Antony's Intentions

[CiceroD]

In "Not by a Nose" By Josiah Ober, our author ponders the effect of a successful Antonian campaign against Parthia in 36 BC. Ober maintains that with the laurels of such a victory, Marcus Antonius Parthicus would not have been nearly so vulnerable to Octavian's smear campaigns. This coupled with the forces he actually lost in Parthia, would have made him a sure win at Actium. This at least, to me, makes sense. What doesn't is his assertion that

 

" There is not much reason to suppose that Antony shared Octavian's monarchical vision for the Roman Empire. It is more likely that Antony would have purged it of Octavian's supporters and packed it with his own. But then he might of let the aristocracy to rule (within the bounds of the military strongmen of the hour) as it had throughout the entire period of the Republic. Antony might have divided his time between working to ensure the continuity of a stable Antonine aristocracy in Rome and and establishing Egypt and its queen at the center of a stable group of quasi independent client states in the East.

 

What do you guys think?

[phil25]

I don't personally believe that the evidence allows us to do more than speculate about what Antonius intended.

 

Not only is the real evidence scarce, but what there is has been tainted by Augustan propaganda to a large degree.

 

I think there may be something in what is said in the quote in Cicero's opening post - no single answer, but traditional forms in the west (perhaps "managed" by a trusted Antonian legate).

 

Certainly the so-called Donations of Alexandria seem to suggest a semi- (or maybe wholly) independent Ptolemaic satrapy ruled from Alexandria.

 

But, as I have suggested elsewhere on UNRV, I think that a discernable theme in policy under the pricipiate (emphasised most in those principes who were Antonius' direct descendents, Gaius and Nero) that might be labelled Antonian.

 

(And before anyone attacks me for being presumptuous and promoting a pet theory, I underline that this is just an hypothesis, it is the result of my personal reading of the evidence, and I leave it for others to accept or reject as they will.)

 

I wonder whether Antonius and Cleopatra (the latter perhaps with the long experience of the Ptolemaic civil-serice behind her) had not recognised 300 years before Constantine, that the empire was now too large to be ruled from one place, or as one.

 

For the east, I think Antonius may have envisaged a Hellenistic monarchy, with all its splendour and personal divinity, ruling Greece, Asia, the Levant and any conquests to the east, and much of Africa from Alexandria (or maybe Athens or Antioch for part or all of the time). I do not see this monarchy as necessarily offending Rome had Antonius been able to explain his motives or had the power to impose his will - any more than Octavian's settlements are now seen to have created much opposition.

 

Government in the east would have been by means of client kings like Herod the Great in Judaea, or by his and Cleopatra's children, with Caesarion (Caesar's son in a special place). This would have been entirely in keeping with the traditions, style, philosophy and practice of much of the eastern empire. Dionysus would have been its protective deity, as Apollo was for Augustus. Much of Antonian symbolism (as for Gaius and Nero) centred on this god.

 

Whether east and west might have gone their separate ways eventually, or even come to blows who knows. But Antonius had at his disposal a marvellous control mechanism for Rome itself - the wheat supply from Egypt which (like the spice in the s/f novel Dune) "had to flow".

 

Just my thoughts and ideas.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Antony and Cleopatra would have married. She had already agreed to it. That meant that Caesarion would have survived and thus provide a strong contender for the future throne. However, the senate were not easily going to accept cleopatra as a co-ruler. It would have heralded an unstable period for Rome. But then it already was wasn't it? The fight would have ebbed and flowed until either the senate, another contender, or the happy couple had prevailed.

 

Speculation over!

[CiceroD]

Caldrail,

 

Im not really trying to speculate. Im really trying to find out if Ober's assertions of Antony being more like Sulla instead of Caesar is plausible. Ober dismisses the idea that ANtony would have made himself Emperor in the sense we understand it. I personnally ( In my inexpert opinion) cant believe that Antony would have stopped at just purging the Senate. He was in the caesarian camp and would have understood Caesar's philosophy. And secondly even though he purged the senate how could he have turned his back on Rome and then depart again for Egypt as Ober maintains?

 

Im trying to get a conversation going, and saying "Speculation Over!" doesnt help

[phil25]

He could have done it, I think, because in the years after 44 and after Philippi, he learned that the centre of the Roman world was no longer Rome, but to the east.

