Pompey vs Mark Antony

Pompey vs Mark Antony

  • Pompey

    Votes: 22 64.7%
  • Mark Antony

    Votes: 12 35.3%

  • Total voters
    34
Pompey vs Mark Antony

I thought this match up would make for an interesting discussion. Both men had periods where they were viewed as the best general in the Roman world only to be ultimately defeated. Any thoughts on these two men and their abilities?

Pompey showed great skill under Sulla, in the Sertorian War, against the pirates and in his Eastern campaigns. On the battlefield he preformed well at Sucro against Sertorius, managed to best Caesar briefly at Dyrrachium but was decisively defeated at Pharsalus. Antony was a very good battlefield commander as shown by his record at Pharsalus, Forum Gallorum, Mutina and above all Philippi. I think however did however show some weaknesses as a strategist in the disastrous Parthian War and during the lead up to Actium.

Its a close match up in my opinion, I personally lean towards Antony.

 
The easiest way to do this matchup is give Ceasar a non-lethal salmonella infection and a week of diarrhea. Mark Antony is in command in the next Caesar vs Pompey battle.
 
The easiest way to do this matchup is give Ceasar a non-lethal salmonella infection and a week of diarrhea. Mark Antony is in command in the next Caesar vs Pompey battle.

Good scenario. So going off that Caesar is too ill and remains at camp leaving Antony to command at Pharsalus. How does everyone think the battle goes?
 
Good scenario. So going off that Caesar is too ill and remains at camp leaving Antony to command at Pharsalus. How does everyone think the battle goes?

I'm betting Mark Antony finds a way to win the cavalry battle despite heavily outnumbered. He might use Caesar's tactic, or come up with something else. The question is how complete of a victory it is.

Possibility 1, even after losing all his cav, Pompey still outnumbers Caesarian troops. He muscles his way forward with heavy losses and forces the Caesrian troops to break off the field. Without cavalry, the Pomey legions cannot pursuit. It is a pyrrhic victory for them. They no longer have the numbers to expel Caesar from Greece. Since only Caesar has cavalry, he can harass Pompey's various outposts. Pomepy can only defend one place and his legions are reduced to one giant doomstack that can neither defend multiple points or hope to attack any of Caesar's fortified positions.

Possibility 2, partial victory for Mark Antony. This is most probable, especially if he doesn't use Caesar's extra line trick. He defeats the Pomey cavalry and 25% of its infantry are defeated in the field, cut down in the retreat, or surrender. Pompey still has most of his infantry and can make a fighting retreat, although the camp would likely fall in a day or two. The Pompey army lives to fight another day, but again denuded of cavalry it is vulnerable. This might mean Pomey and Ceasar reconcile.

Possibility 3, decisive victory for Mark Antony. Events are not very different from OTL. It might butterfly Mark Antony's Parthian campaign after Ceasar kicks the bucket if it happens at all. The Amenians betrayed him in OTL which is why he lost. Assuming Caesar still died and the campaign still happens, they are most likely neutral. They still hate him too much to side with him, but don't feel like singing on as mercs and betraying the super-general.
 
I'm betting Mark Antony finds a way to win the cavalry battle despite heavily outnumbered. He might use Caesar's tactic, or come up with something else. The question is how complete of a victory it is.

Possibility 1, even after losing all his cav, Pompey still outnumbers Caesarian troops. He muscles his way forward with heavy losses and forces the Caesrian troops to break off the field. Without cavalry, the Pomey legions cannot pursuit. It is a pyrrhic victory for them. They no longer have the numbers to expel Caesar from Greece. Since only Caesar has cavalry, he can harass Pompey's various outposts. Pomepy can only defend one place and his legions are reduced to one giant doomstack that can neither defend multiple points or hope to attack any of Caesar's fortified positions.

