Talk:Pompey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

English city of Portsmouth and its football team

I think maybe this person means nickname -- I know that Portsmouth's football team is usually referred to as Pompey. But is it slang for something else? I think we need some etymology here, and probably should split this page and redirect Pompey the Great to Cn. Pompeius or pompey the Great... JHK

The reason why Portsmouth is called Pompey is disputed. A quick web search found [this page], which discusses the matter. --Zundark 01:06, 8 March 2002‎

Conflict with information on selected anniversaries

I will also post this on the main page discussion. Here it says "in the spring of 49 BC Caesar crossed the Rubicon and invaded Italy with his thirteenth legion", and the main page celebrates today as the anniversary (January 10th is not spring for 49 BC Italy, I assume), but specified the tenth legion. This information seems consistent with the Julius_Caesar entry. --Paraphelion 02:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Dont forget that the Roman calendar, before the reformations of Caesar, was not in pace with seasons, so January could perfectly be spring. muriel@pt 12:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pompey's picture

About the picture: is this really Pompey? I dont think so... Muriel Gottrop 10:26, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As far back as I can remember in my life this is the picture of Pompey the Great I have seen in any biographical article related to him in any source; if you know otherwise, please report it. Lucius Domitius 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason for "Magnus"?

The article states that Pompey recieved the cognomen "Magnus" for defeating pirates under Sulla.

"While he was thus engaged in settling the affairs of Sicily, he received a decree of the senate and a letter of Sulla ordering him to sail to Africa and wage war with all his might against Domitius. For Domitius had assembled there a much larger force than that with which Marius, no long time ago,13 had crossed from Africa into Italy and confounded the Roman state, making himself tyrant instead of exile. " - Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 11:1

"On his return to Utica, a letter from Sulla was brought to him, in which he was commanded to send home the rest of his army, but to remain there himself with one legion, awaiting the arrival of the general who was to succeed him. Pompey himself gave no sign of the deep distress which these orders caused him, but his soldiers made their indignation manifest. When Pompey asked them to go home before him, they began to revile Sulla, declared they would not forsake their general, and insisted that he should not trust the tyrant. 2At first, then, Pompey tried what words could do to appease and mollify them; but when he was unable to persuade them, he came down from his tribunal and withdrew to his tent in tears. Then his soldiers seized him and set him again upon his tribunal, and a great part of the day was consumed in this way, they urging him to remain and keep his command, and he begging them to obey and not to raise a sedition. At last, when their clamours and entreaties increased, he swore p147 with an oath that he would kill himself if they used force with him, and even then they would hardly stop.

Sulla's first tidings of the affair were that Pompey was in revolt, and he told his friends that it was evidently his fate, now that he was an old man, to have his contests with boys. This he said because Marius also, who was quite a young man, had given him very great trouble and involved him in the most extreme perils. 4But when he learned the truth, and perceived that everybody was sallying forth to welcome Pompey and accompany him home with marks of goodwill, he was eager to outdo them. So he went out and met him, and after giving him the warmest welcome, saluted him in a loud voice as "Magnus," or The Great, and ordered those who were by to give him this surname. ", Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 13:1-4

At least according to Plutarch, he recieved it for military actions against Domitius. The actions against the cilician pirates was part of the Third Mithridatic War (75-63 BC), almost 10 years after the reign of Sulla (82-80 BC). - Vedexent 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Became "Magnus" for his actions in the East???

Ok - now both versions are in the article. Can anyone provide a reference for Pompey becoming "Magnus" for his actions in the East? - Vedexent 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no source that I know of that credits Pompeius receiving the title of "Magnus" due to his exploits in the East in the 60's. Would someone please either provide a reference for this or remove it from the article. --M Drusus 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairness of tone (Congratulations!)

I would like to congratulate the wikipedian 205.175.123.113 on her/his recent edits. She/He was totally successful in bringing Pompey's article a much needed fairness of tone. Thanks! -- Pichote 09:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of quality?

While I think the quality of the article is somewhat lacking, I quickly edited the intro. Pompey was certainly not fighting to preserve the Republic; his invalidation of the tribunecian veto makes this clear. Like Caesar, he was fighting to establish himself as the master of the Roman world.

