Historical Inaccuracies in Spartacus
	Spartacus, the 1960 film directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the life of a real man by the same name who lived from 111 BC to 71 BC. Spartacus was a Thracian slave in Italy who escaped and became one of the slave leaders of the Third Servile War. Spartacus commanded a slave army that grew with each city it ransacked, freeing slaves along the way. Spartacus even met a slave woman, Varinia, whom he fell in love with and even had a child with. Spartacus was born a slave and had a massive hatred for the higher class who imprisoned him and his army. While breaking up a gladiator match his slave army organized, he says “I made a promise to myself that if I ever made it out of here I'd never watch two men fight to the death again.” (Spartacus, 1h10m) He is painted as a strong abolitionist of slavery. The nobles in Rome, namely the rich Crassus, offered to use his legions to take out Spartacus if it meant he could be the leader of the Roman army, giving him dictator-like control. Spartacus knew he couldn't face Crassus, so he attempted to pay off a group of Sicilian pirates to take him and his slave army home. When Spartacus is betrayed by the pirates, who were payed off by Crassus, Spartacus has no choice but to march full force into Crassus' legions. Spartacus' slave army is ultimately defeated, and Spartacus is ordered to be crucified by Crassus after he is forced to fight the last member of his slave army to the death. While Spartacus keeps the larger details mostly intact, it's definitely no slave to the truth.
	First and foremost, Spartacus and the slaves are painted to be 100% good, while Crassus and the Roman legions are painted to be 100% evil. Spartacus' interactions with Virinia do a lot to further this viewpoint. Spartacus is painted as a simple man and something of a bleeding heart romantic. “Oh Varinia! Don't make me weak! Varinia, I love you more than my life.” (Spartacus 2h28m)  This characterizes Spartacus as a gentle and relatable man. In reality, however, Spartacus and his slave army were not strictly the 'good guys'. “They certainly are good guys, they're fighting for their freedom, but they do a lot of bad things as well. They go on a rampage throughout Italy, they killed a lot of innocent people, they damaged a lot of property, they starved a lot of people out.” (Barry Strauss)  This shows an interesting ambiguity that Spartacus represents. Yes he is a slave fighting for his freedom and the freedom of others, but he pillaged entire cities, slaughtered who knows how many innocent people, and just generally caused a large amount of destruction. This should make us question Crassus' evilness as well. While the movie made up a lot of additional reasons for us to hate Crassus, he did have a reputation as quite a ruthless commander. “When [Crassus] arrived at his destination, he was granted two legions of the consuls, whom he decimated by the lot for their bad conduct in several battles.” (Appian) Even so, somebody with the power of Crassus had to step up and defeat the revolting slave army which was causing so much destruction. If I was a citizen of Rome at the time, I know I would be glad to know Crassus was fighting for us. These examples show that neither Spartacus nor Crassus were as black and white as the movie portrayed them to be. They were complex people.
	Another aspect of Spartacus' life that was changed to fit the movie better was his history as a slave. In the film, Spartacus is said to have been a slave all of his life, even saying his father and grandfather were slaves too. In reality, however things were different. According to Merriam Webster's Biographical Dictionary, Spartacus was a “Roman slave and gladiator...served in Roman army; deserted caught, and sold as a slave.” (Merriam Webster's Biographical Dictionary)  This shows that the claim that Spartacus was born into slavery was made up to better fit the plot the director was creating. This also offers an explanation as to why Spartacus was so intelligent, charismatic, gifted in combat, and able to command and deploy an army of tens of thousands. Also, the claim that Spartacus' father and grandfather were also slaves is false as well, as nothing is known about any of Spartacus' family. The movie created them and gave them a ficticious background.
	The character of Varinia is another character who has been fit into the directors vision of a Shakespearean tragedy. Varinia was the name of Spartacus' wife in the 1950 novel by Howard Fast. We do not know anything about Spartacus' supposed wife, not even her name. However, Plutarch wrote that Spartacus was married to a Thracian women. “When he was first to be sold at Rome, the say a snake coil itself upon his face as he lay asleep, and his wife, who at this latter time also accompanied him in his flight, his country-woman, a kind of prophetess, and one of those possessed with the bacchanal frenzy, declared that it was a sign portending great and formidable power to him with no happy event.” (Plutarch) With this knowledge in mind, a large number of inaccuracies pop up. For one, there is no record of Spartacus having a son. Furthermore, there is no record of Crassus capturing Spartacus' wife, who was also a slave, and attempting to steal her and his son away from Spartacus so he could raise them himself, which happened in the movie. At most, we know Spartacus had a wife. That's it. So the character of Varinia and all of her exploits, such as escaping with Spartacus' child at the end, were all fabricated to make the plot of the film more interesting for the audience. The romantic relationship between Spartacus and Varinia was created so the audience would have a relatable storyline to follow while all the war and politics of the movie went on.
