he attacked too recklessly and ended up getting himself killed). The southern advance (of course) was going much better, however. With many supporting the Roman traditions, the doors of Rome flung open without a drop of blood spilled, but there was a distinct problem; he was taking so many cities that his army was all too rapidly losing size. Not because of the losses in battle (there were few) but because with each takeover he had to leave a small garrison behind to secure it. Before long, he was left with a relative skeleton crew of soldiers, and the gothic king who had fled to the city of Ravenna to regroup had noticed that the general's numbers were surprisingly slim. Horribly outnumbered, Belisarius and company held the line against the intruders, but were in desperate need of reinforcements.

This artist must not have liked Justinian,
giving him a rather profound double chin.
He could have gone by "Justinian
the Big Boned".

Back in Constantinople, Justinian felt about Belisarius the way many emperors felt about their successful generals; fearful of the populace getting behind the winning warlord rather than the throne. Justinian did eventually decide to send reinforcements, but with them he sent a man by the name of Nantes to watch over his every action and "help" him lead. Nantes he didn't have to worry about; he couldn't possibly take the throne because he just didn't have the balls for it. (He was a eunuch.) Unfortunately, all this did was split the forces up and as a result they lost a number of battles. Even then, they were still strong enough to push to the gates of Ravenna.

To the surprise and frustration of Belisarius, he was suddenly recalled to Byzantium. Persia was attacking and he had to be there to defend it. Knowing he had to leave almost immediately, he was given an interesting proposal by the gothic king. The king said that if he were to take the crown and restore the Western Roman Empire, the goths would rally behind him. With his standing army and the force of the goths behind him, he would be infinitely more powerful, have an empire of his own to lead, and finally find the recognition he deserves. Obviously, he took the deal - but Belisarius was loyal to a fault, and he used the prospect of taking the crown as a ruse. It wasn't until he was heading back to Byzantium the king realized he had been betrayed. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that Belisarius had been nothing but infinitely successful and stunningly loyal, this garnered further distrust from Justinian, and more specifically, his wife Theodora.

Upon returning home he was once more sent to battle Persia. While out east, the dreaded black plague struck home and wiped out a massive part of the population, and Justinian himself was struck by the sickness. Belisarius got word of this, and believed Justinian will likely die and thus a new emperor would have to be crowned, it seems like the reins would pass to Theodora, Justinian's wife. His men in particular couldn't stomach having Theodora lead, whom they were not very fond of. His men thought that, since he has found success pretty well everywhere he's gone, that he should be leading. Unfortunately, Theodora heard this rumour and stripped Belisarius of his title and exiled him. After all what he did for the empire, he got pushed aside in disgrace.

Theodora was, apparently, rather babely. What
is the Latin translation for "hubba hubba"?

Meanwhile the empire had completely gone to crap with astounding speed. The plague had crippled the economy, the hold on the west was collapsing due to too many generals running things and fighting amongst themselves, and with the lack of numbers and poor economy Persia was taking land rapidly upon discovering Byzantium's newfound weakness. In addition to battling Persia, they were dealing with an increasingly distressing presence of the Huns who showed up just thirty miles out of Constantinople while the army was out fighting. With barely any men to fight them off and in desperate need of a military mind, Justinian lifts the exile of Belisarius and calls on him one last time. It's essentially the plot for countless movies.

Justinian: "Belisarius... the Huns have arrived. You're the only one that can stop them!"

Belisarius: "But I'm old now - I'm pushing fifty, and that's really old in ancient Byzantine times, or as we call it, present day."

Justinian: "You're the best there is. You have to do it. For the empire, Belisarius!"

*Belisarius looks at a tattered Byzantine standard, and ponders his role in the army.*

Belisarius: "Fine, Justinian. I'll help. But I'm getting too old for this *$%@."

Anyways - in his last heroic stand, Belisarius defeats the Huns outnumbered with a ragtag bunch of soldiers. Afterwards, he went into retirement and faded out of the limelight, a general so great that some of his enemies would surrender just knowing they were to fight him.

If only the emperors that followed the eventual death of Justinian could be so heroic (or at least competent). While they did inherit the throne at a difficult time (an empire too stretched out and poor) their shortsightedness certainly didn't help the situation. Worse yet, a new enemy in the Muslim army came to their doorstep after having rampaged through a weakened Persia. Upon attacking Constantinople, if it wasn't for a tremendous invention of "Greek fire", a kind of persistently burning flamethrower attached to ships (an invention well ahead of its time) it may very well have fallen.

Spartacus: Part 3 - The Fall of Spartacus

Here we have Spartacus: runaway gladiator, former Roman soldier, and now a tremendously dangerous revolutionary. We left off with the man at his peak; 70,000 soldiers at his back with a number rising rather than falling, legions of Romans dead in his wake, and now he's marching to Rome itself.

Or so we would think.

He instead chose to go an indirect route, stepping through the revolution-favouring Picenum in hopes of picking up more recruits before hoping to knock off the mud of his sandals on the doormat of Rome. In many ways he followed in the footsteps of Hannibal - possibly able to take the city, but instead delaying, hoping to build up a greater force and attack at a higher level of strength shortly after. This is to some extent a confusing choice, however. He had been denying followers for a short while now (possibly because of a lack of gear, a slightly smaller force being more mobile, requiring less supply, etc.) but was still hoping to build up his army. Tiring of the rural recruits, he hoped for taking cities - the idea was to move from a revolution to a full civil war. Unfortunately, the urban cities just didn't feel it yet for one reason or another.  Perhaps it was too risky, too difficult to disrupt, or the roving band of bandits that had been on the road for so long now were really just too smelly.

In a delightful bit of karma for Crassus'
cruelty, his face will forever be immortalized
on wikipedia immediately beside a man's
genitals. 

The message Spartacus was sending was... almost disappointing, in a sense. We hope for Spartacus following strictly modern, western ideals, sticking to a narrative with a main character that stands up for freedom and justice and, considering where big budget movies come from, all things American. Mel Gibson playing our protagonist in Braveheart 2: Spartacus Hyperdrive in which he periodically yells "FREEDOM!" would probably sell quite well. But Spartacus isn't a movie, and human beings don't typically follow a black-and-white set of motives that make for good television. Spartacus didn't want complete freedom for everyone; in fact, he didn't oppose slavery. He just wanted to uproot the oppressive Roman forces that possessed inhuman levels of brutality. The latter makes for a good film, but it's hard to cheer for someone whom if he had his way would move right back to slavery.