I don't think I agree. He had plenty of chances to do what Caesar planned to do and what Sulla had done (after Spain, after Mithridates, etc.) and each time he disbanded his legions and laid down his imperium. He was interested in preserving his own dignitas and auctoritas, but he wasn't interested in overthrowing the republic. He was quite content to be first citizen and the biggest fish in the pond without re-drawing the pond the way Caesar seemed inclined to do. Keep in mind how many times the Senate went to Pompey, and how many times Pompey backed up the Senate. He was a Republican--a Republican of the Late Republic, to be sure, but certainly no odder a duck than the Gracchi or Sulla, and not a popular politician like Caesar.--CaesarGJ 07:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is a conflict of principle versus practicality. Both Caesar and his opponents described their aims as "the preservation of the Republic"; both Caesar and his opponents, in pursuing those aims, bent, stretched, subverted and finally broke the Roman Constitution. And that's what we should be reporting. Binabik80 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What?! Pompey was a Republican? No. Pompey, like Caesar, was a PRAGMATIST. Like raising three legions to meet Sulla was legal? Please. As a matter of fact, Caesar never did anything blatantly 'subversive' until his alliance with Pompey (which wasn't technically illegal), who was ever the subverter (raising private armies to confront the Senate which opposed Sulla, fighting wars as a privatus -technically under a Dictator and so covered by that umbrella, but certainly not the SPIRIT of the law-, Consul without colleague, need I go on?). Pompey was a child who did whatever the Senate told him because he wanted in. He had an inferiority complex. Caesar, he only wanted his due as a Roman. But lesser men would not give it to him. And the constitution that you say was broken by him was barely functioning at all, people like Pompey had been rearranging the organs as suited them for decades. Caesar put it on life support; and when he was murdered, the plug finally fell out of the wall. Octavian, to continue the allegory, simply left the plug on the floor and watched the Republic finally die. All three men lusted for power, but i think Caesar was the only one who had any respect for what the Republic COULD be (as it certainly wasnt much, even by his own admission, at his time [..'without shape or meaning']). Pompey simply wanted in, and Octavian wanted the 'Republic' itself to be him. --Cjcaesar 22:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Principal ancient authorities for the life of Pompey

I did a re-read of Plutarch, and eliminated everything within the article that I had not previously read in an Encyclopedia Britannica, or that Plutarch himself did not mention. -- Black Sword 08:04, 8 July 2006

First of all, on talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Well, I just signed your previous comment for you, so don't worry now, (ha, ha). With that said, I only wanted to remark to all the wikipedians working here, that the principal ancient authorities for the life of Pompey are the biography of Plutarch, the histories of Dio Cassius, Appian, and Velleius Paterculus, the Civil War of Julius Caesar, and the Letters and Orations of Cicero. A classic of modern scholarship is Wilhelm Drumann's Geschichte Roms (History of Rome), Königsberg 1834-1844. where his life is related at length. So... Plutarch is not the only source, after all. Happy editing! -- Pichote 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this information be somewhere in the article itself - the references or further reading, perhaps, or a separate section? And maybe we could link to those ancient sources that are available online, like Plutarch's biography. --Jim Henry 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jim Henry. --Pichote 07:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Marriage In Time

106 BC September 29 — born in Picenum 83 BC — marriage to Aemilia Scaura(AKA Caesar's child Julia) 54 - BCJulia, died in childbirth.

Only 29 years of marriage. He must be really be sad.

Possibly not relevant (I assume you were making a joke?) but Aemilia Scaura is not Caesar's daughter Julia. They were different women. He was only married to Julia for 6 years. Tbarker 11:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pompey, Pompeius or Pompei?

Speaking of nicknames, how come Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus is "Pompey" but Marcus Licinius Crassus is not "Crassus"? -- isis 23 Aug 2002

This name should be spelled Pompei not Pompey. This is an error that has been repeated for a couple of centuries.

Nonsense. "Pompei" is just as wrong as "Pompey" as neither were the name he called himself. However "Pompey" has currency, as rightly or wrongly he's been known as that in English for centuries. Nobody ever calls him "Pompei". --Nicknack009 18:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You would be surprised about English spelling - normalisation has only been around for the last one century or so - the old texts that we do read have themselves been normalised into current day spelling. Try reading some case law only 120 years old and you will immediately see that English by no means has set spelling. Indeed, it is conceivable that people could spell it pompey and pompei - with all understanding who they are referring to. much like today's 'organise' and 'organize' both parties having their own supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is essentially the same convention as Livius is called "Livy" and Plinius "Pliny". I am not a native speaker of English, but I would be baffled as to how to pronounce "Livi" or "Plini" in English and the same if not worse goes for "Pompei". Lucius Domitius 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The convention in English is that, with anglicised Latin names, the final "-us" is dropped and, if preceded by an "i", the "i" is changed to "y" (which is, of course, why we call Marcus Antonius "Mark Antony"). It's a holdover from when Anglophones first became interested in studying ancient history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which is why we do it, roughly speaking, only to those Greeks and Romans in whom the Renaissance Anglophones were particularly interested—the Emperors, the great figures of the fall of the Republic, the historians who chronicled their exploits, the Apostles and the Church Fathers.

