Spartacus: Blood and Sand

[Amphictyonis]

Marx was a fan of Spartacus and the slave uprising (Obviously not the new TV show) so this is why I'm posting. Do you think the new show on the STARZ network is reactionary? Pornographic? Unnecessarily too violent or a great story of overcoming oppression? I'm torn on the graphic sexual nature of the show because I can't say only women are objectified. Penises are a swinging. The violence is to be expected in an account of Roman gladiators is it not? What are your thoughts? Mindless entertainment or potential for some sort of subversive political message?

yHxn8mTpAJU

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm
Spartacus - a real representative of the proletariat of ancient times (http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm)





In the first century BC, a slave named Spartacus threatened the might of Rome in a massive slave uprising. The spectacle of these most downtrodden people rising up with arms in hand and inflicting defeat after defeat on the armies of the world’s greatest power is one of the most amazing and moving events in history. http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/history/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat-3.gifIn the first century BC, a slave named Spartacus threatened the might of Rome. Spartacus (c. 109 BC-71 BC) was the leader (or possibly one of several leaders) of the massive slave uprising known as the Third Servile War. Under his leadership, a tiny band of rebel gladiators grew into a huge revolutionary army, numbering about 100,000. In the end the full force of the Roman army was needed to crush the revolt.
Despite his well-deserved fame as a great revolutionary leader and one of the most outstanding generals of antiquity, not much is known about Spartacus the man. It is always the victors who write history and the voice of the slaves throughout the centuries can be heard only through the accounts of the oppressors. What little information we have is from accounts written by his mortal enemies. The surviving historical records are all written by Roman historians and therefore hostile. They are often contradictory.
There were other leaders of the revolt whose names have come down to us: Crixus, Castus, Gannicus and Oenomaus – gladiators from Gaul and Germania. But of these even less is known. History is always written by the victors, and they faithfully reflect the interests, psychology and class bias of the ruling class. Trying to understand Spartacus from these sources is like trying to understand Lenin and Trotsky from the slanderous writings of the bourgeois enemies of the Russian Revolution. Through this distorting mirror one can only catch tantalising glimpses of the real Spartacus.
Plutarch writes:

“And seizing upon a defensible place, they chose three captains, of whom Spartacus was chief, a Thracian of one of the nomad tribes, and a man not only of high spirit and valiant, but in understanding, also, and in gentleness superior to his condition, and more of a Grecian than the people of his country usually are.”
These words by an enemy present Spartacus in a personally favourable light, which requires an explanation. This is not hard to find. A man who defeated one Roman army after another and brought the Republic to its knees had to be possessed of extraordinary qualities. Only in this way could the Roman commentators begin to come to terms with the fact that “mere slaves” had defeated their invincible legions.
Other Roman historians attempt to make him out to be of royal blood, for exactly the same reason. He is said to be endowed with superhuman attributes. His wife is said to have been a priestess, and so on and so forth. All this is clearly part of Roman propaganda that aims to present Spartacus as somebody very special, and in this way to try to reduce the sense of shame and humiliation felt by the master class when it had been defeated by farm labourers, kitchen skivvies and gladiators.
Spartacus' real origins are unclear as the ancient sources do not agree on where he came from, although he was probably a native of Thrace (now Bulgaria). He seems to have had military training and experience and may even have joined the Roman army as a mercenary. Plutarch also says Spartacus' wife, a prophetess of the same tribe, was enslaved with him. In any case, he was enslaved and sold at auction to a trainer of gladiators in Capua. Appian says he was “a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator”. Florus says he “had become a Roman soldier, of a soldier a deserter and robber, and afterwards, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator”.
The Gladiators’ Revolt

At the time of Spartacus' uprising, the Roman republic was entering a period of turmoil that would end with the rule of the Caesars. Roman territories were expanding east and west; ambitious generals could make a name fighting in Spain or Macedonia, then carve out a political career in Rome. Rome was a militaristic society: battles were staged in the newly popular entertainment of gladiatorial combat. While successful gladiators were idolised, in terms of social status they ranked little above convicts; indeed, some gladiators were convicted criminals. Others were slaves. By this time slavery accounted for roughly every third person in Italy. Slaves were liable to extreme and arbitrary punishment from their owners; while the death penalty for free Romans was rarely invoked (and humanely executed), slaves were routinely crucified.
Spartacus was trained at the gladiatorial school (ludus) near Capua, belonging to one Lentulus Batiatus. It was here that in 73 BC, Spartacus led a revolt of 74 gladiators, who armed themselves, overpowered their guards and escaped. This is how Plutarch deals with it in the section of his Roman History, The Life of Crassus:

“The insurrection of the gladiators and the devastation of Italy, commonly called the war of Spartacus, began upon this occasion. One Lentulus Batiatus trained up a great many gladiators in Capua, most of them Gauls and Thracians, who, not for any fault by them committed, but simply through the cruelty of their master, were kept in confinement for this object of fighting one with another. Two hundred of these formed a plan to escape, but being discovered, those of them who became aware of it in time to anticipate their master, being seventy-eight, got out of a cook's shop chopping-knives and spits, and made their way through the city, and lighting by the way on several wagons that were carrying gladiators' arms to another city, they seized upon them and armed themselves. And seizing upon a defensible place, they chose three captains, of whom Spartacus was chief, a Thracian of one of the nomad tribes, and a man not only of high spirit and valiant, but in understanding, also, and in gentleness superior to his condition, and more of a Grecian than the people of his country usually are.”
So, armed with the knives in the cook's shop and a wagon full of weapons that they seized, the slaves fled to the slopes of Mount Vesuvius, near modern day Naples. The news of the breakout encouraged others to follow. A steady flow of rural slaves soon joined the mutineers, whose numbers began to swell. The group overran the region, raiding the farms for food and supplies. Thus the rebels began by winning small victories, which lead to bigger things. Plutarch continues his account: “First, then, routing those that came out of Capua against them, and thus procuring a quantity of proper soldiers' arms, they gladly threw away their own as barbarous and dishonourable.”
One can almost picture the exhilaration of these early victories and the joy with which the gladiators cast aside the hated uniform of their trade and dressed themselves as proper soldiers, not slaves. This little detail reveals something far more important than weapons and equipment. It reveals a growing confidence, the rejection not only of the servile state but also of the servile mentality. We see the same thing in every strike and in every revolution in history, where the ordinary workers – the lineal descendants of the slaves – draw themselves up to their true height and begin to think and act like free men and women.
This slave mutiny was by no means a unique event. When the news of the outbreak reached Rome, it caused some concern, but neither surprise nor undue alarm. In the previous century, two slave revolts, both on Sicily, had been put down at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. There could be no doubt in the minds of the august Senators who held control of the whole world in their hands that the outcome of this rising would be no different.
In the first instance, therefore, the Roman authorities did not rate Spartacus as highly as later commentators. The Senate did not even bother to send a legion to suppress the rebels, but only a militia force of about 3,000 under the praetor, Claudius Glaber. They clearly considered that this was a mere police operation and easily dealt with. They thought this would be more than enough to suppress a small number of badly armed slaves. But Spartacus' camp had become a magnet for slaves from the surrounding area, several thousand of whom had joined him. Unlike the Roman soldiers and their officers, the slaves were fighting a desperate battle for survival. By contrast, the Roman generals underestimated the enemy and were unduly lax in the beginning.
It is a well-known fact that revolutionaries can only win by going onto the offensive and showing the greatest audacity. The Romans besieged the rebels on Vesuvius, blocking their escape. The slaves found themselves besieged on a mountain, accessible only by one narrow and difficult passage, which the Romans kept guarded, “encompassed on all other sides with steep and slippery precipices”. In an impressive tactical coup, Spartacus had ropes made from vines and with his men absailed down a cliff on the other side of the volcano, to the rear of the Roman soldiers, and launched a surprise attack.
Plutarch describes the situation:

“Upon the top, however, grew a great many wild vines, and cutting down as many of their boughs as they had need of, they twisted them into strong ladders long enough to reach from thence to the bottom, by which, without any danger, they got down all but one, who stayed there to throw them down their arms, and after this succeeded in saving himself. The Romans were ignorant of all this, and, therefore, coming upon them in the rear, they assaulted them unawares and took their camp.”
Claudius Glaber, expecting an easy victory over a handful of slaves, probably did not bother to take the elementary precaution of fortifying his camp. He did not even post adequate sentries to keep a lookout. The Romans paid a heavy price for this neglect. Most of them were killed in their beds, including the praetor Claudius Glaber. This was an ignominious defeat for the Romans. The slaves now possessed weapons and armour. More importantly, they developed a sense that they could fight and win. This was the biggest gain.

[praxis1966]

Honestly, I don't understand the puritanical streak so common amongst leftists these days. Without having seen the show, I have to say that as long as there's no agenda other than doing an effective a job as possible showing the material historical reality of the age then what's the problem? It was a violent, hedonistic time by all accounts... Sanitizing history, in my mind, is no matter what the motivation one of the most reactionary activities one can participate in.

To frame things a bit differently, let's say I set about making a film that was an honest, pull-no-punches depiction of antebellum plantation life in the Southeastern US. If I decided to show graphic depictions of the plantation owner raping female slaves and overseers flogging others, would you say I had made an exploitative, reactionary film? Or would you call me honest?

[Dimentio]

Spartacus: Blood and Sand is just Xena in combination with soft-porn, and has little to do with actual Spartacus and actual Roman culture. It is a feeble attempt to do a HBO Rome, with a combination of excessive sex and violence but without the interesting and historically accurate bits.

I have ignored it.

[praxis1966]

Well, like I said, I haven't seen it. What I objected to was what seemed like an immediate knee jerk reaction to nudity in film no matter the context (which I have seen around here before).