That's if he got his way, of course. Standing in his way was Rome's next champion, Marcus Licinius Crassus. Owner of a tremendous number of slaves, a greater number of land, and so much wealth that Donald Duck would gleefully dive into his pile of coins. He was powerful, well respected, and already with military experience under his belt. Plus, as a side note, he had six new legions to add to the four already out in the field. A no-nonsense tyrant himself, Crassus went to the old-school Roman style (even for then it was old-school) of slaughtering fifty of his own men that returned home unsuccessful. While he was not one to be trifled with, Rome was taking no chances; they were also bringing back another twenty legions of troops from wars they had been fighting overseas. It was a little like being unable to kill an anthill in your backyard, and opting to blow it up with dynamite so you know for darn sure it's gone.

Upon seeing Crassus' army, Spartacus chose to actively retreat in the hopes to lure him further and pressing him to the point of forcing an error. Fortunately for Crassus, Spartacus left too great a gap between forces and dislodged ten thousand from the group, allowing them to be quickly slaughtered without much opposition. It was a morale boost to the Roman soldiers who saw that Spartacus was far from unstoppable, and that these were after all just a group of slave-soldiers who should at the core be no match for the power of a trained and well equipped Roman military machine.

Deciding that the mainland was no longer the place for him as he was unable to find any appreciation from the cities, he had hoped to travel to Sicily to stir rebellion there. Sicily had had issues with rebellions before, and therefore it could be more favourable to his cause. Having cities back him would be critically important to Spartacus' campaign, but there was one key difficulty; he had to travel across too great of a body of water without the help of ships. Further compounding the issue, he wasn't really on great terms with Rome who was able to sell those ships, so much like many young men who cannot or do not wish to purchase things in modern times, he went to a pirate bay for assistance. Offering a large sum of money to give him and his army a safe passage to Sicily, he had hoped to cross the waters and at least temporarily extend the delay of the battle with the large, imposing army of Crassus. Unfortunately for him, the pirates betrayed him and left him stranded without a reasonable way to cross. For this we have no historical reason - possibly a dispute about the payment, possibly because they're pirates and betrayal seems pretty close to their wheelhouse.  Spartacus then decided to create makeshift rafts to cart his equipment and soldiers across the water, but this went just about as well as you would expect. They lost a great amount of supplies and possibly a fair few soldiers to the bottom of the waters. We can only assume they had some variety of pirate curse on them.

All the while they were building rafts and hoping to make an escape across the water, Crassus had men watching over. He was closing in and ready to pounce, but through some clever maneuvering and a few tactical errors by Crassus, Spartacus' group was able to escape and once again go on the run. Eventually, they came to a defensible position. The next major battle had Crassus attacking a once more separated group of 12,000 or so that, similar to the previous time, fell quite quickly while hardly making a dent in the Roman forces. Spartacus was not only on the run, but bleeding badly.

Spoiler: Spartacus doesn't make it. Perhaps he would have
won if he had decided to fight standing up.

Here's another time where the whole "unrelenting freedom fighter" narrative of Spartacus goes a little awry. One would think that a man so hardened against Rome would refuse to give even the slightest sign of weakness, but he actually tried to open negotiations with Crassus and the Romans. Now, it's important to note that this isn't a flat surrender deal; instead, Spartacus had hoped that in doing so it would create a sense of legitimacy for his army rather than just a group of rebels. If they opened negotiations then that meant they were against a rival army - an army that had warranted merit, respect. Regardless of the fact that Crassus denied the negotiations, it still leaves an unsettling taste. Spartacus wasn't a one-hundred percent never-surrender, no-compromise warrior that one may hope when reading of his story. It comes as a little disappointing.

Negotiations shot down, Crassus converged with his 50-60,000 troops, better equipped and with higher morale and with equal numbers to Spartacus' own. He hoped to attack before the other armies of Rome arrived as if they supported him it would be them who took the credit for the fall of Spartacus, as it would appear that they came in to relieve the beleaguered forces of Crassus. Backed in a corner, the revolutionaries had to fight. The battle was an absolute slaughter in favour of the Romans, killing thousands of rebels and rounding up several thousand more. Forever cruel, Crassus lined the road of Capua to Rome with six thousand crucified soldiers of Spartacus. The revolution was a failure, and ultimately nothing seemed to change. You can't help feel a little empty after learning that for the most part it was all for nothing.

Sheesh. This is probably going to be one of the darkest
pictures I post on this blog. 

So what happened to our main man?

Here's where it feels a little more Hollywood. Spartacus, enraged and bloodthirsty, charges into the battle on the front lines. Attempting to make it into a personal battle, he called for Crassus to fight him personally in a duel, flying into the fray in search of his enemy. Defeating two centurions in a two-on-one fight, he continue to yell for the commander to come out and meet his challenge. He reportedly took a javelin to the thigh, threw his shield away and continued to fight off Romans until his death, surrounded by his troops. Apparently (and I'm confused how this happened) his body must have been stolen away by the rebels as it was never found, and thus unable to be desecrated by the Romans who I'm sure would have had a field day with it.

Sigh...

If only he had found Crassus on the battlefield. How cool would that have been?

_________________________

The information from this blog came from Aldo Schiavone's "Spartacus".

Spartacus: Part 2 - Romans Tremble

First, before anything else, I want to remind the reader that these are ancient times we're dealing with. The story itself is passed along from a scant few historians and whatever archaeological evidence is left that allows it to be pieced together. Spartacus' actual thoughts are completely lost to history (as well as most of the inner workings of his camp and circles), military size of both the rebels and to a lesser extent the Romans is mostly estimation, and even the outcomes of certain battles are only known as a "win" or "loss" but not entirely by what score. So take it with a grain of salt.

A depiction of Spartacus midway through the
war, passing from his quiet nude contemplation
phase to somewhat clothed power-posing.

We left off with Rome deciding that the uprising has had their fun and it was now appropriate to put them to bed by a great show of force. Three thousand troops (a likely accurate number) were quickly sent from Rome to dispatch the small army of several hundred slaves under the command of our increasingly impressive leader Spartacus (his military's number born more of estimation than anything). Spartacus has and will find multiple chances to flee Italy to perhaps return to his homeland of Thrace or to simply go anywhere but where he was, but the fact that he stayed and continued to battle the Romans shows his true intention; Spartacus did not just wish to be free from the bonds of gladiatorial combat and Roman oppression - he wanted to see Rome itself burn to the ground. Heck, it sounds more like a movie than history. And a movie I'd want to see!

Spartacus backed towards Mount Vesuvius to regroup in a defensive position. It would be here that they defeated the first wave of Roman opposition, the three thousand or so sent towards them. Wikipedia and the Starz television show have them descending the mountain in a brilliant ambush on the Roman camp, but seeing how only one of the two (I won't say which!) is a bounty of historical knowledge, take another grain of salt with that one too. What we do know (at least kind of) is it seems likely that Spartacus himself was mostly doing the planning, but likely with the assistance of some commanders under his wing. Oenomaus may have died along the way as he is not mentioned particularly often after the initial escape, but Crixus was still kicking around. There are some that would say Crixus may have had a few issues with Spartacus' leadership, but the fact that they stayed in one group (until later, in which I will explain why they splintered) suggests otherwise. It was a rebellion growing with speed, slowly becoming better armed, and led by a commander that understands the Roman military methods. It was a force to be reckoned with.

