III. The Structure of Spartacus' Army

In order to analyze the structure of Spartacus' Army, we shall examine the class- or status- structure first, and then the racial- or tribal-structure. From the examination of the former, we may find an answer for the first and the third opinions above, and the examination of the latter may be informative to the second opinion.

The Class Structure

According to historical materials, Spartacus' Army was consisted of slaves and free men. Among slaves there were various kinds of status; on the other hand, free men were only very few. Among slaves there were such as; gladiators ⁽¹⁾, cowherds and shepherds ⁽²⁾, fugitives ⁽³⁾, armory forgers, shield makers ⁽⁴⁾, slaves from ergastulum (workshop) ⁽⁵⁾, a female prophet ⁽⁶⁾ , a sacrifice-offering maiden ⁽⁷⁾ , etc. As for free men, there were men from the fields ⁽⁸⁾ , riff-raff  ⁽⁹⁾, deserters from Roman Army, ⁽¹⁰⁾ etc. What kind of inevitability did they have for joining Spartacus' Army and how important role did they play in the army? On these problems we shall examine each of the about items.

(i) Slaves

(a) Gladiators

About seventy gladiators  ^(10a) escaped from their gladiatorial training-school at Capua that originated Spartacus' Uprising. So, it was a fact that gladiators took part in the uprising, and those leaders such as Spartacus, Crixos, and Oenomaus were gladiators ⁽¹¹⁾ . Gladiators were the slaves who had to be in a show at arena for Romans and had to fight and kill each other. At first, this was a custom in the countries such as Etruria that the warcaptives used to fight in honor of the dead in front of their graves ⁽¹²⁾ . But after Romans conquerred the Mediterranean Sea, development of slavery system made this particular custom a show-game for the citizens. Romans enjoyed to see the match of gladiators, throwing brutal abused on gladiators fighting with their last efforts, and embrasing abnormal adoration for the winner-survivors ⁽¹³⁾ .

To please, flatter those decadent disposition of Roman citizens, and to bribe them, wealthy slave owners had many gladiators and pre­sented their show for the citizens ⁽¹⁴⁾ . To meet this demand, gladiatorial training-schools were built in various places. Managers of these schools bought in subordinate slaves or unsuccessful escapers cheaply, and trained and sold them as gladiators expensively to the wealthy or to the nobles ⁽¹⁵⁾ . Managers of these schools looked for places where they could "raise" gladiators with cheap "fodders". Capua in Campania Plain was just that kind of place ⁽¹⁶⁾. To survive, gladiators had to put up with their own cruel, inhuman destiny of killing their fellow members. The death of their fellow members could be their own fate tomorrow, so it is well imagined that they were very sensitive about their inhuman destiny ⁽¹⁷⁾, rebellious against their situation, and longing for their freedom and liberation. It really was a very symbolical for the Roman society that the uprising had arisen among none, but them who had been made a creature of shows for Romans and most contempted even among the slaves ⁽¹⁸⁾ . As they were stout ⁽¹⁹⁾ , and excelled in martial arts and strategies for their own occupation, they must have occupied a very important part ⁽²⁰⁾ as nucleus and leaders in the Army. But as the percentage of gladiators were very little among slaves in Italia, the numbers of those who joined the uprising couldn't have been very large, either. So, it is impossible to think that the main body of uprising could have been gladiators ⁽²¹⁾ .

(b) Cowherds and Shepherds

Not only cowherds and shepherds but also horseherds ⁽²²⁾ must have joined the uprising. At the time, Southern Italia was very important pastoral land. Especially, much of the ager publicus had been turned into wealthy men's property, their own private property de facto. Most of the large private property became a pasture on slavery system. And this large pasture farming brought on extensive and care­less management; and death and fugitives rate increased ⁽²³⁾ . In this extensive farming, the increased death rate of slaves meant the decreased rations and severer conditions by compulsory labour which itself was very hard one from the beginning ⁽²⁴⁾ . Although under severe condition, the herdsmen were freer than with others who had been chained, for their job was to take care of roaming catties and stocks. And their food could be supplied a little by hunting and picking in the hills and mountains, or milking the cattle stealthily ⁽²⁵⁾ . The increasing death rate suggest the Roman wealthy forced them to impossible condition to live. Therefore, it was not accidental that there were frequent incidents in Southern Italia by herdsmen ⁽²⁶⁾ . For the sake of their job of taking care of catties, they might have to be armed with clubs and spears ⁽²⁷⁾, and most of them were strong and reckless. Under these conditions, it was inevitable that these herdsmen joined Spartacus' Army in great number with livestocks they were taking care of.

Plutarch says, "They were also joined by many of the herdsmen and shepherds of the region, sturdy men and swift of foot, some of whom they armed fully, and employed others as scouts and light infantry ⁽²⁸⁾ ." They must have played the indispensable role as horsemen in the uprising ⁽²⁹⁾ and a leading role in organizing the freight ⁽³⁰⁾ and choosing the roads ⁽³¹⁾. The primary units of Spartacus' Army were organized ⁽³²⁾ when Spartacus was dominating Southern Italia most of which was the pasture land. But their number was not so many if com­pared the whole number of the herdsmen ⁽³³⁾.

(c) Fugitives

House-hold slaves and farm slaves in latifundium are included in this group. While Southern Italia was important for pasturing land, Campania, Lucania Apulia, etc. were important for agriculture. Slaves were employed for corn-cultivation, and latifundium developed in a large scale ⁽³⁴⁾. Agricultural slaves were compelled to work with chains at the latifudium from the well-known "slave jail (ergastulum)" under whips of the cruel managers ⁽³⁵⁾. About the time of Second Sicilian Slave Uprising, we can see several other slave revolts in Nuceria and Capua ⁽³⁶⁾ . Therefore, it should be quite natural that the fugitives from their masters or from "ergatsulum" had joined Spartacus' Army ⁽³⁷⁾ . Agricultural slaves, who was most cruelly exploited by slave owners, must have occupied the largest part in the army and the core of the uprsing ⁽³⁸⁾. It was the unit of the agricultural slaves who made Spartacus to a great leader. Strict training and collective labour in ergastulum and latifundium made them accomplish high discipline, and the unbearable collective labour under the cruel exploit made themselves firmly united as "comrade" beyond the difference of their races and tribes or of their cultures ⁽³⁹⁾. Numbers of house-hold slaves who joined the uprising is not clear, but can not be very large ⁽⁴⁰⁾

(d) Armory forgers, Shield makers and Workshop slaves

The fact that those words are found in the historical materials denotes slaves from workshops also participated in Spartacus' Army. It is already known that there were handiworks of slaves for making such as ceramics ⁽⁴¹⁾ , textiles ⁽⁴²⁾ , agriculture tools ⁽⁴³⁾, bronze implements ⁽⁴⁴⁾ , olive oil squeezing machines ⁽⁴⁵⁾ , etc. around Capua, Nola, Pompei, Puteoli, Tarentum and other districts where the slave uprisings were supposed to have extended. It could be most probable that slaves who had escaped from these workshops made shields of wicker and of animal skin for themselves  ⁽⁴⁶⁾ . It is a unique example of this uprising that swords and other weapons were made by slaves themselves ⁽⁴⁷⁾, smelting the chains and iron taken out of their ergastulum. These slaves must have escaped from the iron factories around Puteoli ⁽⁴⁸⁾ . The slaves who had been compelled for taking care of armors or farriery ⁽⁴⁹⁾ in Roman Army, must have escaped to join Spartacus' Army.

(e) A Female Prophet and a Sacrifice Offering Maiden

In what way did female slaves participate in the uprising? It is not clear except in the cases of prophet and sacrifice offerer. A female prophet, Spartacus' wife is said to join the Dionysian esotricism ⁽⁵⁰⁾ and prophesied the future of Spartacus, and the latter is said to offer sacrifice for the allies in the camp of Cannicus and Castus ⁽⁵¹⁾ . The duties of these female slaves seemed to have some connection ⁽⁵²⁾ with the position of female prophets in Celts-Germans society. As women were often seen in the battles of Gauls and Germans ⁽⁵³⁾ , female slaves might have taken not only as prophets.

(ii) Free Men

(a) Free Men from the fields

The meaning of this phrase is not clear definitely. But these men must have been; small land owners who were declining in accor­dance with the expanse of latifundia, small lessees ⁽⁵⁴⁾ who were increasing after Military Reformation by Marius, or wage labourers ⁽⁵⁵⁾ employed for grape harvest, etc. A man of Picentini guided Spartacus' Army must be one of them ⁽⁵⁶⁾ . Since the second century B.C., a numbers of medium or small scale peasants had come to lose their land, and the conflicts between the large land owners and those declining medium-small peasants became intensified. The Agricultural Law by Tiberius Gracchus was executed in the districts of Picenum, Lucania and Campania against the strong objection of large land owners ⁽⁵⁷⁾ . It is very incredible the intensity of this conflict made the medium and small land owners run to Spartacus' Army. Therefore "free men from the fields", should be limited to the poorest peasants of small lessees and wage labourers. Judging from the context of the word "free men from the fields" in Appianus, the district must be near Campania, and it was at the harvest, a busiest season, when the uprising broke out first ⁽⁵⁸⁾ . It might be fully probable that, stimulated by escaping slaves these poorest peasant employed by the large land owner joined the revolt.

(b) Riff-raff

It is not clear the difference between "free men from the fields" and "riff-raff. As we have seen in the description by Appianus, the word "free men from the fields" was used around Campania region only, but "riff-raff was used all over Southern Italia around the time of 73 B.C. from autumn to winter ⁽⁵⁹⁾ . We cannot deny the possibility that these "riff-raff joined the Army all the course of uprising, and, in this sense, "free men from the fields" might be included here. But "riff-raff" would better be described as proletarii. Declined proletarii, having given up their land were swarming in cities like Roma. Yet, Roman ruling class was taking special care to them, and proletarii them­selves discriminated themselves from slaves and was contempting them. Moreover, Appianus says - no city had joined Spartacus' Army ⁽⁶⁰⁾ -, so that city proletarii would have not joined Spartacus' Army. If so, "riff-raff" here, must have been local proletarii, especially from Southern Italia. It must be appropriate to think these "riff-raff here as the Italians ⁽⁶¹⁾ who had been chased out of their farms by Law of Sulla after the Italian Social War, and driven into miserable conditions.

(c) Deserters from Roman Army

After Reformation of Military System by Marius, not only land owning citizens but also anybody who wanted to, could join Roman Army if they were suitable enough for military service. It enabled to declined peasants and proletarii to join the army ⁽⁶²⁾ and later they were the main constituents there. Therefore, deserters from Roman Army were in the same groupe of people "free men from the fields" and "riff-raff. If they might have joined Spartacus' Army, that had to be because of the fear for the mighty strength of slave army, or because of their miserable living condition which had driven them to the military camps. But the number of these men is not very large. As Spartacus refused to accept these deserters after a certain period ⁽⁶³⁾ , they might be "unwelcomed guests" for Spartacus' Army.

We have analyzed the structure of social status of Spartacus' Army. Although we have found overwhelming majority of slaves in Spartacus' Army, the percentage of slaves versus free men have remained un­known. Therefore, we cannot give direct answer for the first and the third opinions. It will discussed later. Next, we shall analyze the structure of races and tribes of Spartacus' Army. Races or tribes which joined Spartacus' Army were Germans ⁽⁶⁴⁾, Gauls (Celts) ⁽⁶⁵⁾ , Thracians  ⁽⁶⁶⁾,  Italians ⁽⁶⁷⁾, etc.