[Dimentio]

There is nothing wrong with nudity.

What is - if not wrong so at least - tasteless, is to use nudity and violence to draw audiences.

There is a difference between the headlines "nubile nymph lies on a sofa next to a bowl with fruits" and "white curly whore prepares to rub her pussy".

[Amphictyonis]

Ya I'm not sure Marx would be sitting on the couch eating pop corn with this show. I do wish there would be more subversive shows on TV, stories of overthrowing political structures and whatnot. It seems everything on TV is either mindless entertainment or information meant to substantiate our current economic/political reality. Well, it doesn't seem this way it's the way it is. I wish that film about the Spanish Revolution with Orwell had been made. I would've seen that.

[praxis1966]

I wish that film about the Spanish Revolution with Orwell had been made. I would've seen that.

Meh For what it's worth, there's always Land and Freedom (Loach, 1995).

[x359594]

It's worth noting that the 1960 film version of Spartacus (directed by Stanley Kubrick and Anthony Mann uncredited) was based on Howard Fast's novel with a screenplay by Dalton Trumbo, both Marxists.

[Hoplite]

Do you think the new show on the STARZ network is reactionary? Pornographic? Unnecessarily too violent or a great story of overcoming oppression? I'm torn on the graphic sexual nature of the show because I can't say only women are objectified. Penises are a swinging. The violence is to be expected in an account of Roman gladiators is it not? What are your thoughts? Mindless entertainment or potential for some sort of subversive political message?
It's definitely over the top, but it isn't entirely unrealistic. Rome was somewhat similar to it's portrayal in the series, even if they did sensationalize a good deal of it. Yes, women were objectified, but that's fucking Rome, sex and violence was common. Mosaics depicting extremely graphic sex have been found in common rooms of Roman villas, these were rooms that children played in or guests were received in.

The only part that bugged me about the show is how bloody and brutal they portray how the gladiators were treated. You would NEVER starve or lock a gladiator up for extended periods of time, similar to how you wouldn't starve a race horse that lost a race. These men received some of the best medical care available, they were well cared for and very well fed. Gladiators were exceptionally expensive and were a large investment for the lanista, mistreating them was bad business.

Additionally, gladiators very rarely fought to the death. For the same reason demolition derbies are not done with sports cars; gladiators were fucking expensive and killing them off was not a good way to make money. Lanistae who had gladiators die unexpectedly could expect to be compensated by the editor of the match. Death did occur and fights to the death were not unheard of, but as a gladiator, your survival rate was quite good. The depiction of a Roman signing up to be a gladiator willingly happened frequently, it was like being a rockstar of the Roman world.

The lanista was also not as high, socially speaking, as they are portrayed in the series. Lanistae were hated but accepted as a necessary evil, Romans looked at them the same way we tend to view pimps. A Roman senator would NEVER have been seen to be friendly with a lanista, at least not in public.

[chimx]

What is - if not wrong so at least - tasteless, is to use nudity and violence to draw audiences.

No way, that's what makes it good.

[Mather]

I liked Spartacus: Blood and Sand.

Okay it is not historically accurate, but then again very few films and TV series are and unless the makers of Spartacus: Blood and Sand made the claim that the show was a historical documentary, I do not see the problem. At the end of the day it is entertainment, as are most TV shows and films. If I wanted to learn more about the history of the Roman Empire or Spartacus, I would read a book, watch a TV documentary or look up stuff on the internet. If some people are historically misled by a show like Spartacus: Blood and Sand, then that simply says more about them than the show.

As for the violence and nudity, so what!

History is violent and when it comes to entertainment, most people like violence, sex and nudity, me included. I am always surprised by peoples prudish attitudes on these matters.

[Mather]

Also the lead actor who played Spartacus, Andy Whitfield, is hot.

http://www.sasareport.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/andy-whitfield-2.jpg

:drool:

[brigadista]

it was a good soap

[Tim Finnegan]

Wasn't Spartacus: Blood and Sand basically just 300 with the playful, self-aware mythologising removed in favour of more tits? I think it'd be honestly rather difficult to characterise something like that as meaningfully political one way or the other.

[Mather]

Wasn't Spartacus: Blood and Sand basically just 300 with the playful, self-aware mythologising removed in favour of more tits? I think it'd be honestly rather difficult to characterise something like that as meaningfully political one way or the other.

Thats the point I was making in my post.

As long as the viewer sees a show like Spartacus: Blood and Sand as entertainment and not as a historical documentary, then I don't see the problem.

For me the show was fun and I enjoyed it, but if I wanted to learn more about ancient Rome then I would either watch a historical documentary on TV or read up on it.

[praxis1966]

As long as the viewer sees a show like Spartacus: Blood and Sand as entertainment and not as a historical documentary, then I don't see the problem.

Fair enough... But that kind of thing does happen. Apparently, these people (http://creationmuseum.org/) saw The Flintstones and thought it was a historical documentary.