Starz: at least it doesn't just show "Storage
Wars" and "Pawn Stars". I'm looking at you,
History Channel.

Having defeated the first assault, the rebels could continue on their path of scouring the countryside, recruiting all the while. The cruelty of the Roman masters made recruitment particularly easy, and Spartacus found the Roman lands to be full of would-be revolutionaries. They likely split their forces somewhat in order to cover more ground and speed up the recruiting process, further bolstering their ranks. However, with the increase in numbers, the slaves were difficult to control. While Spartacus personally disapproved of the action, rape and torture became increasingly more common, muddling the whole 'righteous war' angle. He had hoped to keep it relatively clean, it seems - he divided the plunder up equally (you have to fairly distribute the goods you're stealing) and demanded that merchants near the camp were simply traded with and not robbed. All the while, their numbers swelled tremendously - up to over ten thousand.

Meanwhile, Rome sprung into action. The number sent after them is not entirely known, but it seems it outnumbered the revolutionaries, and considering they had over two thousand one could guess at the number of the Romans. The reason they didn't send more is because Rome - and Italy as a whole - was mostly legion-free. Quelling rebellions in other parts of their territory and fighting with Mithradates has taken much of their military away from home, leaving it a perfect time to revolt. Regardless, they still had enough to send after Spartacus. The leader of the Roman force, Publius Varinius, with his two legates, Cossinius and (I kid you not) Furius, moved within striking distance and set up camp. Splitting up in the hope to surround and crush Spartacus in a pincer movement, Cossinius and Furius took roughly two thousand soldiers each and moved on the rebels, with Varinius behind them with the bulk of the force. Once again showing his tactical prowess, Spartacus anticipated the move, attacked one wing, annihilated that force, and quickly savaged the other before they had a chance to retreat back to the main army. Furius must have been angry. Incredibly angry. Some might even say...

...Irate.

I can't blame the slaves for wanting to revolt against Rome.
Look how uncomfortable that underwear looks. Can someone
say chafing? 

Regardless of their losses, once more Rome sent four legions (a legion probably being about four to five thousand men) to thwart Spartacus once and for all, and these were in addition to what was remaining of Varinius' forces. Spartacus' army, continuing to grow, hit numbers as high as 40,000. These numbers will be debated (wikipedia says much higher) and that's because the historical texts will say it's a higher number than it likely is. They tend to exaggerate.

Spartacus decided that to defeat these soldiers they would have to split to cover more territory and to set up the ability to flank the enemy. Sending ten thousand to Crixus, they splintered their forces into two. However, Crixus proved to be a brave warrior, but as a commander he was left wanting. His army was routed, and he was killed in the battle. Thinking they had Spartacus on the run, the Roman legions once again tried a pincer movement, but similar to the previous battle, their adversary proved the quicker. Attacking one side and routing them there, the rebels then turned on the other and drove them away as well. Considering it's a massive battle, the documentation on it is few and far between, being lost to history somewhere along the way. The important thing to remember? Spartacus won out. The score, so far, is roughly 3 or 4 to 1 in the major battle count - and the major loss belongs to Crixus.

Crixus' funeral was massive. They sacrificed hundreds of Romans by (ironically) gladiator battles to the death before executing many more. In the coming weeks his numbers would almost double to 70,000. Spartacus felt it may be time to March to the very seat of power in Rome itself.

Spartacus: Part 1 - Rebellion

Spartacus is one of those names that's immediately associated with rebellion, much like Che Guevara. Only the latter, however, has his face plastered on t-shirts worn by people who don't really know who he is or what he's done. Not that I do... but at least my shirts are just H&M sale section garbage and therefore only carry the political stance of "I'm cheap".

I first got involved in the whole story of Spartacus from the Starz television series of the same name in which his story is filled with all the blood, gore, and almost-but-not-quite pornographic scenes that testosterone fueled T.V. has come to thrive on (oh what a glorious age we live in!) I quite enjoyed the show in all its 300 rip-off splendor, but I wondered just how close to the true history it was. Queue "Spartacus" by Aldo Schiavone; a book about a topic I'm interested in and a page length that suits my short attention span (thank you for keeping it under 200 pages, Schiavone). 

Now. some background.

A gladius, the weapon which spawned the word "gladiator".
In modern times, the company "Glad" was named after
 the weapon for the spikey things they have on their
 cling wrap packaging to cut the plastic. Both should
be used with caution around unprotected fingers.

The Roman Empire during the time of Spartacus was growing in power due to the constant warfare, hostile takeovers and general disregard for human life that so embodied their culture - a cornerstone of proper imperialists. Gladiatorial combat came to prominence largely due to this lifestyle; the Romans would storm into Gaul, Thrace, and otherwise, enslave them, and use the prisoners of war to fight it out for the amusement of the general populace. Picking strong slaves was a lucrative business - gladiators victorious in the arena could pull in some serious coin for their owners. It also served the purpose of showing that if slaves could face pain and death with all the bravery of Hercules (not that Greek wuss, Heracles), then for a Roman it should be a paltry task. That, and the Romans were quite simply a fan of mixing violence and sport. I can't fault 'em for that one. 

Spartacus didn't have the clear-cut upbringing of a simple slave, however. It's decidedly more complicated, and the nature of ancient history such as it is, rarely entirely certain with numerous conflicting accounts. What seems likely at the basest level was that Spartacus was actually a soldier in the Roman army. He was a Thracian, and Thrace was a tributary of Rome, and thus had many of their soldiers in their employ - our would-be revolutionary being one of them. Known for being intelligent and courageous beyond his status as a non-Roman, being a member of the cavalry (likely) which was a relatively highly ranked and respected position, and having a female companion that was likely a priestess, Spartacus was well on his way to being commander material. This allowed him to see the Roman military tactics, military technology, and general goings-on of the soldiers, doubtlessly giving him plenty of useful information to use in the days ahead. The Romans learned their command tactics through experience and observation, so in many ways Spartacus wouldn't have been too far behind from their chosen battle commanders. 

Spartacus had a propensity to ponder in the
nude, and was thus immortalized in a
statue doing so.

