The most successful slave revolt in world history was that of Haiti. After successfully casting out the French, the former slaves then established their own republic. However, fighting a successful slave revolt does not mean that there were no factions among the Haitians. There were many and some historians even write of a “war within a war” to describe the extent of the infighting. This disunity provides an interesting background to article I.14 of the Haitian constitution of 1805, which declares that “the Haytians shall hence forward be known only by the generic appellation of Blacks.”
The second must successful slave revolt in world history was the first revolt of the slaves on Sicily, which began in 133 BCE. When exactly the war ended is disputed. Indeed, pretty much everything about the war is disputed, due to the nature of the sources. While the Roman history Livy also wrote about this war as part of his 142 book history of Rome from the time of Aeneas to the time of August, this part of his history also does not survive except in summary. The longest and most detailed narrative of this war are two summaries of Diodorus’ universal history. Diodorus was a Sicilian who lived in the first century BCE and wrote a history of the entire world as he knew it from mythological times to his own age, and as a result he wrote about these slave wars. However, not all of Diodorus’ history survives. For much of his history, including the bit about the slave wars, we are reliant on summaries written by Byzantine scholars. To further complicate matters, when Diodorus wrote his history, he conducted little of what we now would consider original scholarship. That is, much of his history is the summation or combination of one or more other works of historiography. Occasionally Diodorus offers up material that is based on his own experience, but mainly he relies on other writers. While it is not certain, it is rather likely that Diodorus based his description of the slave wars off of the historian Posidonius, who wrote a history that spanned from 146 to 80 BCE. Posidonius chose the date 146 BCE as his starting point because that is when the great historian Polybius ended his own history.
I have include a diagram that summarizes the relationship of these historiographical sources.
In addition to these historiographical sources, there is also a collection of Sicilian coins that date from this period. These coins bear traditional Sicilian iconography, such as a shaft of wheat, Demeter, and other symbols that Sicilians traditionally placed on their mints. However, they differ significantly in that they bear the name Antiochus, which was the name that the slave leader Eunus took for himself.
There are three things that the ancient sources, other than the coins, agree about Eunus:
“Eunus, the king of the rebels, called himself “Anitochus” and his mob of rebels “Syrians”.”
Now of course it is possible to interpret this line as meaning that all the men who followed Eunus were Syrian. But what if the emphasis is instead placed on the fact that this is what the king called his men? That is, just as the author does not think that Eunus really was a king named Antiochus, the author also does not think that Eunus was right to call his men Syrians?
Indeed, it seems to me that the second interpretation is possible, as Diodorus’ narrative has emphasized the motley nature of Eunus’ followers, that is, they not only consisted of rebel slaves but also of bandits and herdsmen turned robbers. However, first it is important to consider whether or not Diodorus actually included this detail and whether or not it is likely to have actually happened.
While I emphasized how the coinage from that Eunus struck mostly continued the iconography that the Sicilians had previously used, it does nonetheless have the name Antiochus on it. It is important to consider the power of this name. Antiochus was a name closely associated with the Seleucid Empire, the empire that ruled the eastern lands that Alexander the Great had conquered, as Antiochus III the Great took the throne in 223 BCE. He came to power after the empire was nearly a hundred years old, but was nonetheless an important figure as he took a number of measure to stabilize this fractious government. One of those measures was an increase of power at Antioch, which was and continues to be in that area we think of as Syria, which had been made the capital of the empire only a few years before Antiochus III’s reign. As a result, there was a strong association between the name Antiochus and the city Antioch. Indeed, I think that it is entirely possible that Diodorus did not know for sure what city Eunus came from but speculated that it must have been Antioch when he asserted that both he and his consort were from that city. Also important for thinking about Eunus as a king Antiochus, the current king of the Seleucid empire during the time of the slave revolt on Sicily was Antiochus VII. By taking the name Antiochus, Eunus was associating himself with a type of Syrian royalty.
Does this name therefore indicate that Eunus called his followers Syrians? Possibly, but only if we remember just how malleable the term “Syrian” is. Specifically, I think that it’s possible that Eunus was promoting a very Greek kind of Syrian identity. Such a move would have been quite advantageous, given how the Sicilians themselves were part of Magna Graeca, that is, Western Greece. In other words, just as the Haitians were willing to declare that all Haitians were Black as a way to unify after successfully casting out the French slave-owners, I think that Eunus was part of a similar kind of project in Sicily, using a Syrian identity to unite former slaves. The difference is that this Syrian identity, because of its overlap with Hellenism, was compatible with the Hellenism that the non-Roman Sicilians themselves practiced.
