#the romanity

[pharsalianostra]

My friend: *makes an et tu brute reference*

Me (drunk): do you want to know what Caesar’s last words probably actually were? Καὶ σύ, τέκνον, which is Greek for “even you, my child”

My other friend (also drunk): he said “be there my slut?????”

[sextuspompey]

"Pompeius, as we have pointed out above, was wounded and had sprained his ankle, and this handicapped him in flight; moreover, the difficult nature of the ground made it impossible for him to have recourse to riding horseback or driving to assist his escape to safety. On all sides our troops were carrying on the work of slaughter. Cut off from his entrenchment and having lost his supporters, Pompeius now resorted to a ravine, to a spot where the ground was eaten away; and there in a cave he proceeded to hide himself, so that, short of his being given away by a prisoner, it was no easy matter for our men to find him. By such means in fact he was discovered there and put to death. When Caesar was at Gades, the head of Pompeius was brought to Hispalis on April 12th, and there publicly exhibited." (On the Spanish War, 39) "Here his pursuers came upon him and he was cut down while defending himself bravely." (Appian, Civil Wars, 2.105)

"Flight of Gnaeus Pompey" (1485-1490), Jean Colombe, from an illuminated manuscript of the Romuleon by Benvenuto da Imola

[sextuspompey]

Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio (1503-1577), Leda and Lucretia

[sextuspompey]

So, regarding the debate on the date of issue of this Pompey aureus, I've collected the arguments for the different proposed dates (aka the dates of Pompey's triumphs) because well, it's interesting!

Usually, the arguments are based on 3 clues:

the head of Africa

the inscriptions "Magnus" and "proconsul"

Gnaeus being represented

DATE OF ISSUE: 81-79 BC (first triumph)

Supported by: Mommsen

The head of Africa relates to, well, Pompey's victories in Africa

Pompey had already been acclaimed "Magnus" by his soldiers and possibly liked it very much :)

[ This goes against Plutarch's statement that Pompey only started using "Magnus" in the Sertorian war ]

Although Pompey was granted the title "proconsul" only three years later, "propraetor" and "proconsul" are basically the same titles with only a difference in prestige

[ These arguments are summarized in Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum book (1910) where Grueber disagrees with Mommsen's theory on the basis that it "would have been an act of supreme arrogance" for Pompey to call himself a proconsul ]

DATE OF ISSUE: 71 BC (second triumph)

Supported by: Cavedoni (1831?), Crawford (1974), and the British Museum

cf Crawford's arguments in the original post

[ The BMCRR book finds it unlikely on the basis that Pompey shared this triumph with Metellus Pius and that Metellus doesn't seem to have issued his own coins ]

DATE OF ISSUE: 61 BC (third triumph)

Supported by: Eckhel (1798), Lenormant (1975), the CRRBM book (1910), Sydenham?

Lenormant's argument: Pompey was only proconsul in the war against the pirates and Mithridates + Gnaeus's presence hints towards the wars in Asia (which he apparently participated in (??))

Gnaeus being born in 80-76 BC and the first campaign in which he took part having been against the pirates in 67 BC, he could not have appeared on a coin issued in 81 BC and the BMCRR finds it unlikely for him to appear on one issued in 71 BC

The head of Africa is a callback to the title "Magnus", not so much to the campaign itself

(Additionally the book argues that the coin must have been struck in the East because its quality resembles that of Sulla's coins in the East)

Crawford arguing for 71 BC means Gnaeus would have been 5-9 yo for this triumph. For comparison, Marius's son appears as rider on a denarius issued for his father's triumph, and he would have been 8 at the time. Additionally, I may be wrong but I don't believe children had to have participated to their father's campaign for them to appear in the triumph?

Haven't found how to access the other references listed by the Brit Museum besides the BMCRR book (which provides a very long argumentation) and Crawford, but I'll edit the post if I find anything new for these three dates.

Now, I've kept it for the end because it's a little out of pocket but also kinda fascinating, but this article from 1963 by Harold Mattingly argues that the aureus wasn't issued for any of the three triumphs. His arguments are the following:

The strange choice of Africa for 61 BC

The absence of signature from the moneyer

The "proconsul" inscription

Instead, he suggests that the coin may have been issued during the civil war, paralleling the ones issued by Caesar and spiting him with the "proconsul" inscription (aka a magistracy that had been approved by the Senate). The head of Africa would relate to the African campaign of Cato and Scipio, meaning the coin would have been issued on their order after Pompey had already been killed. I don't know how likely this hypothesis is but I do like how it ties with some analysis I've read of the decisions made by Scipio (and to a much lesser extent Cato) like sending Gnaeus to Spain rather than other commanders so he could benefit from the Pompeius name.

[sextuspompey]

Aureus minted by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus for his second triumph in 71 BC, featuring the head of Africa on the obverse. The reverse shows Pompey in his triumphal chariot, with his son Gnaeus seated before and Victory flying above.

Commentary from Roman Republican Coinage, 1974, Michael H. Crawford:

The issue was doubtless struck for Pompey's triumph and the choice of reverse type was thus obvious; the reference to Africa is somewhat surprising, but is intelligible if one remembers that the swift and decisive victory in Africa was a more striking achievement than the victory in Spain, long delayed and only achieved after the murder of Sertorius by Perperna; it is also perhaps relevant that the victory in Africa was less recent and less charged with bitterness than the victory in Spain. The rider on the horse on the reverse is doubtless Pompey's elder son born between 80 and 76; the lituus and the jug presumably refer to Pompey's augurate, for which they provide the earliest evidence.

[sextuspompey]

In case it might be of interest to some: the Bibliothèque Nationale de France has an online archive with illustrations from multiple 15th century copies of Valerius Maximus and it's amazing.

[sextuspompey]

Something about how, while being a victory for Octavian's side, the battle of Naulochus against Sextus also helped Agrippa perfect his naval tactics (particularly through the use of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships) which then led him to defeat Antony at Actium.