So what we have here is a man who, for a foreigner, was of a high station, a powerful fighter rising in the military ranks, and having a priestess companion that symbolizes his high social status (who in the T.V. show was a total babe, so add that to the mix). But then he suddenly deserted, at least suddenly in terms of the recorded history of it. Take this all with a grain of salt, as this is all what likely happened, but it seems that Spartacus was in a troop that was meant to storm the lands of the Maidi tribe of Thracians, of whom he belongs. Likely feeling some sort of reservation about slaughtering and enslaving his own people (what a do-gooder) he joined the rebels and fought using guerrilla tactics against them - but only until his eventual capture. 

The slave traders likely picked him up fairly quickly and sent him to Rome to be sold. A strong, young fighter, he would be chosen for a gladiator and sell for a high price. As far as slaves go, this wasn't actually all that bad - you would want to keep your gladiators happy and healthy, with good meals to ensure they're fighting at their best, countless hours to train, and the privilege to keep his lady-friend. 

Regardless, Spartacus got fed up and revolted against one Gnaeus Lentulus Batiatus, the leader of the camp in which the gladiators were being trained. This was incredibly risky - they had to break into the kitchen to steal knives and other potentially violent kitchen tools, and unite the slaves of a variety of ethnic backgrounds and charge the guards. About two hundred or so rose up and easily dispatched the guards, likely caught relatively unawares, and the fugitives were on their way to freedom. Soon after, stumbling on a wonderful bit of luck, they happened upon a wagon carrying a number of gladiator arms destined for Pompeii which they decided to... "commandeer." The nearby garrison of Roman soldiers (bear in mind these were still gladiators, and the Romans were not so stupid as to leave them completely unguarded) went to dispatch them quickly, in what would be the first of a number of severe and damaging underestimations of the strength of Spartacus and company. Upon defeating them, they took their weapons and armour, no longer equipped with the shoddy and barbaric weapons of the arena, but instead with Roman military grade technology. This was a great moment for the slaves, as the weapons served as giving them legitimacy; no longer simple gladiators and brawlers, but a real military force.

Unfortunately for them, Rome didn't treat deserters too kindly. They got word far more quickly than one would imagine they would, and sent three-thousand (!!!) men after them - these ones properly trained, more prepared soldiers. Spartacus, picking up runaway slaves and other men along the way, had his numbers rise to a still relatively meager few hundred.

Rome thought it would be over quickly.

Punic Wars: Part 3 - The Fall of Carthage

History is not a novel. It is not meant to inspire, have climaxes, follow any set narrative that furthers your interest and leaves you feeling some emotion that is meant to be conveyed to the reader from the author, whatever that may be. Instead, it's a mere statement of facts; yes, they can be tremendous, shocking, exciting and so forth, but unless you're deliberately altering the past, there will be times you're left wanting. The Third Punic War is just one of those rather disappointing stories. The first war told of Carthage, a tremendous naval power, going head to head with the up and coming armies of Rome. The second is a humbled giant poised to strike again with all the might that elephants, cavalry and wave after wave of infantry has to offer, led by one of the greatest military generals you're going to hear of. So the third is the last of the series, what should be a culmination of all that has happened that turns out to be an awe inspiring bloodbath between two major forces fighting it out for the supremacy of Mediterranean Europe. Instead, we got a third part of the series that is more than a little predictable and just didn't live up to what has been a tremendously interesting wartime tale. Essentially, we got a historical version of The Matrix: Revolutions. Of course this is all just my opinion. I'll leave it up to you to decide what you think.

Cato the Elder, one of the most adamant
believers in the destruction of Carthage.
He looks like a pleasant fellow.

In between the second and third wars, a time of just a touch over half a century, Rome was caught up in conquering the East, all the while taking over the Hispanic regions that helped them in the fight against Carthage. If I haven't said this before, I'll say it now - Rome as a whole was a seriously untrustworthy jerk of a city state a heck of a lot of the time. Anyways, what's important is they were rolling through Europe and Carthage was rolling in debt. The massive indemnity owed to the Romans was just being paid off, they had lost much of their territory and their allies were not too keen on supporting a dying land. Worse yet, all of their border issues were largely controlled by the Roman senate, requiring Carthage a "good-to-go" from the Romans before engaging in any conflicts. They frequently quarrelled with Numidia, bordering them on the east, who happened to be an ally of Rome; you can image how those cases must have gone.

Carthage had little choice but to suffer through it - and they did so for the fifty years they owed the Romans the large indemnity of silver they owed from the second war. However, here's where things get a little complicated; is the treaty entirely over, or just the silver they were supposed to pay? There were two ways of seeing it: Carthage has paid their debt in full and is no longer obligated to answer to the Roman senate as they had completed the requirements of the treaty; the second way of seeing it is the land of Carthage has a lot of productive farmland to feed Rome's increasingly large population, they are no longer paying silver, and they can be "justly" attacked under the guise of saying the terms of the treaty were not just for the silver but a permanent subordination to the powers of the Romans. Yeah... Rome thought the second option seemed a little more lucrative.

In 151 BC, shortly after the debt had been paid off, Numidia launched a strike against Carthage. Suffering a defeat, they were charged with yet another fifty year debt to Numidia for not getting consent from Rome. Rome subsequently declares war, and the Carthaginians do their best to appease the Romans and basically tell them to cool off a little. Oh, and by tell them, I mean practically beg them. They offered 300 children from well-to-do Carthaginians to be sent as hostages as Rome, and essentially be raised as slaves. The 300 used in the movie 300 were likely much more intimidating than the babies, and the offer was deemed not enough.

The war heats up, and Utica, a city under Carthage's control, decides to defect to the Romans and effectively serving as a base of assault. 80,000 men gather, and demand Carthage hands over all their weapons and armour - Carthage, scared out of their wits, complies. They then politely ask to move a great distance inland, while Rome burns the city to the ground. I kid you not. That's what they asked the Carthaginians to do. It's like asking the enemy army to shoot themselves, and when they don't comply, claiming you gave diplomacy your best shot. Naturally, they had no choice but to abandon negotiations at this point and the city of Carthage was under siege, effectively beginning the third Punic war. If people were placing bets, there would be no amount of Roman gold worth the odds of betting on Carthage's success.

The preserved, rather pretty ruins of Carthage. It looks
rather nice when it isn't on fire.

To their credit, Carthage fought hard. Their cavalry caused a number of problems for the Romans and they won a few battles here and there, notably one where the Roman fleet was burned from a number of fire ships sent over to their harbours. Carthage endured, fighting tooth and nail knowing they were backed in a corner and pretty well out of options, but the crushing size and strength of the Roman force eventually proved too much. It was an underdog story where the predicted victor goes in and wins predictably.

