WI Julia has a son by Pompey.

O
“Cordially greeted by them (Tolomey’s regency), put at ease by the presence of Lucius Septimius, who had commanded a century in his army during the war with the pirates, Pompey jumped on a small vessel with few of his men: here he was murdered by Achillas and Septimius.”

Caesar, Bellum Civile

I mean, real heartbroken, right?

Also, Polibius says that Antiochus III cried at the sight of Acheus, a rebel satrap, imprisoned, and Cassius Dio claims that Octavian cried once he saw Antony’s body in Alexandria. It’s a common trope, one we shouldn’t give that much credence.

Doesn’t mean it’s false. Just because those happened before doesn’t mean Caesar did not cry upon seeing Pompey’s head. A common trope does not prove it is false. And maybe Octavian did cry at seeing Antony’s body. It’s not impossible or ASB.


That quote only gives the circumstances of Pompey’s murder, not that Caesar had anything to do with it, or Caesar’s reAction to it when he learned of the murder.
 
I am totally convinced who Julia’s survival would be enough for keeping Pompey on Caesar’s side or at least neutral: Julia was Caesr’s only child and the daughter he had fro his first beloved wife, and Pompey and Julia were much in love and happy together (Pompey’s desire to stay with Julia was the main reason for which the war against Parthia was assigned to Crassus and not Pompey as would have been logical considering the military talent, the experience and knowledge of the East of the latter who had already lead the campaigns against pirates and Mithridates there and so had relations and clients there). Plus the alliance between Pompey and the Optimates, who more o less adversed him for much of his political and military career was born when the widowed Pompey married for the fifth time to the daughter of Metello Scipio (who was also the widowed daughter-in-law of Crassus by the way) who was one of the recognized leaders of the Optimates.
 
O


Doesn’t mean it’s false. Just because those happened before doesn’t mean Caesar did not cry upon seeing Pompey’s head. A common trope does not prove it is false. And maybe Octavian did cry at seeing Antony’s body. It’s not impossible or ASB.


That quote only gives the circumstances of Pompey’s murder, not that Caesar had anything to do with it, or Caesar’s reAction to it when he learned of the murder.

Octavian crying at Antony’s body? It was hate at first sight between the two, if anything, Octavian must have restrained himself from pumping his fist in joy. As for Caesar, that quote is detached, distant, merely provides the circumstances of the murder, and it’s one of the last lines of the Commentarii, Caesar doesn’t write about his reaction to Pompey’s death, so, no matter what it was, it couldn’t have been that strong. But let’s assume he did cry, it could also have been a mere display of Roman pietas towards a fallen foe, one who was also a friend years ago, it doesn’t mean Caesar would have ever considered sharing power with him, and he probably wouldn’t have in any case.
 
O


Doesn’t mean it’s false. Just because those happened before doesn’t mean Caesar did not cry upon seeing Pompey’s head. A common trope does not prove it is false. And maybe Octavian did cry at seeing Antony’s body. It’s not impossible or ASB.


That quote only gives the circumstances of Pompey’s murder, not that Caesar had anything to do with it, or Caesar’s reAction to it when he learned of the murder.
Octavian crying at Antony’s body? It was hate at first sight between the two, if anything, Octavian must have restrained himself from pumping his fist in joy. As for Caesar, that quote is detached, distant, merely provides the circumstances of the murder, and it’s one of the last lines of the Commentarii, Caesar doesn’t write about his reaction to Pompey’s death, so, no matter what it was, it couldn’t have been that strong. But let’s assume he did cry, it could also have been a mere display of Roman pietas towards a fallen foe, one who was also a friend years ago, it doesn’t mean Caesar would have ever considered sharing power with him, and he probably wouldn’t have in any case.

I’m not saying Caesar will share power. He will pardon Pompey and let him come to Rome and use him as a leverage to end the Civil War. I’m only saying that it’s not impossible for Caesar to cry.


So true about Octavian and Antony hating each other at first sight. But it’s not impossible, since many can react to things totally different from what one expects.

Besides, It’s not politic to laugh or gloat at Antony’s body and it is politically advantageous to publicly shed tears since his propaganda was Antony was merely a dupe of Cleopatra. He was just helpless plaything of the Queen who was the real enemy. So I can imagine it. If only for a political purpose.
 
