
Ancient monument sheds light on battle of Actium - longdefeat
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/roman-empire-cleopatra-octavian-ceasar-egypt-battle-sea-nicopolis-history-archaeology-a8843886.html
======
village-idiot
The thing I find interesting is that to the Romans, Augustus (Octavian) was
_not_ the first emperor[0] at all, it’s only in hind sight that we call him
that.

Let me explain. The Roman people has a very strong aversion to kings for
centuries, it was legal for any citizen to kill a man who was trying to make
himself king. This is part of what got Julius Caesar killed in fact, and while
he was typically very popular his moves towards kingship were _not_ received
well at all.

Knowing this, the first series of emperors cloaked their imperial power in
republican forms, even though they’d already killed the republic. They
typically went by the title “Princeps” (first citizen), and wielded massive
back room influence to accomplish their goals. Oh, and they also owned Egypt
_personally_ , and probably commanded around 20% of the empire’s wealth. It’s
arguably not until Claudius, who was selected as emperor despite of his
perceived idiocy specifically because of his relation to the prior emperor can
we say that the political classes knew they lived in a monarchy of some sort.
(Claudius turned out to be a competent emperor by the way, he and a very bad
stutter that the Romans took for him being stupid).

What’s the point of this? The point is that republics don’t have to die in
sudden and dramatic fashion. Sometimes they go in a Reichstag Fire, but they
are also likely to rot from the inside while maintaining the old forms for a
few generations.

0: They actually did use the title imperator, the root word for emperor, but
this was originally a military term closely related to “commander”. This
slowly merged into its modern imperial meaning roughly co-incident with the
emperors slowly dropping republican forms and ruling in their own right.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social /
monetary reforms put him at further odds.

~~~
village-idiot
Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat.

But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both
ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a
few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crowned king, and the people of
Rome _hated_ it. It would be a few more generations before the idea of being
ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had done the same would be okay to Romans.

~~~
eropple
As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age
where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways
do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting
of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and even the transition to
Caligula (further oops). Caligula's assassination was part of an attempt to
restore the pre-Principate Republic, but it failed and Claudius ruled without
too much trouble.

 _But_ , again as you note, all of that was the first-among-equals set
dressing of the Principate where the Republic's centering institutions were
given lip service, and it would be hundreds of years before the outright
Dominate of Diocletian would be generally accepted by Rome--and getting there
required the transcendental shitshow that was the Roman third century, itself
worth perturbing a lot of electrons.

In conclusions, land of contrasts, etcetera etcetera.

~~~
village-idiot
Total tangent: I’m actually not convinced that Caligula was as bad as the
ancient sources claimed. We have very few first hand sources from his reign,
and the historians (all senatorial class in this case iirc) would have ample
ability and cause to slander him. Accusations of sexual impropriety are the
standard in ancient sources, especially Roman. I wouldn’t go as far as saying
he could have been a good ruler, he sure did manage to piss off the senate in
the way a better ruler wouldn’t have, but he might not be anywhere as bad as
the sources portray.

~~~
eropple
Could be. The most damning accusations aren't just that he was all murdery or
sexually improper, though, it's that he _spent all the money_. Tiberius has a
lot of rumors spread about him for being a sexual deviant and handing Sejanus
the keys to the 29AD Fiat Purgero, but I'm not aware of sources that allege
that he didn't govern tolerably and with some level of restraint until he
disappeared to his villa for the rest of his life. Caligula gets roasted for
being a weird sex pest _and_ for being a profligate spender who trashed the
economy (the most sympathetic interpretation thereof being that he didn't want
to say no, because saying yes made people like him, and making people like him
might keep him alive longer/make him more beloved as emperor.

IIRC the purges and the rumors about Caligula mostly started after a serious
illness in 37AD, where he might have just literally gone around the bend? But
I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Caligula was played up
after his death, though. If you look back at pre-Republican mythology (it
ain't quite history), the seven kings of Rome are all caricatures. Caligula
could definitely just be The Crazy One.