The Structure of Races and Tribes

(a) Germans

Germans were made to become slaves in a large quantity at the time when about 150,000 Cimbri and Teutoni were captured by Marius ⁽⁶⁸⁾ . Since then, almost thirty years had passed by the time of Spartacus' Uprising, but there must have been a few survivors living still. As battles between Romans and Germans were fought continuously ⁽⁶⁹⁾ , captives must have been turned to slaves at each time. Besides these slaves out of battle fields, there must have been large numbers of Germans sold as slaves to Roma by slave traders since the middle of the second century B.C. ⁽⁷⁰⁾. Among them, there were many who became gladiators later ⁽⁷¹⁾ . After Spartacus' Uprising, when Caesar was fighting a desperate fight with Germans at Gallia, he encouraged his men reminding them of the event that Roman Army had defeated Spartacus' Army formed of German slaves ⁽⁷²⁾ . By this, we can guess Spartacus' Army was taken together with Germans ⁽⁷³⁾. It suggests that there were many Germanic slaves in Roma, and they were not a few in Spartacus' Army.

(b) Celts (Gauls)

Since Gallia Narbonensis was taken into a Roman province in 121 B.C., Roman power was gradually penetrating into Southern Gallia ⁽⁷⁴⁾, pacifying the uprisings by natives ⁽⁷⁵⁾. As the result, many Celtic slaves were brought to Roma. According to Sallustius, Celts-Germans occupied most part of Spartacus' Army ⁽⁷⁶⁾, and they had been sold to land owners and pasture owners around Campania and Southern Italia ⁽⁷⁷⁾ . But when we refer the slaves of Celts (Gauls), we should know the ones from Northern Alps and also from Southern part of Alps (Gallia Cisalpina) ⁽⁷⁸⁾. Yet, the percentage of each is not known.

(c) Thracians

Since 104 B.C. ⁽⁷⁹⁾ , various tribes of Thracian fought continuously with Roma - in 92 B.C. ⁽⁸⁰⁾, 90 B.C. ⁽⁸¹⁾ , 89 B.C. ⁽⁸²⁾, 87-86 B.C. ⁽⁸³⁾, 77-76 B.C. ⁽⁸⁴⁾, and 75 B.C. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ They are said to have fought with Roma till the last tribe was conquerred ⁽⁸⁶⁾. Therefore many slaves should be brought to Roma. Spartacus himself was one of them.

(d) Italians

It is almost clear that Italians participated in the uprising, for Mithridates knew the fact ⁽⁸⁷⁾, and Thesmistius mentioned Italians joined the uprising expecting to change the social situation ⁽⁸⁸⁾. Italian cities were not satisfied with Roman rule, and alienated from Roma at the time of Hannibal's invasion ⁽⁸⁹⁾ . At the time of Italian Social War of 90 B.C., Italian Allied Cities were struggling to secure roman citizenship and liberated slaves to organize an army ⁽⁹⁰⁾ . Since defeat of the Social War, Italians such as Samnium and Lucania were most radical and hostile toward Roma ⁽⁹¹⁾. Moreover, as mentioned before, many people lost their land under the difficult conditions of living and turned to proletarii. So, Italian participants for the uprising mean those declined poor peasants and riff-raff.

(e) Others

Many slaves must be brought from Greece, Syria, Asia Minor, Northern West Africa, Espania, etc. by being conquested or purchased  ⁽⁹²⁾ . Though the participation of slaves in the uprising from these countries may be probable, no historical material tells us about it. It may be possible that they might not participate the uprising for the following two reasons: firstly, after the subjugation of pirates in 102 B.C., the import of slaves from the East decreased, and their number decreased among Roman slaves ⁽⁹³⁾, secondly, these slaves from Greece and the East were not much used for agriculture nor pasturing, but employed either household slaves or making bricks, bronze, glasses, etc.⁽⁹⁴⁾. Anyway both Italians and the slaves from Greece and the East did not play important roles in the process of uprising and seemed not to have strong power in Spartacus' Army ⁽⁹⁵⁾.

By this analysis of racial and tribal structure of Spartacus' Army, German-Celt were indicated to be the majority of Spartacus' Army. But it cannot be the definite answer to the second opinion. Therefore, analyses of social status, and of races and tribes are not yet sufficient for the justification of these three opinions on the cause of discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army. However, it is true enough that the ana­lyses of social status as well as races and tribes are very significant basis in studying these subjects. Taking both of them synthetically, we might be able to approach to the core of the problem. Then, let us examine each of those opinions upon the basis of the analyses above.

At first let us examine the second opinion which takes the cause of discord and disunity as racial and tribal conflicts. This opinion draw a conclusion on the basis that the units by Crixos, Cannicus and Castus which separated from the main force of Spartacus' Uprising, were all formed of Celts (Gauls)-Germans ⁽⁹⁶⁾ , and the conflicts between Thracians or Greeks and Celts-Germans led the dissolution of the Army. If this racial and tribal conflicts should have been the definite cause, then all the Celts-Germans must have dropped out of Spartacus' Army when Crixos separated at the time of their marching toward Northern Alps from Southern Italia. The plan of marching up to North was aiming at going back to each of their home lands ⁽⁹⁷⁾... some of them would go back to Thracia, and some to Gallia, crossing Alps. This plan would have been supported by both Thracians and Celts-Germans as long as they wished their liberation along this course. As this plan itself was aiming at marching upward to the North nearer to home lands of Celts-Germans, it would be unreasonaable to think that only Celts-Germans stayed in Southern Italia while Thracians alone marched up to North crossing Alps ⁽⁹⁸⁾ . Moreover, as we made an analysis before, Celts-Germans occupied the majority of Spartacus' Army. So, even after the separation of Crixos, the majority of the army of marching-to-North was consisted still chiefly of Celts-Germans. And they returned to South having Celts-Germans as their main force. When Spartacus made a dash with his army through the lines of the besieging Roman force in Bruttium and pushed on to Brundisium, there happened separation of the units Cannicus and Castus whose members chiefly of Celts-Gemans. This confirms the facts that there were lots of Celts-Germans in the main force of marching-up-down units.

The separation of Celt-German forces led by Cannicus and Castus, at the last stage of their uprising, i.e., on the time of pushed on to Brundisium, must have hastened the destruction of Spartacus' Army. But there is no positive proof that it was originated from the racial and tribal conflicts between Thracians and Celts-Germans. Besides, when the separation force were attacked by Roman Army, Spartacus tried to rescue them ⁽⁹⁹⁾ .After separation units were destroyed, Spartacus'main force defeated persuing Roman Army. Then, disagreements seemed to come up to front in the slave army. Yet, there is no instance of racial and tribal conflicts in the cause of this disagreements ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ . Even if we admit the racial and tribal conflict there, we have to approve that there still remained Celt-German units in Spartacus' main force even after Celts-Germans departed for the racial conflict. This means the racial and tribal conflicts cannot be the fatal factor for the discord in Spartacus' Army. The difference of races and tribes (i.e. difference of languages, customs, habits) must have been quite a lot of arguments and squabbles in Spartacus' camps. But it didn't make a definite factor for the discord. As I discussed already, agriculture slaves, the nucleus of Spartacus' Army in quantity as well as quality, had been getting over the difference of races and tribes in their collective labours, it must be going on better during the battle with Roman Army and would secure the racial and tribal conflicts cannot be the fatal problem in the army. Even if Heitland, Ollivier and Vogt claimed Spartacus' Army as consisted of racial and tribal units, the majority of Spartacus' Army were Celts and Germans. Therefore, it is almost impossible to think that racial and tribal conflicts would be the fatal factor for the discord and disunity, when we take account of the fact that they separated twice and reached the final discord on the basis that they were mostly Celts-Germans either in the mainforces or in the separated. At the time of the first and the second Sicilian Slave Uprising, Roman rulers expected a discord between Syrians and Cilicians, and believed as "There were high hopes everywhere that the revolutionary groups would come into con­flict one with the other, and that the rebels, by destroying themselves, would free Sicilia of strife", but the situation went the opposite way, and "contrary to expectations the two groups joined forces ⁽¹⁰¹⁾ " and slave army kept on its unity. There was in the midst of an uprising, a basic class conflict between slave owners and slaves, racial and tribal conflicts in general had to retreat behind. So could be the case of Spartacus Uprising.

Now we reach to refer to Celtic-Germanic structure of Spartacus' Army here, in another word, the problem of the structure of "primitive community ⁽¹⁰²⁾ ". Firstly, Spartacus ordered his men to share the booty equally ⁽¹⁰³⁾ and not to possess any gold or silver privately in the camp ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ . As for the matter of sharing, there is no distinct description either in Caesar nor in Tacitus. But Cicero tells us the equality of the share among the more primitive races ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ . The equality of the share have to be taken as a revival of an idea of primitive community ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ . Spartacus ordered that nobody should possess gold or silver privately, as it should be the common property to everybody. This order might be issued partly from the fear of "ne qua oriatur pecuniae cupiditas, qua ex re factiones dissensiones que nascuntur ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ ", partly from indifferency of Germans to gold or silver ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ . But chiefly it would be issued for such people as Greek slaves and other wage labourers, small lessees, and proletarii who had been baptized with money economy, in order to avoid the extravagant trend to be brought into the camp with private ownership of gold and silver ⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ . And this order of Spartacus must be supported by majority and be carried into effect. This fact indicates the great majority of Spartacus' Army was consisted of such primitive community members as Celts-Germans or Thracians ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ .

Secondly, there was very little religious hue in Spartacus' Uprising. As we know, in the First Sicilian Slave Uprising, its leader Eunus was a prophet-magician, and his prophecy and miracles played a great role in uniting slaves ⁽¹¹¹⁾ . And also in the Second Sicilian Slave Uprising, the leaders Salvius and Athenion prophesied fortune by animal intestines or by astrology ⁽¹¹²⁾ . But, religion did not play any important part in Spartacus' Uprising. Indeed we find a female prophet and a sacrifice offering maiden in historical materials. But they could not make any positive contributions to unifying or organizing the slaves, and to their uprisings. It must be more articulate to say that religious ideology didn't play any definite role in Spartacus' Uprising ⁽¹¹³⁾ . This leads us to think that Celts-Germans and Thracians as nucleus of the Army, had very primitive religion, which was combined with their community ideology and inseparable from it ⁽¹¹⁴⁾ . Moreover, there was no common religion powerful enough to unify all the races ⁽¹¹⁵⁾ .