Last edited:
Also remember that the eventual winner of the civil war (Octavian) wanted to portray Caesar as a god, so assigning motives or desires to Caesar beyond what is evident from his political actions may be a little bit disingenuous. We have no way of knowing what Caesar would have done with Pompey if he were captured

You have to remember that the Commentaries of the Civil War was written when Caesar was alive most probably by Hirtius, the same consul who died at Mutina. So claiming that it is Augustan propaganda is disingenuous. And just because something is convenient for propaganda does not automatically mean it’s false.

Oops. I got the sources mixed up. The quote on Caesar crying was Plutarch, not the Civil Wars commentaries, so I do admit that Plutarch may have been influenced by Augustan propaganda.

Though I would say that saying Caesar is crying is not assigning motives or anything, since crying is a physical act, and can be witnessed by people, and could be the result of lots of emotions other than grief or something.
 
I’m not saying Caesar will share power. He will pardon Pompey and let him come to Rome and use him as a leverage to end the Civil War. I’m only saying that it’s not impossible for Caesar to cry.

Yeah, I meant before the civil war even began, with Julia living, I just can’t see Caesar willingly sharing power with someone else. And you’re right, it’s not impossible.


So true about Octavian and Antony hating each other at first sight. But it’s not impossible, since many can react to things totally different from what one expects.

Besides, It’s not politic to laugh or gloat at Antony’s body and it is politically advantageous to publicly shed tears since his propaganda was Antony was merely a dupe of Cleopatra. He was just helpless plaything of the Queen who was the real enemy. So I can imagine it. If only for a political purpose.

Indeed that’s why he “cried”, it was the political thing to do, but on the inside, he must have been overjoyed, that’s what I meant before.
 
Oops. I got the sources mixed up. The quote on Caesar crying was Plutarch, not the Civil Wars commentaries, so I do admit that Plutarch may have been influenced by Augustan propaganda.

Though I would say that saying Caesar is crying is not assigning motives or anything, since crying is a physical act, and can be witnessed by people, and could be the result of lots of emotions other than grief or something.

I sort of suspected that, hence me quoting the commentarii to you, but still, while I don’t believe Octavian ever cried for Antony, Caesar crying for Pompey is plausible, at the very least.
 
I sort of suspected that, hence me quoting the commentarii to you, but still, while I don’t believe Octavian ever cried for Antony, Caesar crying for Pompey is plausible, at the very least.
In Rome though, crying is not unmanly. It's kind of masculine, and could be used for a lot of purposes. I remember a story of Marius during a trial of a friend, defended his friend by crying in front of a jury, and the jury cried with him, and acquitted that said friend.
 
In Rome though, crying is not unmanly. It's kind of masculine, and could be used for a lot of purposes. I remember a story of Marius during a trial of a friend, defended his friend by crying in front of a jury, and the jury cried with him, and acquitted that said friend.

As I said above, it’s a common display of pietas, Scipio Aemilianus for example cried in front of the ruins of Chartage, feeling that one such fate would befall Rome one day.
 
As I said above, it’s a common display of pietas, Scipio Aemilianus for example cried in front of the ruins of Chartage, feeling that one such fate would befall Rome one day.

Yup. This article actually explains that crying among men for various reasons is manly. So I don't disbelieve all those stories about crying Romans, since they don't have the cultural belief that crying is only for women.
 
Caesar didn’t want Pompey killed by the order of a foreign ruler, but he certainly didn’t want to share power with him, nephew or no nephew.

I would rather state that, once Caesar was pushed into a corner and forced into the civil war, his aim was to reestablish a symbolic alliance between him and Pompey, but on a new balance much more favorable to Pompey.

The way he completely outpaced Pompey in 49 was a raise in stakes. He forced Pompey either to throw the towel or to flee in a humiliating retreat outside Italy, both of which reactions would change the political balance of powers in Caesar’s favor.

But he did not want to eliminate Pompey. He probably did mean his calls to Pompey to come to talks and find an agreement. Caesar knew what the civil war was. He had grown as a teenager in a time of civil war and was very lucky to survive the first civil war and sultan proscriptions.

The mere consequence of Pompey coming to terms with Caesar after he crossed the Rubicon would be a total political victory for Caesar and would completely deligitimize the small faction that had forced him into civil war.

Symbolically, if he resumed his old alliance with Caesar, Pompey could be portrayed as Caesar’s old friend and ally that had realized he had been fooled by the optimates. But that was not true and Pompey could not bear the terrible loss of face and prestige this spin would anyway inflict on him. He would be dishonored and live retired under Caesar’s kind clemency.