After the final battle, there remained only 50,000 Carthaginians, a small portion of what they had been at the beginning of the third Punic war. They were promptly sold into slavery, as was the tradition after taking over a city. Carthage itself was burned, it's walls and buildings destroyed, marking the end of a once great and powerful civilization that had stood for centuries. Carthage's territories were taken, and the fertile farmland surrounding Carthage served to be a great boost to the Romans' food supply. So after having their city burned to the ground and their territories taken, their land served to fuel the beast that destroyed them.

Ain't that a kick in the teeth?

Famous Historical Battles Have the Darndest Things Happen!

1. Utica, the city that turned over to Roman rule, eventually became the capital for the Roman territories in Africa. What a bunch of bandwagon jumpers.
2. The Romans didn't actually salt the ground like the myth goes. They wanted to use the farmland... why the heck would they salt it? 
3. Julius Caesar rebuilt the city about a century later when the Roman empire was thriving. I suppose if the land fuelling the Roman army was a kick in the teeth, this was dancing on the grave.  

Punic Wars: Part 2 - The Adventures of Hannibal

We left off with Carthage in financial peril after losing miserably to the Romans, despite many of the battles taking place on their favoured place of battle, the open waters. Tail between their legs and treaty in their hands (or paws, to keep with the metaphor) Carthage establishes itself as the leader of the Iberian Peninsula. Rome allows this, as this is part of the treaty. However, Saguntum, an Iberian coastal city with Roman diplomats within it, is just about right on the border, and... well, I'm beginning to realize a lot of wartime disputes sound painfully close to schoolyard arguments. Basically, the Romans claimed that in spite of the treaty made between Rome and Carthage claiming the political independence of Saguntum, Rome said it was theirs to do as they pleased and killed all of the Carthage supporters within the city; Carthage claimed the age old "no take backsies" clause, Rome refuting their argument with a well-timed "nuh-uh".

The result was much less schoolyard-ish, resulting in the new up-and-coming leader Hannibal to led Carthage in a siege of the city and Rome saying they didn't want it badly enough to bother going in and helping. Rome is really not trying for any honourable accolades as it seems. It took quite some time but Carthage eventually took Saguntum, much to the dismay of the inhabitants, many of which took their lives rather than face the Carthaginians. I suppose Carthage wasn't earning those accolades either.

I really can't get enough of the war elephants. In the words of
Futurama... they have "elephants that never forget... to kill!"

It's important to remember that Carthage was in crippling economic pain due to reparations from the treaty after losing the first Punic War, but they weren't without their forces. In Iberia alone (bear in mind they had a whole load of men in Africa as well) they had 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 37 war elephants, an army that would rival any one in the world. This time instead of fighting Rome on the ocean they were going to fight on land, at least for the majority of the time. This initially sounds peculiar; a city-state that is almost entirely coastal, fighting another that's primarily focussed on land, and actively choosing to fight on the relatively less familiar turf. The reason for this choice was Rome was having some troubles with rebellions with some pesky Gauls who just so happened to be sympathetic to the Carthaginian cause. The tribes of Boii and Insurbres, already revolting, sent word to a northbound Hannibal at the foot of the Alps, informing him that with their guides he would be able to cross them and help support their cause, uniting them both against the Roman force.

Meanwhile, Rome was anticipating the arrival of the moving land-mass of elephants, horses and men that was bent on their annihilation and deemed it appropriate to consider doing something about it. They sent out a force to meet the Carthaginians before they left the Iberian Peninsula, knowing that if they struck them before meeting up with the uprising Gauls they had a better chance at victory. Unfortunately, the Carthaginians proved elusive and they were unable to meet them on the field of battle. How they missed 100,000+ soldiers is beyond me, but it's important to remember that this was well before the days of GPS, and I took not one but two wrong busses on the way home today. I suppose I can sympathize.

Hannibal crossing the Alps. At the top right you
can see a particularly clumsy elephant. He wasn't
going to win the war anyway.

Regardless of how it happened, they sent one of the Roman commanders back to Italy to help defend while leaving the other general, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus (or Skippy for short, I assume) to bring the fight to Carthage. There were plenty of native tribes that were obviously harbouring some negative feelings towards the ruling Carthage, but were wary of joining the group that allied with Saguntum just prior to letting it completely burn to the ground. For whatever reason, they joined together regardless. Seeing the rising powers at his doorstep, Hanno, a brother of Hannibal who you'll learn certainly did not have the same natural mind for battle, thought it was best to fight the Romans mounting a force in Iberia before they became too large. He was so eager that he declined to wait on his reinforcements that were well on their way to support him, and challenged the Romans to a pitched battle (one which both sides agree to meet on a set field and fight it out, a la West Side Story except with less dancing and certainly less 60s fashion). Hanno was outnumbered two to one, resulting in what you would have to expect was a pretty predictable victory for the Romans. The reinforcements arrived but after a journey to meet them, and were obviously in no position to fight.

Further compounding the troubles back home for Carthage, Hasdrubal (the leader of the reinforcements that came too late) was about to find himself in another painful loss to Rome. Hoping to weaken the naval fleet of his enemy, but keenly remembering the many losses from the previous Punic war out on sea, he decided to move both his army and navy close together in a consolidated force. The purpose was to provide both moral support and a safe place to dock if need be. However, the army was hopelessly disorganized, and to put it as softly as I can, they were slaughtered. The most crippling result was a blockade between Roman soldiers and Hannibal, meaning the latter was off on his own without backup as no reinforcements could make their way to him. A few naval assaults were made over in Sicily, but bad weather and advanced knowledge on behalf of the Romans thwarted the attacks. Basically all eyes, and all Carthage hopes, were on their ruler with an admittedly giant army walking his way towards Italy.

Where everyone else in Carthage seemed like hopeless commanders, Hannibal was busy winning it almost single-handedly - along with, you know, his entire army. The Gallic tribes rose up against Rome and supported Carthage as was expected, the uprising being helped by Hannibal's army in the first place. Rome attempted to counter, but well timed ambushes slowed the Roman advance. The greatest accomplishment for Hannibal was yet to come, however; his next move involved crossing the Alps to catch the Romans by surprise, arriving much sooner than would be anticipated. Scoffing at the obvious difficulties, he brought 28,000 men, 6,000 cavalry and a number of elephants over the Alps with the help of native tribes and the Gauls. Rome has previously planning on moving on Africa, but the unprecedented speed on which they arrived set the entire plan back.

Carthage continued to fight (and win) in Roman territory, and as a result their army actually grew instead of dwindled; being unable to rely on the crappy leaders back home, he recruited more of the uprising Gauls to join him. The northern half of Italy was effectively in open revolt, seeing Hannibal as their leader. Wins kept on rolling in due to his exceptional military strategy; luring the Romans into an a trap at the battle of Trebia in which the defenders fought without breakfast and after crossing a cold river, also with the adding weight of a planned battlefield in which Carthage attacked with flanking forces as well, Rome lost 20,000 of the 40,000 that were in the fight. More and more Gauls joined, bringing the army to 60,000.

