Eyes cast toward the heavens. Battiatus prayed,

[Skidmore]

"I beg you, do not f&(# me."

Living feels just that capricious and tenuous these days.

[dtexdem]

1. Did he have any more luck than Rick Perry did with the Texas drought?

;-)

[happyslug]

2. I can find no such statement in the Historical Record, or for that matter ANY statement from him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentulus_Batiatus

More on Spartacus:
http://www.historyinfilm.com/spart/real.htm

There are some errors in the above story of Rome, for example Maius raising of the first mercenary Roman army was NOT for service in Africa, but against German who had moved into modern day France. The rest of the outline appears accurate as far as most historical records indicate.

I use the term "As far as most historical records indicate" do to the fact that the reports we have were written years later to show the greatest of Crassus and Pompey (and to down play both, given Caesar came out on top). The most intresting part, is a phase Plutarch uses (Paragraph 9-3) They were also joined by many of the herdsmen and shepherds of the region, sturdy men and swift of foot, some of whom they armed fully, and employed others as scouts and light infantry.

This phase is important for the Herdsmen and Shepherds were NOT slaves, but joint with Spartacus against their fellow Romans. This is part of the fight between the Poor and Rich of Rome. While Plutarch clearly did NOT want to say that some, if not most, of the followers of Spartacus were Roman Freemen, such a finding would make the success of his Army, as opposed to the parallel army of "Gauls and Germans", i.e. the freemen of Rome preferred to Join with the Slaves against the Roman Elites then fight against the Roman Elites. This would also explain why Roman mercenary units had to be called back from overseas to put down Spartacus when you had overwhelming number of Free Romans that could have done the Job (i.e. The Roman elite did one trusted the poor of Rome to suppress the Slaves, preferring Roman already being paid to fight based on the real possibility that if Spartacus actually attacked Rome, the Rome Poor, 90% of the Roman population, might joint Spartacus).

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html

One of the primary sources on Spartacus. Plutarch:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Crassus*.html

Another original source, Appian, see Section 116 et ad of Book 1 of his History of the Civil Wars:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html

Another Source, Florus, Liber Alter • Book II, Section VIII:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Florus/Epitome/2B*.html#VIII

Livy's actual book on the Revolt are now lost, but an outline does exist, it is very brief, in a couple of sentences covering at least two books of Livys:
http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/periochae/periochae091.html#95

Yes, if you think I am staying to close to actual history NOT the TV program, you are correct. I have NEVER watched that program, I know it exist and have passed it while channel flipping, but the few minutes I have seen so violated what we know of Roman society at that time period that I keep on Flipping. On the other hand, if you look at the above cites, the actual history on Spartacus is very limited. Plutarch has the most extensive history and surprisingly pro-Spartacus given that Plutarch main source of revenue would be the upper classes of Rome who could read and write NOT the lower classes who could only hear the stories if someone read it to them.

[Skidmore]

3. I thought it an interesting bit a dialogue.

Was not interested in being historical or literal, on in the commentary one screenwriter was making on the capriciousness of life and how adrift people feel at times. Even works of fiction contain kernels of truth about people and life.

[happyslug]

4. So you are falling into the trap, Ronald Reagan often fell into, using movies as history.

Reagan was notorious for using quotes from movies and movie plot devices as actual history. He is often attacked for doing so on this forum and I support such attacks for if you are quoting a person based on a movie or TV Scrip, you can end up making a statement that the actual person being quoted would NEVER have made or worse, made an actual quote opposite of what the person portraying that person in the Movie or TV program made.

As to the person you quoted, all we know of him is that he owned Spartacus and the School the Spartacus revolt started in. He could have been like he was portrayed in the Movie, Spartacus (By Peter Ustinov), or like in the TV program. He could have been a Roman Noble, or a freed slave. We do NOT know and that was my point. The quote is NOT from him, but from a person portraying that Character, but except for the name and the above facts is completely made up.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with using quotes from Movies or TV, but you have to make it clear where the term came from. Shakespeare has been quoted for centuries for statements he had his various characters in his play say, but the comment is Shakespeare wrote the statement and often even the play the comment is made in. The issue is NOT the quote but the Attribution. You have to make it clear that this is NOT a comment known to be made by the person being "Quoted" but what was written for someone playing that character was know to say in a play, movie or in this case a TV program.