Antony, Dolabella, Cassius, Brutus

[frankq]

I'm in a pickle, see if you folks can help me out with some very confusing coverage of events after Caesar's death.

 

Before the Ides, Caesar's regime had either promised or already appointed Brutus and Cassius the proconsulship posts of Macedonia and Syria. Yet after the assassination, Antony and Dolabella seized those posts (many of Caesar's Parthian campaign legions were there). Now it gets confusing. Once pardoned officially, Brutus and Cassius complained and according to some sources the government offered Cisalpine Gaul to Antony and Asia to Dolabella instead. Catch here was that Decimus Brutus had seized Cisalpine Cisalpine Gaul. So Antony went to kick him out.

 

Here it gets more confusing. Some sources like Appian state that Brutus and Cassius intended to take Macedonia and Syria back by force. Other vague sources relate they were given the posts by the new, pro-optimate government in Rome. This latter course is supported by the fact that, in order to soothe things out due to the vacuum Caesar's death had left, the senate issued an edict requiring all Roman commanders east of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Caesar. Moreover, why would Antony have gone to all the trouble laying siege to Cisalpine Gaul? It meant that the senate transferred his governorship there instead, and when he wouldn't desist from the siege, it gave Octavian his chance to play the senate's champion and stop him.

 

This whole course of events is glossed over by many historians, and the ones that do cover it have differing descriptions.

 

For Antony to have taken the time and trouble to march on Cisalpine Gaul, it meant that he had accepted that province as compensation for Macedonia. Moreover, Cassius used the edict to force Bassus and Caesar's forces to lift the deadlock in Syria, and overnight acquired eight legions that he would use to take on Dolabella.

 

Any input? Some better source I missed? Plutarch totally avoids covering this.

[frankq]

CORRECTION:

 

of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Caesar......

 

 

Should have read ''of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Cassius''.

[frankq]

This from Dio Cassius (boy, this guy really disliked Antony)

 

 

I, for my part, do not admit that in doing this he is acting legally or constitutionally. Far from it: he abandoned the province of Macedonia, which had been assigned to him by lot, chose instead the province of Gaul, which did not belong to him at all, assumed control of the legions which Caesar had sent ahead against the Parthians and keeps them about him, though no danger threatens Italy, and after leaving the city during the period of his consulship now goes about pillaging and ruining the country; for these reasons I declare that he has long been an enemy of us all.

 

The question remains, when did the senate decide to take Macedonia away from Antony's brother Gaius (Antony gave it to him according to Dio) and give it to Brutus.

[frankq]

This also from Dio Cassius and now I think I've got to the heart of the matter and am answering my own questions...

 

Here, an excerpt after Octavian's victory at Mutina.

 

 

39 ..... And when they learned the outcome of the struggle, although they rejoiced at Antony's defeat, and not only changed their attire, but also celebrated a thanksgiving for sixty days, and, regarding all those who had been on Antony's side as enemies, took away their property, as they did in the case of Antony also, 40 yet as regards Caesar, they not only did not consider him any longer as deserving of any great reward, but even undertook to overthrow him by giving to Decimus all the prizes for which Caesar was hoping.

 

The pro-optimate senate reverses things and....

 

 

they arrayed all his personal enemies against him. Thus to Sextus Pompey they entrusted the fleet, to Marcus Brutus Macedonia, and to Cassius Syria together with the war against Dolabella.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Some day when I retire I will read all the histories again, so I cannot help you unfortunatly on such fine details as these. I am curious however, why you are so interested in such an obscure question?

[Lacertus]

Well, say me please, Frankq, what books you read (exact name of books).

I want to check it becouse I know that translation may be different or shortly. If say honesty I don't remember such antagonisms. I read as Appian as Plutarch.

Thanks.

[frankq]

In answer to both posts, I am using everyone from Appian to Dio Cassius to Livy on this, plus Cyril E. Robinson (a superb old book), plus numerous websites including the fine chronology given at UNRV. Things didn't jive and parallel in many cases.

 

Why the interest? I don't consider this an obscure issue. The fact that Octavian went toe to toe with Antony before the triumvirate always interested me. Without a true chronology, Antony's behavior with Decimus Brutus didn't make full sense. But the real zeroing in is needed because I need it to equate time wise with events back in Judea with Cassius.

[P.Clodius]

For Antony to have taken the time and trouble to march on Cisalpine Gaul, it meant that he had accepted that province as compensation for Macedonia.

The period you're talking of here is the buildup to Mutina. Gaul was the Caesarian base. The incoming Consuls were Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Pansa, both of home were moderate Caesarians whose overall outlook was one of compromise and reconciliation. In command of the Gallic legions was M. Lepidus, a man who would go with whatever suited his needs but again, he was a moderate. The Spanish legions were commanded by Assinius Polio, an Antonian. Antony needed to secure his military base because, despite some of his actions he was no idiot, he knew there was an impending showdown between the Caesarians and the Optimates and he desired to secure his cause to those of the Gallic and Spanish legions. For a good overview of this period read G.P.Baker's Augustus, from an Optimate perspective read Everitt's Cicero.