Thus "Pompey" is the correct English form, but "Pompei" is certainly not. I would even argue that "Pompeius", if not quite incorrect in English, is at best nonstandard, like referring to the Emperor Traianus, the month of Julius or Saint Ioannes the Baptist. Binabik80 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pompii? I just undid an edit that changed the spelling to Pompii in a few places. It seemed very deliberate, and unlike vandalism. --Hurtstotouchfire 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Death Date

At the beginning of this article Pompey's birth and death dates are listed as September 29, 106 BC–September 28, 48 BC. Later, under "Civil War and assassination" it says "On September 29, his 58th birthday...(he was assassinated)" And under "Chronology..." it says "48 BC — led by Pompey, the conservatives lose the battle of Pharsalus; Pompey runs away to Egypt, where he is killed on September 29."

Is there a mistake here, or is there debate over the date of death? 131.104.138.214 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well they can't all be correct - I have never heard of a human being born accross three dates. And if there was a dispute as to the date of his death etc., certainly a note should be made about it. many people have edited the pages and this discrepancy has gone largely unnoticied till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, which day did he die? September 28 or September 29? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for citations

In accordance with the policy of improving Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability, I've tagged the article where citation is lacking, or where vagueness requires clarification. Both of these shortcomings apply to most of the article. At some time in the near future, I'll be working on the text but will be using my own reference resources, and replacing those not tied to the text by incline citations. Would any editors concerned please post here or on my talk page. Meanwhile, I've removed some of the more obviously "weasel" words and phrases. Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article reads well, but owes a great deal (in prose style, content and attitudes) to 19th cent scholarship. It needs revision with reference to modern scholarship. This would amount to a re-write. Would anyone visiting this page care to get rid of the cite-error message at the bottom of the article? Mea culpa, but I can't figure out why it's there. I'm wikignorant. Haploidavey (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the dif that causes the cite tag. Not entirely sure how to fix it. I'll take a stab at it, bit if this has an obvious fix that someone else can quickly put into effect, please do so. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... I made a mess of things, but eventually found that elusive open ref tag in the "external links" section, which I moved so that it is now above the notes and references sections. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My homage is on your talk page! Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure why you removed the (for this article) age-old reference to Valerius Maximus, especially in view of your edit summary [1]. Regardless of its relative importance (it may have been used for this occasion only, I don't know), the expression is there ("quod indemnati sub te adulescentulo carnifice occidissent", Facta et dicta memorabilia 6.2.8). Iblardi (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no Latin, and was unable to recognise the phrase in the Latin text. My thanks also on your talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I should of course have left the phrase in and asked for help - which you've given anyway. Haploidavey (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Triumphal car?

"...entered the city of Rome in his triumphal car, a simple eques,..." - what is this about? --222.152.100.245 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The triumphal car was a special horse-drawn chariot in which a triumphator rode on the day of his triumph. At this time Pompey was an eques, which was a distinct social class, originally meaning a citizen who was wealthy enough to own his own horse, but by this time (the late Republic) meaning someone who owned a certain amount of property. The article says "simple" because an eques was a private citizen -- Pompey at this time was not yet a member of the Senate, and therefore not legally entitled to celebrate a triumph. Fumblebruschi (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

His second (illegal) triumph

The article says:

Their branch of the Pompeii family was traditionally provincial, a strong bias in the eyes of the Roman elite.

Is this supposed to mean that the elite held a positive, negative, or some other kind of bias against the Pompeii family? -- Pde 00:13, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And also:

Back in Rome, Pompey celebrated his second illegal triumph for the victories in Hispania.