The second must successful slave revolt in world history was the first revolt of the slaves on Sicily, which began in 133 BCE. When exactly the war ended is disputed. Indeed, pretty much everything about the war is disputed, due to the nature of the sources. While the Roman history Livy also wrote about this war as part of his 142 book history of Rome from the time of Aeneas to the time of August, this part of his history also does not survive except in summary. The longest and most detailed narrative of this war are two summaries of Diodorus’ universal history. Diodorus was a Sicilian who lived in the first century BCE and wrote a history of the entire world as he knew it from mythological times to his own age, and as a result he wrote about these slave wars. However, not all of Diodorus’ history survives. For much of his history, including the bit about the slave wars, we are reliant on summaries written by Byzantine scholars. To further complicate matters, when Diodorus wrote his history, he conducted little of what we now would consider original scholarship. That is, much of his history is the summation or combination of one or more other works of historiography. Occasionally Diodorus offers up material that is based on his own experience, but mainly he relies on other writers. While it is not certain, it is rather likely that Diodorus based his description of the slave wars off of the historian Posidonius, who wrote a history that spanned from 146 to 80 BCE. Posidonius chose the date 146 BCE as his starting point because that is when the great historian Polybius ended his own history.
I have include a diagram that summarizes the relationship of these historiographical sources.
In addition to these historiographical sources, there is also a collection of Sicilian coins that date from this period. These coins bear traditional Sicilian iconography, such as a shaft of wheat, Demeter, and other symbols that Sicilians traditionally placed on their mints. However, they differ significantly in that they bear the name Antiochus, which was the name that the slave leader Eunus took for himself.
There are three things that the ancient sources, other than the coins, agree about Eunus:
- He became king after the slave revolt
- He was said to breathe fire
- He said he knew the future, whether through astronomy or because of a special divine relationship with the Syrian Goddess
“Eunus, the king of the rebels, called himself “Anitochus” and his mob of rebels “Syrians”.”
Now of course it is possible to interpret this line as meaning that all the men who followed Eunus were Syrian. But what if the emphasis is instead placed on the fact that this is what the king called his men? That is, just as the author does not think that Eunus really was a king named Antiochus, the author also does not think that Eunus was right to call his men Syrians?
Indeed, it seems to me that the second interpretation is possible, as Diodorus’ narrative has emphasized the motley nature of Eunus’ followers, that is, they not only consisted of rebel slaves but also of bandits and herdsmen turned robbers. However, first it is important to consider whether or not Diodorus actually included this detail and whether or not it is likely to have actually happened.
While I emphasized how the coinage from that Eunus struck mostly continued the iconography that the Sicilians had previously used, it does nonetheless have the name Antiochus on it. It is important to consider the power of this name. Antiochus was a name closely associated with the Seleucid Empire, the empire that ruled the eastern lands that Alexander the Great had conquered, as Antiochus III the Great took the throne in 223 BCE. He came to power after the empire was nearly a hundred years old, but was nonetheless an important figure as he took a number of measure to stabilize this fractious government. One of those measures was an increase of power at Antioch, which was and continues to be in that area we think of as Syria, which had been made the capital of the empire only a few years before Antiochus III’s reign. As a result, there was a strong association between the name Antiochus and the city Antioch. Indeed, I think that it is entirely possible that Diodorus did not know for sure what city Eunus came from but speculated that it must have been Antioch when he asserted that both he and his consort were from that city. Also important for thinking about Eunus as a king Antiochus, the current king of the Seleucid empire during the time of the slave revolt on Sicily was Antiochus VII. By taking the name Antiochus, Eunus was associating himself with a type of Syrian royalty.
Does this name therefore indicate that Eunus called his followers Syrians? Possibly, but only if we remember just how malleable the term “Syrian” is. Specifically, I think that it’s possible that Eunus was promoting a very Greek kind of Syrian identity. Such a move would have been quite advantageous, given how the Sicilians themselves were part of Magna Graeca, that is, Western Greece. In other words, just as the Haitians were willing to declare that all Haitians were Black as a way to unify after successfully casting out the French slave-owners, I think that Eunus was part of a similar kind of project in Sicily, using a Syrian identity to unite former slaves. The difference is that this Syrian identity, because of its overlap with Hellenism, was compatible with the Hellenism that the non-Roman Sicilians themselves practiced.