	Another character that was shoe-horned into the movie was Gracchus. Not to be confused with any of the real Roman Gracchi, Gracchus is a character with no historical record of existing. In the film, Gracchus plays a noble and member of the Roman senate. With plenty of jokes, a friendly demeanor, and his efforts to help Spartacus and Varinia, he is a foil character to Crassus' coldness.  The inclusion of this character is most likely to paint Crassus as evil rather than the entirety of Rome and its nobles. So that means that Gracchus never opposed Crassus in the senate, he never purchased Varinia to annoy Crassus, and he never got all of the necessary papers needed in order to help Varinia and her baby escape, two other characters who were created by the director of the film. Gracchus, like Varinia, were created as tools to make the plot of the movie more appealing, and as characters to build the overall atmosphere the film was trying to achieve. While it's understandable why they were included, neither Gracchus or Varinia were real people.
	Another aspect of character that was blown out of proportion was Spartacus' desire to end slavery. Spartacus is presented as a Che Guevera-esque rebel leader. He was a charismatic escaped slave who has been a slave all of his life and has decided to finally fight back upper class. “What do you pray for?” (Spartacus) Varinia asks Spartacus privately. Spartacus replies “I pray for a son who will be born free.” (Spartacus) This, along with Spartacus' final charge onto the republic of Rome, implies that Spartacus had an end goal to free all the slaves in the country. However, those are not the historical facts. While Spartacus was a slave and he was fighting for the freedom of himself and his army, none of the actions of Spartacus or any of the other slave army leaders indicated that they aimed to end slavery in the republic of Rome. Spartacus went along the countryside on a bloody rampage, committing countless atrocities himself, burning property to the ground, starving people out. In reality, Spartacus had a goal of sending his men to their respective homes, “but he took a proper view of the situation, and since he could not expect to overcome the Roman power, began to lead his army toward the Alps, thinking it necessary for them to cross the mountains and go to their respective homes, some to Thrace, and some to Gaul. But his men were now strong in numbers and full in confidence, and would not listen to him, but went ravaging over Italy.” (Plutarch) This passage shows that Spartacus was trying to get his men to their respective homes, and found it strategically smart to leave while he was ahead and send the men and women in his slave army to their homes. However, his men did not listen to him, and Spartacus was forced to fight on with his army. If they had listened to him, one wonders how different things would have ended for Spartacus and his army as a whole.
	Another aspect of Spartacus that got mixed up was the entirety of the deal with the Sicilian pirates. In Spartacus, Spartacus planned to take his army to the sea, where he would meet up with Sicilian pirates and pay them to take all of Spartacus' army to their homes. However, he is deceived by the pirates, and they sail away, leaving him and his army stranded on the beach, in between three armies. Spartacus never lost control of his army and they never mentioned going over the Alps. In history though, Spartacus tried to save his army by convincing them to go across the Alps and back to their homes, but they were too confident and did not listen to him and went charging into Italy. Spartacus, forced to stay with his army now, did in fact make a deal with Sicilian pirates, but not to transport him and his army home. “At the Straits, he chanced upon some Cicilian pirate craft, and determined to seize Sicily. By throwing two thousand men into the island, he thought to kindle anew the servile war there, which had not long been extinguished, and needed only a little additional fuel. But the Cicilians, after coming to terms with him and receiving his gifts, deceived him and sailed away. So Spartacus marched back again from the sea and established his army in the peninsula of Rhegium.” (Plutarch) This shows that Spartacus was in fact betrayed by the Sicilians, but it wouldn't have saved all of the people in his army anyways. Spartacus planned to incite a slave-war in Sicily with 2,000 men in order to gain reinforcements. At the point Spartacus met the Sicilians, I believe he had conceded that he was going to fight the battle he started against Rome to the end. He tried to get his army to cross the Alps, which was their best chance at survival, but they refused to listen, and now he was very well trapped on his position in the beach, and had no choice but to march forward onto Crassus' forces. So the inclusion of the Sicilian pirates in the film makes sense, but mixes two elements in Spartacus' history. The escape into the Alps was what would have saved all of the army. Sicilian pirates couldn't transport Spartacus' slave army because it was so large. I believe the director used the Sicilian pirates betraying Spartacus to avoid Spartacus failing to save his army by not successfully convincing his men to go to the Alps, which would harm his character.