Thirdly, it is difficult to understand the leadership in Spartacus' Army without taking military conferences or council meetings into account. Their first leaders, Spartacus, Crixos and Oenomaus didn't make themselves into leaders, but they were elected to be leaders ⁽¹¹⁶⁾ . In case of war, leaders were usually elected in German or in Gaul community in those day. In German community, "Cum helium civtias out illatum defendit out infert, magistrates, qui ei bello praesint, ut vitae ne eis que habeant potestatem deliguntur. ... Atque ubi quis ex principibus in concilio dixit se ducem fore, qui sequi velint, profiteantur, consurgunt ei qui et causam et hominem probant suumque auxilium pollicentur atque ab multiudine collaudantur:" (underlined by author)

In this way, war leaders were elected ⁽¹¹⁷⁾ . In Gaul community also, a man of military experience and knowledge would be elected or some­times be voted at a conference ⁽¹¹⁸⁾ . Therefore, in Spartacus' Army also, when they say 'leaders were elected,' it means, they must have been 'elected at a meeting - military conference.' Sallustius tells us that in determining their strategy, they held conference to argue and to discuss ⁽¹¹⁹⁾ . And Spartacus took a step of having a conference where he prohibited slaves from doing deviate actions of violence and plunder. By these, we can assume the existence of the conferences or meetings at which they debated and dealt with each problem. In fact, in German-Celt (Gaul) community also, as soon as any trouble would be aroused, they held conference to solve the problem ⁽¹²⁰⁾ . The existence of conference could be assumed in this way, through this system slave leaders had been controled by slave mass and couldn't help but respect those slaves' will. It was the role of slave leaders ⁽¹²¹⁾ to achieve the will of the slaves most effectively and exactly. As Most, Mommsen and Motus indicated, if Spartacus' Army "lacked its solid plans and purposes," and if there were agitations in Spartacus, so could be the one among slave mass. For instance, Spartacus' Army started on their way to North over the Alps, under the plan of leaving Italia to their home lands... But, after defeating Roman Army seriously at Mutina, the Alpine front, they did not advance on to the Alps but went down to the South ⁽¹²²⁾ . On that occasion, there must have been many discussions about the plan whether to cross the Alps or to go down at the soldiers' meeting and finally decided to take the latter plan by the majority. And it is also stated that after Cannicus' separation unit was destroyed, Spartacus encountered the pursuing Roman Army and defeated them. At that time, although Spartacus himself had plan of advancing to Brundidium, "This success was the ruin of Spartacus, for it filled his slaves with over-confidence. They would no longer consent to avoid battle, and would not even obey their leaders, but surrounded them as soon as they began to march, with arms in their hands, and forced them to lead back through Lucania against the Romans, ..." ⁽¹²³⁾. This suggests the fact that the will of slave mass could control the leaders. From these facts we could suppose that there was the military conference or council meetings in Spartacus' Army as well as in German-Celt community. In more general way, it could be said that the system of popular meeting of the primitive community would be inherited here.

The reason that Celtic-Germanic structure - primitive community structure of Spartacus' Army was discussed, is as the followings: firstly, as Celtic-Germanic elements were superior in Spartacus' Army and Thracians had also much of the elements of primitive community, democratic discussion should have been guaranteed at their military conferences. Therefore, the consideration above would affect negatively on the opinion which takes the cause of discord as racial conflicts. And secondly, that is a preparation to deny the opinion which would take the cause of discord as the contradiction between the slave leaders and the slave mass.

As for the first opinion which takes the cause of discord and disu­nity in conflicts between leaders and slave mass, the opinion has its characteristic in thinking Spartacus as a hero and genius who planned to get out of Italia to liberate slaves... and slaves were, instead, very contemptible and chose the course of revenge and plunder. As in historical materials, Spartacus must have been indeed a superb person ⁽¹²⁴⁾ and excelled in military strategic skill ⁽¹²⁵⁾ . But we should also notice these ancient writers' hero worship for Spartacus had to be combined together with their feeling of shame and humiliation, because, leading those contemptible slaves, Spartacus defeated their "Unconquerable" Roman Army again and again. Most candid descriptions are found in Florus' ^(125a). "Enimuero et servilium armorun dedecus feras; liam esti per fortunam in omnia obnoxii, tamen quasi secundum hominum genus sunt et in bona libertatis nostrae adoptatur: helium Spartaco duce concitatum quo nomine appellem nescio: quippe cum servi militaverint, gladiatores imperaverint, illi infimae sortis homines, hi pessumae auxere ludibriis calamitatem Romanam ... a quo pulsi fugatique - pudet dicere - hastes in extrema Italiae refugerunt ... Spartacus ispe in primo agmine fortissime dimicans quasi imperator occisus est. "

As we notice in Florus, he thought the slave uprising as very shameful (pudor), but on the other hand, he detached Spartacus alone from other slave mass and placed him in the same rank as Roman imperator. Making Spartacus worshipful hero in this way, and placing on a seat opposite to the slave mass, he honoured the Romans that they were defeated by hero Spartacus, not by the hands of those contemptible slaves. This Florus' description shows us the self-solacing sentiment of Romans for the damage done by Spartacus' Army. Modern bourgeoi historians took such self-conciousness of the ancient Roma at its face value and thought seriously over the superiority of Spartacus over other slaves. Some of them create the probability of Spartacus as of Thracian nobles ⁽¹²⁶⁾ . But the relation between leaders and slave mass was the similar one in the primitive community, i.e., slaves could control their leaders by means of their meeting ⁽¹²⁷⁾. There might have arisen some petty difference in their opinions, and sometimes there might have been occasions in which leaders restrained slaves, but these matters could have been compromised by discussing out at the meetings. Therefore it would be improbable that the conflicts between leaders and slaves would be a most fatal factor for the discord and disunity. What made Spartacus a hero was not only by his superior ability, but also by his sacrifice of himself in fighting to liberate slaves, holding all the hopes and dreams of slaves on his back. In this sense, Motus is right in pointing out, "It is impossible to differentiate Spartacus from slave mass who motivated him to advance... Weak points and strong power of Spartacus indicate the exact capability of slave mass ⁽¹²⁸⁾ ."

From the view above, it would be hard to agree with the opinion which admits the existence of conflicts at the time when Spartacus chose the way to get out of Italia to liberate slaves, they wanted plunder and revenge, instead. As mentioned above, the plan of getting out of Italia was not a private plan of Spartacus, but it was representing the slaves hope. As for plundering, it is a well-known fact that when slaves plundered, revenged and acted very brutally, Spartacus prohibited them from those senseless deviate destructive conduct of slaves ⁽¹²⁹⁾. But, the plundering itself was one of the most important supplies for Spartacus' Army, and was indispensable for supporting their combatants. In order for the forces to keep on living, they could't be negligent about it ⁽¹³⁰⁾ . As long as they were fighting in their enemy's land, this was inevitable and very natural. So, Hannibal's army had done the same when they invaded Italia ⁽¹³¹⁾; and by the view of Celts-Germans who were the majority of slave army, "Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam, quae extra fines cuiusque civitatis fiunt ^(I32) ." As long as the pludering brought common profits to slave army, it must have been approved by Spartacus also. Therefore, there couldn't have been basic conflict between Spartacus and slaves about plundering. To comment the conflicts between leaders and slaves here should be a clever and selfish substitution of their words for themselves. And as the slave uprising itself was the resistance against those unspeakable, in­human treatment by slave owners, it was very natural that slaves had strong animosity against slave owners, wanted to revenge them, and acted violently toward them by those direct actions ⁽¹³³⁾ .

If these actions like plunder and revenge were blamed by slave owners as "horribly brutal", if Mommsen, a modern bourgeoi historian, regards them as acts of "Rauber ⁽¹³⁴⁾ ", and if he charges slaves as "... sie in barbarischer Weise raubten und entsetzliche Frevel veriibten", these are nothing but impudent, shameless words, ignorant to their own conduct. Slaves would better submit themselves boldly to those insults. As F. Engels says, we should like to tell them, "alle Moralpredigt machtlos bleibt ⁽¹³⁵⁾ ". Actually, the opponent of the slave army - Roma itself - was regarding the plundering and destruction as their rights in the war ⁽¹³⁶⁾ , and as not the one against the laws of Nature ⁽¹³⁷⁾. Wherever Roman Army went on expedition, there followed plunder and destruction ⁽¹³⁸⁾ , and "brutal" violence toward females and other non-combatants, too ⁽¹³⁹⁾ . In the process of establishing such a large Empire, by plunder or violence during the conquerring wars or civil wars, it is said that "turba sepulta mero circum venit, omniaque orbis/praemia conuptis miles vagus esurit armis ⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ ". As for those Roman slave owners and modern bourgeoi historians who agrees with them blindly... how could they have rights to blame the actions of the slave mass?

The problem is found further. For instance, when Lucullus was fighting with Mithridates, by necessity by his maneuvers he requested his Roman soldiers to stop plundering for a while. But looking at precious silver, gold and expensive clothes, soldiers ignored the order and kept on plundering ⁽¹⁴¹⁾ . On the other hand, "brutal" violence by the slave mass in Spartacus' Uprising was only committed at the beginning of the uprising. They took the step of self-restriction at their military regulation conference. Since then, they acted strictly against private possession of silver and gold ⁽¹⁴²⁾ .

Even Plinius of Roman ruling class couldn't help but praise them as "tanto plus fuit animi fugitivis nostris". In the struggles of the oppressed against the ruling class, such a case as the oppressed fought with strict self restraining regulations is found not only in Spartacus' Army, but also in Chinese peasant war ⁽¹⁴³⁾. And this was only possible because theirs were spontaneous armies by which the oppressed class was trying to liberate themselves from the exploitation and suppression. Self-restriction from violence and destruction could have been achieved by these military regulations, but as mentioned before, plunder and requisition out of slave owners were of necessity for the existence of slave army and Spartacus must have approved of plunder and requisition by slaves thus far, except the cases of doing senseless destruction. If we think this way, basically there couldn't have been any discord and dis­agreements on this point between slave leaders and slaves... therefore, the conflicts between the leaders and the slaves couldn't be fatal for their discord and disunity.

Next, let us turn to examine the third opinion which takes the cause of discord and disunity as the difference of maneuver plans between peasants and slaves. In order to validate this opinion, peasants and proletarii should have had joined Spartacus' Army in large number. But by the analysis of social status in Spartacus' Army, the main force was mostly formed of slaves. So, if wage labourers, small lessees and proletarii had joined Spartacus' Army, their number had been very little and they couldn't have played any important roles. As mentioned several, the majority of Spartacus' Army was Celts-Germans, who were slaves. When we synthesize these analyses of social status, and of races and tribes, the free peasants in Spartacus' Army were very small in quantity as well as in quality ^(143a) . On this point, we find a serious fault in Mischulin's opinion. Thinking the separation units of Crixos, Castus and Cannicus were formed of peasants ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ , he examined the names of Crixos and others and prove them as not Celt-Germanic ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ . But even if his investigation was right, the separation units were defi­nitely proved by the other soviet historians to be Celts-Germans ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ . If peasants had participated in the separation units, they must have been a few in number and they could hardly move general trend in the units.

Moreover, Mischulin tries to compare the course of slave liberation with the course of peasants, which include the march into Roma, plunder (confiscation of wealth), expel of large land owners, and secure of the expelled land ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ . But as I have pointed out before, among these items plundering was not done by peasants alone, but done by the will of slaves in general, for it was necessary for the Army to survive. So, we have to remove plunder from the course of peasants. Yet, as for other items, such as march into Roma, expel large land owners, and confiscate land... Could these be fighting aims for peasants? The peasants who had participated in the uprising were wage labourers, small lessees, and proletarii who had lost their land. So it is would be probable that they had aims of secure land... that means the latter two items in so-called peasants' course. Yet, as for the item of marching into Roma, it is difficult to connect this with peasants' claims. If marching into Roma was proposed, it would be more possible for the slaves ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ who had hated Roma as unadmissible and unfamiliar to have done it. If so, ex-aming the structure of Spartacus' Army, or the items of the two courses, such an attractive opinion of Mischulin turns to be an unacceptable opinion.

