For many years I've been pretty much obsessed with ancient Rome (especially during the Republic), so I was surprised that I didn't care for the Spartacus series. It was just too comic book
ish for me (the slow-mo blood splatters and action scenes were straight out of
300... which I hated). But the period that I *think* Spartacus is supposed to represent is my favorite to study: last century B.C. I've only seen bits & pieces of Spartacus, but the History Channel series, Rome: Power and Glory, covered some of the same periods and was more entertaining (IMO)... plus it was more rooted in actual history.
As for the Roman population and its make up, uh yeah, by about 200 B.C. (if not before), there were Africans in Rome, along with all sorts of other people. By the 2nd century A.D., Africans made up a good portion of the Imperial Cavalry and certain auxiliary military units - probably the most famous unit being led by Lusius Quietus, a Roman general and governor of African decent, who served under Emperor Trajan. Before that time (early 1st century), the city of Rome probably began resembling modern day New York, as far as its ethnic make up. The Romans, like modern Americans, were all about people and things that were different, if not exotic. So, a good many of the gladiators were from other lands, as well as scholars and writers. In fact, in polite company, Romans tended to speak Greek, not Latin. There's no evidence that the Romans had any race or ethnic hangups at all. What it generally came down to with the Romans was whether you spoke Latin or Greek (which made you "civilized") or not (which made you a "barbarian"). But the Romans still kept Greeks as slaves. Their social structure was
so completely different from our own that most Americans can't seem to understand how that could be.
To the appearance of the crowds in Spartacus, while I haven't seen that episode (or many others), it's likely they would have looked like the "unwashed masses"... because that's largely who/what they were. That's who an overwhelming majority of the Roman population was. The distribution of wealth in ancient Rome was much more concentrated in a few hands than it is in modern day America. And with or without money, you basically stayed within your social class from cradle to grave. Unlike in the U.S., there was very little chance of upward social mobility - it was more likely that one would/could fall down the social ladder than climb up. Estimates I've seen suggest that the upper class Romans composed about 1% of the Roman population. The rest were lower class people - although some of them had money (just no social standing). There was basically no middle class to speak of (the way that we think of it). And it was strictly forbidden
by law for someone of the Roman upper classes (Patrician/Senatorial or Equestrian rank) to marry someone who was of lower social rank (Plebeian). So it's not like the Plebes were out there rubbing shoulders with the Equestrians or Senators.
Considering the origin of the word, it's kind of amusing that so many people have this
romanticized and factually incorrect view of Rome... wanting to believe that it was one thing when, in fact, it was something quite different. Kind of bummed me out... cause I really
wanted to like that show too!
