Pompey: Greed, Decadence, and Conquest

How a corrupt general contributed to the downfall of Rome's Republic.

Pompey’s very name is synonymous with Roman greed, decadence, and ruthless power. He was unquestionably one of the world’s most charismatic and powerful figures, and one of the greatest conquerors in human history. His fame shines on over 2,000 years after his death.

The Romanization of Italy

Pompey was born in Picenum, northern Italy, in 106 BC. He was the first-born son of a local Italian aristocrat. At the time, Italy was not a unified country. It was a convoluted patchwork of local provinces, known collectively as the socii (“allies”) of Rome. Pompey’s family were a class of local nobility which assimilated to Rome’s culture. It was part of a larger trend of Romanization for Italy. A revolt broke out among Rome’s Italian allies in 91 BC, demanding the rights of Latin citizenship. This became known as the Social War, and it was Pompey’s first taste of military affairs.

Pompey learned much of his military genius from his father, named Pompeius Strabo. The elder Pompey was accomplished in his own right, rising through the ranks of Roman government to be elected consul of Rome in 89 BC. Pompey’s father owned territory in the Picenum region of northern Italy, which is where the family grew up. The younger Pompey benefited from his father’s vast network of clients and military personnel. Unlike his more unpleasant father, the adolescent Pompey exuded an irresistible charm and elegance. He was handsome, and was free from his father’s avarice. He was unpretentious; he was relatable to the common man. He lived simply, which earned the approval of his father’s troops. On one occasion, the 18-year-old Pompey even calmed down a mutinous army. Pompey benefited immensely from his experience with his father, which proved indispensable for his own glory. It gave him crucial first-hand experience with warfare and leading troops. Ambitious and impatient, Pompey was eager to fly up the ranks of Roman society, and cared little for the rigid rules of Rome’s traditional aristocracy.

Sulla’s Civil War

For the previous three decades, Rome was engulfed in a power struggle between two competing factions, led by Sulla (138-78 BC) and Marius (157-86 BC). In the year 83 BC, Sulla, returning from conquests in the East, marched on Rome itself. It was a shocking development in the Republic’s history. Pompey was aged 23 at the time. Sulla and his allies butchered their political opponents, the followers of Marius. As a civil war appeared imminent, the 23-year-old Pompey cast his support in Sulla’s favor. Too young to hold office or command legions, Pompey exploited the crisis as a chance to gain power. The ambitious young man amassed a private army, using his father’s connections in Picenum. Pompey equipped his men using his family’s wealth. All of this was done without any legal authority. Commanding three legions, the self-appointed general marched on Sulla’s behalf. Despite his youth, Pompey managed to receive the honor imperator (“victorious general”) from his elder mentor Sulla.

The surviving followers of Marius, known collectively as Marians, fled across the Roman world into Sicily, Italy, and Africa. Pompey, a virulent supporter of Sulla, viciously hunted down Sulla’s enemies into these distant territories, earning the notorious nickname carnifex adulescens (“teenage butcher”). As he subdued Sicily, the great Roman general was challenged by the native people, who invoked Rome’s promises to their ancestors. Pompey, ever the iconoclast, defiantly quipped, “Cease quoting laws to us. We carry swords.” Pompey was a no-nonsense general who cared little about customs or traditions. Conquest was his only consideration. When he returned to Italy, the pompous young general demanded a triumph in his honor. This was in contravention of Roman tradition, but Pompey didn’t care. Sulla, a conservative Roman, was hesitant, but he was pressured by Pompey’s growing fame. Sulla began to refer to his younger ally as Pompey the Great, a name which Pompey himself gladly used. Pomposity was his most significant trait. Instead of a traditional horse-driven triumph, Pompey insisted on using elephants during his ceremonial glorification. He came riding on four giant elephants, which were too fat to fit through Rome’s gates.