In any case, Rome put up with some real wacky characters as emperor so long as
they didn't bankrupt the empire.

~~~
village-idiot
I think that’s a pretty fair interpretation, it’s pretty clear he sucked
pretty bad at budgeting. Tiberius was famously miserly with the state
treasury, and chances are that young Caligula couldn’t budget and saw how
popular he got by just using that money, only to be dismayed at how quickly it
went away.

What I find really interesting is the murder of political opponents and how it
affects legacy. From where I sit, pretty much every single emperor killed
senators, perhaps excluding only Caesar himself, but only a few got saddled
with the blood thirsty tyrant image. Claudius killed quite a few senators,
some without good justification, yet his reputation is largely “good emperor,
misunderstood”, while Tiberius gets off the hook largely because his successor
was so much worse. It’s all pretty fascinating to me.

------
Pigo
I found it interesting, while watching Historia Civilis, that Julius Caesar
was not the first powerful general of his time to float the idea of becoming
the King. Pompey, seemed to be Caesar's role model, and had a very similar
trajectory as a great general amassing power and love of the people, and
trying to assume a role of king. Apparently Caesar was more successful in the
endeavor.

I'd never heard this before, and someone please correct me if I misinterpreted
anything. I don't have any references to point to. But I got the impression
that there were several others before Caesar, but he was just a beast when it
came to strategy.

Fantastic YouTube channel -
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A)

~~~
vondur
Pompey seemed to be more interested in the glory and adoration that came with
military conquest than the actual power that could come from it. Pompey
disbanded his army after returning from his Eastern conquests, he could have
easily taken Rome for himself.

~~~
anacleto
> Pompey seemed to be more interested in the glory and adoration that came
> with military conquest than the actual power that could come from it.

No. Pompey wanted political power just as much he wanted military power. He
was able to wield the second, but never really the first. That was mainly due
to his rivalry with Crassus first and Caesar second.

He just wasn't at the right time in the right place. Crassus, despite being an
inferior general, was richer than him and had more influence in the Senate.
Caesar initially had less political influence than him, but he was superior on
the battlefield.

~~~
vondur
If that was the case, then why did he not just run the Senate out of town when
he returned from the East after clearing the Mediterranean of Pirates and
finishing off Mithridates? He was extremely popular with the people and the
Army. Right before the civil wars with Caesar started, he was preparing for a
virtual retirement with his appointment as governor of Spain. The governorship
was to give him a steady source of income.

~~~
anacleto
> He was extremely popular with the people and the Army.

Yes, he was extremely popular because he was a skilled general. He had a very
good understanding of Roman military strategy and tactics. Not on the top-5
but surely on the top-10 of the best Roman generals of all time.

> If that was the case, then why did he not just run the Senate out of town

That wasn't possible. The Roman Senate and the whole Roman political scene was
in complete stagnation. Plus, you couldn't really "run the Senate" remotely –
many tried (including Caesar) doing so, none succeeded. You had to have a
physical presence or to delegate (e.g. Caesar with Mark Anthony).

At the time, Pompey had strong political power and run for Console, but on his
way to power, he found Crassus with the very same goal in mind. The problem is
that Crassus was the richest man in Rome (a billionaire compared to today) and
he had much more political influence.

Pompey (mainly because of Crassus's obstructionism) wasn't able to fully
capitalize on his military success.

Caesar well understood that the stagnation was mainly due to the
Crassus/Pompey (personal) rivalry and offered them to run himself for Console,
(1) stop the Senate stagnation and (2) approve their reforms.

The rest is history.

------
B1FF_PSUVM
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa)

"On September 2, 31 BC, the Battle of Actium was fought. Octavian's victory,
which gave him the mastery of Rome and the empire, was mainly due to Agrippa."

~~~
anacleto
I was about to say the same. Augustus didn't have at the time much battle
strategy skills. And in all fairness, military strategy was not his thing.

Actium – like my other battles under August's reign – was mainly due to
Agrippa's military skills. In a hypothetical ranking of best Roman generals of
all time, he should probably be placed somewhere between 1st and 5th place.

~~~
jhellan
Augustus lived into his late seventies partly due to his poor health, which
forced him to stay away from many of his battles.