Possibility 2, partial victory for Mark Antony. This is most probable, especially if he doesn't use Caesar's extra line trick. He defeats the Pomey cavalry and 25% of its infantry are defeated in the field, cut down in the retreat, or surrender. Pompey still has most of his infantry and can make a fighting retreat, although the camp would likely fall in a day or two. The Pompey army lives to fight another day, but again denuded of cavalry it is vulnerable. This might mean Pomey and Ceasar reconcile.

Possibility 3, decisive victory for Mark Antony. Events are not very different from OTL. It might butterfly Mark Antony's Parthian campaign after Ceasar kicks the bucket if it happens at all. The Amenians betrayed him in OTL which is why he lost. Assuming Caesar still died and the campaign still happens, they are most likely neutral. They still hate him too much to side with him, but don't feel like singing on as mercs and betraying the super-general.

Very interesting possibilities, thanks for indepth breakdown.
 
I think if they went head-to-head Pompey would win due to ablity in the manovering phase if nothing else. Remember that Pompey manovered Caesar into a cornor and all he needed to do was to wait him out. But the Senators ecspeally the Catonions forced his hand and gave Caesar a chance a chance to win.

I personally would place Caesar and Pompey in my top 20 pre-gunpowder generals of all time. I don’t know if I place Mark Anthony in my top 100.
 
I think if they went head-to-head Pompey would win due to ablity in the manovering phase if nothing else. Remember that Pompey manovered Caesar into a cornor and all he needed to do was to wait him out. But the Senators ecspeally the Catonions forced his hand and gave Caesar a chance a chance to win.
.

Good point in this regard as Brutus later said at Phillipi "I seem to carry on war like Pompey the Great, not so much commanding as commanded."
 
I think if they went head-to-head Pompey would win due to ablity in the manovering phase if nothing else. Remember that Pompey manovered Caesar into a cornor and all he needed to do was to wait him out. But the Senators ecspeally the Catonions forced his hand and gave Caesar a chance a chance to win.

Pompey put Caesar into a position where Caesar had to win and Pompey could sit and wait. He proved to be unable to win a battle against Caesar. Putting yourself in a position where you automatically win if no battles happen is commendable and helps towards winning, but it doesn't actually say anything about his abilities to win battles. In short, any idiot with the defender's advantage and numerical superiority could have done it. O

Granted, of course we have seen Pompey win battles before and he's no slouch. He's not "and idiot" he's one of Rome's best generals.

I'm just saying a head to head confrontation means logistics aren't as important. All that mattered was that both sides had enough to eat, drink, and shoot (for range axillaries) before the battle.
 
Pompey put Caesar into a position where Caesar had to win and Pompey could sit and wait. He proved to be unable to win a battle against Caesar. Putting yourself in a position where you automatically win if no battles happen is commendable and helps towards winning, but it doesn't actually say anything about his abilities to win battles. In short, any idiot with the defender's advantage and numerical superiority could have done it. O

Granted, of course we have seen Pompey win battles before and he's no slouch. He's not "and idiot" he's one of Rome's best generals.

I'm just saying a head to head confrontation means logistics aren't as important. All that mattered was that both sides had enough to eat, drink, and shoot (for range axillaries) before the battle.

This has me think did Pompey prove himself able to win battles? All his victorious campaigns seem to be done through maneuver and superior strategy than battle. When he did have large scale battles such as at Sucro and Dyrrachium they were indecisive and he failed to follow up, granted they were against Sertorius and Caesar who were fantastic commanders. I'm hard pressed to find a battle where Pompey just crushed his opponent outright. Meanwhile, Mark Antony while probably lacking in logistics and strategy department was great on the battlefield. At Philippi, we see the destruction of Brutus-Cassius' whole army of over 100,000 men mainly due to his efforts.

I feel like Pompey and Antony are opposites in a way, thoughts?
 
This has me think did Pompey prove himself able to win battles?

I feel like Pompey and Antony are opposites in a way, thoughts?

