Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

[Lacertus]

Should trust to Plutarch Gnaeus Pompeius gave the cognomen of Magnus from his army in Africa, but it came in full force as Sulla endorse it. Pompey became to names himself Magnus later everyone and after a long time, in time when he was sent to Spain as the proconsul against Sertorius.

I think Plutarch is right. Pompey worth the cognomen of Magnus and the glory and love of nation.

[Pyrrhus]

... as I am reading through Livy and his war with Hannibal.

I hope you are not taking this to be an accurate historical source PM Livy is nostalgic in the extreme! And so cannot be trusted to write exact truths about someone who came so close to destroying Rome

 

Hannibal does of course RULE!!

[Germanicus]

Been doing some more reading, and believe the following about GPM:-

 

-He named himself "The Great"

 

-Sulla allowed the cognomen as a thanks for aid, but also slightly sarcasticly as PP suggests.

 

-He was certainly a good general in many respects, but was eclipsed by Caesar

 

-Hardly any of the powers of the future Emporers were not enjoyed first by Pompey, essentially, Consul without a colleague, rule over all the middle sea to a distance of 50 miles inland, overruling provincial governors, governing his provinces through legates, etc etc.

 

-His sensitive nature to public and aristocratic opinion caused many of his withdrawals from public life and his ultimate, tragic downfall.

 

Just thought I'd throw in another 2 cents

[pompeius magnus]

I do read with that in mind, Phyrrus, but as I chose to begin with Livy instead of Polybius that is the only view I have, but know that he was biased and you can easily see it in his work, as well as a mixture of mythology.

[P.Clodius]

True PM was a great organizer and was therefore an efficient (not great) general. But he truly shone in his mediocrity on the political scene. He was almost clueless, or so it appears in his dealings with the senate and with Caesar and was frightened into self imposed house arrest by my namesake. He was as used as Crassus' wallet was by Caesar.

[Tobias]

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. He was a good general, but he didn't (in my opinion) cross that difficult to define line to great. He certainly was a very efficient organizer, and he was gifted with a number of extraordinary commands, and he was determined to make his name greater then it was. For his efforts i commend him. I just can't decide whether he is a first rate general though. I'm inclined to say no, but he did have some shining examples of his skill when he was at his peak, and he was blatantly outshone by Julius Caesar, so it is difficult to come to a decision. I'd have to say that at his peak he was a first rate general, but by the time he was facing Caesar at Pharsalus, he had slipped downwards; a man lacking in decision and inspiration. Is it true that Labienus did the majority of the planning for the tactics used by Pompey's army at Pharsalus? I read that somewhere, i just wanted to ask if it was true.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Caesar himself named Pompey's army in Greece ' a leader without an army'.I think Pompey's greatest skill as a general was ambition as he supposed Caesar was no real threat to him until Pharsalus.He was said to have been a kind individual until Sulla name him 'Magnus'.(Plutarch)Sertorius was fighting a guerilla war that's why I can't consider him an underrated general.Alexander also had trouble with Bessus and Spitamenes In Bactria-Sogdiana and is considered a great general.I think he was the second of his times after Caesar.

[Perseverantius]

PM,

 

Not even a whiff for poor Lucullus in your list? He who drove Mithridates into Armenia and then destroyed King Tigranes and razed Tigranocertes?

 

For the record though, I think it's a very good list and I agree substantially with it.

 

Pompey had ability and he was popular with his legions for a number of reasons. He was a very successful general though I am sure he wasn't the tactician Caesar or S. Africanus were.