Although unacceptable, Mischulin's opinion presented a very important theoretical problem in understanding the class struggle of the ancient slavery society. That is of the possibility of the joint conflict with the slave and declining free peasants under such historical conditions of those days. Mischulin took the conflicts of slaves versus peas­ants as a cause of discord in Spartacus' Army. It suggests on the other side, that he believed the possibility of alliance between slaves and peasants. In another word he thought there could be a conflict against Roma, slavery society; and that the leader of the conflict should be the slaves, the fundamental class of the oppressed, and they would ally with the small peasants who were becoming radical under the agricultural crisis ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ . Taking Spartacus' Uprising as one of them, he thought there were many peasants participated in the uprising, but as the claims of slaves and peasants differed, there resulted to separation. This opinion of Mischulin's was resembled to the one of Kovalev's at his earlier age. But later, he criticized Mischulin's as it ignored the fact of ruptured relation between the free men and slaves ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ . S. L. Uttschenko also pointed out that the problem was not about peasants who joined the army in large number and brought the discord within. He indicated that there was no condition under which slaves and peasants could organize joint forces of slaves and peasants ⁽¹⁵¹⁾ .

Not only these Soviet historians, but also there are many opinions of criticism on the idea of the joint force, for the breach between slaves and peasants were too big to join together ⁽¹⁵²⁾ . But if we would admit the breach between slaves and peasants theoretically, there would come up a problem of where we should find the basis for their participation to the uprising... because the participation of wage labourers, small lessess and proletarii were already proved to be true. Oliva says, though it is impossible to explain the separation in Spartacus' Army from the point of the existence of peasants, Uttschenko's criticism against Mis­chulin too categorical and too strict to explain the fact that there were a few free peasants in Spartacus' Army ⁽¹⁵³⁾ . We must notice that though free, these peasants would be outlaws from the country, not the proletarii in the city. Working at latifundium as wage labourers, in the process of the work along with the slaves, they were closer to slaves in their everyday life and sentiment. M. Weber says as follows: "Allein diese freien Arbeiter, welche, zumal in der Erntezeit, zunachst un-entbehrlich waren, schrumpfter immer mehr an relative Bedeutung zusammen, weil ihre Haltung neben den massenhaften Sklaven gefahrlich schien,... ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ ". Therefore, those free peasants could partici­pate in the slave uprising, yet the number of them was very small por­tion among the whole peasant. We should not generalize the relations between the leadership and alliance of slaves and peasants, but admit the facts that small numbers of outlaw farmers joined the uprising. From the consideration above, the conflicts between slaves and peasants was not fated for the discord and disunity in Spartacus' Army.

None of these three opinions could satisfy us. Now, we should look for the true cause for the discord.

(1)    Plutarch, Crassus 8; Florus II, 8; Livius XCV; Orosius V, 24, 1

(2)    Plutarch, Crassus 9

(3)    Plutarch, Crassus 11; Appianus, B. C.I, 116

(4)    Florus II, 8

(5)    Livius XCV

(6)    Plutarch, Crassus 8

(7)    Plutarch, Crassus 11

(8)    Appianus, S.C.I, 116

(9)    Appianus, B.C. I, 117

(10)    Appianus, B. C.I, 117

(10a)    In historical materials, numbers of gladiators when they escaped from gladiatorial training-school at Capua were varied, i.e. Plutarch, Crassus 8 - 78; Sallustius, Historiae III., 90; Livius, Ab urbe Condita XCV; Frontinus, Strategemata I, 5, 21; Eutropius, Brevium Historiae Romae VI, 7, 2;Orosius, Historiae contra Paganos V, 24, 1 - 74; Appianus B.C.I, 116 - 70; Augustinus, De civitate Dei III, 26 - less than 70; Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae II, 30, 5 - 64; Cicero, Ad Atticus VI, 2, 8 - less than 50; Florus, Epitome Bellomm Omnium Annontm DDCII, 8 - more than 30.

(11)    Florus II, 8; Eutropius VI, 7, 2; Appianus, B.C.I, 116; Orosius V, 24, 1; etc.

(12)    Neumann S.62; Pareti III p.687; Ollivier pp.56-58; Mischulin SS.30-31; M. Grant,   Gladiatores,   New  York,   1968,  pp.9-13;  Maria T.  Sergejenko,
Pompeii, Leibzig, 1954, p.p.223-245; etc.

(13)    Plutarch, C. Gracchus 33 (12); Seneca, De Vitae Brevitate 16; Petronius, Satyricon II, 45; J. K. Ingram, A History of Slavery and Serfdom, London
1895 (Japanese Translation) p.48; E.C.C.Corti, Untergang undAufstehung von Pompeji und Herculaneum, 1940, Miinchen (trans, by K. Matsutani), p.66

(14)    By Plutarch, Sulla 8, a tribune of Sulla's age, Sulpicius was keeping 3000 gladiators; and by  Plutarch, Caesar 5,  Caesar presented  320 pairs of fighting matches in a year of 65 B.C.; There are many other examples like this; By Kentaro Murakawa, The Society based on slavery, (Shakaikagaku Koza IV Tokyo) p.48, As a kind of luxury slaves, gladiators who had been kept by Roman wealthy men for show matches with real weapons reveal the examples of low morals among slavery society. But it is more adequate to describe this as it is the proof of lowness of Roman ruling class, especially wealthy slave owners as Caesar and Sulla.

(15)    Cicero, Ad Atticus IV, 46, "Medius fidius ne to emisti loxon praeclarum. Gladiatores  audio  pugnace   mirifice.   Si  locare  voluisses,  duobus his
muneribus liber esses." So, this means that even if gladiators were very expensive, they can collect the capital soon and still gain profit.

(16)    Neumann S. 62; Ollivier p.56

(17)    Bonghip.ll;Brissonpp.204-205

(18)    Bonghi p.9; Ollivier p.58; Gaius, Institutiones I, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, also made clear that gladiators ranked at the bottom of slave classes.

(19)    Plutarch, Aforalia III De esu Carnium

(20)    Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S. 78

(21)    Mahaffy, The Slave Wars against Rome, Hermathena XVI, 1890, p.176. He claims main body of slave uprising was gladiators and not labourers. But this is just inconceivable. M. Gordon, The Nationality of Slaves under the Early Roman Empire, Journal of Roman Studies 14, 1924, p.103, also points out that gladiators occupied only the minority of prisoners.

(22)    Varro, Rentm Rusticarunll, X, 11 says, for 50 horses, two horse keepers were needed; Horatius, Sermonum I, 4 also describes the horse keeping situations.

(23)    G. Salvioli, Der Kapitalismus  im Altertum, 1922, (trans by C. Inoue) pp.72, 73, 102-103; Kentaro Murakawa, Roman Latifundium, pp.51-52 (Shakai Koseishi Taikei II, Tokyo, 1949)

(24)    Varro II, X, 3

(25)    K.   Bucher,   Die   Aufstande   der   unfreien   Arbeiter   143-129   V. Chr. (Beitrdge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1922) S. 126

(26)    Bucher, S. 118, S. 144; Murakawa, Roman Latifundium, p.52; Salvioli, Kapital., pp.102-103

(27)    Most S.92

(28)    Plutarch, Crassus 9

(29)    By Floras II, 8, "dometis'obviis etiam gregibus paratur equitatus." So, this must mean herdsmen joined Spartacus' Army, taking their horses with them. And as they were used to taking care of them, these herdsmen must have become cavalry men. Also in Appianus, B. C.  I., 119, there is an
expression, "Spartacus, who was expecting a reinforcement of horse from somewhere—"  and  again in  120, when they broke out  the siege in Bruttium, "as his cavalry had arrived he made a dash with his whole army through the lines of the besieging force." So, evidently these cavalry men were fulfilling important roles in Spartacus' Army.

(30)    Ollivier pp.98-99

(31)    By Varro II, I, 17; II, II, 9, Varro himself owned a numerous flocks of sheep at Apulia region in Southern Italia, and every summer he had them
moved to Reate and Samnium in Middle Italia to graze. So, these herdsmen must have been familiar with the geography along the course of moving sheep at least from Southern Italia to Middle Italia. And this knowledge of theirs must have been very useful for choosing their marching courses. M.Weber, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, S. 243 points out that "Grosse Weidewirtschaften mit Wanderherden sind in Apulien und in den <Calles> der Berglandschaften herrschend,". Murakawa, Roman Latifundium, p.48, also quotes Varro and explains about the migration of sheep flocks.

(32)    Since attacking Mt. Vesvius, after several winning battles against Roman Army, slave army rapidly increased its number and according to Appianus, their number said to have reached 70,000. As for the situation at the time, see Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus Servile War, pp.58-64.

(33)    By Varro II, X, 11, one shepherd for every 80 sheep, and by Atticus, one for every 100 sheep were needed. As for horses, as it was mentioned before, 2 herdsmen per 50 horses were considered to be adequate.

(34)    Varro I, II, 6; G. Salvioli, Sulla distribuzione delta proprieta fondiaria in Italia al tempo dett 'Impero Romano, Modena, 1899, pp.3 3-34

(35)    Plinius, N. H. XVIII, iv, 4, 5; VII, 4; Ingram, pp.41-42; As for ergastulum, see M. Weber, Agrar, SS. 243-244; M. Weber, Die socialen Griinde des
Untergangs der an tiken Kultur, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial — und Wirtschaftgeschichte, Tubingen, 1924, SS.297-298

(36)    Diodorus XXXVI, 2; T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, I p.293; M.Doi, A Note on the Second Sicilian Slave Revolt, Hogaku Shirin
1966, vol 63, no.4, p.140

(37)    Salvioli, distribuzione, p. 34 says Spartacus recruited many slaves from latifundium; Weber, Agrar, S. 242 says the large scale of slave revolts reveal the   rapidly increasing number of unfree farm labourers and their importance in the quantity.

(38)    Schtaerman, p.235; Kovalev, Velli. vosst., p. 178; Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S. 78; A. H. M. Jones, Slavery in the Ancient World, The Economic History
Review, 2nd ser., 9,1956, p.192

(39)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst, p.178

(40)    Schtaerman, p.245 says, slaves in the cities generally did not participate in the uprisings.

(41)    Gummerus, Industrie und Handel, R. E. S. 1487; Chiyu Inoue, Studies in Economic History of Roma, Tokyo, 1948, p.226

(42)    Inoue p.207

(43)    Noriaki Baba, Roman Industry, KodaishiKoza 9, Tokyo, 1963, pp.84, 85; Inoue, p.l 86

(44)    Baba, p.95;Inoue, p.203

(45)    Baba, pp.84-85; Inoue, p.186

(46)    Ollivier, p.98 says Lucanian herdsmen made shields. They are said to be excelled in wicker handicraft.

(47)    Floras II, 8; Frontinus 1,1,6; Appianus, B. C. I, 117

(48)    Diodorus V, 13; V, 223; T. Frank, Economic History of Rome, New York, 1952,  p.233; Baba, p.9; Inoue, p.204; Shoji Tachikawa, Make of the ironware in Europe, Rekishi Kyoiku, March 1966, p.44; Mischulin, Spart. vosst. p. 118; Ward, p. 264 n. 75,p.265

(49)    G. Veith, Die Zeit der Kohortentaktik; trans, by Usaburo Tonoyama, Tokyo, 1944, p.28

(50)    Plutarch, Crassus 8

(51)    Plutarch, Crassus 11

(52)    Tacitus, Germania I, 8

(53)    Above Tacitus, Germania I, 8 has the example also.

(54)    Murakawa, Roman Latifudium, pp.70-71; Mischulin, Spartacus, S. 66 says small lessees were sympathetic to the uprising. Oliva, Sklavenaufstande, S. 79 without relating to small land owners or small lessees, he points out the participation of poor peasants. Weber, Agrar, S. 246 without relating to their participation in the uprising, he points out the increasing numbers of small lessees.

