This is a very interesting question, one with a wide scope too.

There are many reasons, when doing my own research about Pompey and his Eastern campaigns two main areas appear. Those who wish to assimilate Greek Culture and those who do not.

Throughout Rome’s history the Greek east had played a massive part in the influences on the republic and even the Kingdom of Rome before had. We have varying sources that reflect the impact of Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras and Solon having directly been in contact with Roman’s including that of Numa Popilius the second king of Rome. However, as shall be seen with a variety of sources, there are problems. The story regarding Numa gains popularity in the reign of Augustus, with a coin minted by Gnaeus Piso during the Emperor’s reign as well as a mention in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. During this time, not only was there a great influx in Hellenistic and Hellenic analogies to various Republican and Imperial figures, there is also the writers from the time such as Cicero and Livy who help to discredit the story. Therefore, one must be careful when discussing Rome and the Greek World, for not only the political bias that all sources were under, but also the overwhelming saturation of Alexander and the various guises in which he took in the Roman Republic. Peter Green’s rather influential work on the ideas of the various forms of imitation of Alexander of Rome, is unfortunately too narrow and rigid for our uses and particularly in this work. Throughout there are references to the terms he clearly defines, yet the major issue of Green’s work is the lack of clarity between a Roman’s interactions with Alexandrian history and mythology, for lack of a better word, in Rome and the Greek speaking east.

The connections between the Hellenistic world and Rome are too great to be fully explored and discussed on, however Pompey acts as a case study and while it is regrettable there are no sources from his own hand like that of Caesar, we are blessed that the late Republic was a time extensively discussed in the Ancient literature not only at the time, with writers such as Sallust and Cicero, but also by later writers, and while many have their flaws as will be discussed when approaching them, the works are useful and informative for understanding the impact of the Hellenistic East on Rome and in particular the Political programme of Pompey Magnus.

Pompey returned to Rome after his successful campaign against Mithridates and the pirates in 63. He returned to a city that had successfully defeated a rebellion that threatened to kill the major players of the Republic and would tarnish the names of many. Pompey was lucky not to be included in this list simply due to his distance from the city. However, his two later allies were not so lucky.

On his return, there were many Romans who feared Pompey’s successful army and the power he had gained in the east. Appian writes how this ‘democratic’ action surprised the Romans. The choice of the word here democratic is interesting yet would be a misunderstanding from Appian, a reflection of Greek political thoughts rather than that of Rome the likely reasoning for its inclusion to act as the opposite of tyrannical. This is not the first occasion that Appian has used a Greek term within his history regarding Pompey. There is perhaps here the space to suggest that these occasional and albeit subtle inclusions are actually hiding a much greater view of Appian. That view would be the position that Pompey filled as a Hellenistic ruler in the war with Mithridates, as discussed above there were definite comparisons that could be made between Pompey and Alexander, as well many others of the Diadochi and their descendants. However, following the pattern of these discussions there must be caution when making claims such as this. Firstly the choice of words by Appian as mentioned may just be Appian using Greek terms to best understand it for a Greek audience, secondly the βασιλεὑς βασιλέων and δημοκρατίᾳ both make appearances while Pompey is Rome and not in the east. However the appearance of these phrases while Pompey was in Rome and not while he was in the Hellenistic may actually have the opposite effect and describe to readers the fact Pompey was in fact greatly affected by the East before and after his campaigns in the regions.

These fears, however, were not unjustified. As mentioned before the greatest comparison that Pompey could draw to a pervious Roman commander was Sulla, who returned from the East to exact revenge on the Marian faction who had branded him a public enemy. However, Pompey had already shown he was willing to push the republic to gain his way.

In 80 and still before Pompey had received any official post in the Roman senate he was sent to Spain to deal with the Marian partisan Sertorius. Two years into the campaign and with rather lacklustre results Pompey wrote a letter to the Senate in Rome which Sallust gives a retelling of in his fragmentary histories. Sallust writes that Pompey’s letter pleaded for assistance from Rome. The fortunes of his armies had not been as great as he had wished and the lands that were meant to sustain his forces were dealing with failing crops. ‘Pompey’ then writes that there is no difference between the two armies and that victory over the other would lead to the same thing which is the victorious army would be able to enter Italy. There are two ways to consider this statement, the first is that Pompey’s army when victorious can return to Italy and be disbanded and the second is that Pompey if defeated would allow the armies of Sertorius to march onto to Rome. There is also a possible view to explore that without assistance Pompey may yet turn into the enemy that Rome had sent him to fight. Remembering where this source comes from there is always the temptation to reflect on a partisan view of Pompey. Despite this there is always a sense of bi-partisan impartiality with Sallust’s work particularly when considering his former friend Caesar. Therefore, one cannot be too hasty in dismissing this letter as a way of framing Pompey as a villain against the backdrop of a virtuous Roman Republic. With this previous action in mind it is not hard to see why there was indeed some fear of Pompey. Therefore, it must have been regarded with both shock and relief that Pompey disbanded his legions on his return to Italy.