What if Pompey had won Pharsalus?

[louisxyz]

I know 'what ifs' are often irritating and pointless but here goes.
My question is, had Pompey defeated Caesar at Pharsalus, or generally in the civil war, do you think Pompey would have become dictator and dismantle the republic like Caesar did, or would he has preserved the 'democratic' institutions? i know the inherent instabilities of the republic may have eventually led to the establishment of the principate either way but in the short term would pompey have done a Sulla/Cincinnatus and gone back to his plough? he hadn't shown the greatest respect to the law and the optimates in the past (first triumvirate, lex gabinia etc.)but personally think he would have been less autocratic than Caesar.

[PhilusEstilius]

Tiro.
I do understand that what you mean for if if's and and's were pots and pans there would be no trade for tinkers, but then Pompey indeed should have won but was too cautious for Caesar was a man who had no respect for logistics and almost put himself into defeat.

I do think he may not have done what Caesar did but as you say he might well have done a Sulla, however I think the writing was on the wall as far as the Republic coming to an end for there were people such as Antony and of course the up and coming future Octavianus who created a Dynasty by stealth.

[Nathan Ross]

I would imagine that a triumphant Pompey would certainly have been appointed dictator by the senate - Sulla provided a good precedent after the defeat of the Marians, and Pompey was an old Sullan partisan. He was also once nicknamed 'the butcher' I believe - with the senate in Rome full of Caesar's placemen, a swift and vigorous proscription along Sullan lines would surely have followed a Pompeyan Pharsalus. Perhaps Pompey would then have followed the historical model and laid down his office after a year, or however long it took to 'restore the republic'. Perhaps he would have taken the dictatorship for life (he was an ambitious man, and had little reason to trust any potential successors). Perhaps he would have been assassinated (by Brutus?) and another round of civil wars would have commenced - Sextus Pompey against a senatorial cabal, maybe?

Probably the end result would have been much the same, with the names changed - the Roman political system by this point had become so warped by ambitious men and their large armies that a system of sole rulership would seem to have been inevitable...

- Nathan

[john roberts]

I believe it was his father, Pompeius Strabo, who was called "Carnifex," (the butcher). Pompeius Magnus was called, by extension, "Carnificulus'" (little butcher), though probably not to his face.

[Gaius Colletti]

I've often wondered the same things. I attribute the principate and the dominate to the downfall of Rome (more so the dominate, but giving just about absolute power to anyone for any extended period of time is not good). Had it not been for Julius Caesar, there would be no "Augustus". For every great Roman Emperor there was, there were a larger number of horrible Emperors who often acted in self interest. Valen's loss at Adrianople is regarded as the decline of the Western Empire, and several other emperors hastened the fall of the West, especially when they were not military leaders by merit, but rather by default.

The Romans had a good thing going, well maybe not a good thing with the greedy patricians and higher eques, but the Republic was progressing. Would the Senate have been able to ward off the barbarians, and come out strong in the 6th century? I don't know, the senate did some rather "clumsy" things in the Second Punic War, but I don't think the Senate would have made as many stupid decisions as some of the Emperors.

Augustus is by far my favorite Roman, but his terrible choice of choosing Tiberius as his successor instead of Germanicus certainly did not directly benefit the Empire

[Megas Aleksandros]

There has always been questions like this and numerous answers.

The main difference between Pompey and Caesar is that Pompey has always been a calculated general. He would never go into battle if the odds are against him, if on paper his situation is better than his opponent's. On the other hand, Caesar was a general 'of the moment'. All the battles he lost, he lost because he made the right move too soon or too late.

The right question for me is - what would have happened if Pompey advanced his army against Caesar's in the battle of Dyrrhachium? We all know what Caesar wrote - if Pompey had advanced, history would be writing about Pompey as victor and not Caesar. But that's the thing. Pompey didn't do the right thing (advancing his army) because he thought that it was a trap set up by Caesar. Pharsalus was already lost for him when he went into battle, even though he had supplies and a bigger army. Caesar's army was constituted
of veterans, who had 'a lot of games in their legs', and they were desperate, fighting
for their lives. Pompey wielded with recruits and a lot of mercenaries, that's why he
intensivly trained them to fight in formation.