(55)    By Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S.79, J. Burian, Eleutheroi ek ton agron a povstani  Spartakovo, LF,  V,  SS.197-203 proved "Free men from the fields" in Appianus means wage labourers. As for wage labourers see Cato, De Agriculture 136; Varro, I, XVII, 2; Salvioli, Kapital, p.104; Pareti III, p.690, etc. Weber S.244 says in the beginning these labourers were indispensable at harvest time, but later they lost their relative significance, because it was thought to be dangerous to employ free labourers along with many slaves. The above fact and Varro's advice to change the members of free labourers every day, suggest the participation of wage laborers. See Jones p.193

(56)    Sallustius III, 98; Pareti III p.690

(57)    Murakawa, Roman Latifundium, p. 11

(58)    Doi,  Reconstructing  Spartacus  Servile War, pp.53-54, By their labour structure, it is naturally assumable that the numbers of wage labourers were much more than that of small lessees among "free men from the fields."

(59)    Doi, ibid, p.69, note 43

(60)    Appianus, B. C. I, 117

(61)    W. Ihne, Romische Geschichte, 1886, VI S.48; Heitland III p.2; Salvioli, Kapital, pp.70,  86-87; Pareti III  p.69; T. Frank, Economic Survey I, pp.279-280

(62)    Tadanori Yoshimura, An History of Roman Army, Sekai no Senshi, III Tokyo, 1966, p.411; Diesner S.154

(63)    Appianus, B.C. I, 117

(64)    Plutarch, Crassus 9; Livius XCVII; Sallustius III, 87, 96

(65)    Livius XCVII, Sallustius III, 96; Orosius V, 24,1; Plutarch, Crassus 8

(66)    Plutarch, Crassus 8; Orosius V, 24,1; Appianus, B. C. 1,116

(67)    Appianus, Mithridates 109

(68)    Livius LXVIII; Plutarch, Marius 21, 27; B. Doer, Spartacus, DasAltertum 6, 1960, S.222

(69)    Tacitus, Germania II, 37 says, "sescentesimum et quadragesimum annum urbs nostra agebat, cum primum Cimbromm audita sunt arma Caecilio Mettello et Papirio Carbone consulibus. ex quo si ad alterum imperatoris Traiani consulatum Computemus, ducentiferme et decem anni colliguntur: tarn diu Germania vincitur media tarn longi aevi spatio multa in vicem damna, non Samnis, non Poeni, non ffispaniae Galliaeve, ne Parthi auidem saepius admonuere: quippe regno Arsacis acrior est Germanorum libertas." (underlined by author) By this, we can assume there were continuous battles. It was also reported that a big revolt by Germans was broken out at Koln 20 years after the foundation of Colonia for retired Roman soldiers. (69 B.C.) T. Yuge, State and Society of Roman Empire, Tokyo, 1964, p.23

(70)    E. A. Thompson, Slavery in Early Germany, Hermathena no.89, 1957, p.18, pp.20-21

(71)    Rice Holmes,  The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, Oxford, 1923, I, pp.156-157; Also by Plutarch, Crassus 8, most gladiators in Batiatus Gladiator Training School at Capua were Thracians and Gauls.

(72)    Caesar. De Bella Gallico I, 40

(73)    Antonio Gramsci, Appunti sulla storia delle classi subalterne (Il Risorgimento, Torino, 1955) p.196 regards the core of Spartacus' Army as formed of Cimbri slaves.

(74)    Cicero, De Imp. Cn. Pomp. 11, 30 (77 B.C.); Sallustius II, 98 (75 B.C.)

(75)    Livius LXXIII (89 B.C.)

(76)    Sallustius III, 96; Doer SS.224-225 also assumes the majority of the army as German-Celts slaves.

(77)    Varro II, X, 4 says Gauls (Celts) were suitable  for herdsmen. T. Frank, Economic Survey p.291

(78)    Salvioli, Kapital, pp.82-83; Gordon, p.100, p.102

(79)    Obsequens 43

(80)    Livius LXX

(81)    Livius LXXIV

(82)    Livius LXXVI

(83)    Livius LXXXI; Plutarch, Sulla 11, 15, 23

(84)    Livius  XCI;  Florus I,  31,  6; Eutropius VI, 2,2; Orosius V,  23,  19; Obsequens 59

(85)    Livius XCII; Sallustius II, 80; Eutropius VI, 2,2; Orosius V, 23, 20

(86)    Strabo VI, 4, 2

(87)    Appianus, Mithridates 109

(88)    Themistius, Orat. VII; Mischulin, Spartacus, S.67

(89)    For instance, Plutarch, Fabius 17; Marcellus 10, etc. See Ollivier p.142, p.72, pp.78-79, p.90, p.140; Salvioli, Kapital, pp.67-68

(90)    Appianus, B. C. I, 42; Diodorus XXXVII; Schtaerman, p.225

(91)    Plutarch, Sulla 29; Ollivier p.79, p.140

(92)    Gordon pp.94-96; Ingram, p.35

(93)    Egon Maroti, Die Rolle  der  Seerauberei zur Zeit der romischen Burgerkriege, Azs/1/to-rum Bd. 7, Heft 1, 1961, S.34

(94)    Gummerus R. E. S. 1498, 1499, 1504, 1509; Inoue, pp.236-237

(95)    Vogt S.26

(96)    Plutarch, Crassus 9; Sallustius III, 96; Frontinus II, 4, 7; Livius XCVII; Orosius V, 24, 1:V, 24, 6

(97)    Plutarch, Crassus 9

(98)    Mischulin, Poslednii pohod Spartaka i ego gibeli, FIDO, 1935 no.7-8, p.121

(99)    Plutarch, Crassus 11

(100)    Plutarch, Crassusll; Here, the point of dispute was whether they would fight with Roman Army or march toward Brundisium.

(101)    Diodorus, XXXIV-XXXXV, 2, 17; Mischulin, Spartacus, SS.69-71; This quotation is from the time of the First Slave Uprising, but the similar
incident was found in the Seconde Slave Uprising, too. M.Doi, Problems about the First Sicilian Slave Revolt, Hogaku Shirin, 1965, vol. 62, no. 3-4, p.41; Doi, A Note on the Seconde Sicilian Slave Revolt p.146

(102)    I would like to add some explanations about this structure of "primitive community. "As for the issues on Germanic community, since K. Marx,
"Formen, Die der kapitalischen Produktion Vorhergehen" (Berlin, 1952) was translated into Japanese, lots of arguments have been presented in our academic circles. In Formen, SS.16-18, Germanic structure of the community is explained as follows: "Bei den Germanen, wo die einzelnen Familienhaupter sich in Waldern festsetzen, getrennt durch lange Strecker, exisiert, schon ausserlich betrachtet, die Gemeinde nur dutch die jedes malige Vereinigung der Gemeindeglieder, obgleich ihr an sich science Einheit gesetzt ist in Abstammung, Sprache, gemeinsamer Vergangenheit und Geschichte etc. Die Gemeinde erscheint also als Vereinigung, nicht als Verein, als Einigung, deren selbstandige Subjekte die Landeigentumer bilden, nicht als Einheit. Die Gemeinde existiert daher in fact nicht als Staat, Staatswesen. wie bei den Antiken, weil sie nicht als Stadt existiert. Damit die Gemeinde in wirkliche Existenz trete, miissen die freien Landeigentiimer Versammlug halten, .... Zwar kommt auch beiden Germanen der ager publicus, das Gemeindeland, vor oder Volksland, im Unterschied von dem Eigentum des einzelnen. Er ist Jagdgrund, Weidegrund, Holzungsgrund etc..... Der ager publicus erscheint vielmehr nur als Erganzung des individuellen Eigentums bei den Germanen und Figuriert als Eigentum nur, soweit er gegen feindliche Stamme als Gemeinbesitz des einen Stammes verfpchten wird. Das Eigentum des einzelnen erscheint nicht vermittelt durch die Gemeinde, sondern das Dasein der Gemeinde und des Gemeindeeigentums als vermittelt, d.h. als Beziehung der selbstandigen Subjekte aufeinander... In der germanischen Form der Landmann nicht Staatsbiirger, d.h. nicht Stadtebewohner, sondern Grundlage die isolierte, selbstandige Familien-wohnung, garantiert durch den Verband mit andren solchen Familien-wohnungen vom selben Stamm und ihr gelegentliches, fur Krieg, Religion, Rechtsschlichtung, etc., Zusammenkommen fur solche wechselseitige Burgschaft."

Moreover, the following description of K. Marx, Entwiirfe Antwort auf den Brief von V. I. Sassulich, is often quoted as related to the Germanic community: "Wenn wir nach der Epoche des Tacitus weder etwas vom Leben der Gemeinde noch von der Art und der Zeit ihres Verschwinden wissen, so kennen wir doch dank der Beschreiburg Julius Caesars wenigstens der Ausgangspunkt dieses Prozesses. Zu seiner Zeit wurde der Boden schon jahrlich aufgeteilt, aber unter die Gentes und Stamme der germanischen - Stammesverbande und noch nicht unter die einzelnen Mitglieder einer Gemeinde. Die Dorfgemeinde ist also in Germanien auseinem archaischeren Typus hervorgegangen, sie war hier das Produkt einer naturlichen Entwicklung, ...... ...... und immer als der letzten Stufe oder letzten Periode der archaischen Formation." (Marx-Engels Werke 19, Berlin, S.387) And moreover he pointed out as follows: "Die Urgemeinschaften sind nich alle nachdem gleichen Muster zugeschnitten. Dire Gesamtheit bildet im Gegenteil eine Reihe von gesellschaftlichen Gruppierungen, die sich sowohl im Typus wie im Alter voneinander unterscheiden und die aufeinander-folgende Entwicklungsphasen Kennzeichnen. Einer dieser Typen, den man ubereingekommen ist "Ackerbaugemeinde" zu nennen, ist auch der der russischen Gemeinde. Ihr Gegenstiick im Westen ist die germanische Gemeinde. die sehr jungen Daturas ist. Zur Zeit Julius Casars existierte sie noch nicht, und sie existierte nicht mehr, als die germanischen Stamme Italien, Gallien, Spanien, etc. eroberten. In der Epoche Julius Ca'sars gab es schon eine jahrliche Aufteilung des Ackerlands unter Gruppen, den Gentes und den Stammen, aber noch nicht unter die einzelnen Familien einer Gemeinde; wahrscheinlich erfolgte die Bebauung in Gruppen, gemeinschaftlich. Auf germanischen Boden selbst hat sich diese Gemeinschaft von archaischeren Typus durch eine naturliche Entwicklung zur Ackerbaugemeinde umgewandelt, so wie sie Tacitus beschrieben hat. Nach seiner Zeit verlieren wir sie aus den Augen Sie gingen in den unaufhorlichen Kriegen und Wanderungen unbemerktzugrunde:   sie endete vielleicht  auf gewaltsame Weise." (Marx-Engels Werke 19, S. 402)

It is a well known fact that there are many arguments about Marx's concept of German community. Hisao Ohtsuka in his "Basic Theory of Community" (Tokyo, 1955) with "Formen" in mind, explains his unique theory that German community is a "feudalistic" community and not in the same category as that of Caesar's "De Bella Gatticp" or Tacitus' "Germania." In his idea, the community of these Germanic tribes are not conceivable as Germanic formation of community, but it is more adequate to put this in the same category as Germanic "community" after Merovingian Frank (pp.81-83).

