Pompeius Magnus - A thief ?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Up to the age of forty two he had been uniformly successful; nothing he tried to do failed. After the age of fortytwo he had been uniformly unsuccessful; nothing he tried to do succeeded.

What happened at the age of forty two?

 

Apparently the unnamed, uncredited author of this story would have us believe that Pompey's change of fortune was caused by the god of the Jews. The theory is patent nonsense.

 

The only thing worthwhile to learn from this nonsense is the fallacy of post hoc reasoning, which is the bread-and-butter of the superstitious. By the same line of thinking, we should believe that since the sun rises after the rooster crows, the sun rises because the rooster crows.

 

 

O.K. you are polemicist...Hourayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

 

Let me get it - The rooster crows before the sun rises or the moon rises before the rooster becomes a wolf ? or maybe you don't know that the sun does not "rises" but it is the earth that is spinning and the sun is fixed ?

 

As I said before - Good for you .

Edited January 17, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[spittle]

What if the Rooster dies???

 

We're all doomed!

 

Luck and Ability. A great conbination.

AUGUSTUS was a very lucky person but he helped to make his own luck. IMHO, much like POMPEY.

[Julius Ratus]

Pompey beat Caesar at Dyrrachium, but ultimately lost the war in Greece and his head in Egypt. Every General can be afforded a lost battle if he wins the War. Pompey didn't win the war against Spartacus, he killed a disorganised bunch of slaves. Crassus deserves the glory for defeating Spartacus. If he didn't get the credit then, he deserves to now that we have 20-20 historical hindsight.

 

Furthermore, I attribute Pompey's loss at Pharsalus to the fact that he had the "old men" with him. If he had waited he might have won.

[pompeius magnus]

I cant allow my name sake to take this kind of abuse. From my readings of Pompeius there are many questions that have been raised to his various techniques. The greatest of the questions on his techniques/ his supposed stealing would definently be the taking away of the command in the Mithradic War from Lucullus. This is a matter of point of view contrary as I have read that citizens of that time viewed it as a great injustice, and others as something that was not his fault. My view on this topic would be that in the world of Roman politics it was every man for himself, there were obviously alliances that were formed, such as Lucullus being a general who was in favor with Sulla, and Pompeius who had the backing of the people and much of the senate. I have recently come up with the notion that the main reason behind Lucullus losing his command was because of this favor of Sulla who had since died and many were still angry with his policies as dictator. Pompeius' main weakness was his drive to be liked by all, with this he fell into many problems and sided himself with the wrong people whom would eventually lead to his downfall at the battle of Pharlasus, or something like that. In another instance Pompey was sent to Spain and in a sense took the command away from the general over there in the war against Marius' cousin and a very talented general Serotorius. Pompey was defeated at first in this war but his great organizational skills and generalship helped the tide to be swung and Sertorius defeated. But in this instance there is no blaming Pompey for attempting to steal the command of Pius. With Lucullus, Pompeius was also in favor with Sulla in his younger years but at a much less extent and more of an aquintance. I await a reply.