7 ms·

Ancient monument sheds light on battle of Actium

64 points by longdefeat 8y ago

B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    Augustus lived into his late seventies partly due to his poor health, which forced him to stay away from many of his battles.
village-idiot 8y ago
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 8y ago
  Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social / monetary reforms put him at further odds.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    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.
    - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
      The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.
    - eropple 8y ago
      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.
Pigo 8y ago
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
- anacleto 8y ago
  Caesar was "opportunism" at its finest level. Both in the battled field and in the Roman political scene. It worked in both worlds.
  - Pigo 8y ago
    If you see what he did at Alesia, Axona, etc, you can tell he was a patient and genius general. He did many things we find horrible, but also enacted many reforms at the expense of wealthy aristocrats, and put Gauls in the Roman senate. I find the dichotomy of him as a person to be very fascinating.
    - anacleto 8y ago
      Alesia is the finest example of Caesar military strategy. I wrote about it here: https://leonardofed.io/blog/caesar.html https://leonardofed.io/blog/caesar.html
- vondur 8y ago
  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.

64 points by longdefeat 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  Augustus lived into his late seventies partly due to his poor health, which forced him to stay away from many of his battles.

village-idiot 8y ago

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 8y ago
Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social / monetary reforms put him at further odds.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  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.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.
  - eropple 8y ago
    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.

Pigo 8y ago

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

anacleto 8y ago
Caesar was "opportunism" at its finest level. Both in the battled field and in the Roman political scene. It worked in both worlds.
- Pigo 8y ago
  If you see what he did at Alesia, Axona, etc, you can tell he was a patient and genius general. He did many things we find horrible, but also enacted many reforms at the expense of wealthy aristocrats, and put Gauls in the Roman senate. I find the dichotomy of him as a person to be very fascinating.
  - anacleto 8y ago
    Alesia is the finest example of Caesar military strategy. I wrote about it here: https://leonardofed.io/blog/caesar.html https://leonardofed.io/blog/caesar.html
vondur 8y ago
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.