He went into battle because the Senate was pushing him to do so. All he had to do is stay where he was and force Ceasar into surrendering his army (hunger, desease, etc.). That's it. But history depicts Caesar as victor because Pompey offered battle, and he was lost.

To answer your question - no, Pompey would have never became dictator. He could be compared with Marius - a brilliant general, but a lousy politician. Pompey was the same.
He couldn't 'play the game of politics' and that's why after the Eastern campaign he didn't succeed in giving land for his veterans. He needed Caesar for that, and he did so.
If Pompey had defeated Caesar, the Senate (mainly Cato and Cicero) would have used Pompey and outplayed him in politics, and he would have died alone as an outcast; because, in the Senate's eyes, there were two enemies of the state - Caesar, and Pompey. They were too powerfull to be let alone. Caesar was the bigger opponent then, and they used Pompey to try to destroy him. He failed. But had he won, no doubt about it - Senate would do the same to Pompey.

[Epictetus]

He went into battle because the Senate was pushing him to do so. All he had to do is stay where he was and force Ceasar into surrendering his army (hunger, desease, etc.). That's it. But history depicts Caesar as victor because Pompey offered battle, and he was lost.

I've long wondered if some of this is Caesarean propaganda, portraying the disorder and confusion of democracy versus the firm control (and success) of autocracy. For example:

In a word, all were agitating about honours for themselves, or about prizes of money, or about the prosecution of their private quarrels, nor were their reflections concerned with the means by which they could gain the upper hand, but with the way in which they ought to use their victory.

Caesar, Civil Wars, III.83

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or perhaps Ceasarian honesty?

[Epictetus]

Or perhaps Ceasarian honesty?

Just because its propoganda doesn't mean it isn't true. :wink:

[Megas Aleksandros]

[quote="Epictetus" post=292179]

I've long wondered if some of this is Caesarean propaganda, portraying the disorder and confusion of democracy versus the firm control (and success) of autocracy. For example:

[quote]

You make a fair point, but i think that wasn't the case. We have to ask ourselves how did it occur that Pompey decided to go into battle? No doubt that he was in a better position. Backed up by the senate, with strategically better position of the camp, larger army and provisions of all kind. Caesar's position was the opposite. The only way he could have changed his position (ending hunger and low morale of his army) is if Pompey offered battle. Pompey mush have known this, and the fact who he was fighting against. He was, as i said, a calculated general. To enter in a battle with recruits and mercenaries (who haven't been trained in roman formation of great scale) against hungry veterans (10 years of constant warfare) who were fighting for their lives is a mistake some ill trained, and ill experienced general would do, not Pompey. Even more, his formation and tactics at Pharsalus show how untrained his army was.

When the armies were in formation, he didn't order an advance - which Caesar later said was a mistake, but actually, it was the best move in given time. He didn't order an advance because his army was untrained in battle march and his first line would, in a simple march, be broken and looked more like a letter S. (because of the different speed with which soldiers would march). After entering battle all he could do is try to outflank Caesar with his cavalry, a move no roman general would do in a pitched battle, but Pompey had to. (in fact it was Labienus' tactics)

We know for a fact that the senate in exile put pressure on Pompey to end Caesar. Some historians say that he did not have the 'political experience' to contradict the senate in this matter. For all his tactics show that he wanted to exhaust Caesar's army and force it to surrender. But he went into battle, accepting the plan of the senate. Contradictory, isn't it? My only regret is we will never find out what was going on in his mind when he ordered a battle cry. My guess is that he knew he would be defeated, but had to try something no man has tried and succesfully succeeded- to win a battle with cavalry.