Pompey doesnt get killed?

How about if, on arriving in Egypt, Pompey is not killed. In OTL, Ceasar was , or at least pretended to be pissed off. Would Ceasar welcome a prodigal Pompey back into the fold?
 
Caesar would be in trouble : he can't totally pardon Pompey that was his most important opponent (not much by himself, but mainly because he was before the Civil War the most prestigious general and politic with Caesar).

Going back in Rome with him? He couldn't indefinitly jail him (he would have meant his death), making him judged (too much risks it would end at Caesar desadvantage even partially)...
In inner exile? Better way to see a court of opponent forming outside direct Caesar's reach.

I think the most probable is to let Pompey live in exile in Egypt or another client state, being still watched by Caesar's men.
Pompey would be possibly forgotten more and more, and if he tried (or others tried for him) to create another opposing force based on his name, an "unfortunate accident" likely said to be the client king's responsability would occur...
 
I think you're missing one point : Pompey did not want to live as an exile or thanks to Caesar's mercy/clementia.

He wanted to fight to the end : victory or death.
This man had boasted that he was the unequalable roman general and first citizen.
This man had forced Caesar into choosing submission (that is political ruin) or open revolt, which led Caesar to risk it all in a civil war.
This man had been ridiculed by Caesar during the years 49 and 48 who succeeded in repeatdely defeating the "great" man and his allies with far fewer ressources.

He had no significant troops in Egypt. The eastern clients always went to the stronger party. He should have gone to Africa and joined with Metellus Scipio, Labienus and Cato.

But his prestige and authority were destroyed.
 
Caesar would be in trouble : he can't totally pardon Pompey that was his most important opponent (not much by himself, but mainly because he was before the Civil War the most prestigious general and politic with Caesar).

Going back in Rome with him? He couldn't indefinitly jail him (he would have meant his death), making him judged (too much risks it would end at Caesar desadvantage even partially)...
In inner exile? Better way to see a court of opponent forming outside direct Caesar's reach.

I think the most probable is to let Pompey live in exile in Egypt or another client state, being still watched by Caesar's men.
Pompey would be possibly forgotten more and more, and if he tried (or others tried for him) to create another opposing force based on his name, an "unfortunate accident" likely said to be the client king's responsability would occur...
It was my understanding that Caesar wanted to pardon and make up with Pompey.
 
I think you're missing one point : Pompey did not want to live as an exile or thanks to Caesar's mercy/clementia.
I don't think Caesar would have let him the choice regarding this, except maybe allowing him to suicide.

This man had been ridiculed by Caesar during the years 49 and 48 who succeeded in repeatdely defeating the "great" man and his allies with far fewer ressources.
Caesar is the main responsible for having this ideas widespread : while it could represent an historical reality, we have to be careful to see at which point Pompey was effectivly burnt. The survivance of Pompeists after his death would tend to show that his name kept a part of political prestige and credibility.

It was my understanding that Caesar wanted to pardon and make up with Pompey.
According to Caesar at least : you can only give him so much credibility and antique historians were more dubious.
Now, he couldn't have being harsh or bloody on Pompey if he wanted to not give argument to his opponents in Rome and to end the Civil War. Not exactly the same than pardon and make buddy-buddy :)

To resume : we're in the shadow of Caesar's propaganda. While it is based on an historical reality, he certainly want to show us what he wanted or believed, not the absolute and objective truthness.
 
According to Caesar at least : you can only give him so much credibility and antique historians were more dubious.
Now, he couldn't have being harsh or bloody on Pompey if he wanted to not give argument to his opponents in Rome and to end the Civil War. Not exactly the same than pardon and make buddy-buddy :)

To resume : we're in the shadow of Caesar's propaganda. While it is based on an historical reality, he certainly want to show us what he wanted or believed, not the absolute and objective truthness.