Should this be legal triumph? -- Pde

Comments (late i know) on the above:

• the bias of aristocratic Romans was against everybody outside the traditional families
• yes, the triumph was illegal because Pompey was not a member of the senate
• Muriel Gottrop 10:26, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reasons for its illegality

No, the illegality was because it wasn't a foreign enemy proper

No, the illegality was because a) Pompey was underage to hold a triumph for both of his and b) he was not a member of the Senate, as Muriel Gottrop explains above. The "foreign enemy" business was essentially just brushed under the table.--CaesarGJ 07:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern sources cover this with the useful "extra-legal" and I've used this in the article. Haploidavey (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Theatre of Pompey

Is this mentioned in this article. I didn't see it when I scanned through it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is now. Haploidavey (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Something not mentioned here and not in the Theatre of Pompey article either. I have read this and done some research on it but have yet to put anything together yet. The theatre seems to be a political gathering spot for Pompey's supporters, his patrons and those whom he paid for...or off. The Porticus Pompey, was in fact the beginnings of the imperial forums. Julius Caesar made sure he created one for himself AND built a theatre in a different location of the Campus martius.

The building of this theatre ond portico was to have a political effect on the City of Rome by every subseguent Ruler looking to rebuild the Government Basilica and relocate the forum for that leaders politcal supporters. All based on Pompeys ego and need to build big for himself and for his political followers. This is how Rome would be ruled all the way untill Constatine with the building of the largest Basilica in the city.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Pompey and his ego; everyone but a foil to his brilliance... What you say is most interesting. The article is, on the whole, still little more than a Plutarchian shrine to the Great lamented. Recent-ish research on the piracy business takes off some of the shine and I've added what seems proportionate for a balanced perspective on that particular sub-topic. I look forward to your doings here! Haploidavey (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited and dubious material

Removed passage describing Pompey's curiosity regarding the Temple and his amazement at the absence of images therein (not relevant - was it a summary of Holland?). Also tagged the connection of Pompey (as ancestor via Pompeia) with M. Aurelius and Melania. Sources certainly required for both. Haploidavey (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the section that was removed. It was restored without discussion - and is still tagged for citation. Even if cited, I don't see how it belongs in an encyclopedia article on Pompey. Haploidavey (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pompey entered the Holy of Holies. He went to the Temple to find out whether the Jews had no physical statue or image of their God in their most sacred place of worship. To Pompey, it was inconceivable to worship a God without portraying him in a type of likeness, like a statue. What Pompey saw was unlike anything he had seen on his travels to sacred sites. He found no statue, religious image or pictorial description of the Hebrew God. Instead, he saw Torah scrolls and was thoroughly confused.

The above section has yet again been restored. Why? It still lacks the citation requested in September 2008. Evidently someone is very fond of the passage, but it's absurdly speculative and therefore offers no substance, reliability or verifiability to the article. Haploidavey (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Portillo, for your response. The modern religious tract you link to is definitely not a scholarly source. The passage you keep restoring is based on a work of imagination, devised to illustrate a theological point regarding monotheism; and its author is not well-informed. Rome was a cosmopolitan society, familiar with Judaism, Jews and a range of mystery religions - yes, even at this date. This image of Pompey gawping with amazement and religious bafflement at the Holy of Holies is frankly absurd. If you would like to know a little more on the topic of Roman-Jewish relations, try Mary E. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman rule: from Pompey to Diocletian: a study in political relations, illustrated, Brill Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0-391-04155-X: partial preview here - (I've highlighted "exemption", but of course you can use any search terms you wish: [2].

In view of the foregoing, I've removed the disputed material. Please don't restore it again. In my opinion, Josephus says everything we need to know about the incident. This article still needs dedicated editing; as someone has said above, a lot of it's just a dump for Plutarch - a primary source, and a late one at that - and we need reputable secondary scholarship here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Portillo (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Interface

Why does this Article have a different background layout than most other Articles I have seen? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it did. Thanks, whoever corrected it! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pompey in the east

The article about his siege of Jerusalem should be more descriptive. The picture next to the article depicts Jews being killed by Romans. However, the article said nothing about this. In fact, it seemed like Pompey was tolerant, i.e. not destroying the temple items, respecting the religion. Starwarsgeek133 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how you missed Josephus' account of the siege, its Jewish casualties and Pompey's visit to the Temple; it's quoted in the relevant section of the article. Haploidavey (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

But...I read his account, and it said that Jews died, but he said no 'enormities' were done in the temple, unlike what the picture depicts. Starwarsgeek133 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the placing of Josephus' text next to Fouquet's illuminated, very 15th-century-French interpretation of the same. The text explains the picture, the picture elaborates the text. Each adds something to the other. We're not shown a single episode but several, all in a single frame. When you read the picture with the text, the sequence is clear. First the slaughter, right up to the sanctuary (defined by its Cathedral-style altar rail). The area beyond the rail is unsullied. Would a revised, more explanatory caption help, d'you think? Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I figured it was just a Christian Renaissance representation of it. Starwarsgeek133 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)