Regarding this, Hiroshi Fujiwara in his "What is Germanic Community? " (Studies of English Economic History, Tokyo, 1959) proved Ohtsuka's idea of German community as neither community described in "Formen" nor German agricultural community in Marx's letter to V.I. Saasulitbh. Kimio Shiozawa is on the side of Ohtsuka, and studied Marx-Engel's idea of community and productive system in general in his "The Structure of Ancient Monarchy" (Tokyo, 1958) pp.3-42. He says, Fujiwara claims that when Marx wrote "Formen", Marx had not read the book of Maurer, so his idea of community must have been Early Germanic community in the form of scattered residence. But, to this idea of Fujiwara's, Shiozawa agrees only partially, and he contends that, at the time, Marx put Early German community in the same category as feudalistic form of a community, but as he realized later that Germanic community of Tacitus' period to be of Asian form, he revised his former idea in "The Letter to V.I. Sassulich." So by Shiozawa's opinion, community in "Formen" was described as similar to the feudalistic form, and by general concepts of the structure also, Germanic community in "Formen" should be put into the same category as feudalistic form of community, (pp. 16-17)

Hidemichi Ohta studied this point in "A Theory on Community and Heroic Age" (Tokyo, 1959) and explains as follows: In "Formen," Marx generalized the condition of the Germans described in Tacitus, but after he read Maurer, he revised his own opinion. He took the stage of Germans in Caesar as the form of periodical allotment among communities, the form of preagricultural community. And he took Germanic community in Tacitus as a kind of agricultural community, a new form of community after racial migration, in which members shared woods, livestock fanning lands and wild fields, while they owned their cultivable land individually. As the result, he pulled down the stage of Germanic community in "Formen" to the stage of the new community form after racial migration, (p.21)

But, later, after farther development of the study and much more arguments, he realized as it was rather groundless to take this agricultural community as that of early Germanic, because, as a conclusion, this "new community" of Marx's originated and succeeded from very ancient times. So, in the end, the description in "Formen" coincided with the opinion of academic circles, resulted from much debates, (p.22)

The question here is the problem of German-Gaul society before the time of Caesar, so it is not directly related with the arguments on Germanic community. If agricultural community is not admittable, there still left the Marx's problem of conversion "vom Gerineigentum zu Privateigentum" and "von der primaren zur sekudaren Formation." And the stage before Caesar was recognized by Marx as "ein archaischere Typus," that is, closer to primitive community based on the natural blood relations of the members - sharing houses, producing cooperatively and outputs only were being distributed among them. Both Shiozawa and Ohta agree with him on this point. Shiozawa thinks community at Caesar's period as more ancient, archaic community than Asiatic community, (pp.29-30)

Ohta also thinks Germanic community in "Formen" as secondary formation of abiogenetic tribes (p.22), but if members owned their property privately, they were not ruled by any other classes and had the formation of pre-class society. And the village community of the early Germans can be called as primitive community (not in the meaning of 'commonly shared'), (p.29) As Ohta thinks Germanic community in "Formen" as reflecting the status of Germans in Tacitus' period, the stage before Caesar should have to be more primitive. If we think this way, it is evident that German society in Spartacus' age was at the stage of pre-class society, namely, at the stage of primitive community.

But by the opinion of Shiro Masuda in his "Basic Structure of Ancient German Society" (Studies in Early Feudal Society of Western Europe, Tokyo, 1959) and "State and Economy of German Races", (Tokyo, 1951) he says: "Those clear-cut opinions such as; German society in Caesar's and Tacitus' age was nomadic or semi-nomadic, or the Markgenossenschaft was the inherited system from primitive communism system, or originally Germans had free and equal social system... It is very hard to find these opinions any more even in the most conservative text book of legal history. Now, still more, it is very dangerous to explain the actual condition of German society from a mere outward resemblance of the phenomena in existing primitive society. (Basic Structure, p.26, underlined by author) He adds: "Change of quality in German society during 150 years from Caesar to Tacitus, that is development from nomadic or semi-nomadic state to a settled agricultural society; or from the state without private rights for property to the society with the idea of privacy... This loose but attractive way of presenting problems has lost most of its significance already. And this rather proves the richness of archaeological harvests and ceaseless existence of agricultural society in these 150 years. (Basic Structure, p.44; State and Economy pp.6-7)

This opinion of Masuda's should not be taken as the criticism solely against researchers of 19th century Europe, but also should taken as against Marxism historians.

But even if we approve Masuda's claim of continuous existence of agricultural society for these 150 years, this doesn't lead up to lose the significance of "Formen" in which characteristics of German society were clarified. Even more, it is just inconceivable to claim that it is not significant to study about the problems of the transition from primitive community into class society. However, Masuda says; "significance of studying ancient German society today has become a much more different character than that of 18th or 19th century... It does not contribute to clarify general primitive stage in the world history any more. It has achieved the significance as a previous step in building up a special society of "Europe." (Basic Structure, p.26)"

By Masuda's interest in this problem, it is understandable that he should admit the significance in studying early German society as a previous step of only European Society. But is it really adequate to conclude as not contributing to clarify general primitive stage? As the result of his interest, Masuda has come to take the view as follows: When he takes up the problem of early Germanic society, he assumes Tacitus' "Germania" as incomparable with any other, and he was surprised to realize that there were hardly any description of directly approving the free and equal society, and on the contrary, there were many descriptions proving the unequality of their society. (Basic Structure, p.44) And he concludes the structure of early German society as ruled by aristocracy - ruled by pre-fuedal, abiogenetic powerful families. (Basic Structure, pp.75-76)

It is posible to acknowledge above class differentiation as Ohta says. "Taking German community as a starting point, by the spontaneous development of social rankings and subordinations within, this differentiation is a transition of free members of community turning into subjection to the lords, that is, this process of owning lands concentrically is nothing but a forming process of feudal society of Western Europe. In this process, needless to say but, patriarchal slave system developed in a certain degree as a uklad. This is a common phenomenon at a transition period of primitive community into class-society." (p.22) And then, another opinion as Masayoshi Miyoshi's is presented in "An Essay of the so-called Pre-Feudal Subjects in the Early Middle Age (Zinbun Gakuho, Kyoto XV, 1961)." By Miyoshi, German society in Tacitus' age was at the stage of transition "von der primaren zur sekundaien Formation." (Marx), but the restriction against the group members were still very strict, (p.18) In this age slaves were in pre-slavery system, and Germanic community was a patriarchal family community, (pp.16-17)

The question we are facing here is what kind of characteristics Germanic society had in Spartacus' day. Let us see Masuda's opinion about this problem. Is early German society by Masuda only representing the society described in Tacitus? Masuda thinks Tacitus as indispensable document for studying early German society because "even if the descriptions of Caesar's "De Bella Gallico' were based on his real experiences, (1) those descriptions were limited to some part of German tribes, and (2) as they were definitely proved by Hoops and Prof. Dopsch, they were evidently revealing the exceptional state legislation and economic system of wartime. And so, it is no exaggeration to say that there is no other documents which has more objective descriptions of ordinary, peacetime German society as a whole than those of Tacitus." (State and Economy, p.5; Basic Structure, p.44) And as he already has quoted, when he claims continual existence of agricultural society for 150 years from Caesar to Tacitus, he must be including Caesar period in early German society. If so, Germanic society in Caesar period should have been pre-feudal, abiogenetic and patriarchal, too. What does Masuda mean by this pre-feudal, abiogenetic and patriarchal? That is; either in the case of one headman system in "tribal agricultural society" (State and Economy p.45) or even in monarchic state, with some exceptions, this is not a fully developed "ruling state". Putting aside the adequacy of his above expression, its general outlook is "Volkstaat" itself. They were observing such ruling sytem as the tradition of sustaining people's conference as the core of volition of state under aristocrats' "pro-council traits." (State and Economy, p.90, underlined by author) This was not a territorial ruling, but it was forming a boundary of power on the base of personal relationship. (Basic Structure, p.75)

So far, Masuda has not proposed with any positive opposition against the opinion that German society was the prior to class-society. But, as he strongly opposes the idea of "primitive communism" and was too conscious of it that he says "it doesn't make sense to look for fundamentals of power in land ownership only and to think only about authority over people by medium of land." (Basic Structure, p.75) In t his way, he tries to avoid the problem of community deliberately. As the result, though he stipulates it as ruled by pre-feudal abiogenetic powerful families, early German society — especially at the stage of Caesar — should be stipulated as pre-class-society... primitive community.

In discussing about the stage of Caesar in German society, attaching importance to Tacitus, Masuda still has to admit, "It is dangerous to think Caesar's value as historical material could be definitely dropped by this." (Basic Structure, p.51) So, the descriptions of Caesar as follows should be recognized as very important: "Sed privati ac separati agri apud los nihtt est, neque longius anno remanere uno in loco incolendi causa licet." (De Bella Gallico, IV, 1) and, "Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum victus in lacte, caseo, came consistit. Neque quisquam agri modum certum out fines habet proprios; sed magistrates ac principes in annos singulos gentibus cognationibusque hominum, qui una coierunt, quantum et quo loco visum et agri attribuunt atque anno post alio transire cogunt. Eius rei multas adferunt: ne adsidua consuetudine capti studium belli gerendi agricultura commutent; ne latos fines parare studeant, potentioresque humttiores possession/bus expettant;" (VI, 22)

Even if it is a peculiar example under wartime emergencies like Masuda claims; or if it should be branded as a kind of "state socialism" by Dopsch (State and Economy, p.7) ... This speculation of Dopsch is, how very similar to the idea of Vogt who defined the equality of the share among Spartacus' Army as "Kriegskommunisnius"!?); or if Caesar was describing the wartime emergencies in primitive community; attaching importance to primitive community traits in German society as in the description of Caesar, it should not be taken to slightly as Masuda says as "The development from nomadic or farming communistic society into unequal society of settled agriculture... this attractive way of presenting problems has already become a senseless discussion." (State and Economy, p.7)

It would be rather adequate to take it as Miyoshi defines: "The collective utilization of land in '"De Bella Gallico" was a situation in which the highest authority of the tribe established at wartime, controled the land utilization under their official rights. It must have been a kind of temporary revision of privacy rights (actually an individual land utilization) at wartime. Even in "Germania" in which peacetime situations were described, the above collective restraining power at wartime naturally should have been included (even if it was latent). It is more adequate to interprete this assumption as a premise that land proprietary was only possible with collective ownership of community." (p.18) The character like this of primitive community in German society is also found in Caesar VI, 23, and as E. A. Thompson is emphatically claiming in "Slavery in Early Germany," pp. 17-24, it is corroborated as underdeveloped stage of slavery system in German society. For instance, in Tacitus' Annales XIII, 56, there is a description as follows: "et ceteris quoque aliena pericula deserentibus sola Ampsivariorum gens retro ad Usipos et fubantes concessit. Quorum terns exact! cum Chattos, dein Cheruscos petissent, errore longo hospites, egeni, hastes in alierlb quod inventutis erat caeduntur, in bellis aetas in praedam divisa est." Thompson (p.22) assumes this as murder of the prisoners by Germanic peoples, and he thinks it as common practice among primitive people to kill adults, and to enslave women and children.