Sertorius in Spain

One of Sulla’s main enemies was Quintus Sertorius (123-72 BC), a Roman general operating in Spain. Sertorius claimed to be a loyal citizen, and he accused Sulla of being an illegitimate usurper of Roman power. Sertorius had established an independent Roman state in Spain, complete with its own Senate. He won over the Iberian tribes by providing education and development. Sertorius’ rule was an effective mixture of personal charisma, justice, and playing upon the superstitions of the indigenous people. For example, he always kept an albino deer beside him, which was seen as having magical powers from the goddess Diana. The renegade military man had already successful defeated several invading armies, which had attempted to reintegrate Spain into the Roman Republic. Enter Pompey.

The arrogant, self-assured Pompey underestimated his foe, and was defeated by Sertorius. However, through his sheer military prowess, Pompey managed to gradually reverse the tide of defeat. Surviving a near-fatal wound, the Roman general was supplied by reinforcements from the Italian mainland. In an odd twist of fate, Sertorius was overthrown by one of his own generals. The coup played favorably into Pompey’s hands, allowing him to crush the anti-Sulla insurgency.

Spartacus’ Slave Revolt

Pompey returned to Italy, where another conflict gave him the chance to win military glory. A slave revolt, led by Spartacus (111-71 BC), was running wild. Spartacus was a Thracian who was enslaved by the Romans and forced into a gladiator school at Capua. From there, he led a rebellion of 73 people, which set up an insurgency from Mount Vesuvius. Spartacus and his fellow gladiators conducted raids against wealthy Roman citizens, freeing their slaves in the process. What was once a minor revolt snowballed into a full-scale insurrection, as Spartacus amassed a following of 50,000 men. Spartacus and his sizable army defeated multiple overconfident Roman generals. The Senate turned desperately to a man named Crassus (115-53 BC), a rich Roman aristocrat with an unfathomable stash of wealth. Crassus was one of Antiquity’s richest man, but his fortunes were not earned honestly. He accrued his massive wealth by extorting the Roman people with his personal firefighter brigade, which pressured homeowners into selling off their burning real estate. In addition, Crassus gained money from mining, slavery, and money lending. He was the definition of a corrupt man, but the Senate had no choice. Unfortunately for the freedom-fighting Spartacus, Crassus and Pompey was about to enter the picture. Crassus did most of the hard work, while Pompey dealt a final blow to the last 5,000 slaves. In a brutal show of force, the Romans had Spartacus and 6,000 of his allies crucified along the Appian Way.

By 71 BC, the 35-year-old Pompey had done it all. He won battles across Sicily, Italy, North Africa, Spain, and Southern Gaul. There was one achievement left to do: becoming a senator. Despite being too young legally, Pompey nevertheless ran for Rome’s highest office: the consulship. He was able to flout Roman norms with impunity, because Pompey was popular and possessed a personal army to enforce his will. Crassus challenged him, so Pompey allowed his former rival to co-rule over Rome. The two men were elected jointly in 70 BC. Pompey broke the normal rules of becoming consul, but he was so powerful that no one could stop him. He was woefully ignorant of the Senate’s rules, which enraged Rome’s ruling class. To shore up popular support, Pompey enacted measures to restore the powers of the Tribune, which had been stripped by his former mentor Sulla. Was it populism? Did Pompey genuinely care about the ordinary Roman people? Whatever the case, it was a carefully crafted way for Pompey to undermine his senatorial opposition.

Conquering the Mediterranean

Piracy was becoming a growing problem for Rome. Roman merchant ships were pillaged by these seaborne marauders. In response, Pompey was given wartime powers to suppress them. He commanded a fleet of 500 ships, consisting of 120,000 soldiers, to police 50 miles along the Mediterranean coast. Pompey’s strong-handed tactics flew in the face of Roman tradition, which emphasized the separation of powers in military command. An organizational genius, Pompey divided up the Mediterranean into 13 zones, each ruled by legates. The general himself fought pirates in Cilicia, located in modern-day southeast Turkey. Pompey and his Roman forces swept across the Mediterranean, eradicating piracy in less than three months. The Roman general claimed to have captured 846 ships and 20,000 pirates. Pompey often resettled the pirates on Roman farmland, transforming them into productive members of society. Pompey’s campaign against piracy earned him universal praise among ancient sources, although modern historians are more skeptical of its long-term effects.