 

He had gained, I think, a Ptolemaic/Alexandrian perspective which recognised that in RWAL terms power, and affairs no longer rested naturally in Rome, but in the east - control of the wealth, trade routes and wheat. Without them Rome was powerless.

 

Hence, I think, Antonius' leaving Octavian with control of Italia. It was no longer relevant to him.

 

Had Antonius been a better politician, and had Octavian not seen the potential of a propaganda war, he might have been proved right.

 

The Senate by the late 40s BC was a cypher. Rome might be a symbol, but government FROM the Urbs was no longer essential. (That Octavian made it appear so for several more centuries was made possible by his genius.)

 

You have to change your thinking (I believe) and dismiss from thought what actually happened, to understand Antonius approach.

 

It was monarchical, but not Caesarian; it was Greek-based not Italian (by which I mean centred in the perspective, mind-set and symbolism of the Hellenistic world; and it was based on real-politic.

 

But Antonius was not the politician - lacked the subtlety, insight and energy - to carry it through. He was seduced, as so many have been, by the hedonism of the east (and I don't mean the personality of Cleopatra), and it drained him. the parthian adventure drained his resources and reputation and he took his eye off the ball.

 

I think also he was too trusting. He trusted Octavian to keep his part of the bargain, and saw himself as betrayed - stabbed in the back.

 

See, in Antonius potentially the first glimmer of the Diocletianic system of a split empire; the embryo of Constantine's move of the capital.

 

IMHO we can glimpse the policy only dimly through the haze of the Augustan myth, and in the policies of some of Antonius' descendents.

 

Phil

[CiceroD]

So Phil your saying, like Octavian, Antony was intending to rule but not appear to. ie calling the shots event thought he was in the east. So in effect he wouldnt be king of Rome but king of the east.

 

Makes sense

[phil25]

I can have no idea what Antonius would have done, Cicero, I can only extrapolate from the scant and heavily tainted/biased evidence we have.

 

I'd say (hence I used the word "monarchical" in my last post) that Antonius did not purpose something as subtle as Octavian eventually evolved.

 

From the "Donations of Alexandria" I infer that Antonius and Cleopatra conceived a sort of "cascade" of government, with themselves as sort of supreme rulers, and their children, including Caesarion as various tiers of sub-king/queen below them. This would have been mixed in with client kings like Herod, who would themselves have been tributary to the Ptolemaic satraps.

 

But this was only for the east.

 

As far as i can see BEFORE Actium, Antonius was content to have the western empire ruled in a different way by someone else, though with him as senior partner (hence I referred to the Diocletian model) in control of some of the prime economic and political levers of power (grain supply etc).

 

If Octavian had died at Actium then no doubt Antonius would have reconsidered the situation, maybe installing a new "partner" in Rome who would be more reliable.

 

I don't see Antonius as sweeping away the republican forms and he may have learned a lesson from Caesar - rule, dominate, but do it from a distance. His own focus was now on the east.

 

For himself, I suspect Antonius would indeed have assumed the trappings of overt kingship and even divinity (in Egypt) perhaps on the Alexander model (often shown wearing the horns of Amun), though with Dionysus as his patron. Who is to say, with the ability of the Ptolemaic Egyptians to come up with hybrid deities like Serapis, that Antonius might not have become a new divinity acceptable to all (or almost all) peoples of the empire from Gaul to Syria, Greece to Africa, even if Rome rejected him.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

The Ptolemaic dinasty was strong and able. This was maybe a base from which a mix dinasty of roman and ptolemaic members could become the new ruling dinasty of the mediterranean basin in a hellenistic manner.

I think Phil got a point about individual members of the family having almost independent kingdoms, at least in the beginning.

Rome was to powerfull for another center of political power to emerge. If he wanted to rule the East he had to do it from Rome and keep some other family members in positions in Asia.

Maybe the end would have been a stable, strong dinasty as Rome, divided by the reality of military dictatorship and the ideal of the republic, never had.

But if this was his goal he had to face a lot of opposition from the roman aristcracy.

 

P.S. Rome was never dependent on Egypt for food. Sicilly and Africa were the main sources of grains for her.

[phil25]

By the 40s BC, Kosmo, I wiould question whether the City of Rome itself was any longer the unquestioned seat of power.

 

Caesar had spent many years running Government while absent from the City itself - from Pharsalia to his return to triumph. He was about to leave Rome again on a prolonged absence, when he was killed.