By the above, we recognize Germanic society as a structure prior to class-society... at a stage of primitive community. Then, how about Celt (Gaul) society? This too, we have nothing but "De Bella Gallico" to rely on. "In omni Gallia corum hominum, qui aliquo sunt numero atque honore, genera sunt duo. Nam plebes paene servorum habetur loco, quae nihtt audet per se, nullo adhibetur consilio. Plerique cum out acre alieno out magmtudine tributorum out iniuria potentiorum premuntur, sese in servitutem dicant nobilibus: in hos eadem omnia sunt iura, quae dominis in servos. Sed de his duobus generibus alterum est druidum, alterum equitum." (VI, 13) or, "Quae civitates commodius suam rent publicam administrare existimantur, habent legibus sanctum, si quis quid de republica a finitimis rumore out farm acceperit, utiad magistratum deferat neve cum quo alio communicet,... De republica nisi per concilium loqui non conceditur." (VI, 20) or, "... legati ad eum principes Aeduorum veniunt oratum ut maxime necessario tempore civitati subveniat: Summo esse in periculo rem, quod, cum singuli magistrates antiquitus creariatque regiam potestatem annum obtinere consuessent, duo magistratum gerant et se uterque eorum legibus creatum esse dicat." (VII, 32) When we read these descriptions, even though it was a little developed than that of Germanic society, we can't help but recognize this Celtic society as still a structure of pre-class society ... a stage of primitive community in which a tradition of honoring people's conference kept alive with tribes as its core.

(103)    Appianus, A C. I, 116

(104)    Appianus, B. C. I, 117; Plinius N. H. XXXIII, 49

(105)    Cicero, De Officiis, II, 40 "Nam qui eorum cuipiam, qui una latrocinantur, furatur aliquid out eripit, is sibi ne in latrocinio quidem relinquit locum, ill autem, qui archipirata dicitur, nisi aequabiliter praedam dispertiat, out interficiatura   sociis  out  relinquatur; quin  etiam  leges  latronum  esse dicuntur,   quibus pareant,   quas observent. Itaque propter aequabilem praedae partitionem et Bardulis Illyrius latro, de quo est apud Theopom-
pum,   magnas opes habuit et multo maiores  Viriathus Lusitanus:  cui quidem   etiam   exercitus  nostri  imperatores que  cesserunt;"   By this
description, we can see in the countries where primitive community system was still existing as Illyria and Espania, they were still observing equal
sharing.

(106)    Oliva,  Sklavenaufstande  S.  82 is assuming the rule  of equality being observed among  them.  But, Mischulin, Spartak vosst. p.89; Mischulin, Spartacus S. 105 suggests that the communistic concept of Platon (Greek Utopia) was taken rather critically by slaves. Yet, I think this idea should be taken more directly as a revival of an idea of primitive community. Primitive commune was described as an ideal in the program of Chinese peasant war, too. "In the facilities of charity rice, charity meat and charity dwellings in Guanzhong (today's Shanxi Province) of Zhang Lu, and at a facility  by the  Lake Tong-Ting by  Zhang-Xiang and Yang Gong, the situation like commune was observed...   that  is, they performed  in collective and public way. Naturally restricted by class ranks and historical conditions, the commune conceived by those peasants were not a new productive relation but a historically handed-down primitive commune." (Characters,   Actions  and  Characteristics  of   Peasant' War in Chinese History, Translated by Masatoshi Tanaka, Rekishi Hyoron, no. 158, 1963, p.34.) Situation described in this article was indicating the period of Later Han and  Sun.  Compared with  the above, Germans, Celts(Gauls)  and
Thracians by which Spartacus' Army was formed, they came directly from environment of primitive community. Considering this with their prohibition of individual money possessing, the revival of the idea of primitive community was more direct and actual than that of Chinese. So, it is just illogical of Vogt, S. 27, to define this as "Kriegskommunismus."

(107)    Caesar VI, 22

(108)    Tacitus, Germania I, 5, 26

(109)    Oliva, Skalavenaufstande S. 85; Caesar II, 15 In this description, Tribe of Nervii didn't allow merchants to come in and didn't allow luxuries to be brought in.

(110)    In the period of Herodotus, it is said that "The Thracians are the biggest nation in the world; were they under one ruler, or united, they would in my judgment be invincible and the strongest nation on earth; but since there is no way or contrivance to bring this about, they are for this reason weak. They have many names, each tribe according to its region." (Herodotos 5, 3) And at the time of Thucydides, "...a considerable portion of the Thracians are independent... " (Thukidides 2, 29). Also in Strabo, many tribes such as Mysi, Medi, Messi, Coralli, etc. were reported. (Strabo VII, 3, 2-3; VII, 5, 7: VII, 5, 11-12). These indicate that there were no united nations existed among them, and it was at the stage prior to class-society. And at the time of Herodotus, "the idler is most honoured, the tiller of the soil most contemned; he is held in highest honour who lives by war and foray." (Herodotos 5, 6). But even in later period, "all professional soldiers, men who knew not how to plough or to sail the seas, who did not follow the life of herdsmen, but who were ever practising one business and one art, that of fighting and conquering their antagonists." (Tribe of Basternae, Plutarch, Aemirius Pauls 12). They were described in Strabo as, "there are 'Wagon-dwellers,' and 'Nomads,' so called, who live off their herds, and on milk and cheese, and know nothing about storing up food or about peddling merchandise either, except the exchange of wares for wares..." (Strabo VII, 5, 12). And they were "Thraecum gentibus, qui montium editis sine cultuatque eo ferocius agitabant. ... ne regibus quidem parere nisi ex libidine soliti, out si mitterent auxilia, suos ductores praeficere nee nisi adversum accolas belligerare." (Tacitus, Annales lV, 3, 46). Thracians were employed by Pergamon and Roma as hired soldiers, but this fact wouldn't contradict what those historical material had indicated above as their stage being primitive community around Thracian regions. As for ancient Thracians, see C. Danov, Altenthrakien, Berlin, 1976

(111)    Diodorus  XXXIV-V,  2,  4-7; 2, 10-11; Doi, Problems about the First Sicilian Slave Revolt, pp.40, 62-63

(112)    Diodorus XXXVI, 4, 1; 5, 1-3; Doi, A Note on the Second Sicilian Slave Revolt, pp.143, 145-146

(113)   Kovalev, Veli. vosst., p.176; F. Bomer, Untersuchungen iiber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, Wiesbaden, 1960, II S.182

(114)    According to Caesar VI, 13: VI, 16-17, priests had already been existed among Gallic society, and they offered sacrifices for their community, and judged the trials of quarrels, crimes and inheritance within their community and tribes. While, among Germanic society, there were no priests nor sacrifices. (Caesar VI, 21) But women were thought to have gifts of prophecy. (Tacitus, Germania, I, 8; Plutarch, Caesar 19) And Thracian tribes worshipped gods of Ares, Artemis, Hermes, etc. (Herodotos 5, 7) and were affiliated with esoteric religion of Orpheus (Strabo X, 3, 16; Plutarch, Alexandras 1; Vergilius, Georgica, IV, 507-527) and inspiration worshipping of  Dionysus. (Plutarch, Alexandras   2;  Herodotos   5,  7) Looking at it from religious side, the religion of Thracian tribes had a little more accurate objects. But, in either case, community and religion existed in unified form among them.

(115)    Kovalev, Veli, Vosst., p. 176 says, racial variousness of slaves made a big obstacle for religious ideology in fulfilling an important role in Spartacus' Uprising.

(116)    Plutarch, Crassus 8; Appianus, B. C. I, 116

(117)    Cassar VI, 23 and Tacitus, Germania I, 7 point out that generals were elected by their fortitude.

(118)    Cassar, III, 23: VII, 57: VII, 63

(119)    Sallustius III, 96, 98

(120)    Caesar II, 10: IV, 19: VII, 66: VII, 77, etc.

(121)    In already quoted Tacitus, Germania I, 7, the following description is given; "Reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt, nee regibus infinita out libera potestas, et duces exemplo potius quam imperio, si prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant, admiratione praesunt." This description of "duces" must be corresponding to the slave commanders.

(122)    Livius XCVI; Plutarch, Crassus 9; Florus II, 8; Orosius V, 24, 4-5; Doi, Reconstructing Spartacus Servile War pp. 72-74

(123)    Plutarch, Crassus 11

(124)    Plutarch, Crassus 8

(125)    Frontinus, I, 5, 21-22, etc.

(125a)    Florus VIII, 3,20

(126)    Mommsen  III S. 84 says that  Spartacus descended from Spartokiden Family (descendants of Bosphoros kings). F. Taeger, Das Altertum 1939, S. 701; K. Ziegler, Die Herkunft des Spartacus, Hermes 83, 1955 SS. 248-249: Diesner  S. 151 are also of thesame opinion. In case of Mommsen, on one hand he calls Spartacus "a chief of bandits," and on the other, he seeks his gifted talents of strategy in "royal families." Ziegler, S. 50 is just like Mommsen on this point, and thinking of his talents, he concludes that  Spartacus had to be of leading class descent and was endowed with chivalrous traditions. And Ziegler says, "Auch im Falle des grossen italischen Skfavenaufstandes also ist der fuhrende Revolutions nicht irgend einer aus der enterdriickten Masse, sondern ein deklassierte Angehoriger der herrschenden Schicht gewessen." But, Ollivier, p.19-20 opposes that and says "Spartacus   descendaitil de la dynastie des Zpardokos qui regna sur le Panticapee?  II serait assez piquant que le chef de  la  plus  formidable  insurrection  desclaves que  connaisse  l'histoire, 1'homme dont le nom est devenu aujourd'hui le symbole meme de la lutte centre l'oppression, descendit d'une famille royale. Malheureusement, nous n'avons, en dehors de la similitude des noms, aucun indice qui permette de l'affirmer."

But then, how about the actual facts? It had been already pointed out that Spartacus came of Thracians. But as for his past career, there is only one description in Florus II, 8 as "nee abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor, inde latro, deinde in honorem virium gladiator." In Plutarch Crassus 8, he was described as from nomadic tribe (tu nomadiku genus). Athenaeus IV, 272f says that Spartacus was a native of Thracia. And Varro, De Rebus Urbanis III says, "Spartaco innocents coniects ad gladiatorium," and Eratosthenes (Stephan, Byz. 583, 11) says the City of Spartakos as Spartacus' birthplace. And CIL III 844 is describing about Sparticus as a member of Thracian Bessi tribe in the early period of Roman Empire. Diodorus XII, 31,2 says about Spartokiden of Bosphoros. And in a Greek myth, there was warrior called Spartoi who was born from a tusk of a dragon which had been sown by Kadmos.

There is no proof that Spartacus was born in Spartokiden. Yet, it is understandable that Miinzer, R. E. S. 1929; Oliva-Olivova S. 82; Doer S. 230; Bengtson S. 163 interpreted like the above. And as the historical materials are as I quoted, there are naturally many varied opinions about where Spartacus came from. Mischulin, Spartacus, SS. 54-55 suggests that in the name of Spartacus, a mythological name of 'Spartoi' is reflected with a legend kept among people. Implied by CIL III 844, Vogt S. 26; Bonghi p. 43 decide Spartacus as from Bessi tribe. And as this tribe of Bessi lived around the foot of Mt. Rodpei, after a novel "Spartaco" was written by Giovagnoli, an assumption that he was born in Rodpei came to be supported by the following historians. A. Musco, Nola e dinorni, 1934 p.31; T. Coccanari, Public Scrofa - II tiburtino che sconfisse Spartaco, Stov. Ar. 1951, vol. 24, p.211. Their opinion should be put together with the view that he was of Bessi tribe. In order to aline himself with the view of Florus that his being a bandit, quoting Stravo VII, 5, 12, Vogt S. 26 says Spartacus was a member of a bellicose tribe who had been committing robberies around Rodpei.

