The Battle of Actium

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The Battle of Actium was the defining moment in the struggle for power between Octavius and Marcus Antonius.

 

Here are their speeches before the battle, which do you think is the most inspiring.

 

Augustus before Actium

 

Antonius before Actium

[Kosmo]

"In fact, they have placed in their ships the best and most valuable of the possessions they have with them, in order to escape with them if they can. Since, then, they admit that they are weaker than we, and since they carry the prizes of victory in their ships, let us not allow them to sail anywhere else, but let us conquer them here on the spot and take all these treasures away from them"

The speech of Augustus it's much better.

[Ingsoc]

I just like to mention that those speeches weren't really made by Octavianus and Antonius but are a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of them by the book's author.

[Ursus]

I just like to mention that those speeches weren't really made by Octavianus and Antonius but are a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of them by the book's author.

 

 

Exactly! Salient point.

 

 

The real issue was which form of government, based on the contender's personality, did you want replacing the Republic. Did you want a tidy, organized and fairly restrained pseudo-monarchy of Augustus, or the fully blown Hellenistic style god-king monarchy of Antony and Cleopatra? The former was less offensive to Roman sensibilities, although the latter would not have had any problems with dynastic succession and therefore might have spared Rome a few civil wars.

[Ingsoc]

The real issue was which form of government, based on the contender's personality, did you want replacing the Republic. Did you want a tidy, organized and fairly restrained pseudo-monarchy of Augustus, or the fully blown Hellenistic style god-king monarchy of Antony and Cleopatra? The former was less offensive to Roman sensibilities, although the latter would not have had any problems with dynastic succession and therefore might have spared Rome a few civil wars.

 

It's certanly one view, on the other hand there are some (like Ronald Syme) that think that there weren't any real diffrent between either one of the antagonist factions and the civil war between Antonius and Octavianus revolved around the gain of personal powers.

[Ursus]

It's certanly one view, on the other hand there are some (like Ronald Syme) that think that there weren't any real diffrent between either one of the antagonist factions.

 

 

Well, I think those scholars have a myopic view of things. Yes, both men were pissing on the corpse of the beloved Republic and aiming to concentrate powers in their own person. But to say there is no difference in personality, style and governing strategies is absurd. History would have been quite different in an empire run from Alexandria. Whether better or worse is I suppose a subjective viewpoint.

[Ingsoc]

Well, I think those scholars have a myopic view of things. Yes, both men were pissing on the corpse of the beloved Republic and aiming to concentrate powers in their own person. But to say there is no difference in personality, style and governing strategies is absurd. History would have been quite different in an empire run from Alexandria. Whether better or worse is I suppose a subjective viewpoint.

 

I still think that the Hellenist monarchy theory has it's problems, for start there were fighting and bad blood between Octavianus and Antonius long before the later attachment to Cleopatra, also if you claim that Antonius strove for esthablishment of an Eastern-Hellenistic style monachry in Rome and Octavianus wear a mask of pseudo-republicanism to pacify the Senatorial ranks how would you explain the many senators who supported Antonius?

 

For example I think we could say for certain that Gaius Asinius Pollio, one of Antonius supporters and a man who in later times criticise the Princeps system, did not want to establish an Eastern-Hellenistic style monarchy in Rome.

[aemilianus]

Surely if Antony had defeated Octavian, he would have had to find a more suitable solution to the problem of government than simply running Rome as a monarchy based in Alexandria. He knew the dangers of assuming dictatorship - worse still, monarchy and had seen, the same as Octavian the fate of Caesar. Don't you think it possible that had he have defeated Octavian he would be likely to try to promote himself as the restorer of the Republic?

Just wondering.....

[Ingsoc]

Surely if Antony had defeated Octavian, he would have had to find a more suitable solution to the problem of government than simply running Rome as a monarchy based in Alexandria. He knew the dangers of assuming dictatorship - worse still, monarchy and had seen, the same as Octavian the fate of Caesar. Don't you think it possible that had he have defeated Octavian he would be likely to try to promote himself as the restorer of the Republic?

Just wondering.....

