Pompey the Great? Or Pompey the Mediocre?

[G-Manicus]

Various books I've read have painted Pompey as something less than Magnus-like as a general. While he was awarded triumph after triumph and was beloved by the people as a military genius, many accounts I've read portray him as a bit of an accidental hero, an opportunist whose achievements were overblown and exaggerated. For example, his mop-up mission against Spartacus' troops which ended up stealing Crassus' thunder. Or his defeats at the hands of Sertorius in Spain. Or taking over Lucullus's command in the East after all the heavy lifting had been done.

 

 

What say ye, my UNRV brethren, on the topic of Pompey's greatness? Would you liken him more to an Alexander? Or to a Captain Parmenter of F-Troop fame?

[M. Porcius Cato]

His campaign against the Cilician pirates was revolutionary, was it not?

[G-Manicus]

His campaign against the Cilician pirates was revolutionary, was it not?

One vote for "Great"

[P.Clodius]

Agreed, the pirate issue was dealt with in 4 months, after centuries of plaguing the eastern med. The pirates even conducted raids on Ostia, kidnapped a Praetor's wife, and interfered with the grain supply, hence, having an indirect effect on what went on in the forum. While Luculus is credited by historians for doing most of the work concerning the Mithridatic problem, he became a victim of politics, Pompey completed it with his customary efficiency. And that was one of Pompey's key traits when it comes down to it, he got things done. As for Sertorius, well he was a competent military tactician, some would say excellent. Is it right to judge negatively of Pompey because he 'failed', or took forever when up against Sertorius?

[G-Manicus]

So, on the issue of whether Pompey was truly a great general or just a somewhat lucky opportunist you lean towards "great."

[P.Clodius]

So, on the issue of whether Pompey was truly a great general or just a somewhat lucky opportunist you lean towards "great."

The title 'Great' was given to him by Sulla, some say in a tongue in cheek fashion. Few would argue against him being a 'Great' administrator. Do I personally think he was great, no, he appeared to lack the moral authority to stand up against his better judgment and subsequently lost because of it, he 'should' have beaten Caesar at Pharsalus but he didn't.

[Pompieus]

Didn't Napoleon or somebody say that it was a great mistake to underrate Pompey as a general? Somebody definitely said that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics, and it was in logistics and strategy that Pompey's genius lay. He beat the Marians in Sicily and Africa in record time, crushed the Gallic rebels on the way to Spain, conducted the pirate war on an unprecedented scale, and when he beat Mithridates and Tigranes they stayed beat! Also he faced two of the three greatest Roman commanders (Sertorius and Caesar) and beat them too. He got a bad press because the aristocrats, who hated him, wrote the histories. He may have loved praise a bit too much, committed questionable acts in his youth and suffered a loss of nerve at the end, but he wasn't arrogant enough to cause a civil war in the name of his "dignity". He fought for the Republic and was destroyed for it.

[Kosmo]

His name should be Pompey the Pretty Good!

[P.Clodius]

Also he faced two of the three greatest Roman commanders (Sertorius and Caesar) and beat them too.

I assume you're talking about Dyrrachium. On that one Pompey deserves credit for recognizing what Caesar was trying to achieve. On the other hand he had a shorter line to dig and more men to dig it with. So, he was competent, does that mean he was 'Great'? In the words of one who was there, "The enemy would have won today had they been led by a winner."

[Antiochus III]

The only man truly deserving the title great is Antiochus III.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

The impression I get is of a moderately talented commander who lacked the verve and daring of a greater man. Against pirates who were unlikey to be greatly organised (such geurilla/insurgent units rarely are, and only after protracted conflict do they learn the art of warfare by necessity and out of experience) he was able to conduct a great victory. Perhaps then it might be that Pompey was a thoughtful man, a general who tended toward contests of logic and approached warfare as we might a game of chess? Certainly against those who aren't on that intellectual level there is a chance of success, but against Caesar, a talented commander (if careless on campaign), a man who acted on his wits and had a better grasp of the dynamics of the battlefield, he would actually have been at a disadvantage. Lets not forget the pirates were raiding at will - its likely they were careless and contemptuous of roman defence, something that Pompey was able to exploit.

[spittle]

Didn't Napoleon or somebody say that it was a great mistake to underrate Pompey as a general? Somebody definitely said that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics, and it was in logistics and strategy that Pompey's genius lay. He beat the Marians in Sicily and Africa in record time, crushed the Gallic rebels on the way to Spain, conducted the pirate war on an unprecedented scale, and when he beat Mithridates and Tigranes they stayed beat! Also he faced two of the three greatest Roman commanders (Sertorius and Caesar) and beat them too. He got a bad press because the aristocrats, who hated him, wrote the histories. He may have loved praise a bit too much, committed questionable acts in his youth and suffered a loss of nerve at the end, but he wasn't arrogant enough to cause a civil war in the name of his "dignity". He fought for the Republic and was destroyed for it.

 

"..he wasn't arrogant enough to cause a civil war for his 'dignity'...."

Didn't contemporaries of Caesar/Pompey have a saying that 'Caesar could not stand a superior and Pompey could not stand an equal'?

[cornelius_sulla]

From all that I've read, I'd have to say that perhaps Pompeius was better than average but not quite as Great as he was made out to be, or evidently thought that he was.

 

Pompey the Modestly Endowed, perhaps?

 

Also, wasn't the cognomen 'Magnus' given to him by Sulla, and wasn't Sulla being sarcastic in giving it?

[G-Manicus]

Also, wasn't the cognomen 'Magnus' given to him by Sulla, and wasn't Sulla being sarcastic in giving it?

Yes.

[sullafelix]

He started young and did well. He was a great general, some of hs campaigns were not ones that have covered his name in glory and his politics were reprehensible, BUT although he set himself up to be the saviour of the Republic, riding in on his white charger when needed, he did actually fufill the role as required. One thing no-one has mentioned is Pompey's skill as a leader of men - the mark of a great general and something that set him apart from poor Lucullus who lost the support of his own army dispite his own tactical brilliance.

 

So.... Great? absolutely Flawed? Oh my yes!