Pompey CAN win battles and hd won battles, he just prefers to win "by default" if he has more men (I would too). Pompey don't need to win a battle on annilation to be a good general as you seem tomply. Just forcing them off the field in disorder while suffering minimal casualties. All I way saying was that maneuvering and cornering Caesar didn't prove anything. His past campaign history shows he is a decent commander. Whether he was descent or "almost but not quite as good as Caesar" is up to debate.

In hindsight his infantry should have been ordered to charge at Pharsalus, that would put Ceasar's "cavalry plus hidden 3000 infantry" plan on a time limit.

Antony's Parthian campaign was only flawed due to him hiring mercenaries that betrayed him. I suppose starting 3 months earlier might have mitigated that.
 
Well, Pompey certainly seemed to grasp logistics better than Mark Antony, so I am leaning towards Pompey.

I think that Antony had a good grasp on logistics, but seems to have been completely out of his depth when it came to planning how to actually win a larger war. He was a brilliant commander when someone else pointed him in the direction he needed to go. I always picture Mark Antony as the Jackson to Caesar's Lee.

Antony was also a surprisingly terrible politician and at public relations, especially during the later second triumvirate.
 
—snip—
If one is able to make the opponent surrender by manovering you are a great general.

All the way up to 18/19th century manovering pre-battle was the most important phases of the confrontation and just because of that fact that Pompey would have forced Mark Anthony into surrending without having to fight a battle.

Maneuvering Caesar into a cornor tells you allot because if nothing else Caesar is known for his speed and desisive mentality. I what to say that Caesar cause was lost until Pompey accepted battle, they where running out of water and food.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Pompeius wins, hands down. Because the question is a general one about their respective abilities, and not "who would win battle X, all other things being equal". No battle occurs in a vacuum, so you need to consider how the two would set up an entire campaign. The inevitable conclusion is that while Marcus Antonius can certainly win battles, Pompeius is in the business of winning wars. He'd run circles around Marcus Antonius, avoiding battles when they aren't in his favour, waiting out his enemy, and ultimately deciding the matter on his own terms.

It has occasionally been noted (correctly, I think) that Pomeius "should" have defeated Caesar. By which I mean that, going by the conventional wisdom that strategy and logistics ultimately win out over tactical ability, Pomeius had the evident advantage. Caesar's abilities were chiefly tactical in nature, whereas Pompeius excelled in strategic campaigns. One would expect that Pomeius should be able to win, and indeed it seemed that he would. He did back Caesar into a corner, forcing his enemy's hand... And then Caesar still won, because when push came to shove, he was capable of fighting and winning battles that should have been impossible. Caesar was just that good.

But could Marcus Antonius equal that kind of superior ability? I don't think so. Not for a second. Caesar's victory was an exception to the rule, possible only because Caesar himself was an exceptional man. If we assume a single battle, where the odds aren't overly stacked against Marcus Antonius, he'll likely win that battle. But the odds will be stacked against him, because Pompeius will avoid battle until he's set it up that way. And unlike Caesar, who can win even then, Marcus Antonius is going to lose when that happens.
 
—snip—
I agree with everything you said except for that Caesar abilities were chiefly tactical. He was a excellent strategist aswell. Just look at what he did in Gaul. He basically was able to subdue Celtic resistance in Gaul in less then 10 years when it took the Roman Republic 200 years to subdue Hispania.

I wouldn’t have even placed Mark Anythony as Caesar’s most important legates during the Gallic Wars, Labienus was that.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I agree with everything you said except for that Caesar abilities were chiefly tactical. He was a excellent strategist aswell. Just look at what he did in Gaul. He basically was able to subdue Celtic resistance in Gaul in less then 10 years when it took the Roman Republic 200 years to subdue Hispania.

far be it from me to deny Caesar's self-evident talents. His actions in Gaul were extremely effective, and certainly had the desired strategic results. I would argue, however, that this was not the result of a particularly exceptional strategic effort. On the contrary, his strategy was basic in the extreme. As straight-forward as it gets. Where he excelled was in... well, crudely put, kicking ass. Every single time he engaged the enemy, he commanded the field to such an extent that he swept the floor with poor bastards. So, as far as I can conclude, his strategic victory resulted from his unwavering tactical brilliance, which he simply demonstrated again and again until he'd won completely. I would therefore say that Caesar (much like Hannibal, and for that matter, Alexander) was so tactically brilliant that the effects of his tactical brilliance 'carried over' to the strategic level.

tl;dr -- Caesar won wars by 'simply' winning all the battles like a total boss.
 
