The past two decades have significantly altered the state of research on the sons of Cn. Pompeius Magnus as participants in the civil wars of the late Republic. While the figure of Gnaeus Pompeius still remains overshadowed by his younger brother, the long-standing neglect in studies devoted to Sextus Pompeius has been considerably redressed, and publications on his role have appeared with increasing regularity. Two substantial monographs have come out within a short time frame: K. Welch’s Magnus Pius. Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic (2012) and P. Berdowski’s Res gestae Neptuni filii. Sextus Pompeius i rzymskie wojny domowe (2015; English translation forthcoming 2025).
This naturally raises the question of how d.M.d.V.’s monograph advances our knowledge of the sons of Pompeius Magnus. The answer is: to a moderate extent. Most of the theses presented in the book reiterate conclusions already reached in the two monographs mentioned. A notable original feature of d.M.d.V.’s work, however, is the attempt to approach the world of the Pompeiani not solely through the actions of Pompeius’ sons but also through the lens of their immediate entourage, as reconstructed through prosopographical study. The volume is divided into two parts. The first is analytical and synthetic in character and is divided into seven chapters. The second part consists of a prosopographical catalogue, which comprises 86 individuals.
In Chapter 1 d.M.d.V. defines the term Pompeiani, exploring its various meanings in ancient sources. Chapter 2 focuses on the events involving Gnaeus in Hispania in 46 (all dates bce), discussing his arrival in the Iberian provinces, the nature of his mission, the extent of support from his father’s former clientele and the practice by which he took control of Hispania Ulterior. Chapter 3 covers the events in Hispania, culminating in the Battle of Munda and the few weeks that followed. Chapter 4 turns to Pompeius’ younger son, Sextus, who, in 45 and early 44, undertook the task of consolidating the remnants of the Pompeian faction, but above all of securing his military position in Hispania Ulterior. Chapter 5 covers the period from Caesar’s death to the defeat of the ‘liberators’ by the triumvirs in October 42. It addresses Sextus’ rise to power, his stay in Massilia, his appointment as praefectus classis et orae maritimae, his ideological confrontation with the Second Triumvirate, his conquest of Sicily and the monetary discourse he employed to legitimise his power. Chapter 6 explores the period from the Battle of Pharsalus to the Treaty of Misenum in 39, assessing Sextus’ strategic position, the sources of his naval supremacy and the factors that led to a normalisation of relations with the triumvirs. Special attention is given to Sextus’ Sicilian entourage. Chapter 7 concludes the book, discussing the causes behind the breakdown of the Misenum agreement, the key events of 38–37 that led to the weakening of Sextus’ position and Octavian’s decisive campaign in autumn 36. The chapter closes with an overview of events in Asia Minor following Sextus’ flight from Messana. A concluding summary rounds off the volume.
One of the clear merits of the book is the attention it gives to Gnaeus, a figure hitherto almost entirely ignored by ancient historians. D.M.d.V. devotes a substantial amount of space to him and attempts to answer questions concerning both the legitimacy of Gnaeus’ authority in Hispania and the nature of the support he received from local communities. On the first point, d.M.d.V. invokes the auctoritas inherited from his father – a point well attested in Gnaeus’ Iberian coinage. It remains unclear, however, why d.M.d.V. constructs a rather debatable notion of Gnaeus’ informal imperium, given that he did not hold such a command at any stage of the conflict in Hispania. The acclamation as imperator, which Gnaeus highlighted on his coins, did not in itself imply possession of imperium, as other examples of acclamation from the late Republic – such as that of Sextus – demonstrate. D.M.d.V. devotes considerable attention to the Pompeian entourage of Gnaeus. While highlighting the heterogeneity of this milieu, he concedes that the notion of a unified ‘Pompeian faction’ is of limited analytical use (‘l’utilisation de ce terme suppose un certain nombre de contraintes liées à l’évolution des contextes et il perd ainsi son usage heuristique’, p. 267). A broader perspective – extending at least to the 60s – might have yielded more fruitful results. Restricting the analysis to the final phase of the pars Pompeiana ultimately proves insufficient.
The pairing of Gnaeus and Sextus in the book is a commendable approach. However, d.M.d.V. mistakenly treats Sextus as a straightforward political successor to his elder brother. To some extent, this is true: both explicitly invoked the Pompeian tradition and sought to assume leadership of the pars Pompeiana. Yet there is a clear caesura between the two brothers. Gnaeus’ Iberian mission marked the end of the phase of confrontation that had begun with Caesar’s crossing into Italy in 49. Munda was the culmination of the earlier struggles at Dyrrachium, Pharsalus and Thapsus. It must be emphasised that Sextus was a politician of a new type and, in this respect, bore a strong resemblance to Octavian. Though he continued to fly the banner of republican ideals, the driving force behind his actions was not the restoration of an oligarchic republic but a personal struggle for power. It is true that Sextus inherited his brother’s Pompeian backing (severely depleted by the civil wars), but his Sicilian state resembled the project of Sertorius more than any restoration of the old order. The most striking expression of this new model of power was not only the Sicilian state – which, following M. Crawford (States Waiting in the Wings [2008]), should be considered an ‘alternative state’ – but also Sextus’ appeal to the paternal protection of Neptune, a theme d.M.d.V. discusses in detail in the section on Sextus’ Sicilian coinage.
Sextus’ charismatic authority found expression not only in his relationship with Neptune, in which the son of Pompeius proved imaginative and original. The legitimisation of his power, to use d.M.d.V.’s terminology, rested on a set of mutually reinforcing elements: auctoritas and pietas; his self-presentation as a defender of the Republic; Sicily as a refuge for the proscribed; and, finally, divine protection from Neptune. Towering above all this was Sextus’ pragmatic politics, which made opportunistic rapprochement with Mark Antony a priority, and, above all, the elimination of Octavian. D.M.d.V. does not perceive this rupture between Gnaeus and Sextus.
Sextus’ new political strategy can also be observed in the composition of his entourage – comprising commanders, advisers, Italian exiles, freedmen and others. The author is well aware of the diversity of this milieu, which perhaps explains his cautious approach to labelling the group en masse as Pompeians. And rightly so.
D.M.d.V. correctly follows earlier criticism of K. Welch’s notion of a ‘republican triumvirate’, comprising not only the younger son of Pompeius but also the ‘liberators’ and Q. Cornificius. However, it is difficult to agree with d.M.d.V.’s view that Sextus approached the negotiations at Misenum reluctantly and emerged from the agreement weakened. According to d.M.d.V. Sextus thereby lost the legitimacy of the Pompeian cause. Leaving aside the fact that Sextus had instrumentalised that legitimacy from the beginning, the promised consulship, the recognition of his holdings, their proposed extension to the Peloponnese (even if ultimately unsuccessful) and the amnesty for those proscribed were, without doubt, a success for Sextus.
Despite the critical remarks outlined above, d.M.d.V.’s book offers a number of valuable insights. The prosopographical catalogue represents a useful contribution in its own right, enhancing the understanding of the entourage surrounding the sons of Pompeius. It is compiled with care and scholarly precision. Several detailed observations on the coinage of Gnaeus and Sextus are also of interest, with d.M.d.V. offering fresh perspectives on earlier interpretations. For all its shortcomings, d.M.d.V.’s monograph stands as a worthwhile addition to the scholarship on the sons of Pompeius and the pars Pompeiana in the final years of the Republic.