Pompey turned his attention to King Mithridates IV of Pontus, Rome’s old enemy. The king had defied Rome for decades, and defeated many a Roman general. But Pompey was no ordinary general. Over the Senate’s wishes, the Roman people popularly chose to further empower Pompey. Pompey was given control over Asia Minor and a rival leader, Lucullus, was stripped of his command. In 66 BC, Pompey subdued Rome’s long-time foe. The disgraced Mithridates forcibly fled to the East, near Crimea. Having neutralized the threat, Pompey decided to go on the offensive. He invaded Armenia, Bithynia, Syria (including modern-day Palestine), and Judea. The entire Eastern Mediterrean was under Pompey’s control. The power-hungry Pompey used these client kingdoms to serve as buffers around the Roman provinces. Rome’s income saw explosive growth, and 11 cities were named in Pompey’s honor.

The First Triumvirate

Before returning to Italy in 62 BC, Pompey paid his troops handsome bonuses, about 16,000 talents each. Fears grew that the powerful Pompey was about to become another Sulla. The Romans didn’t want their leader to imitate the example of his old mentor, who ruled as an iron-fisted dictator.

Although Pompey appeared to restore order, Rome was still embittered by civil strife. Hoping to stabilize Rome, Pompey worked with other strong leaders—Caesar and Crassus—to form an alliance known as the First Triumvirate. In 54 BC, Julius Caesar waged wars of conquest in Gaul. Crassus opened up his own campaign against the Parthians, Rome’s eastern enemy. Pompey remained in Rome, where his wife Julia died in childbirth in September. With the unexpected death of Crassus at the disastrous Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC—one of the worst losses in Roman history—there was one less obstacle between Caesar and Pompey.

The two ambitious men, Caesar and Pompey, began to vie with other for dominance over the entire Roman world. With private support from Pompey, new laws were passed to put Caesar retroactively on trial. In a pattern well-recognized in the Late Roman Republic, Rome was again split into a civil war, led by charismatic but ruthless military dictators. Caesar started his own civil war, hoping to wrestle political control out of Pompey’s hands. At the war’s beginning, it seemed that Caesar would hopelessly fail. He was a rebel and an outlaw, without any navy and only three weak legions at his disposal. Pompey, by contrast, was backed by the endless resources of the Roman government and its client states in the East. Although a de facto dictator, Pompey was technically beholden to the Senate, where many Roman leaders demanded a negotiated settlement. The Senate cared little for Pompey or Caesar, seeing them both as enterprising, conniving leaders. With much reluctance, the consuls pledged their support behind Pompey, who vowed to eliminate Caesar.

The Senate asked Caesar to disband his army, but he refused. In January of 49 BC, Caesar led his legions across the Rubicon river, from Cisalpine Gaul into Italy, and declared war against Pompey and his allies. Caesar made early gains in the civil war, defeating Pompey’s forces in Italy and Spain. The mighty Caesar was beaten back into Greece. In August 48 BC, as Pompey chased down his rival, Caesar set up near Pharsalus. Pompey pounced on Caesar’s forces, but his army was entirely routed. This forced Pompey to fled to in Egypt. Pompey hoped that Egypt’s King Ptolemy, his former client, would assist him, but the Egyptian King feared the wrath of Caesar. On September 28, the King invited Pompey to come ashore at Pelusium. It was a trap! As Pompey prepared to set foot on Egyptian soil, he was assassinated by one of Ptolemy’s men.

Lessons of Pompey

Pompey’s legacy remains a subject of endless fascination among modern scholars. None can deny his omnipresent influence over global geopolitics, for better or for worse. Pompey was an adventurous, charismatic individual, who reshaped the world through his rapacious conquests. His military adventurism transformed centuries of Western civilization. But most of all, his foreign crusades left an indelible scar on the trajectory of Rome’s domestic politics. Pompey worked outside the system, undermining the institutions of the Republic. Precedents were created, which could not be undone. Rome itself had crossed the Rubicon.

Pompey’s story demonstrates many lessons for modern students of history:

1) It shows how moral decadence leads to an erosion of republican government.