[phil25]

From a purely political perspective - is it not possible (even likely0 that the situation was confused, even at the time.

 

Political parties did not exist as we know them, and the factions within the Senate would have simply vied for power and position.

 

We know Antonius got Caesar's appointments confirmed 9in order for everything not to unravel, as the conspirators had not foreseen the consequences. We know he then used the late Dictator's alleged intentions to get his way.

 

But Antonius was also seeking to build up his position - it was touch and go with the fickle, unstable Dolabella for a while (as I read it). Just because some appointments were made, does not mean that others wanted them taken up. It could well have been a bargaining position - the actual situation to be resolved at a later date.

 

I always try to get through the sources to what the historic reality was. Ancient historians often inferred motive retrospectively - Antonius achieved X so he must always have been planning to achieve X. To me, that's not how things work. Coalitions,, support groups and factions do not just appear, they have to be worked at and maintained.

 

Antonius had various goals - to achieve leadrership of the Caesarian faction; to stabilise the city - he wasn't necessarily seeking revenge ion the Liberators, may even have been in on the plot (some have inferred). Octavian's arrival changed things of course, and Fulvia, Antonius' wife also appears to have been a player.

 

Again, the aspirations and aims of the various players - brutus and cassius, Antonius, Hirtius and Pansa etc, need not have been consistent with each other, or over time.

 

Historians tend to seek and impose order - like modern politics, the ancient reality was more like musical chairs - no one quite knew where they might be when the music stopped. Objectives may have been quite different to those finally achieved.

 

I'm not sure I have answered your question, but I hope that I might have provided a context for an answer.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think Clodius hit the nail on the head. Antony needed legions that were personally loyal to him so he could carry on as he wished.

[P.Clodius]

...the ancient reality was more like musical chairs - no one quite knew where they might be when the music stopped. Objectives may have been quite different to those finally achieved.

Yes that's a good way of putting it. Roman politics was no more than a series of temporary alliances, you champion your cause, then disolve the alliance. Of course the period we're talking of was much more polarized, but it makes you think about the Caesarian element and its involvement in the conspiracy on the Ides. Old ways die hard perhaps?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Roman politics was no more than a series of temporary alliances, you champion your cause, then disolve the alliance.

 

Just when I finally agreed with Clodius on something, he has to add a proviso with which I totally disagree.

 

Politics was about more than simply forging alliances to gain power. There were policy debates then as now. What should be the Roman policy toward its Italian neighbors? What should be its policies in the provinces? How should public finance be administered? How should the courts be organized? Etc Etc

 

The best evidence that these were principled debates and not mere power games comes from the careers of those who took politically suicidal positions that pleased no one (e.g., Drusus on Italian rights, or--more controversially--Cato on the settlement of Pompey's vets).

 

While no one is so naive to believe that power politics was not PART of the story, it's equally wrong-headed to think it's the WHOLE story. Particularly in the aftermath of the Marian slaughter in Rome and Sulla's retributory proscriptions, there were real constitutional issues at stake, despite the political sideshows that were going on.

 

Looking at Roman history without appreciating the issues of political philosophy that were under real debate is like looking at the paintings in the Louvre without being able to see color.

[P.Clodius]

Cato, I guess I was refering to elections more than anything. I'm standing, I want your backing, in exchange for your backing I will make sure certain Publicani, (Who're your clientella) will get the contracts for Macedonia. After that, business as usual. I completely see your point about fundementals though.

[phil25]

I'm not sure I agree Cato.

 

the two men you cite, Drusus and M Porcius Cato were, in my view at least, mavericks an failures. One was murdered, the other killed himself in ignominy.

 

I don't disagree that very general principles (as a career civil servent I would probably call them policies today) were held and adhrered to over comparatively long periods. I have argued in other threads that such policies should be looked for later (ie an Antonian eastern/absolutist approach to government) surviving as late as Nero. But i think this was subordinate to the MEANS of implementing the policy.

 

In Roman politics you got nowhere unless you could sway elections, inflience the outcome of debates etc. You needed factions, clients and auctortas - later legions too - and you got that by using the system, by bribery, marriage aliance, amicitia etc.

 

One of the problems that brought the republic down was that as a systemn of government, it worked when it wasa town council, it simply could not deliver consistent, effective, directed government over sustained period when required to govern a large empire.

 

Phil

[longbow]

The question remains, when did the senate decide to take Macedonia away from Antony's brother Gaius (Antony gave it to him according to Dio) and give it to Brutus

 

Didnt the senate declare Antony 'inimicus'? Invalidating the laws he passed as Consul,which means Gaius looses Macedonia.