It’s the rare traveller who journeys through Europe, North Africa or the Levant without encountering a Roman ruin.
At its zenith in 117 AD, the Roman Empire spanned three continents. Its ruins are as much a testament to the engineering of the Romans as to their architecture. Even in countries that were never part of the Roman Empire, that architecture lives on. That’s as true in the US as it is in several parts of the British Empire.
How did the Roman Empire come into being? On the Ides of March, in 44 BC, a group of Roman senators assassinated Julius Caesar, accusing him of harbouring imperial ambitions. One of Caesar’s best generals and confidants, Mark Antony, gave a funeral oration that turned the Romans against the assassins.
The events that unfolded have been written up by Plutarch, Cicero, Virgil, Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw, among others.
In a nutshell, Antony teamed up with the voluptuous Egyptian Queen, Cleopatra, who had borne a son out of wedlock to Caesar, to take on Caesar’s adopted son, Octavian, for the governance of the Roman Republic. Octavian prevailed in a naval battle that took place a decade later. Cleopatra and Mark Antony fled to Egypt but were defeated a year later in Alexandria by Octavian. Depressed, Antony killed himself and so did Cleopatra. Both were buried there with Octavian’s permission.
In 1996, while touring Alexandria, I searched in vain for a sign of their tomb. It has yet to be found.
In 2012, I found Caesar’s symbolic grave, a small pile of mud, which is all that remains of his temple in the Roman Forum. After a 25-minute walk, I arrived at Augustus’s tomb. In striking contrast to Caesar’s muddy grave, it was a mausoleum. On his deathbed, Augustus reportedly said: “I found Rome a city of bricks and left it as a city of marble.”
During the past decade, a question kept bothering me: “How did a novice like Octavian defeat Antony and Cleopatra and change the course of history by creating the Roman Empire that would last centuries?”
The answer can be found in a book by Barry Strauss, titled The War that made the Roman Empire: Antony, Cleopatra and Octavian at Actium.
The Roman nobility was not pleased to learn of Cleopatra’s entanglement with Julius Caesar. The nobles were displeased when Caesar gave her a regal reception in Rome but was unable to say much. Tensions continued to simmer beneath the surface.
The Roman nobility was not pleased to learn of Cleopatra’s entanglement with Julius Caesar. The nobles were displeased when Caesar gave her a regal reception in Rome but was unable to say much. Tensions continued to simmer beneath the surface.
After Caesar’s assassination, Antony teamed up with Octavian to hunt down the assassins. Two years later, they defeated Senators Brutus and Cassius in separate battles. Both committed suicide.
Eventually, Octavian and Antony turned on each other. Octavian began an “information warfare” campaign to besmirch the reputation of the Egyptian queen, accusing her of first seducing Caesar and then seducing Antony. Cleverly, Octavian did not mount a direct attack on Antony. But since he was intertwined with Cleopatra by now, he was indirectly implicated for his disloyalty to Rome.
Octavian teamed up with the Roman general, Agrippa, to defeat Antony and Cleopatra. Early in 31 BC, Antony and Cleopatra were preparing to lure Octavian into a trap on the west coast of Greece. In a preemptive strike, Agrippa cut off their supplies from Egypt and seized ships and men. After months of stalemate, Antony decided to engage Agrippa’s forces with a naval battle at Actium.
The ensuing battle involved more than 600 ships and 40,000 men. Horrifying fires broke out on the combatant ships. Men killed themselves to avoid being burned. Some jumped off into the sea, with several being eaten alive by sharks. The outcome was not hard to predict, since Octavian’s fleet outnumbered Antony’s by a factor of 2:1.
Antony decided to sacrifice his fleet and fled with Cleopatra to Alexandria. A year later, Octavian showed up in Egypt and defeated both of them.
So how did Octavian, a man 20 years younger than Antony, win against the combined forces of Antony and Cleopatra? In an interview, Strauss said: “Technology is very important, but having the best technology and having the most money does not necessarily guarantee you victory. A hungry and audacious underdog can win. Octavian was a really good strategist. He knew his own limitations. He was willing to turn over command to Agrippa, who knew how to wage a naval campaign much better than Octavian.”
How did Octavian become a really good strategist? Strauss says, “An hour at the feet of Caesar was worth more than a term of lectures by a professor. And Octavian spent many hours there.”
Unlike most historians, who rely on Octavian’s version of history, Strauss strives to provide us with a balanced assessment. Octavian emerges as a demonic figure who had “fought, lied, cheated and trampled on the law. It is estimated that he killed more than a hundred senators.” He knew how to master the weakness of others.
Cleopatra was an astute ruler who spoke seven languages and whose intelligence, wit and charm were as well known to her enemies as they were to her friends. Strauss says that had she prevailed against Octavian, historians would have ranked her with England’s Queen Elizabeth I and Russia’s Catherine II.
He had his lucky moments. The outbreaks of malaria and dysentery in Antony’s camp did more to win the war for Octavian than his generalship. “The war between Antony and Octavian involved diplomacy, information warfare – from propaganda to what we now call fake news – economic and financial competition, as well as all of the human emotions: love, hate and jealousy, not least among them.”
Everyone loved Antony, who was “a strong man who shared his soldiers’ suffering and commanded their loyalty… [but] as a general… [he] is best known for his retreats. By turns charismatic and punitive, he held together his army on the dangerous roads through rough country …Antony was a great diplomat, forging a lasting settlement in the Roman East. He gathered enormous resources for fighting a war, including one of the most formidable navies the ancient world had ever seen.” Unfortunately for Antony, he “didn’t know how to use those resources effectively [and] failed both as a leader and a strategist.”
Strauss has kind words for Cleopatra, who has been derided in many historical accounts as a manipulator of men. She was descended from the Ptolemy family that had ruled Egypt for 300 years, and “fascinated even those who feared her.” She was an astute ruler who spoke seven languages (including Egyptian, the only Ptolemaic ruler to do so) and whose intelligence, wit and charm were as well known to her enemies as they were to her friends.
Strauss goes so far as to say that had she prevailed against Octavian, historians would have ranked her with England’s Queen Elizabeth I and Russia’s Catherine II.