Hannibal was seemingly unstoppable, and rapidly approaching Rome. Tactically brilliant and with the force of the people on his side, the Romans prepared for the worst (the worst being losing the city of Rome - also dying). They heavily defended fortifications on the path towards Rome, but Hannibal simply moved around the flank and turned the tables on them, slipping past the enemy and effectively cutting off the Romans from their own city. Knowing that at this point they had to give chase and attack, the Romans moved right into the waiting hands of Hannibal's armies, ready and waiting in an ambush. They were slaughtered; cavalry was sent in afterwards but they as well were quickly defeated. A great number of prisoners were taken, the Roman ones being kept and the non-Romans were set free to spread "Carthage is saving you" propaganda to everyone that would listen. Rome at this point was a possible target, but ignoring his advisors Hannibal decided it would be too risky, the smarter move being to continue his plan of building up soldiers and biding his time. Hannibal was brilliant, but careful.

A well-preserved road that was actually used by the
armies of Fabius. I know it's just a road, but still...
when you really think about it, it's pretty amazing.

At this point Rome was freaking out about as hard as you could expect. A number of their generals were indisposed (you know, dead) and they chose to appoint somewhat of a military dictator to control the troops. The name of the man was Quintus Fabius Maximus, well known for his Fabian strategy he would employ on the armies of Hannibal. It consisted of open refusal of large scale battles, instead favouring skirmishes with small groups to weaken the greater force. Despite the fact that Rome as a whole pretty well hated it (they nicknamed him Cunctator, meaning delayer) as they thought it was a cowardly way to fight, it was effective. Hannibal was weakening due to the constant shots from the Fabian strategy. Rome was also slightly peeved at the fact that they weren't directly assaulting the army that was wandering around ravaging their homeland - admittedly a reasonable complaint. At one point a commander rose up and called Fabius a coward and moved to attack Hannibal. His traditional method resulted in Hannibal ambushing his force, and the commander didn't speak up too much against him after that.

Well, the commander didn't... but the rest of Rome certainly did. They were eager for a large scale assault, and decided to double the army supply and take the force to Hannibal's door. Eager for battle, they charged the Carthaginians on a ground that was much better suited for Hannibal who once again planned his defence flawlessly. In the battle of Cannae, 50-70,000 Romans died or were captured, a colossal loss. The shaming resulted in Greek cities in Sicily being induced to riots as well, and several southern Italian allies moving towards the way of Hannibal. Directly after the battle, there was a brief path to Rome in which Hannibal would be relatively unimpeded, but the careful, tactical manner in which Hannibal attacked proved to work against him this time. He waited too long and missed his opportunity, much the way when one has to defecate but decides to wait for the commercial and then no longer has to go. Both result in the most profound of regrets.

The caption on Wikipedia said
it was Hannibal counting the signet
rings of fallen Roman generals
(which is really cool) but it just looks
like he's standing there...

Hannibal's army, separated from his home and lacking reinforcements, eventually began to dwindle. They won some battles here and there, but Rome was retaking her cities and pestilence began to plague his numbers. It soon drew to a stalemate, and generally speaking the one closer to home is the one that is going to hold out. Meanwhile, Iberia was faring no better, and they were routed in Africa as well. The world was crumbling around Hannibal, and while he almost made peace with Scipio, breaches of conduct on either side prevented peace; Scipio was angry over the ambush tactics used by Hannibal, Hannibal angry over how Rome dealt with Saguntum. A final large scale battle between the two, in which Hannibal didn't want to lead because he was certain they would not hold their ground, resulted in Carthage reluctantly accepting their losses and taking a peace offering.

Once again, Carthage was pitted with a massive war indemnity to slap around their economy even further than before. Their navy was limited to only ten ships, just enough to ward off pirates. Hannibal, meanwhile, became a businessman for several years until he was exiled to Asia where he continued to fight the Romans until he was cornered and committed suicide. It was not a fitting end for such a tremendous military tactician. But hey, he still lost, so... he couldn't have been that good.

What made the second Punic war seemed to be when an army chose to attack: if Hanno had waited for reinforcements, the Iberian front could have ended entirely differently; Hannibal's ambushes and luring armies worked wonders throughout his campaign; the Fabian strategy of persistent waiting was critical in Rome's eventual success, with the traditional run-up-and-fight strategy failing time and time again; lastly, Hannibal dropping the ball just one time meant that he missed his opportunity to take Rome. The second war really just came down to a matter of timing.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "Carthage must be destroyed." The words of Cato the Elder. It sounds like it's not that great of a quote, but it's all about context. Cato would say this at the end of every speech, believing that Carthage would rise again if not entirely crushed. Yes, every speech, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with Carthage. 
2. "Let us relieve the Romans from the anxiety they have so long experienced, since they think it tries their patience too much to wait for an old man's death." Hannibal's last words, apparently realizing Rome was not particularly fond of him. He was not to be later reunited with Scipio on some ancient version of Maury.

Punic Wars: Part 1 - Fighting for Sicily

The Punic Wars were three battles fought between the Roman Republic (but back before they were all-powerful and more than a little frightening, the Roman Republic was the child of the Roman Empire) and Carthage, a city-state with an particularly strong talent for naval warfare. The term "Punic" stems from a latin word related to the Phoenicians, of whom the Carthaginians claim lineage from. It has a better ring to it than "The Carthaginian Wars", but less so than "Carthaginian Crucible of Carnage and Conflict".

Carthage is the greyish blobs, Rome the red. That's
all you need to know.

At the time of the beginning of the Punic Wars, 264 B.C., Carthage controlled much of the coastal land of the Mediterranean. They were seen as the naval power of the time, and didn't have so much in the way of opposition. Rome, on the other hand, was an increasingly threatening power but at this point contained within the Italian Peninsula. The war they were about to fight would last twenty three years, and may have just been the largest wars that have occurred up until that time. Here, I'll be writing about the first of the three wars, readily admitting that I now know only of this one and very little of the following, save for the fact that (spoiler) Rome wins out.

What led up to the war was a group of Italian mercenaries mucking about in Sicily, hired by a Greek in Syracuse. They went by the name of the Mamertines, and they quickly earned a pretty negative reputation by killing a great number of people in the city of Messana, with all the looting and pillaging that is associated with sacking a city. The leader of Syracuse, Hiero II, feared the Mamertines further causing trouble and defeated them in battle - but not entirely. They were left with enough to appeal to both Rome and Carthage for some much needed help, to stem the tide of dying and whatnot. Carthage quickly took the charge, but in a "beggars can be choosers" plot twist they continued to appeal to the love of raiding and pillaging they shared with Rome in order to become allies.

