historical things about the spartacus insurrection

with references/links to sources

This page is not meant to contain detailed descriptions of the course of the uprising, as the novel is very much based on actual events.

Spartacus vs. Hannibal

Crassus' letter to the senate,

The name Spartacus is usually considered with many question marks, compared with the name Hannibal, for example.
(Spartacus: something of the far left political side, Spartacus League, etc.; Hannibal: his march across the Alps, the battle of Cannae)

One of the possible reasons is probably the number and extent of the written records, most of which have remained only in fragments(Sallust), some are completely lost. Only two are preserved to this day (Plutarch, Appian).
Here are two links to probably the most extensive pages, but unfortunately not as good as the print editions of the two historians.
For example, Crassus' letter to the senate, asking them to summon Pompey and Luculus:
»...but now he regretted«,
Plutarch wrote (time frame of Crassus'-Wall, erected in southern Italy, which Spartacus broke through), this and other things arent in the page letters..

Plutarch Livius.org
Appian Livius.org

Hannibal and Alexander are names with which one associates histories of great, ingenious military leaders of antiquity. the Thracian Spartacus doesn't appear in it. His victories over Roman armies are mostly attributed by historians to the absence of Pompey and Lucullus (one tied in Iberia, the other in Asia). So Rome couldn't send 'real' legionnaires in the first years of the war

When it comes to Hannibal, there arn't such considerations, regardless of simple questions like: How was Rome still able to muster 'real' legions, after the battle of Cannae?
Questions like this are not intended to impose »it wasn't all that way«, but rather to provide a contrast to the possible reasons for considering the Spartacus uprising.
Historians also tend to describe the replacement of the militia army / citizen army, by a professional army (around 107 B. C. by Marius), as, having happened before, or insignificant or... to describe it. They base this on the latest research. Under the heading of the latest research you can now also find things like, - gladiators were fat, corpulent, because the fat layer protects better against sword strokes(no comment).
In the end, it remains that Rome, initially, had a militia army. Whether there was a professional army from 107 B. C. or before, whether it was Marius, or even someone else, becomes secondary in contrast to the fact that in 2016 B. C. (Hannibal) the roman army was a militia army, in contrast to 73 B. C. (insurrection).
The differences are also evident when considering Sulla (Lucius Cornelius Sulla). His actions towards the Senate, his march on Rome, the war against the Pontic king.

Spartacus Insurrection on Wikipedia

the uprising... a footnote

In encyclopedias for the past 20 years, the uprising has mostly been a footnote. There is now a page on Wikipedia that is more detailed, but wrong in terms of style and content. Exact figures are often used, events are mostly not based on what the few records contain (concerning the course of events and actual mention in the records). It becomes more serious, with a look at the two historians whose reports have been preserved in their entirety (Plutarch, Appian), but were written about 160/250 years after this uprising....
Neither is directly devoted to the insurrection, P. writes about it in the biography »Nikkias & Crassus«; Appian. in »Civil Wars«. .
Over the centuries the records have shrunk (Plutarch, old german, is more detailed).

The friendship with Crixus

300 patricians were, in honour of Crixus...

The friendship with Crixus may, may have been very intimate. mostly based on Appian (300 patricians were, in honour of Crixus... )
The separation is usually justified by quarrel or disagreement, although even in P. and A. only conjectures can be found.
Another cause of separation, found by chance, - the length of the march column. One thinks of 80,000 people, along the adriatic coastline, with all the incidents and vagaries of weather alone. So they split up to shorten it.
One can further assume that the baggage train with the women and children along the sea, but Crixus, with the Celtic-Germanic part of the army, moved a little further away, inland, and was thus also a protective shield against any Roman troops.

Spartacus Origin

Designations... assigned according to the type of armament

On the objection to the origin, one can observe -evolution-, historical tradition. The thracian origin is noticed in Plutarch, but then described as uncertain because »Thracians« was also meant to address gladiators. That is even true. But these explicit designations were not invented by the Romans, but were simply assigned according to the type of armament. Thus, in addition to »Thracians«, there were also Samnites, Etruscans, Numidians, always based on the respective armour of the ethnic group/tribe/region.
Furthermore, it can be assumed that these designations probably came to exist under Emperor Augustus (Octavian). It was not until his time that entire battles were re-enacted with the corresponding equipment.
Above all, - > Plutarch does not simply write about a Thracian, but: „...a Thracian from the tribe of the Maider...“ (sometimes »Medi«), i.e. -not- in the context of gladiators.
Appian writes: „...a Thracian by birth...“, Florus of a: „...Thracian tributary...“. All three write no more than one sentence about his origin, but always in the context of a people (by birth, tribe, tributary).
Certainly too less to be certain. But to truncate this little, in order to interpret what is only possible with the half...?

Marcus L. Crassus

...after several heavy battles...

Wiki pages are not meant to repeat the sources. But what they present, here, is always to the disadvantage of the historical figure in question. This even becomes clear when reading the wiki page of the Roman who put down the uprising: Marcus Licinius Crassus..
The Spartacus insurrection is mentioned there with a single sentence, which, however, is more honorable than the entire Spartacus-Wiki-Page: „. . . but could only achieve victory after heavy fighting in 71 B.C.. “ If one compares it with Plutarch, even that is summarized very favorably for Crassus (keyword decimation). And the wiki page of this Roman »Marcus Licinius Crassus«, even reinforces this.

Stanley Kubrick

...wegen seines Umgangs mit den Stars

Wenn TV-Sender Dokus über ihn austrahlen, wird dieser Film meist nicht genannt. Kubrick hatte in diesem Film noch nicht die volle Kontrolle, wie er sie bei allen weiteren Filmen haben sollte. Auch war er nicht von Beginn an als Regisseur eingesetzt, sondern Anthony Mann, den Kirk Douglas, Hauptdarsteller und Produzent, durch Kubrick ersetzte(angeblich wegen seines Umgangs mit den Stars).

Aristoteles

...sich in dieser Art von Dienstbarkeit zu befinden

In Rom wurde man nicht Sklave nur weil man 'Pech hatte', sondern seiner Natur nach: »...eines Anderen sein kann.« (Aristoteles Politik).
Diese aristotelische Betrachtung steht für eine Geisteshaltung die sicher jeder Römer bewusst oder unbewusst verinnerlichte. Sodass Sklaven nicht nur hirachisch per Gesetz ganz unten standen, sondern '...es ist ihnen besser sich in dieser Art von Dienstbarkeit zu befinden..."(Aristoteles Politik). Dies galt auch für die meißten Aufständischen, aus Sicht der Römer. Auch für den Thraker Spartakus. Gegen solche mussten sie Armeen ins Feld schicken, konsularische Armeen, mehrere Jahre, mit schweren Niederlagen.