Why do you think the slave revolt led by Spartacus was successful for two years?

Answer 1

the answer isn't easy. Spartacus managed to defeat both Publicola and Cliodanus without Crixus' help. I suppose in the final battle it was quantity that won over quality. Crixus had left Spartacus with thousands of rebels, and they were all killed, so Spartacus' army became smaller after their first defeat. Crassus brought 6 legions (54,000 Roman soldiers) to defeat Spartacus, so Spartacus had to use what he had left, which wasn't enough. Spartacus' army was trained but there were just too many Romans to fight in that final battle..

Answer 2

Spartacus did not succeed. He turned out to be one of history's biggest loosers. He could have made his escape from Italy as he had reached the northern Alps, but then for some unknown reason he reversed himself and traveled back down to the south, trying to escape via Sicily. At any rate, he initially escaped from his gladiatorial school due to lax security and was able to persuade other slaves to join him and his group after they won some battles against the Romans. Now here is where Spartacus seems to get all his romantic aura with him being credited for beating the great, strong Roman army. However, he never, ever had to fight a properly trained Roman army until the last battle, which he lost--big time. This is because during the Spartacus rampage, the crack Roman troops were away from Italy fighting wars on two fronts. There was a revolt in Spain that needed putting down and then there was the third Mithridatic war that needed attention in the Mideast. The defense of Italy was left in the hands of untrained rookies making it easy for Spartacus and is men to outfox them. It was not until Crassus came along and whipped the Roman army into shape that they were able to put down the slave revolt.