Antony's Intentions

[phil25]

But Cleopatra was, in a sense, suzerain over Herod in Judaea, and Palestine was a traditional appanage of Egypt going back to at least New Kingdom days.

 

Look at the Donations of Alexandria if you want the details, Antonius made the Egyptian "sphere of influence" large and potentially powerful.

 

I think the analysis you cite is flawed by assuming that EVENTS would still have occurred (such as the Jewish revolt of c68AD) even if other things had changed.

 

An Antonian east might indeed have treated the Jews much better - there was a long-standing and large Jewish dispora in Alexandria for instance. So Judaean affairs might well have been treated more subtly.

 

Whether Christ would have been crucified is another matter - he might well have been for several reasons (blasphemy, revolt, insurrection etc).

 

As for the feminist movement, I don't understand what is being got at here. Sure a Queen (Cleopatra) would have had power - but she had that anyway before Antonius. And there were powerful women in the REAL Augustan world - Livia Drusilla, Antonia, both Agrippina's to name but three.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

I do not believe that the capitol could be moved away from Rome because roman aristocracy (and other groups) were much more influential in the time of the Civil Wars then 350 years later when monarchy was strongly established and the "barbarised" army ruled unopposed. Between the power of Augustus and Nero and that of Diocletian and Constantin I see a great difference.

[phil25]

Well, we'll have to disagree in a friendly way, then Kosmo.

 

As I recall some 300 senators left Rome to join Antonius in the east at the time of the civil war.

 

It mayt be that my approach is just different to yours. I tend to think in power terms rather than accepting that because something has always been one way, it always will be.

 

If Antonius had won the civil war and moved the capital, we would accept that and get on with things. Augustus left it in Rome - though he was often personally absent in the first years of his regime - and his success reinforced the impression that Rome was somehow crucial and central to Government.

 

But if you look at things in practical terms, if the wealth, rewards, jobs and ability to influence affairs, had shifted to the east, so, very soon would the power-brokers and supplicants, the legislators and administrators. By the reign of Claudius most of the detailed business of government was carried out by freedmen anyway - the trend was already underway under Augustus.

 

There might well have been those conservatives who resented a move away from Rome - but with many of the movers and shakers, from Cicero to Sextus pompeius and Lepidus removed from the scene; if Augustus with all his presteige as Caesar's heir was defeated and probably dead, I doubt that there would have been any major figure to emerge as a focus of discontent. If they had, Antonius would no doubt have mopped them up as Augustus did similar problems.

 

Power goes with power, success and perception.

 

But then this is just speculation and I am a cynic - but I don't think my speculation is unfounded, or unrealistic.

 

Antonius did not win, his policy never had the chance to be implemented in full (or at all). History was re-written or at least edited by the victor. The city of Rome remained supreme.

 

But I don't think it hurts to ask seriously - what if? Or to question our usual assumptions and conventional wisdom. Hence my restatement of the hypothesis (nothing more) I have set out here.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

Phil, I love a good, friendly debate and this one is very interesting.

 

To became a hellenistic ruler with the capital in the East Antonius had to change the basics of roman politics. It is true that money came from the East and this is very important, but there are other factors in the grand picture.

I don't see Antony as a ruler of the East, but as a roman that used his control of the East to gain power in Rome. Most political factions since Marius were based outside Rome, but all had the goal of conquering power in Rome.

On what could base Antony his control in the East? One source was his ptolemaic dinasty. The other, roman legions and treaties thru out the East. His forces obeyed him as a roman politician and as a party leader.

He had to rely constantly on Rome for reinforcements and for legitimacy. The cities and the the kingdoms of the East obeyed him because he represented Rome, not because of party affiliation or political sympathies.

Rome had to accept that much of her work in the East and most of her money were lost. To make Rome accept that he had to control her.

If he becames an hellenistic king from the East he had to fight against Rome not as party leader, but as a foreigner. There was little reason for a commoner to fight against Augustus, but he had everything to lose from that shift of power to the East.

Much later the empire was divided constantly, but this divisions were short lived and often reversed, at least, until the outside pressure became to great. Even after that the two capitals competed.

So, my theory is that the empire was hard to divide and that the city of Rome was of great political significance and not just a place from where to rule from.

[caldrail]

I do not believe that the capitol could be moved away from Rome because roman aristocracy (and other groups) were much more influential in the time of the Civil Wars then 350 years later when monarchy was strongly established and the "barbarised" army ruled unopposed. Between the power of Augustus and Nero and that of Diocletian and Constantin I see a great difference.

 

Capitals can be moved at a whim. Whilst it was easier to stay in Rome due to demography and infrastructure, there have been roman governments placed in various cities. The western empire finished in Ravenna, not Rome, and Constantinople became the eastern capital because Constantine wanted the Roman empire based there. Alexandria nearly became the center, and Trier was another candidate.