The 3rd Servile War allowed Crassus to finally take worthy action from the eyes of his fellow powerful Romans instead of just being a hella rich citizen. He became consul following that and the following years shared the spotlight with Pompey and Caesar, militarily and politically. Died in Carrhae in 53 BC. 26 years later the Roman Empire is formed.
Here is the thing, what if Spartacus had never rebelled? No rebellion, no military opportunity for Crassus to step in and put his money for the Republic’s good use. No military opportunity, no political domino effect. No political domino effect, no first triumvirate and so on and so on. It is also believed Crassus helped to sort of hold the other two, Caesar and Pompey, in check and that his death precipitated their falling out, ultimately resulting in Caesar’s civil war, His assassination and the Roman Empire being formed.
Now this is just a rough ‘what if’ scenario and there are other/additional factors, events or protagonists at play. However I started wondering that and pondering if whether the Roman Empire was just a matter of time? Perhaps I am giving too much importance to the role Crassus played in all of this. Would definitely enjoy reading other people’s insights.
Cheers.
Absolutely yes, the roman "empire" would emerge as a formal monarchy. I do also agree that you may be giving Crassus too much weight. It is a complicated topic, but will try to be brief and simple.
The "Roman Empire" did in fact already exist, while it was not an state with a formal "Roman Empire" designation by historians (it is referred to as the Late Republic); it was in fact an empire without an "emperor" and contemporaries treated it as such. The term was "imperium romanum" (where Rome had imperium) was commonly used.
The drift towards dictatorship was well already underway, by the time of the Spartacist rebellion, with the multiple consulships held by Marius and Sulla. The latter was in fact a dictator. You are correct in that the servile war did help make Crassus and Pompey wee bit more notorious (albeit in a small way - see below), but if not them, then others would have walked into that breach gaining prestige elsewhere with many other conflicts or wars. But the overall consolidation of power by a few would continue regardless.
Finally, while it was the most widespread and well known servile war in Roman history, the Spartacist servile war was not the only such revolt. Putting down slave rebellions and civil uprisings was not particularly glamourous. While it definitely made them kudos with some peers, it would not have given them much formal laudaments and prestige, and certainly no triumph. The outcome didn't alter the basic structure of the state politics and factions.
Both Crassus and Pompey rose to much more prominence via later events and alliances with Caesar plus on their own accord. Pompey had already made his name with Sulla and in Spain (just before joining Crassus in Italy - some sources say he stole Crassus' thunder) and later versus the pirates. Crassus was not much in terms of generalship, but his power came from his wealth which enabled Pompey and Caesar to ascend in prestige. He may have found other paths to influence.
I agree, Crassus and his money were the lubricant that held the first triumvirate together, but ultimately the factionalization in roman politics would have made another civil war inevitable - and thus the rise of another "dictator".