The reaction in Rome was mixed; they thought it would be poor form to join forces with a marauding group of mercenaries that had ever so recently taken a city unjustly, but on the other hand, Carthage was becoming a powerful force and if they joined forces with the Mamertines they would surely take the whole island. Fearing the latter, and likely finding some sort of tenuous moral justification in order to not sound so sleazy, Rome reluctantly agreed to help the mercenaries. Unfortunately, this wasn't just picking some schoolyard chum - a rivalry was growing between Carthage and Rome, and an alliance with both simply wouldn't fly. They picked their side and they were about to live or die by it.

Agrigentum, a rather important dot
on a map.

Rome felt it was time for war, but a war that was in unfamiliar territory and circumstances. The Romans fought with great numbers of infantry, lacking prowess on the seas. The island of Sicily did not lend itself to that variety of warfare, however; hills, difficult to traverse terrain, and the obvious fact that Rome was not connected by land to the place of battle meant that they were about to be taken rather quickly out of their comfort zone. Land battles were to be limited to small battles and raids on supplies, typically centred around hitting ports and blockading pretty much whatever they could - far from the Roman way. What they did have going in their favour was the element of surprise, and by that I mean landing quickly with as many troops as they could and beating the crap out of the Carthaginians attacking the Mamertines in Messana. The crap-beating successful, they turned their eye on Syracuse, besieging that, too, and forcing them to take a critical peace deal that also had the stipulation of supplying the lower quality Roman navy with supplies. Considering both armies were away from home, an immediate source was extremely important in the battles to come.

Carthage, meanwhile, was not ill-prepared. Their rule stretched over the coastal areas of the Mediterranean, including large sections of the northern part of Africa. Seeking assistance, they hired mercenary groups from the territory, composed of fifty thousand infantry, six thousand cavalry, and - get this - sixty elephants. Can you believe that? Elephants! Perhaps they just wanted to match the Romans using trumpets to sound off the start of battle, and they thought it was cheaper.

The first major battle was in Agrigentum. A Roman assault of four legions (typically comprised of 5,400 men in each) attacked the city, but was oh so rudely interrupted by Carthaginians coming to ruin the raiding party. Surrounded and with supplies cut off, the Roman force began to fall to disease, and had to act quickly and effectively - but a Roman battle on land and in the open (open battle was actually something the Carthaginians wanted as well) resulted in a victory for Rome, taking the city. The Carthage army was damaged, but they had yet to fight on their turf - the open sea.

The expert technology used by the Romans on the sea.
1. Add nail to ladder  2. Hit other ship with nail
3. Kill people on ship  4. Repeat

The next major stage for war was the Battle of Mylae, one that Carthage thought was going to be a sure victory. Their navy outnumbered the Romans, although not by much; They had 130 ships to what is likely about 100 for Rome. Inexperienced shipbuilders, the Romans likely could have received help from Syracuse, or from taking ideas from shipwrecked Carthaginian vessels. Or, they could have learned incredibly fast. Or their ships could have completely sucked, but they went out anyways. The point is, it's not too clear. What matters is the manner in which the Romans fought: they placed a bridge-like structure that was used to board the enemy boats, allowing them to fight as if on land, a terrain much more familiar. The invention led them to a victory, forcing Carthage to retreat with a loss of both ships and likely a loss of pride after being schooled by an amateur on what they thought was kind of their thing.

Feeling confident, and in all fairness justly so, Rome ventured south to Africa to muck about in Carthaginian territory. Once again, they were successful - they won out, and began to write up terms for peace with the defeated armies. However, their terms were too heavy - perhaps they wanted too many elephants - and it forced the defenders to hire Xanthippus, a Spartan mercenary to reorganize their army. Since he's a Spartan, he obviously got the job done, likely while dropping one liners, and forced the Romans back. Needing retreat, Rome sent a great number of ships to Africa to save their men, but on the return trip a great storm (perhaps summoned by the sheer will of a single angry Spartan mercenary) killed nearly 90,000 men.

Damaged but not defeated, the Romans continued to rebuild. Carthage, however, was running short on financial abilities to fuel the war effort, whereas Rome found a way to consistently bleed investors enough to continue building ships and finding supplies. It became a slow and steady takeover, leaving the Romans as the victors but both financially in peril. A great number of casualties hit both sides, but Rome emerged as the new hot shot in the Mediterranean. To ensure their new status, they imposed a number of economic demands on Carthage, preventing them from recovering and becoming the power they once were. This also marked the first time Rome decided to expand out of the Italian Peninsula, and if we check the history books, it turns out they were really fond of this whole "expand their borders and gain power" deal. So after twenty three years of war, everything was all gravy. Carthage is safely economically shattered, Rome is the new high school bully of the seas, and they have more elephants than they know what to do with.

What could possibly go wrong?

Famous Historical Battles Give the Darndest Statistics!

1. Once again, it's darn near impossible to find a decent quote for events that long ago, so... have some stats. Part of the peace treaty to cripple Carthage economically included 145,000 pounds of silver to be paid in ten annual instalments. I think even the cost of transporting that much would cost enough to mess things up quite a lot.
2. Almost 300,000 men died in the battle.
3. 150 Roman ships were lost in a single storm. Someone forgot to pray to Neptune!

Gaius Julius Caesar

Roman. Died in March.

That's pretty much all I knew about Caesar going into this. Historical relevance doesn't grow with age, and anything that happened before the time of Christ (Caesar's life was around the last century B.C.) might just slip through the high school history textbook cracks. Well, in all fairness most of what I remember from my grade school social classes were heaps of fur trade information and the occasional unit on countries seemingly chosen out of a hat (Brazil, Russia and Japan to name a few).

I really wish the eyes
didn't look like that.

First thing you learn about Caesar is his name is much more complex than you would imagine. Naming conventions were different back then in comparison to the modern ways. Julius or "of the Julii" is his surname, with Gaius as his given name - simple so far. However, Caesar, oddly enough what you hear more often than not, is actually a cognomen; a cognomen being something akin to a nickname for last names that carry through generations, later being made into a hereditary line within the clan - the clan being the Julia. The name Caesar could have come from a number of sources, but the most likely one was the first Caesar was killed by an elephant in battle (caesai, in Moorish) which raises a great number of further questions that this blog does not have the length for. Either way, Caesar must have liked that meaning as he often put elephants on his coins, commemorating his forefather's accomplishment of being trampled to death. It's important to note that Roman naming conventions changed a fair bit throughout the years, further making it darn near impossible to understand any of it.