 

The historians who analyze the events of the late republic put two different historiographiec views:

 

The first was mainly put by Eduard Meyer (in his book "Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus"), he claim that the Roman leaders of the late republic were disappointed by how the republic conduct itself and aim to establish a single man rule, the different was in their aims, while people like Pompeius, Augustus and Tiberius wanted this authoritarian rule to be based on the old republican traditions people like Caesar, Antonius and Germanicus sought to copy the Eastern Monarchy model in which the ruler in a God-King. hence the civil wars were a struggle between two kinds of ideologies.

 

On the other hand Ronald Syme (in his book "The Roman revolution") claim that there wasn't any real difference between Pompeius and Caesar or Octavianus and Antonius, they were supported by the same kind of men and had the same aims in mind. hence according to this view the civil wars were purely a struggle for personal power.

[aemilianus]

Which view would you support? I know it's a bit futile and hypothetical but which side would you take?

It's easy to see why Antony would wish to set up a monarchy (worth a try maybe...?) but is there much evidence of his republican tendencies?

[Ingsoc]

Which view would you support? I know it's a bit futile and hypothetical but which side would you take?

It's easy to see why Antony would wish to set up a monarchy (worth a try maybe...?) but is there much evidence of his republican tendencies?

 

I think there is a good evidence to choose either side, to me it's hard to explain Antonius actions of moving to Alexandria, marrying a foreign queen (a thing that was a taboo in the Roman society) without the eastern monarchy theory on the other hand it's obvious why Augustus wanted to portray Antonius as Cleopatra sex toy who abandon his Roman ways and left the management of the state in Cleopatra hands.

 

If you look on who were Antonius supporters you will find many republicans who fought alongside Brutus and Cassius in Philippi. another example is Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was a republican and even criticize Augustus in histories, I'm think we could say with all certainty that he did not want to establish a Hellenistic monarchy in Rome.

[aemilianus]

Which view would you support? I know it's a bit futile and hypothetical but which side would you take?

It's easy to see why Antony would wish to set up a monarchy (worth a try maybe...?) but is there much evidence of his republican tendencies?

 

I think there is a good evidence to choose either side, to me it's hard to explain Antonius actions of moving to Alexandria, marrying a foreign queen (a thing that was a taboo in the Roman society) without the eastern monarchy theory on the other hand it's obvious why Augustus wanted to portray Antonius as Cleopatra sex toy who abandon his Roman ways and left the management of the state in Cleopatra hands.

 

If you look on who were Antonius supporters you will find many republicans who fought alongside Brutus and Cassius in Philippi. another example is Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was a republican and even criticize Augustus in histories, I'm think we could say with all certainty that he did not want to establish a Hellenistic monarchy in Rome.

 

So do you think that his time spent in the east was just as a result of him taking that area as his land in the agreements at the start of the triumvirate and that he made the best of what he could? Do you think that the accusations of Antony's self-portrayal as a Dionysian figure is over played? I know that he tried to keep it in the East and not to bring it back to Rome so maybe he was trying to play some kind of double game - appeal to the East while he was there and also maintain his position as a prominent politician in Rome at the same time.

[Ingsoc]

So do you think that his time spent in the east was just as a result of him taking that area as his land in the agreements at the start of the triumvirate and that he made the best of what he could? Do you think that the accusations of Antony's self-portrayal as a Dionysian figure is over played? I know that he tried to keep it in the East and not to bring it back to Rome so maybe he was trying to play some kind of double game - appeal to the East while he was there and also maintain his position as a prominent politician in Rome at the same time.

 

Yes I do tend to believe it's was a personal battle rather than ideological one, of course this theory (just like those of the eastern monarchy) has it's problems.

 

I'm certain Antonius display himself as a god in the east, this was a regular thing for Romans to do (including Augustus and his successors) while of course they didn't do this at Rome and the western provinces since the Romans weren't use to consider their leaders as living gods like the people of the orient do.

[Kosmo]

Romans were very weak at ideologies but very practical. Augustus had no plan on what to do and Caesar and Antonius were as clueless. They all wanted power. Lots of power.

Octavian had the chance to experiment with power and benefited from previous experiences. Marcus Antonius failed. If he had won the war he would have become Augustus Caesar like Octavian did. Or he would have got himself killed and the game would continue.

All roman civil wars were about who not how. So calling them "civil" wars it's wrong. They were competitions among military leaders with no political/ideological meaning.