20.  This view rests on the narrative of Plutarch (Pomp. 36) which is supported by Strabo’s (xvi. 744) description of the position of the satrap of Elymais.  It is an embellishment of the matter, when in the lists of the countries and kings conquered by Pompeius Media and its king Darius are enumerated (Diodorus, Fr, Vat. p. 140; Appian, Mithr. 117); and from this there has been further concocted the war of Pompeius with the Medes (Veil. ii. 40; Appian, Mithr. 106, 114) and then even his expedition to Ecbatana (Oros. vi. 5).  A confusion with the fabulous town of the same name on Carmel has hardly taken place here; it is simply that intolerable exaggeration—­apparently originating in the grandiloquent and designedly ambiguous bulletins of Pompeius—­which has converted his razzia against the Gaetulians (p. 94) into a march to the west coast of Africa (Plut.  Pomp. 38), his abortive expedition against the Nabataeans into a conquest of the city of Petra, and his award as to the boundaries of Armenia into a fixing of the boundary of the Roman empire beyond Nisibis.

21.  The war which this Antiochus is alleged to have waged with Pompeius (Appian, Mithr. 106, 117) is not very consistent with the treaty which he concluded with Lucullus (Dio, xxxvi. 4), and his undisturbed continuance in his sovereignty; presumably it has been concocted simply from the circumstance, that Antiochus of Commagene figured among the kings subdued by Pompeius.

22.  To this Cicero’s reproach presumably points (De Off. iii. 12, 49):  -piratas immunes habemus, socios vectigales-; in so far, namely, as those pirate-colonies probably had the privilege of immunity conferred on them by Pompeius, while, as is well known, the provincial communities dependent on Rome were, as a rule, liable to taxation.

23.  IV.  VIII.  Pontus

24.  V. IV.  Battle at Nicopolis

25.  V. II.  Defeat of the Romans in Pontus at Ziela

26.  V. IV.  Pompeius Take the Supreme Command against Mithradates

27.  IV.  VIII.  Weak Counterpreparations of the Romans ff.

28.  V. II.  Egypt not Annexed

29.  V. IV.  Urban Communities

Notes for Chapter V

1.  V. III.  Renewal of the Censorship

2.  IV.  VI.  Political Projects of Marius

3.  IV.  X. Co-optation Restored in the Priestly Colleges

4.  IV.  VII.  The Sulpician Laws

5.  IV.  X. Permanent and Special -Quaestiones-

6.  IV.  VI.  And Overpowered

7.  IV.  VII.  Bestowal of Latin Rights on the Italian Celts

8.  Any one who surveys the whole state of the political relations of this period will need no special proofs to help him to see that the ultimate object of the democratic machinations in 688 et seq. was not the overthrow of the senate, but that of Pompeius.  Yet such proofs are not wanting.  Sallust states that the Gabinio-Manilian laws inflicted a mortal blow on the democracy (Cat. 39); that the conspiracy of 688-689 and the Servilian rogation were specially directed against Pompeius, is likewise attested (Sallust Cat. 19; Val.  Max. vi. 2, 4; Cic. de Lege Agr. ii. 17, 46).  Besides the attitude of Crassus towards the conspiracy alone shows sufficiently that it was directed against Pompeius.