Well the senators at least were weary that Caesar and Pompey could make up. Pompey was nearly persuaded to meet with Caesar on one occassion ( forget whether in Italy or Greece), but the senators were convinced it would lead to their reconciliation and dissuaded him.

Pompey was prepared to do what was best for Pompey. If Caesar offered to meet with him, I think at this point there would be little reason for him to object. And it would do wonders for his image if he were to pardon and make up with Pompey, considering he went through great pains to show he was not just some power hungry tyrant who wanted to end the republic.
 
True everything Ceasar said or wrote has to be looked at with a grain of salt, but he did pardon many of his former enemies, Brutus and Cassius for instance. So it certainly possible that Caesar would pardon Pompey. Though then again he did drive several of his enemies to suicide so it could go either way. Though I think that, if anything, Pompey would either be held in a sort of house arrest or be compelled to commit suicide.
 
As far as propaganda is concerned, there was on both sides. But historically, the dominating propaganda has by far been optimate/senatorial propaganda.

Cato has been caricaturally magnified. Cato was a stubborn politician so stubborn that he was quite of an idiot. This man provoked the formation of the first Triumvirate and then of the civil war.

Why ? Because he was familially at the core of the most powerful dynastical alliance (his grandmother was a Cornelia Scipionis from the house of the Nasicae, his mother was Livia Drusilla sister of the tribune of 91), was in very close terms with the Claudii Marcelli who were themselves very closely familially allied with the Cornelii Lentuli. He had marriage alliance through one of his sister with the very rich (and even more stubborn and stupid) Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus.

Still why ? Because Augustus pretended restoring the Republic and, in order to give credit to his lie, Augustus married Livia Drusilla. And since Livia Drusilla was, by the adoption of her father (Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus) when he was a small child the the legal granddaughter of Cato's uncle.

The point is that Caesar did absolutely what he could to avoid civil war in the last weeks and early days of 50 BCE.

He negotiated with, among others, Cicero in order to prevent civil war, although he also made military preparations to fight a civil war if it became unavoidable. Caesar first propose to keep only cisalpine Gaul with 2 legions, then only Illyria with 1 legion, just in order to have things cool down with his enemies.

There was just one red line Caesar would never crossed : "I am not going to trial in a court surrounded by soldiers obeying my enemies and I am not going to be expelled of political game."

But the optimates and Pompey refused.

Why did they refuse ?

Because firstly they had lost control of the Senate and lost face thanks to great political manoeuvering of Caesar and his ally Curio.

And because secondly they refused to back down and made a real coup d'Etat by which they forced the Senate to pass decisions that triggered civil war.

This said, of course Pompey's death made, from a certain point of view, things easier for a caesarian utter victory. But as Syme and others have demonstrated, Caesar did not go to war in order to become the Master of all the roman empire. He did so to save his dignity and all he had strived for during 30 years.

The greatest glory for Caesar was to forgive his enemies, because it was the condition for his popularity, for his political victory, and for the stabilization of the roman Republic. Of course the defeated enemies he had forgiven had a moral obligation to bend down and not to put themselves in Caesar's way anymore.

This politics drove Caesar's enemies mad, because forgiveness was an humiliation for some of those who accepted to benefit from it. That is why Cato committed suicide.

Pompey did not want to live through such an humiliation, he who for 20 years had boasted about being the greatest roman commander ever.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
If he had been captured what would have been interesting would be to see what role he takes in the events following Caesar's assassination. Would he stay out of the whole mess or try and make a comeback to prevent his fleeting glory.
 
You if is an enormous if. Quite the same as what if, in order to save her life, Joan of Arc had accepted to make a public statement about Henry VI being the legitimate king of France.

But let's assume that Pompey did not fight to death, nor commit suicide, and was neither assassinated.

Well, I guess he would totally failed if he ever tried a comeback.

Do you emember emperor Diocletian ? Facing the total failure of the tetrarchy, he tried some kind of come-back, using his enormous prestige and moral authority to stop the mess. It was a total failure.