His family was not the most prolific and didn't hold the most political sway, but they were still somewhat high on the totem pole. He became a high priest of Jupiter, but quickly lost that position as changing powers in the republic (usually resulting in bloodbaths comprised of the political opposition) meant he had to step down and lay low for a while, giving up his dowry and inheritance in the process. Eventually his family bargained with the ruler at the time, and he left Rome to join the army without major fears of prosecution; this was indirectly a result of having been ousted from the priesthood, as he could never have been leading an army in that position. Priests of Jupiter are not allowed to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed (or one night outside Rome) or look upon an army - the last one being particularly difficult for someone hoping to be in the military.

Hearing of the death of the ruling power and hoping for a little more lenience in the new leader, Caesar returned to Rome. He began to learn the legal and political ropes and quickly rose to prominence due to his excellent oratory skills and his open hatred of corruption and extortion, common problems in the Roman political sphere. Eventually he was sent to rule over Spain, and in what would soon be known to be a rather typical trait of Caesar, he acquired some very large debts - he wasn't particularly good with money, and had the same ability to over-spend as a present day shopping crazed teenage girl with a credit card. Fortunately, he had a friend in Marcus Licinius Crassus, which most of the aforementioned teenaged girls do not. He bailed out Caesar, a reasonable favour considering he had backed Crassus politically against his rival, Pompey - but more on that rascal later.

He didn't rule with an iron fist - just a
claw, apparently.

Caesar then went to win the title of consul, a prominent magistracy in the Republic. To gain political clout and power, he attempted to reconcile Crassus and Pompey, two men frequently at odds with each other. If successful, he would be able gain just a ridiculous amount of power - Crassus was absolutely loaded, and Pompey was far from poor and had a military to boot. He once again supported Crassus politically in his efforts to make Egypt a tributary of Rome, and to win over Pompey he whored out his daughter Julia - but that wasn't so bad back then. He succeeded, and the three powers were known as the First Triumvirate.

Caesar then began to earn his reputation of being a man of the people. He proposed a law for the redistribution of public lands to the poor, which went through mostly due to the powers of the Triumvirate. Pompey, using his military powers, lined the city with soldiers to make sure no one would speak against it. Regardless, one man in the senate was vocally opposed and in turn he was beaten. Oh, and they threw some crap on him. The whole event had two results; Caesar was loved by the commoners, but in turn he was losing the favour of many of the status holding men - ancient Rome's 1%, basically.

Eventually his consulship ended, resulting in Caesar becoming a governor. In typical Caesar fashion, he was terribly in debt, but he knew military adventures were a good way to find some of the coin he's lost. He then went out to conquer Gaul, in which have been increasingly more frustrating to the powers of Rome as their Germanic tribes were becoming powerful and occasionally defeating Roman armies. However, they were crushed by Caesar, solving his money woes and expanding the borders of Rome quite significantly. It was, however, a fairly long expedition and there were troubles back home. The Triumvirate was dead - literally and figuratively. Crassus was killed in battle and Pompey's Caesar-given wife died in childbirth. Pompey then married a political rival of Caesar, and Rome was on the precipice of civil war. It makes you wonder what would have happened if Pompey's wife/Caesar's daughter didn't die plopping out that kid.

Pompey demanded Caesar disband his army in Gaul and return to Rome immediately. Caesar, not particularly inclined to taking orders and calling off militaries, crossed the Rubicon (the frontier boundary of Italy) and marched on Rome with only a single legion. While one legion is not particularly strong, it's significantly quicker than vast armies, and Caesar's legion was able to drive Pompey and the senate from Rome as they were unable to field an army before he arrived. Although Pompey did eventually find the army he was looking for, he was defeated at the hands of Caesar. Sometime after, Caesar gained more political power and eventually became a dictator.

There was, however, a matter of the senate and all the others who fled. Cato, a prominent member and a political enemy of Caesar's since his run for consul, was still at large along with Cicero and Cassius, friends of Pompey. United against him, Caesar had to defeat their armies as well, which he did quite successfully. Although Cato committed suicide upon realizing his defeat, Cicero and Cassius went to Caesar apologetically. Oddly enough, he not only pardoned them but gave them pretty decent positions. Say what you want about him, but he wasn't big on grudges and he kind of had a thing for mercy. Huh. Not the typical dictator. He also pursued Pompey to officially end the civil war, but found out that in a sense the job was done for him; Pompey, fleeing to Egypt, was then assassinated by the residents thinking they would gain favour with Rome. Caesar mourned the loss and turned the tables on the assassins and had them executed. Apparently Caesar thought of the civil war as a mere squabble between some old friends... which, you know, cost the lives of thousands. But still.

Caesar, looking mildly perturbed by his murder.

Now without any major political opposition he was free to do what all dictators do - which is pretty much whatever the heck he wanted. He detested the current system of the republic, as he believed the lack of central government, imperialist values that has spread its borders exceptionally far, and provinces that were Roman only in name as they controlled their own affairs for the most part had weakened the power of Rome. He then established a new constitution, made a great number of political and economic shifts resulting in reduced debt, giving land to his veterans, replacing the calendar with the Egyptian's system (one that is basically the same as ours today) and had many more plans that would have soon come to fruition if it wasn't for the fact that he was, you know, killed and all.

You see, it wasn't forgotten that Caesar was a man of the common people but not that of nobility. The senate did not favour Caesar, and previous hatreds refused to die out. Brutus and Longinus, two men who had favoured Pompey's side in the civil war, were pardoned by Caesar. However, this wasn't enough, and they planned his murder, a vicious group-stabbing (significantly worse than a regular stabbing, as this one included many more stabs). Their plan succeeded, and with a multitude of stab wounds the dictator was no more.

To the dismay of the assassins, the lower and middle class of Rome was enraged. His funeral resulted in a riot fuelled by the outrage caused by the death of who really was the people's champion. Eventually, his death led to the beginnings of the Roman Empire. Honestly, after reading all this I feel this was one of the few major historical figures who was actually a good guy. He pardoned his enemies, advanced the social and economic status of his homeland, respected his veterans who fought for him, and opposed political corruption. Caesar came to power without simply walking over those beneath him. I'm sure most would agree - save for that guy who had the crap thrown on him.

Reports are unconfirmed whether or not Julius Caesar would like the salad or the smoothie shop similar to him in name.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "The die is cast." Caesar said these words after crossing the Rubicon to begin the civil war with Pompey. If you don't have any short phrases that carry a great deal of significance, you're not a historical leader. They've all got one.
2. "Veni, vidi, vici." Meaning "I came, I saw, I conquered," this is one of the first instances of someone saying "eh, no big deal" after doing something that is, in fact, a very large deal indeed.
3. "And you, son?" This was spoken to Brutus, and supposedly the last words Caesar spoke. Shakespeare's version is the more popular "et tu, Brute?" meaning "you too, Brutus?".