For citation:
Smykov E. V. Gnaeus Pompeius and his nickname, or how to become “Great”. Ancient World and Archaeology, 2025, vol. 22, iss. 22, pp. 83-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/0320-961X-2025-22-83-100
Gnaeus Pompeius and his nickname, or how to become “Great”
The article discusses the origins of the cognomen Pompeius Magnus, “the Great”. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a reference to the image of Alexander the Great. No ancient author speaks about this, and all arguments are constructions of modern researchers. Rather, this name expressed the sincere admiration of the soldiers for the achievements of their young commander. However, at the same time, the nickname was picked up by flatterers from Pompey's retinue, who skillfully played on his excessive ambition, which from his youth was Pompey’s weak side. It was they who could draw an analogy with Alexander, flattering for Pompey’s vanity, but hardly had any meaning other than that. Do not ignore the fact that the nickname could be used with irony. Perhaps this circumstance led to the fact that Pompey was in no hurry to add the cognomen “Magnus” to his name. In general, the material confirms that the official adoption of this nickname occurs after the campaign of Pompey in Spain (or, perhaps, at its last stage), however, now it seems to be used quite carefully and without any allusions. The absence of even hints of him from Cicero, in speeches where such a reminder would be more than appropriate, is very significant. And only after the Eastern campaign, the greatness of Pompey became so undeniable that everyone had to admit it, whether they liked it or not, and Pompey himself, princeps orbis terrarum, as he stated surpassed Alexander’s achievements, so that his nickname resembled not the greatness of an alien king, but his own glorious deeds.
Саллюстий Крисп Гай. 1950. Фрагменты «Историй» // ВДИ. Вып. 1 / В.С. Соколов (пер.). С. 271–316 [Sallyustiy Krisp Gay. 1950. Fragmenty “Istoriy” // Vestnik Drevney Istorii. Vyp. 1 / V.S. Sokolov (per.). S. 271–316].
Дворецкий И.Х. 1976. Латинско-русский словарь. М. [Dvoretskiy I.Kh. 1976. Latinsko-russkiy slovar’. Moskva].
Майлз Р. 2014. Карфаген должен быть разрушен. М. [Maylz R. 2014. Karfagen dolzhen byt’ razrushen. Moskva].
Плаксин С.Г. 2012. Боги и мифологические герои на монетах римской республики. Словарь. М. [Plaksin S.G. 2012. Bogi i mifologicheskiye geroi na monetakh rimskoy respubliki. Slovar’. Moskva].
Смыков Е.В. 2012. Imitatio Alexandri в республиканском Риме: исторический факт или историографический миф? // Александр Великий. Жизнь образа в мировой культуре Материалы конференции 18 апреля 2007 г. (Труды Государственного Эрмитажа. Т. 63). СПб. [Smykov E.V. 2012. Imitatio Alexandri v respublikanskom Rime: istoricheskiy fakt ili istoriograficheskiy mif? // Aleksandr Velikiy. Zhizn’ obraza v mirovoy kul’ture Materialy konferentsii 18 aprelya 2007 g. (Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha. T. 63). Sankt-Peterburg].
Тахо-Годи А.А. 1989. Греческая мифология. М. [Takho-Godi A.A. 1989. Grecheskaya mifologiya. Moskva].
Улямаев Т.Р. 2011. Александр Север и Александр Великий: литературная фикция и историческая реальность // Antiquitas Iuventae: Сб. науч. тр. студентов и аспирантов. Саратов. С. 160–167 [Ulyamaev T.R. 2011. Aleksandr Sever i Aleksandr Velikiy: literaturnaya fiktsiya i istoricheskaya real’nost’ // Antiquitas Iuventae: Sb. nauch. tr. studentov i aspirantov. Saratov. S. 160–167].
Babelon E. 1885. Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la république romaine. T. 1. Paris; Londres.
Balsdon J.P.V.D. 1950. Rev.: Gelzer M. Pompeius // Historia. Bd. 1/2. S. 296–300.
Beard M. 2007. The Roman Triumph. Cambr.
Broughton T.R.S. 1986. The magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. 2, 3. Atlanta, Georgia.
Christ K. 1979. Krise und Untergang der Römischen Republik. Darmstadt.
Crawford М. 1974. Roman Republican coinage. Vol. 1, 2. Cambr.
Dahlheim W. 2000. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus – “immer der erste zu sein und die anderen überragend” // Von Romulus zu Augustus. Große Gestalten der römischen Republik / Hölkeskamp K.-J. (hrsg.). München.
Dumézil G. 1974. La religion romaine archaïque. Paris.
Ehlers W. 1939. Triumphus // RE. Zweite Reihe. Hbd. 13. Sp. 493–511.
Gelzer M. 1984. Pompeius. Lebensbild eines Romers. Stuttgart.
Greenhalgh P. 1980. Pompey. The Roman Alexander. L.
Grueber H.A. 1910. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. Vol. 2. L.
Isager J. 1993. Alexander the Great in Roman Literature from Pompey to Vespasian // Alexander the Great: reality and myth / J. Carlsen et al. (eds.). Roma. P. 75–84.
Jourdain-Annequin C. 1989. Héraclès aux portes du soir. Mythe et Histoire. Paris.
Latte K. 1960. Römische Religionsgeschichte. München.
Mader G.J. 2006. Triumphal Elephants and Political Circus at Plutarch, Pomp. 14.6 // CW. Vol. 99/4. P. 397–403.
McGushin P. 1994. Commentary // Sallust. The History / P. McGushin (transl., introd., comm.). Vol. 2. Oxf.
Michel D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius. Archäologische Untersuchungen. Bruxelles.
Münzer F. 1900. Faustus Cornelius Sulla // RE. Hbd. 7. Sp. 1515–1517.
Nadell J.B. 1959. Alexander and Romans. Diss. Ann Arbor.
Pérez C. 1986. Monnaie du pouvoir, pouvoir de la monnaie: Une pratique discursive originale le discours figurativ monetaire (1er s. av. J.-C. 14 ap. J.-C.). Рaris.
Picard G.Ch. 1957. Les trophées romains. Contribution à l’histoire de la Religion et de l’art triumphal de Rome. Paris.
Rawson B. 1970. Pompey and Hercules // Antichthon. Vol. 4. P. 30–37.
Seager R. 2002. Pompey: A political biography. Oxf.
Southern P. 2002. Pompey the Great. Charleston.
Sydenham E.A. 1952. The coinage of the Roman Republic. L.
Valverde L.A. 2001. Inscripciones honoríficas dedicadas a Pompeyo Magno // Faventia. Vol. 23/1. P. 87–102.
Van Оoteghem J. 1954. Pompée le Grand, bâtisseur d̓᾿empire. Namur.
Warren L.B. 1970. Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the Triumph // JRS. 1970. Vol. 60. P. 49–66.
Weippert O. 1972. Alexander-Imitatio und Römоische Politik in Republikanischer Zeit. Augsburg.