 

I do not question that Augustus re-established at least the perception that the empire had to be run from Rome, but later Emperors, including Trajan, Hadrian and Aurelius were absent for long periods without detriment to government or stability.

 

It would be interesting to discuss whether, had the centre of government been moved to (let's say) Ephesus under Augustus, whether it would not have lasted longer. The Government and the princeps/emperor would have been closer to the wealth and trouble spots of the empire, and away from the distraction of the Roman mob, its constant craving for bread and circuses, and the sheer weight of tradition and conservatism.

 

Constantine made the decision in 300 - why could it not have been an equally wise decision 350 years earlier.

 

Gaul was conquered, Spain was restive but not a real problem, there was no need to invade Britain, the rhine frontier was relatively secure. Rome, the city, was not central to the chief troublespots any more - they were to the east - Armenia, Parthia, Dacia. mayhap with greater concentration of mind and energy in those areas the empire might have remained intact for longer.

 

I write rhetorically, of course. But to weight the options for Antonius, does one not have to try to wipe the slate clean of Augustan assumptions and solutions?

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Phil's question is an intriguing one: Why Rome? Why not Alexandria? Or Byzantium? Or Ravenna?

 

I guess the answer depends on your assumptions about what made Rome great. If you believe it came from the republican values of the Roman people and its leading families, then it's hard to imagine how those values could be found in a culture of tyrant-worship and mysticism, such as would be found in the eastern territories. On the other hand, if you think Rome attained its power merely from having strong leaders, Alexandria would be a most fitting capital, as would Babylon or Sardis.

 

My own view is that the Roman empire owed much to the institutions it preserved from the old republic and much to the culture that created and sustained those institutions. For this reason, the city of Rome itself was an important ingredient in Roman power. As those institutions began to fall away, the marginal utility of Rome itself diminished, and it was thus an impediment to those leaders who wished to rule as Eastern-style potentates.

 

Thus, that Antony wished to rule from Egypt was no small matter. He wanted to cut the heart out of the Roman empire--which were the traditions of Rome itself.

[Julius Ratus]

Kosmos --

P.S. Rome was never dependent on Egypt for food. Sicilly and Africa were the main sources of grains for her.

 

Where did you get this from? This is not a challenge but I have never heard that Egypt was not the principal source of grain for Rome. I knew that Sicily was important early on, and that Carthage/NW Africa was important late in the Empire for the West.

[Pertinax]

I hope I will be able to give some useful information on this topic soon , as my next book review will be this title:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...nrvromanhist-21

 

which, I suspect , will give a prominent role to Egypt as a crucial provider of grain

[Primus Pilus]

Kosmos --

P.S. Rome was never dependent on Egypt for food. Sicilly and Africa were the main sources of grains for her.

 

Where did you get this from? This is not a challenge but I have never heard that Egypt was not the principal source of grain for Rome. I knew that Sicily was important early on, and that Carthage/NW Africa was important late in the Empire for the West.

 

Prior to the inclusion of Aegyptus into the "empire" it was not the principal source. After it was "annexed" provinces such as Sicilia and Africa were still major exporters of grain, but Egypt was of particular importance.

[caldrail]

Caldrail,

 

Im not really trying to speculate. Im really trying to find out if Ober's assertions of Antony being more like Sulla instead of Caesar is plausible. Ober dismisses the idea that ANtony would have made himself Emperor in the sense we understand it. I personnally ( In my inexpert opinion) cant believe that Antony would have stopped at just purging the Senate. He was in the caesarian camp and would have understood Caesar's philosophy. And secondly even though he purged the senate how could he have turned his back on Rome and then depart again for Egypt as Ober maintains?

 

Im trying to get a conversation going, and saying "Speculation Over!" doesnt help

 

Relax, I wasn't casting aspertions. I meant my speculation, not other peoples.

[CiceroD]

This Article (Not by a Nose) was very interesting,

 

Ober also maintains with the semi independence of Egypt

 

a) there would have been an ancient feminist movement (Egyptian women enjoying great freedoms)

 

The ptolemaic handling of religion in the near east would have been more adept.

 

Therefore no sacking of the temple, no Jewish diaspora, and no crucifixion of Christ.

 

This sounds a lot like a stretch to my mind

 

after all the Greeks had been in contact with Egyptians for centuries and that never curbed their masogeny

and even if Egypt was a semi independent client-state, I cant forsee them letting ptolemys have possesion of Palestine?

 

What do you guys think?