I agree with everything you said except for that Caesar abilities were chiefly tactical. He was a excellent strategist aswell. Just look at what he did in Gaul. He basically was able to subdue Celtic resistance in Gaul in less then 10 years when it took the Roman Republic 200 years to subdue Hispania.

I wouldn’t have even placed Mark Anythony as Caesar’s most important legates during the Gallic Wars, Labienus was that.

Labienus was certainly capable he nearly beat Caesar at Ruspina.

far be it from me to deny Caesar's self-evident talents. His actions in Gaul were extremely effective, and certainly had the desired strategic results. I would argue, however, that this was not the result of a particularly exceptional strategic effort. On the contrary, his strategy was basic in the extreme. As straight-forward as it gets. Where he excelled was in... well, crudely put, kicking ass. Every single time he engaged the enemy, he commanded the field to such an extent that he swept the floor with poor bastards. So, as far as I can conclude, his strategic victory resulted from his unwavering tactical brilliance, which he simply demonstrated again and again until he'd won completely. I would therefore say that Caesar (much like Hannibal, and for that matter, Alexander) was so tactically brilliant that the effects of his tactical brilliance 'carried over' to the strategic level.

tl;dr -- Caesar won wars by 'simply' winning all the battles like a total boss.

What do you two make of the criticism that Caesar lacked strategic focus? That the perhaps unnecessary conflicts in Britian and Germania took pressure off Gaul and ultimately helped Vercingetorix's rebellion take hold? Is this a valid criticism?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
What do you two make of the criticism that Caesar lacked strategic focus? That the perhaps unnecessary conflicts in Britian and Germania took pressure off Gaul and ultimately helped Vercingetorix's rebellion take hold? Is this a valid criticism?

I think it's easy to entertain such criticism with the oh-so-comfortable benefit of hindsight. At the time, Caesar was confident (and had reason to be confident) that every region he'd traversed had been adequately pacified. His ambitious excursions beyond Gaul must be understood in the context that he was using his military victories as an invaluable propaganda tool. It's hard to understand, from our modern perspective, just how important military success could be to making someone's career in Rome. Caesar faced rivals who knew, as he did, that there could only ever be one head honcho. Among those rivals, we have... Pompeius himself, who was just as good at propaganda, who portrayed himself as the second coming of Alexander, who had achieved dazzling victories in the East, and who had enjoyed not one, not two but three frickin' triumphs in Rome.

Caesar had to match that kind of success. All his actions must be considered in that light. Could he have avoided certain problems by taking a slow, deliberate approach? Certainly. But it would have cost him something else. When you're looking to be the military superstar of all Rome, you don't people to associate you with the words "thorough and reliable". You're aiming for "brilliant and awesome". So that's what he aimed for. And boy did he ever hit the mark, eh? We're still all talking about him! :cool:
 
How would Pompey get an army? Which army would he get?

It would be pretty easy to get Pompey to survive.
OTL Pothinus argued for execution of Pompey to curry favour with Caesar. And carried it out before Caesar arrived, presenting Caesar with Pompey´s head.
WI either Pothinus figures, or some other Egyptian proposes and prevails in argument, that capturing Pompey alive and delivering him a prisoner to Caesar would also curry favour with Caesar?

What would happen to Roman politics, 48 to 44 BC, if Pompey were alive, having been extradited to Caesar and pardoned by him? Would Pompey be in on a plot against Caesar, or would he be uninformed like Cicero?
 
Top