An immoral people is not capable of governing itself. They must inevitably be controlled by someone else: an authoritarian dictator, who rules by edict rather than a constitution. The great satirist Juvenal looked with disdain and distrust at the herds of Roman masses, who flocked to any politician promising bread and circuses. Unfortunately, it is easy for ordinary people to grow complacent with their political system. This is especially true of modern Western democracies. The truth, though, is that a republic can only survive if its citizens are virtuous. When the citizens of a nation abandon their responsibility to participate in their society, ruthless and unscrupulous men will happily fill the vacuum.

2) Beyond individual morality, there is another lesson about the dangers of economic inequality.

When wealth becomes too concentrated, this results in rich kleptocrats taking over society and making all the meaningful decisions. Plutocracy is the opposite of republican government. Citizens are unable to participate in democracy if they are shut out by economic necessity.

Pompey is the perfect example of a rich man who exhibits an inordinate level of control over society. He raised his own private army, which should have been an enormous red flag. When rich people can amass their own armed forces, they are much too powerful. Nor was Pompey restrained by the social and legal institutions of the Republic. He was unscrupulous; he cared little about law or precedent. He was happy to flagrantly ignore the Roman constitution.

One of the self-defeating flaws of democracy is its tendency toward tyranny. That was Plato’s critique of democracy in his Republic. The philosopher warned that democracy inevitably degenerates into dictatorship, because the masses are easily swayed by the promises of an authoritarian demagogue. Dictatorship comes not from the top-down, but the bottom-up. It is only when ordinary citizens abandon their desire for liberty that dictators can seize power. The Romans were willing to surrender their freedom in exchange for comfort and convenience, decaying all of their institutions in the process. Pompey, as one of the Late Republic’s leading figures, represents this trend. People like Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar were able to mobilize popular support, but they only cared about their own personal benefit. They exploited and manipulated public opinion for their own narrow self-interest.

3) It shows why dictators are able to enjoy popular support.

The Roman system of government endlessly emphasized the need for separation of powers. The unwritten constitution required that Rome be ruled by two consuls, not one. It was seen as too dangerous for a single man to enjoy centralized control of Rome’s government. There were measures, such as term limits and filibusters, to restrain the power of particular individuals. Leaders such as Pompey discarded the senatorial etiquette of Rome’s ruling class. Ostensibly, they were answerable to the people. In reality, those leaders were military conquerors who thought only in terms in personal benefit, not the common good.

Sometimes, corrupt dictators enjoy support from more legitimate people. Pompey was reluctantly supported by Cicero, one of Rome’s most glorious names, in the war against Caesar. This was not because Pompey was a good man, and Caesar a bad one. It was one dictator against the other. Like rabid dogs, they fought viciously for dominance. Strange circumstances can often breed strange alliances. Pompey’s life is a perfect demonstration of that principle, that very bad men can gain legitimacy in the eyes of a naive, unsuspecting public.

4) Pompey represents how “greatness” does not mean moral goodness.

Finally, Pompey’s life shows that a person, in order to be famous, does NOT need to be a morally virtuous person. In fact, some of the most interesting figures in human history are fraught with moral ambivalence and ambiguity. Pompey was something of an anti-hero, a sort of Stone Cold Steve Austin in ancient Rome. He was greedy and avaricious. He was arrogant and self-aggrandizing. But he was also powerful and successful. He was cunning and crafty. He was witty, handsome, and charismatic. He was able to subdue enemies with charm and sword alike.

Pompey personally emblemizes all of the contradictions within ancient Rome’s civilization—its government, its culture, its institutions. On the one hand, the general represented the very best of Antiquity. He was a bright and brilliant man. He was logical and learned. He was empirical, a realist. He was wealthy and influential. At the same time, he had numerous character flaws. He was ruthless and cruel. He didn’t care about the rules of morality or republicanism. He was willing to exploit his personal connections for nepotistic, corrupt purposes. He formed political alliances based on his personal benefit, not out of any genuine or sincere conviction. Pompey represented the perverse pinnacle of Roman corruption, cruelty, and decadence—but that is what makes him irresistibly interesting.