And Pompey, at that time, had far less opportunity than Diocletian.

First of all, the caesarian party dominated the State, and especially dominated the army. These guys are not going to welcome Pompey.

Secondly, nobody wanted Pompey back. The favourite sport of the majority of the Senate had been, for almost 20 years (let's say from 69 to 52) to harass Pompey in order to weaken him.

This man had failed and lost his credibility.
He had boasted about his ability to summon gigantic armies by stamping his foot on the ground and he had been forced to abandon Italy, to let Caesar conquer his best army in Spain with almost no fight in 49, to let Caesar besiege him in Dyrrachium in mid 48, and to finally lose the key battle of Pharsalus although having twice as many troops and 6 time as many cavalry as Caesar. All his asian clients had abandoned him and dedicated to Caesar.

Pompey, after Pharsalus, had become an embarassment for the optimates. The alliance between Pompey and the optimates had been circumstancial. This is why, after Phrasalus, there was some kind of a division between Pompey and the republicans/optimates.
What remained of Pompey's party regrouped under his sons in Spain as early as 47 because Spain was the province were Pompey's influence was the strongest : he had campaigned in Spain for 6 years (76-71) and had ruled Spain through legates for 6 more years (54-49).
And the republicans/optimates regrouped in Africa.
 
Assuming Caesar would still be assassinated...

Anyway, I think pardoning and working with Pompey would be a huge help to him ending the civil war quickly. The war didn't end with Pompey's death, and he still had to campaign in North Africa, and twice in Spain. And even then, Pompey's son Sextus was still conducting a guerilla campaign in Spain while he was still alive.

Reconciling with Pompey might convince the other senators to come to grips and not resist militarily. It would look like to them that Caesar actually was not going to destroy the republic, and with Pompey abandoning them, they might realize continuing the war would be a definitely losing effort. Maybe the likes of someone as talented asLabienus abandoning the war would convince them that ending hostilities would be the best outcome.
 
Well, well Pompey doesn't get killed...
Let's assume he smelled the danger and at the last moment decided not to go to Egypt.
Pompey might go to the Roman North Africa, to Spain or to Sicily. I cannot imagine him surrendering to Caesar asking forgiveness or conciliation; that would be fight to the death.

As far as I remember Caesar had extreme difficulties in the Civil war after Pharsalles even without Pompey the Great.
With Pompey still in the picture Caesar's problems would be multiplied.
There might be a chance that Caesar would lose. Why not? Caesar risked too much and did not pay too much attention to his personal safety.
When he was stabbed to death by the Roman senators his lifeless body lay at the foot of the statue to Pompey the Great. Which has an allegoric meaning for me.
In my humble opinion it was Pompey who deserved to win in the Civil war against Caesar. His ideas of ruling the Roman empire were much more appropriate than that of Caesar (with his unrealistic dream to become a rex/king) and Pompey's ideas were later developed by Augustus.

The only fatal error of Pompey was to flee to Egypt...
 
Last edited:
Assuming Caesar would still be assassinated...

Anyway, I think pardoning and working with Pompey would be a huge help to him ending the civil war quickly. The war didn't end with Pompey's death, and he still had to campaign in North Africa, and twice in Spain. And even then, Pompey's son Sextus was still conducting a guerilla campaign in Spain while he was still alive.

Reconciling with Pompey might convince the other senators to come to grips and not resist militarily. It would look like to them that Caesar actually was not going to destroy the republic, and with Pompey abandoning them, they might realize continuing the war would be a definitely losing effort. Maybe the likes of someone as talented asLabienus abandoning the war would convince them that ending hostilities would be the best outcome.

I understand your point of view. And I agree with you to a certain extent. About half the senators chose to remain neutral when the civil war began. And after Pharsalus, most of the senators who had followed Pompey decided that the matter had been settled and that it was time to restore peace and work with Caesar.