Opposing the above opinion, Pareti III p. 689 says Spartacus came from City of Spartaco. And Mahaffy pp. 176-177; Ridley p.36 say he came across the Donau, based on Plutarch's interpretation of his being a nomadic race. This phrase of Plutarch had been read as 'tu nomadiku genus' and been interpreted as a nomadic race. But Ziegler studied this phrase philologically and interpreted it as 'tu maidiku genus' (S. 249). That means, this phrase should not be read as a nomadic race, but should be read as the tribe of Maidoi (tribe of Medi). This tribe of Medi was also reported in Strabo, VII, 5, 12. And in Livius LXXXIII; Plutarch, Sulla 23 (86 B.C.); Obsequens 59 (75 B.C.), battles between Roman Army and tribe of Medi are recorded. So, it is a strong possibility that Spartacus was a man of Medi tribe. C. Danov of Bulgaria, Za rodinata na Spartak, supports Ziegler's opinion, and says that Spartacus had lived along the midstream of River Strouma. Therefore, if it is proper to read the phrase in Plutarch as 'tu maidiku genus,' Spartacus must have been from the tribe of Medi.

The question here is; even if it is proper to decide that he was from tribe of Medi, did he really come from a leading class, or from Spartokiden, or not; as I quoted in the beginning as Ziegler says. In Zeigler's conciousness about this question, in banishing the idea of Spartacus being nomadic race, he seems to be deliberately trying to put Spartacus up in the class of noble family. But this logic is rather inconvincible compared with the one about tribe of Medi. It doesn't have any grounds on which it beats tue view of Miinzer and Oliva. And with Florus' description in mind, we can't help but deny the assumption that he was from Spartokiden Family. Ziegler must have been drawn to the idea of heroic Spartacus, also. At present, therefore, a clue for finding out the class in which Spartacus was born, has to be either in grasping the facts about Medi tribe, or in the description of Florus.

(127)    Vogt S. 26 says Spartacus didn't have such leading position as to be able to deny everyone's protest. He rather yielded to other leaders and his fellow men for their unique and better insight.

(128)    Motus, Iz istorii, p.78

(129)    Sallustius III, 98: 102-103; Orosius V, 24, 3;Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 177; Pared p. 694; Bonghi p.16; Ward p. 261; Oliva-Olivova S. 91; Drumann IV S. 74; Mommsen III S. 87; Vogt S. 18

(130)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p. 172; Motus, Iz istorii p. 77

(131)    Plutarch, Fabius 2, 8

(132)    Caesar VI, 23. As  for the facts that Gaul-German accepted plunder as natural actions, see Plutarch,Marius ll;Caesar I, 11: I, 15: II, 7: II, 9: IV, 9: VII, 11: VII, 42: Tacitus, Annales I, 4, 65: XII, 4, 27, etc. By Tacitus, Annales IV, 3, 48, it is clear that plunder was taken as a natural action in Thracia also. According to Plutarch, Marius 6, plunder was thought to be an admirable action.

(133)    Oliva-Olivova S. 80; Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p.177; H. Bengtson, Romische Geschichte, Munchen, 1967,1, S. 164; and R. H. Hilton points out in his "The Origins of Robin Hood," (Past & Present 14), about the brutal way of revenging by medieval peasants against their fandlords.

(134)    IhneVIS. 48

(135)    F. Engels, Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen, Marx-Engels Werke 19, S. 446 says, "Die Deutschen hatten die Vertragstreue und Redlichkeit der Romer hinreichend kennengelernt, als Ca'sar die Usipeter und Tenkterer wahrend der   Unterhandlung  und   des  Waffenstillstands   uberfiel:  sie hatten sie kennengelernt,   als  Augustus  die  Gesandten   der   Sigamber,   vor deren Ankunft er jede Verhandlung mit den deutschen Stammen verweigerte, gefangennehmen liess. Es ist alien erobernden Volkern gemein, ihr Gegner auf jede Art zu iiberlisten: und dies finden sie ganz in der Ordnung: sobald sich die Gegner jedoch das selbe erlauben, nennen jene es Treubruch und
Verrat. Die Mittel aber, die man zur Unterjochung anwendet, miissen auch gestattet  sein zur  Abwerfung  des Jochs.  Solange es ausbeutende und beherrschte auf der andern Seite gibt, solange wird die Anwendung der List neben der Gewalt auf beiden Seiten eine Notwendigkeit sein, gegen die alle Moralpredigt macht los bleibt."

(136)    Polybius, Historiae, V, 11; Livius XXXI, 30, 2-3; H. Giotius,De Jure Belli ac Pads III, 5

(137)    Cicero, De Offlciis III, 6, 30

(138)    Plutarch, Marius 21, 42; Antonius 45: Fabius 22: Aemirius Founts 29: Marcettus 19: Flaminius 5: Sertorius 19; Caesar II, 24: IV, 19: IV, 38: V, 19: VI, 3: VI, 6: VII, 45; Cicero, pro LegeManlius 65; Tacitus, Annales, I, 25: XII, 4, 32; Augustinus, De Civitates Dei I, 5: 7; Grotius III, 6: 12 According to Plutarch, Aemirius 29, Roman Senate clearly declared in favor of plunder.

(139)    Plutarch, Marius 44; Caesar VII, 28. In Marius 44, there is a description as "...butchered fathers of families in their houses, outraged their children, violated their wives...".

(140)    Petronius, Satyricon 119:

(141)    Appianus,Mrfir. 82

(142)    Ollivier p.98; Bonghi p.14; Oliva-Olivova S. 90; Ward p. 251; Mischulin, Spartacus S. 65; Vogt S. 27

(143)    For instance, about the revolts of Chimei in 1st century, Juzo Kawaji says in his Revolts of Chimei (Red Eye-Brows) and Foundation of the Later Han Dynasty, {Rekishigaku Kenkyu, no. 161, 1953, p. 18,) as the expansion of their power, autonomous regulations were requiered. The regulations set by themselves at that time was as simple as 'Share equally; death penalty for killers; compensations for injuries.' And these regulations were ordered 'only verbally...'. As we can imagine by their system, troubles must have been solved autonomously, following the tradition of the community. So, it is not right to interprete this that they were not able to actualize regulated laws. Much less, it is nonsense to define this group as a mob for having or not having regulated laws." Skipping the time a little, at the
Chün-chán Rebellion of 10th century, it is said that "In this riot, 'capable men were employed, good deeds were encouraged, orderly restriction was emphasized, and no crimes had been committed.' And this riot is noted as they marched under strict discipline with good order, suitable enough to be people's army." by Makoto Ikeda "The Chün-chán Rebellion, the Ssu-chuan District During the Early Sung Period," (Rekishigaku Kenkyu, no. 152,  1951, p.12.). Shigeki Kaizuka, Chinese History, vol. 1, p.181, compares this strict military discipline among revolting peasants with the government army, and says, "Trying to pacify Chimei, Wang Mang sent a large army, commanded by generals, Wang Kuang and Ryum Tan. The government soliders were more vicious than revolting peasants and they plundered everywhere. So  the local people sang a song, 'We'd rather encounter Chimei than  Wang  Kuang; Wang Kuang is a little better than Ryum Tan; because  Ryum Tan will take our lives.'  Corruption and inferiority  of soldiers who had been sent by central government, and antipathy against them by the local people along with their warm feeling toward revolting peasants, are well expressed in this song." Even though the historical background differs, this kind of comparison is also applied to slave armies and Roman Army.

Not only in the ancient period, people's army, endeavoring to be freed from oppression, is always a very orderly regulated military group, according to R. H. Hilton and H. F. Pagan, The English Rising of 1381, London, 1950; M. Sensing u. S. Hoyer, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg 1524-1526, Leibzig, 1965; E. Snow, Red Star over China, London, 1937; Vo Nguyen Giap, Guerre de pueple, Armee du pueple, Hanoi, 1961. etc. (143a) P. A. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London 1971, p.l 15; K. P. Korjeva, Vosstanie Spartaka v Sovetskoi istoriografii, Voprosii Istorii 1974 no.10, p.133, assume only a very few free men.

(144)    Mischulin, Spartacus, SS.71-73

(145)    Mischulin, Spart. vosst. p.93

(146)    Kovalev, Veli. vosst., p.179; By Ratner p.55, "If Crixos, Cannicus and Castus were the representatives of peasants like Mischulin says, thirty to
forty thousands of men must have gathered under each of these representatives, then, at the time of revolt, almost half... about a third of the revolting army should have been occupied by them. This much of free men couldn't have joined the army". Moreover, according to Ratner, (1) victory over these units had been recorded as the victory over slaves in historical material, and (2) it this much of free men participated in the revolt, Roman Senate should naturally have taken some policies, trying to detach free men from slaves, but in actuality, they didn't take any of that. So, the structure of the separation armies couldn't have been of peasants."

(147)    Mischulin, Spartacus, SS.71-73

(148)    Plutarch, Marius 11

(149)    Mischulin, Spart. vosst. pp. 133-134; Tibiletti, Rev. Vogt, pp.151-152; G. Tibiletti, Lo sviluppo del latifundo in Italia dall' epoca graccana alprincipio
dell' Impero, Rel. X Congi. Sc. St. II, Firenze 1955, p.272, p.274; Diesner S. 162 think it as possible of allies between slaves and free men.

(150)    Kovalev, Klassovaja boriba i padenie anticnogo obscestva, (IGAIMK 100, 1933); says, "In spite of a big difference between free poor men and slaves,
they had a close contact with each other, as we can see some examples in Spartacus' Uprising." But, Kovalev, Veli. vosst. p.179. 1934 says, there is no proof about the participation of agricultural elements in Spartacus' Army. He criticizes Mischulin's as overestimation, emphasizing the depth of rupture between slaves and free men and he suggests this rupture to be resolved in the 2nd stage of "Slave Revolution." This "Slave Revolution" means a theory which claims slavery society being demolished by "Slave Revolution,"  influenced by the speeches of Stalin  (Stalin   Werke 13, Mockva p.239). This theory was the main stream at that time among Soviet historians. The theory claims the transition from Republic into Empire as the first stage of "Slave Revolution," and falling period of Roman Empire after 4th cent, as the second stage of "Slave Revolution."

(151)    S.P. Uttschenko, Die historische Bedeutung des Spartacusaufstand (Preface of Mischulin's Spartacus); As this was prior to the process of the criticism
against Stalin, the review against Mischulin could be restrained to this degree, but Uttschenko, Krizis i padenie Rimskoi respubliki, Moskva, 1965, pp.145-146 blames him that being poisoned by Stalin's idea of "Slave Revolution," he regarded Roman slaves in the same light with today's
proletariats. The assumption that allies of slaves and poor men existed, could be nothing but a very queer 'modernization.'

(152)    Bonghi p.30; Ihne VI S. 46; Lauffer S. 375; Vogt SS. 54-55; Gramsci p.196; M.  I.  Finley, Was Greek Civilization Based on Slave Labour; Historia 8 (1959) pp.156-157; M. Capozza, Le rivolte servili di Sicilia nel quadro della politica agraria romana, Atti dell'Instituto Veneto di scienze lettere ed arti, a.119, t_;115, 1956-57, CXV p.96; Vogt notes on the point that poor proletariats themselves didn't exist as a united class, but they were divided into poor peasants and starving citizens. K. J. Kautsky, Der Ursprung des Christentums 1908 (trans, by Mneo Kondo) p.202 points out the depth of gaps between slaves and proletarii as follows; slaves who had been employed by noble men gave a damage to proletarii who had been led by Gaius Gracchus; on the other hand, Roman proletarii who had been commanded by Crassus subjugated the slave revolts by Spartacus.

(153)    Oliva, Sklavenaufstande S. 79; Oliva, Bedutung der antiken Sklaverei, Acta Antique V III3-4, 1960, SS. 316-317

(154)  Weber S. 244