That’s why Pompey and his optimate allies could never agree to it. They thought they had more military resources and would defeat Caesar in the long run.

On the paper they were right.

And in the real course of events, they almost were right too. If they had cleverly acted after beating Caesar at Dyrrachium, Caesar would have been finished.

Caesar just better played his weaker hand and benefitted from his luck/fortuna.
 
I would rather state that, once Caesar was pushed into a corner and forced into the civil war, his aim was to reestablish a symbolic alliance between him and Pompey, but on a new balance much more favorable to Pompey.

The way he completely outpaced Pompey in 49 was a raise in stakes. He forced Pompey either to throw the towel or to flee in a humiliating retreat outside Italy, both of which reactions would change the political balance of powers in Caesar’s favor.

But he did not want to eliminate Pompey. He probably did mean his calls to Pompey to come to talks and find an agreement. Caesar knew what the civil war was. He had grown as a teenager in a time of civil war and was very lucky to survive the first civil war and sultan proscriptions.

The mere consequence of Pompey coming to terms with Caesar after he crossed the Rubicon would be a total political victory for Caesar and would completely deligitimize the small faction that had forced him into civil war.

Symbolically, if he resumed his old alliance with Caesar, Pompey could be portrayed as Caesar’s old friend and ally that had realized he had been fooled by the optimates. But that was not true and Pompey could not bear the terrible loss of face and prestige this spin would anyway inflict on him. He would be dishonored and live retired under Caesar’s kind clemency.

That’s why Pompey and his optimate allies could never agree to it. They thought they had more military resources and would defeat Caesar in the long run.

On the paper they were right.

And in the real course of events, they almost were right too. If they had cleverly acted after beating Caesar at Dyrrachium, Caesar would have been finished.

Caesar just better played his weaker hand and benefitted from his luck/fortuna.

I agree, he didn’t want to eliminate Pompey, he wanted to marginalize him until he mattered no more, forcing him to leave in a peaceful and quite retirement.

Indeed, as I already said once concerning the matter, had it been Lucullus, Sulla or Sertorius in Pompey’s place, Caesar would have been doomed. The Optimates weren’t exactly the smartest bunch, but all those inexperienced with war would have failed to see that Pompey “Magnus” was a dud, so I get why they were so confident in their victory.
 
I agree, he didn’t want to eliminate Pompey, he wanted to marginalize him until he mattered no more, forcing him to leave in a peaceful and quite retirement.

Indeed, as I already said once concerning the matter, had it been Lucullus, Sulla or Sertorius in Pompey’s place, Caesar would have been doomed. The Optimates weren’t exactly the smartest bunch, but all those inexperienced with war would have failed to see that Pompey “Magnus” was a dud, so I get why they were so confident in their victory.

I would not call Pompey a dud. He was a great organizer, logistician, and strategist too. But he was not a great tactician. But he did not need to have all talents. He had Labienus who was tactically very talented.

The reason for Pompey’s downfall is quite clear. He literally broke down at the moment he was going to win the civil war : he ceded to the absurd demands and advice of his optimate fellows who were militarily inept.

And I would not bet a Lucullus would not also have failed against Caesar since Lucullus was a great tactician but a rather poor strategist, who was unable to finish the war against a much weaker opponent than Caesar (Mithradates).


PS : I realize there is a mistake in my previous post. I was of course meaning that Caesar’s goal was to reconcile with Pompey but on a new balance much less favorable to Pompey.
 
I would not call Pompey a dud. He was a great organizer, logistician, and strategist too. But he was not a great tactician. But he did not need to have all talents. He had Labienus who was tactically very talented.

The reason for Pompey’s downfall is quite clear. He literally broke down at the moment he was going to win the civil war : he ceded to the absurd demands and advice of his optimate fellows who were militarily inept.

And I would not bet a Lucullus would not also have failed against Caesar since Lucullus was a great tactician but a rather poor strategist, who was unable to finish the war against a much weaker opponent than Caesar (Mithradates).


PS : I realize there is a mistake in my previous post. I was of course meaning that Caesar’s goal was to reconcile with Pompey but on a new balance much less favorable to Pompey.

Pompey wasn’t a dud per se, he was a dud compared to what one would expect from the “Roman Alexander”. Lucullus couldn’t win because his troops refused to follow him, if he had had powers comparable to Pompey’s, he would have swatted Mithradates like a fly. All Pompey had to do in the East was finish the job he had started. On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give Pompey a 7 and Lucullus an 8.5.
 
Top