But I think the link you're putting the stress on is more coincidence than causality since a small minority of senators, but among which were leaders of the most powerful and prestigious families did not want to give-up the fight, with or without Pompey.

And I don't think Pompey would have had much influence on these men.

What I mean is that Pompey's centrist policy and his role of commander in chief/coordinator of the republican/optimate/anticaesarian forces could last only if he had the upper hand in the civil war. Once Pompey had lost, he was to be discarded by his allies even if he had not been murdered.

If ever Pompey had reconciled with Caesar after Pharsalus, he would have been discarded by the optimates/republicans. These man had intensely bashed Pompey for (15 or 20 years) because they hated the fact that there could be any dominant figure on the roman political stage. They had been bashing the Triumvirate during all the 50's and did anything they could in order to break-up the alliance between Pompey and Caesar.

If Pompey had tried to reconcile with Caesar, he would have lost almost all his allies and lost most of his political weight and influence. These men had had allied with Pompey only on one point of agreement : to bring Caesar down. Pompey was trapped by them, to a certain extent, when they brought him and themselves to a dead-end in the Senate (the famous vote were Pompey lost by 22 senators against 370 voices in favor of Curio in the Senate) : it left him no other choice than their own political extinction or a coup to force the Senate to declare Caesar an outlaw).

Pompey would have been almost entirely in Caesar's hand. Not as much as Cicero because Pompey still commanded many clients, especially in Spain, but without an army of his own to negotiate, he no more was a match for Caesar. He had long tried to play one side against the other in order to strengthen his own position. But when it had come to war, his legitimacy rested on the ressources Pompey commanded personnaly. He was the military leader of the republicans in 49/48 not only because of his prestige but because he commanded unequalled clienteles in all the roman world and especially the ressources of Asia.

After Pharsalus, the clienteles and ressources of Asia were lost for Pompey : they all quickly changed sides. With his prestige shattered and his ressources vanished, Pompey was more a liability than an asset for the optimates/republicans.

These optimates and extremist republicans wanted to fight. They decided to continue the civil war before they got the news that Pompey had been murdered.

So I think that if Pompey had not been killed in Egypt, he would have gone to Spain with his sons.

If he had made separate peace with Caesar, he would have strengthened Caesar's hand and hastened the caesarian victory in the civil war.


To Russian : to my opinion, going to Egypt was an absolutely necessary step for Pompey at this time, whatever we may think with hindsight. He needed to try to save what could be saved in his provincial ressources : Egypt was the richest area of the Mediterranean world.
 
To Russian : to my opinion, going to Egypt was an absolutely necessary step for Pompey at this time, whatever we may think with hindsight. He needed to try to save what could be saved in his provincial ressources : Egypt was the richest area of the Mediterranean world.

I do not see anything necessary in Pompey's going to Egypt. In my opinion he did it out of despair, his mind was not clear after losing a crucial battle. What did he hope for? He thought that Egypt would help the Roman loser against the Roman winner (Caesar), didn't he? He got lucky being killed. Pompey might be taken prisoner by the Egyptians and brought to Caesar in chains.
 
I do not see anything necessary in Pompey's going to Egypt. In my opinion he did it out of despair, his mind was not clear after losing a crucial battle. What did he hope for? He thought that Egypt would help the Roman loser against the Roman winner (Caesar), didn't he? He got lucky being killed. Pompey might be taken prisoner by the Egyptians and brought to Caesar in chains.

The Ptolemaic king owed Pompeybig time for putting his father on the throne. Plus, the wealth of the Ptolemies was enormous. One of the reasons Antony got with Cleopatra initially was because he needed Egypt's wealth to replenish his funds, and more importantly, to fund his planned campaign against the Parthians. It wasn't absolutely necessary that he had to go to Egypt, but it was fairly logical, as there was literally no reason to expect the Egyptians would reject him.
 
Top