Elias

Would you have considered Crassus to be jealous of Pompey's success, or do you believe he simply considered him a political opponent?

Having read up on the subject, I still can't decide whether Crassus ever craved the glory that Pompey received, or whether he was more concerned with his own personal ambitions.

The reason I'm asking is, I was hoping to discover whether Pompey's military success may have influenced Crassus to prove himself in Parthia. Crassus had discovered that wealth was the key to an enduring relevance in Rome, but could he have gained anything from endearing himself to the Roman populous through Military success?

Labienus

It appears that he was indeed jealous of Pompey's military success and later on in his career, of Caesar's successes in Gaul. Marcus Licinius Crassus was extremely wealthy and was quite successful politically but he lacked a military reputation, which undoubtedly prompted him to invade Parthia.

M.E.T.H.O.D.

I totally co-sign Labienus on this one.
His efforts to emulate the victories of Pompey and Caesar ultimately led to his poor demise at Carrhae.The fact is that he overestimate himself as a general and the Parthians proved to be deadly opponents,way more dangerous than escaped gladiators,as most of the "tratidional" tactics of legionary were inefficient against them.

Cornelius

Certainly. He most likely felt that he was the junior triumvir, considering that his colleagues were both hugely famous, popular and successful conquerors. Conquering the Kingdom of the Parthians would have overshadowed Pompey's victories by far, effectively making Crassus the senior triumvir and the First man in Rome. It is also worth remembering that Pompey had tried to steal Crassus's victory over Spartacus from him, that Pompey celebrated a triumph (his Spanish one) the same year Crassus celebrated his (only) ovation, and that Pompey had been the senior consul during their shared consulship of 70 BC. Hence, Crassus was probably sick of standing in Pompey's shadow (especially since Pompey was a Picentine upstart, whereas Crassus came from an old and respected family). Furthermore, history tells us that Crassus was quite greedy. As such, what could be more tempting for him than conquering one of the richest nations in the world - the Kingdom of the Partians?

Elias

It would certainly make sense that Crassus would be jealous of Pompey.

However, it seems to contradict his nature. Pompey was successful militarily because he was driven by a desire for glory and praise. Politically, however, whilst being a powerful figure within Rome, he was described as a lacklustre Senator who found the grind of a conventional political career to be unappealing.

Crassus on the other hand was driven by personal ambition. Whilst it's clear that the Roman populous valued Military accomplishments above all else, it's not apparent whether he had much to gain from the respect of the Roman people. I can't imagine that Crassus was as vain as Pompey when it came to assuming a position of honour and respect within the wider Roman psyche. Perhaps he just felt embitterd by the fact that Pompey had stolen his glory in the past.

Is there, perhaps, any links that discuss the emotional catalysts for Crassus' invasion of Parthia. Most authors seem to discuss the campaign solely in terms of Crassus' greed, for Parthia was a potential goldmine for Rome and for Crassus himself.

bunyip

Jealous? What ambitious Roman patrician of the time would not have been jealous of a person he would have considered a vulgar upstart?*

Crassus ended the Third Servile War,defeating Spartacus and crucifying 6000 surviving slaves along the Via Apia,to the gates of Rome.


Crassus was the wealthiest man in Rome. Some historians have argued he was the wealthiest man in recorded history**


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo


*it is from Crassus we get the word 'crass'


**I read Crassus was killed by having molten gold poured down his throat.Don't know if that's true,but it has a nice irony.From what I gather,even by Roman standards,the man was a complete anal sphincter.

Whyte

Now now, lets be fair. While Crassus did do many bad things and he undoubtedly was greedy and more interested in money than strictly proper for a Roman, he was still a respected, powerful senator in Rome.

Crassus was not a great orator, but he was a methodical one. What he lacked in flair, he made up in number: he was one of the most active advocates for defense, outdoing even Cicero. Of course, there was an ulterior motive for this, as for everything Roman patricians did: it was considered better to be a defender than a prosecutor, as the former meant putting the defendant in your debt, while the latter meant destroying the career of one of your peers. Crassus gained a lot of political capital from grateful defendants.

Furthermore, Crassus was quite free in loaning out money to his fellow senators. If you needed a little loan to float you over, Crassus was always willing to help. Of course, he expected you to pay back promptly, too, but still. I think it was estimated that a good fraction of the backbenchers of the Roman Senate (those senators who had not advanced far in the Cursus Honorum and hence were rarely asked to speak) were in debt to Crassus at one time or another.

There is this funny story about Crassus... He had been observed hanging around and talking with this one Vestal Virgin like all the time. So one guy (forget his name) prosecuted Crassus and the Vestal Virgin for having an affair (death penalty!). Crassus calmly informed the court that his interest in the Vestal Virgin was strictly business: the Vestal Virgin in question had acquired a property that Crassus wanted to buy, so he had been trying to convince her to sell. The Jury went 'Auyp, that is ol'Crassus alright; always trying to make a buck.' and voted 'Absolvo.'. Not only that, afterwards Crassus continued pestering the Vestal Virgin until she finally relented and sold the property to him!

gaius valerius

Short answer: yes. And of Caesar. And of anyone who was shining in politics other then himself.

This is legend. No believable classic source even attests it. The true version as we read in Plutarch is that Crassus was tricked by the Parthians and his head was cut off in a confusing brawl with his captors (he had surrendered to them, him being executed wasn't what they had offered him). His head was then sent on a tour through the Mesopotamian cities of the Parthian empire. To repay in equal coin, Mark Antony had the head of the son of the High King displayed all around the Syrian towns after he had fallen to the Romans in battle. The story of molten gold is a fake, but it attests of the bias towards Crassus.

The baseline is that all Roman nobles were born and raised with this inherent sense of standing, their famed 'auctoritas' which is a term that has no equal in our language (it's an amalgan of authority, virtue, intelligence, etc etc). To strive to be at the top was a given especially to those men that were achieving something. Pompey was certainly not disinterested in politics because of his 'nature'. His nature was that of a man lavishly inclined towards public display and who only felt at peace if the masses would shout his name. He was thoroughly shocked when he once found out that his popularity had fallen, one of Pompey's traits was this hung for public confirmation of his status (like you say). It is thus not correct when you say 'contradicts his nature', the issue is that he indeed found the conventional political career unappealing, but it was a necessary evil to confirm his addiction to public praise.

Untrue. The Romans were more then able to deal with the Parthian tactics. Crassus just was idiot enough in his folly to follow the instructions of the Arab spy that drew him into the desert, contrary to military procedure, away from water and natural defenses. It wasn't the traditional tactics that failed, but the fact that they legions had been manoeuvred in the most unyielding strategical position ever.

Cornelius

I'm not sure your definition of auctoritas is entirely correct. A man wasn't born with auctoritas; rather, it was something which he gained by climbing the Cursus honorum. It indicated how powerful he was, i.e. his ability to influence and affect events and people.

Crassus was not a patrician. The Licinii Crassi were nobiles, i.e. plebeians from an old consular family. As for his fabled wealth, Pompey was just as rich - if not richer.

gaius valerius

I'm pretty sure it is, cause I never said he was born with it, you're splitting hairs over misinterpretation here. I said it was something that was fed to them with their mothers milk (though that came from a nursing slave) - figuratively speaking.