So I have to make a correction to my last post: the slave leader Eunus, aka King Antiochus, was from the city of Apamea (not to be confused with a number of other cities named Apamea; thankfully there is only one Apamea in Syria).
This is a very interesting connection because Apamea was also the original homeland of the historian and philosophers Posidonius, who wrote the history of the Sicilian slave wars that was the basis of Diodorus’ history, which in turn was the basis of the two surviving excerpts on the Sicilian slave wars. However, as Dowden notes in his commentary on Posidonius’ fragments, the historian evinces no sympathy to Eunus because of this connection. Perhaps the historian at that point in his life fully identified as a Rhodian, where we know that he had lived for many years.
Anyways, back to the question of the ethnicity of the slaves during this revolt.
As I reviewed in my last post, Diodorus takes the time to emphatically state that Eunus called himself Antiochus and his followers Syrians. I think that this comment of Diodorus’ testifies to a strategy that Eunus had to create a new identity for his followers, an identity that was not based on being former slaves. It is entirely possible that the chose the ethnicity Syrian because there were many slaves on Sicily who were from Syria. Indeed, the geographer Strabo, in his description of the island of Delos, makes clear that that Syrians were one of the types of slaves who frequently came through the island:
“and the pirates, seeing the easy profit therein, bloomed forth in great numbers, themselves not only going in quest of booty but also trafficking in slaves. The kings both of Cyprus and of Egypt co‑operated with them in this, being enemies to the Syrians. Neither were the Rhodians friendly to the Syrians, and they therefore afforded them no assistance. And at the same time the pirates, pretending to be slave-dealers, carried on their evil business unchecked.” (Strabo 14.5.2)
Strabo also testifies to how Delos was an incredibly busy entre-pot, capable of moving over 10,000 slaves a day.
On the other hand, Diodorus himself suggests that not all of Eunus’ followers were Syrians. There are very few named characters in Diodorus’ account, but he does provide the details about the following people:
- One of Eunus’ generals was a man named Kleon, who was from Kilikia
- One of his counsellors was a man named Achaeus, whom Diodorus reports was from Achaea
Now it is entirely possible that Diodorus names the ethnicity of these men because their ethnicities are different from the other followers. However, Diodorus appears not to make such an assumption, since when describing the slave who betrayed the rebellion he goes out of his way to explain that he was Syrian: “At last Sarapion, a Syrian, betrayed the citadel, and all the fugitives fell into his hand.” So to reiterate: what I’m suggesting is that men such as Kleon and Achaeus would have been considered Syrian when part of Eunus’ army, even though they themselves had their own ethnicities.
This is a very interesting connection because Apamea was also the original homeland of the historian and philosophers Posidonius, who wrote the history of the Sicilian slave wars that was the basis of Diodorus’ history, which in turn was the basis of the two surviving excerpts on the Sicilian slave wars. However, as Dowden notes in his commentary on Posidonius’ fragments, the historian evinces no sympathy to Eunus because of this connection. Perhaps the historian at that point in his life fully identified as a Rhodian, where we know that he had lived for many years.
Anyways, back to the question of the ethnicity of the slaves during this revolt.
As I reviewed in my last post, Diodorus takes the time to emphatically state that Eunus called himself Antiochus and his followers Syrians. I think that this comment of Diodorus’ testifies to a strategy that Eunus had to create a new identity for his followers, an identity that was not based on being former slaves. It is entirely possible that the chose the ethnicity Syrian because there were many slaves on Sicily who were from Syria. Indeed, the geographer Strabo, in his description of the island of Delos, makes clear that that Syrians were one of the types of slaves who frequently came through the island:
“and the pirates, seeing the easy profit therein, bloomed forth in great numbers, themselves not only going in quest of booty but also trafficking in slaves. The kings both of Cyprus and of Egypt co‑operated with them in this, being enemies to the Syrians. Neither were the Rhodians friendly to the Syrians, and they therefore afforded them no assistance. And at the same time the pirates, pretending to be slave-dealers, carried on their evil business unchecked.” (Strabo 14.5.2)
Strabo also testifies to how Delos was an incredibly busy entre-pot, capable of moving over 10,000 slaves a day.
On the other hand, Diodorus himself suggests that not all of Eunus’ followers were Syrians. There are very few named characters in Diodorus’ account, but he does provide the details about the following people:
- One of Eunus’ generals was a man named Kleon, who was from Kilikia
- One of his counsellors was a man named Achaeus, whom Diodorus reports was from Achaea
Now it is entirely possible that Diodorus names the ethnicity of these men because their ethnicities are different from the other followers. However, Diodorus appears not to make such an assumption, since when describing the slave who betrayed the rebellion he goes out of his way to explain that he was Syrian: “At last Sarapion, a Syrian, betrayed the citadel, and all the fugitives fell into his hand.” So to reiterate: what I’m suggesting is that men such as Kleon and Achaeus would have been considered Syrian when part of Eunus’ army, even though they themselves had their own ethnicities.