Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Pompey: First Emperor of Rome? |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
benzs_s 
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 04-Mar-2006 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Pompey: First Emperor of Rome?Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 12:28 |
|
As John Leach said in 1977, "...the three decades between the dictatorship of Sulla and Caesar were the age of Pompey the Great." This is unlikely to be disputed, as he was for these years the dominant military specialist - and a successful and competent one at that - while also being deeply involved in late-Republic politics.
So, with the senate relying on him in the late 50s BC to repel Caesar's supposed ambitions, and his gaining of various sweeping powers due to the perception of he being the 'last resort' of the Republic, how much sense does it make to say that he was, in fact, the first Emperor of Rome, before Caesar and Octavian? |
|
 |
|
|
Maju
King 
Joined: 14-Jul-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6565 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 13:20 |
|
Caesar is not considered a emperor and the period of "Pompeian dominance" is actually called the triunvirate - and it's called that way for a reason.
|
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
|
|
|
|
benzs_s
Immortal Guard
Joined: 04-Mar-2006 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 13:32 |
The first triumvirate wasn't present for the whole three decades, and I know Caesar isn't considered an emperor, but my point was that Pompey's rule pre-Caesar might have been related closely to that of Octavian's in the same way that Caesar's was. |
|
|
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan 
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 14:24 |
|
I've always viewed Pompey's period of prominence as fitting into the Marian mold, poltically, rather than the Caesarion section (sorry, couldn't resist -Akolouthos |
|
|
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6565 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 06:45 |
|
Normally it is Caesar the one who is equated to Marius (populist - while Pompey and Sulla would be elitist) but maybe you can shed more light on that, Akolouthos.
Benzs: I don't see any "Pompey rule pre-Caesar"... there was a Pompey rule with Caesar... when Pompey and the Senate challenged Caesar, they lost. |
|
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
|
|
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 12:20 |
|
Aye, I agree that politically (at least in regard to their constituencies) Marius was similar to Caesar while Pompey can be equated to Sulla. Undeniable -Akolouthos |
|
|
|
|
benzs_s
Immortal Guard
Joined: 04-Mar-2006 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 19:35 |
Not really, Pompey was, after all, given the Eastern command before Caesar's rise to prominence. And if I recall correctly he was also a consul at some point before that. Anyway I realise I may have made a mistake by stipulating 'first emperor' in the topic. |
|
|
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 22:06 |
|
You know what's odd? I am actually going to suggest that you all go out and read (and I would be most willing to re-read) a series by Colleen McCullough that began with First Man in Rome. Though, as works of historical fiction, the books doubtless leave us many problems, they do provide a basis for further research. I can also state that Ms. McCullough's research, itself, is impeccable--and to our shame, more detailed than we could ever hope to be. Please forgive me if I mispelled the name of the author who has aided me in getting to sleep many an insomniac night -Akolouthos |
|
|
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph 
Retired AE Administrator Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3151 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 23:52 |
|
The Roman term for Emperor was "Augustus."
The term did not become a title until Octavian became emperor. If you
are saying that Pompey should be considered as the first "emperor"
because he had absolute power, the problem is that many men before him
also had absolute power.
Pompey was considered to be Imperator. However, contrary to popular expectations, the title "Imperator" meant commander, not emperor. The title Imperator did not truly mean emperor until the medieval period. Edited by Imperator Invictus |
|
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 01-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5711 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 05:13 |
|
Pompey had alot of power, though it was never absolute. The Triumvirate
was called the Triumvirate for a reason. It took a full scale civil war
across the length and width of the Empire before any man could
sufficiently crush his enemies with brute force alone and establish a
dynasty. Even that achievement was not solid, it took another civil war
and another man with the political tact to cement an institutional
Imperium.
|
|
|
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 18:11 |
|
Pompey just wanted to leave everything as it always was and to be "the first man in Rome" but not its ruler. He was one of Sulla's camp and i think that traditional roman values were very important for him. Unlike for such people like Marius and Caesar who wanted to have full power in their hands using support of brainless plebs.
|
|
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
). Seriously, though, I really feel that both Marius and Pompey had a deep respect for the Republic even if its institutions irked them occassionally. This, I feel, is what differentiates them from Caesar and that sickly little child Octavian.
. I was merely talking about the respect held for the Roman Republic, and the degree to which they would violate her (ignoring Marius' later years, during which he was doubtless not at his best). Sorry I didn't make that clear; after reading my last post I realized that I really didn't. I suppose I should have said methodically (although I'm not sure that word conveys my meaning any better). What do you think 
. I feel that her works will shed light on the Marian, Sullan, Pompeiian, and Caesarian sections (there it is again|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.