	Finally, the part of the film with perhaps the most inaccuracies is the final battle between Spartacus' slave army and Crassus' Roman legion. In the film, Spartacus has decided to march his army head first into Crassus', making his final stand. He knows he will most likely lose but has no choice as he is surrounded by Crassus and Pompey. Spartacus' slave army was overcome by Crassus' forces, leaving Spartacus and Antoninus as the last two living members. Crassus identifies Spartacus, and as special punishment, forces Antoninus and he to fight each other to the death, with the winner to be crucified. Spartacus attempts to quickly kill Antoninus and take the harsher punishment of crucifixion, but Antoninus fought Spartacus back because he was so loyal to Spartacus that he could not bare the idea of him being put on a cross. In the end, Spartacus is forced to kill Antoninus, and he is crucified. As Varinia escaped Rome with the help of Gracchus, she shows Spartacus his son and tells him that he is free. History says differently, however. The fact is, Spartacus was never crucified. “Spartacus was wounded in the thigh with a spear and sank upon his knee, holding his shield in front of him and contending in this way against his assailants until he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain. The Roman loss was about 1000. The body of Spartacus was not found.” (Appian)  So in reality Spartacus was not personally sought out and crucified by Crassus. The truth is Crassus did not even bother to recover Spartacus' body. This shows how the movie created the obsession Crassus had with Spartacus. In the film Crassus stole Spartacus' wife, and even payed a slaver who knew what Spartacus looked like to identify him on the battle-field before personally ordering his crucifixion. In reality, Crassus was more interested in ending the slave army's wave of terror throughout Italy and claiming the glory of victory for himself than seeking out and killing Spartacus. Also, there is no historical record of a man called Antoninus in the slave army. So Spartacus was never forced to fight his last man to the death and he was never crucified either. He died on the battle-field, his body never recovered. However, the notion that he would have been crucified does hold some historical weight.  “A large number of [Spartacus'] men fled from the battle-field to the mountains and Crassus followed them tither. They divided themselves into four parts, and continued to fight until they all perished except 6000, who were captured and crucified along the whole road from Capua to Rome.” (Appian) While it is true that Crassus crucified a large portion of the slave army, Spartacus was not among them. Were he to be captured, he most likely would have been. I think it makes sense that the director of the film had Spartacus crucified rather than to die on the battle-field. Spartacus dying on the battle-field without his body even being recovered isn't much of a climax for a film. Furthermore, the image of Spartacus being crucified exemplifies the idea that Spartacus is a martyr for the enslaved, which is something the director had been building on the entire film.  While some of the details of the all important final battle are lost along the way, the major events remain mostly unchanged.
	Spartacus is a film that exchanges strict historical accuracy for more classical themes, such as the love between Spartacus and Varinia, the battle between good and evil fought by Spartacus and Crassus respectively, and elements of tragedy, as Spartacus, our tragic hero, is crucified at the end of the film. There were certain important events glossed over or forgotten about in favor of a more perfect Spartacus, such as the atrocities him and his slave army committed across the Italian countryside when they were building their army, Spartacus' failure to convince his men to cross the Alps and head home, and the fact that Spartacus wasn't born a slave, but was a Roman soldier who was made a slave as punishment. While the more intricate parts of the story were mixed around, the largest and most important events, such as the initial slave revolt and Spartacus being forced into facing Crassus, remain mostly in tact. Overall, Spartacus is a film that trades obtuse parts of history for better fitting elements of storytelling. It is a starry-eyed re-imagining of the life of a man who has politically inspired many people throughout history. While the protagonist is too perfect to accurately represent the man Spartacus actually was, the spirit of the film makes up for it.