Rome Partitioned Following Antony's Civil War?

[Meshakhad]

My starting point here is that Antony's Civil War (aka the last war of the Roman Republic) ends in either a stalemate or a partial victory for Antony and Cleopatra. Unless I'm missing something, I'm doubtful that they could have gone all the way to Rome. But perhaps they could have forced a settlement that saw Egypt regaining its independence and perhaps claiming most of Rome's eastern territories.

The most important question, aside from how this could have happened (I'm not an expert on the battles in question) is how much territory does Egypt gain. The Levant and Cyrenacia are the easiest, although I doubt Rome would tolerate losing Tunisia. The big question is how much of Anatolia goes to Egypt.

One definite possibility is that this defeat proves fatal to Octavian. This might result in Lepidus displacing him, although I don't know if Lepidus could have made himself Emperor. We might see the Republic limp along for some time, or even undergo different reforms, becoming a dictatorship but not an Empire. It's also entirely possible that the Republic would completely fall apart, with independent states appearing in Gaul, Iberia, North Africa, and Greece.

In the short run, Egypt could eclipse Rome as the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Rome was dependent on Egyptian wheat, and that would give Egypt immense leverage, possibly enough to ensure that Rome would not try to take back its lost territories. However, Egypt would now face pressure from Rome's perennial adversary: Parthia. I think that sooner or later, Parthia would manage a significant win against Egypt. It's also likely that Armenia would reassert its independence, and maybe even expand into Anatolia.

If the Roman Republic (or Empire) survived, it would probably push harder to expand elsewhere. More effort would be expended against Germania, although I'm doubtful that there would be a different outcome. Britain would either be ignored, or become another focus for expansion. Rome might also try to make more use of what it still had. In particular, to alleviate its dependence on Egyptian wheat, Rome would probably make more of an effort to settle Gaul and improve its agricultural output, reducing their dependence on Egypt. This alternate Roman state might not be as centered on Rome, with other cities in Italia, Gaul, and Iberia becoming more prominent. Perhaps they eventually settle on some kind of federal system, becoming a Roman Federation. Of course, this could also give those regions the ability to break away. Finally, a Rome that was limited in eastward expansion might try an expedition into the Atlantic. Discovering America is almost certainly out of the question, but maybe Rome could hug the coast of Africa and make contact with sub-Saharan Africa?

Egypt would probably lose its independence eventually, but it might be able to outlast Rome. The key is Anatolia. An Egyptian Empire with a firm grip on Anatolia (at least part of it) could probably withstand both Parthia and Rome for a long time. Of course, this might also produce a Roman-Parthian alliance against Egypt, which almost certainly would lead to Egypt losing. When Rome eventually fell, we almost certainly wouldn't see a Byzantine successor state in Greece - although, come to think of it, maybe one emerges in Iberia and Gaul?

 

[jessicajsscjs]

Anthony was old, his empire wouldn't live much longer than him.

His roman generals wouldn't follow an egyptian queen, and unless his kids are particulary capable they would hardly be in the position to keep the whole thing together after his death.

 

[Indiana Smith]

I think a key factor in this scenario might have been Caesarion, Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar. In Colleen McCullough's brilliant novels, he is portrayed as being an incredibly intelligent, strategic-minded savant, much like his natural father. Of course, we don't know if that is true or not since the victorious Octavian (probably) had him murdered and erased virtually all traces of him from history. But if Caesarion was indeed a chip off the old block, and was allowed to reach the fullness of his manhood rather than being murdered at 16, he might well have forged an empire to rival Octavian's Rome - and indeed, might have bested Marcus Agrippa on the battlefield and topped Octavian from power, uniting East and West under a bird that was a hybrid of Rome's eagles and Egypt's falcon.

 

[Prince of Permsia]

I would love to see this timeline

 

[galanx]

Over on his website, Roman military historian Bret Devereaux points out that one advantage Rome had over the Hellenistic world was its comparatively easier attitude over who got Roman citizenship, and the numerical increase that gave to its armies ("You can fight us, or you can join us in looting some other poor bastard.") Antony. being Roman himself, might have introduced such a policy at least toward his Greek subjects, and Caesarion could later expand it.

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry

A look at history and popular culture

acoup.blog

 

[Meshakhad]

Over on his website, Roman military historian Bret Devereaux points out that one advantage Rome had over the Hellenistic world was its comparatively easier attitude over who got Roman citizenship, and the numerical increase that gave to its armies ("You can fight us, or you can join us in looting some other poor bastard.") Antony. being Roman himself, might have introduced such a policy at least toward his Greek subjects, and Caesarion could later expand it.

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry

A look at history and popular culture

acoup.blog

I do think that the new Egyptian Empire would have a notable Roman flavor, particularly its military. After all, its army would be composed primarily of Roman legions commanded by Mark Antony. However, they would very quickly have had to recruit from the general population to keep their strength up.

Another interesting question is the fate of Judea. My guess is that Cleopatra would have been tolerant towards the Jews, setting a trend for her heirs. Depending on how the wars with Parthia went, the Ptolomies might have tried to build up Judea as a bulwark against Parthia. However, that could easily backfire. If the Jews already have a substantial army, and then the Pharaoh does something to anger the Jews, then some hothead priest or zealous general might try to betray Egypt. I think we have a decent chance of an autonomous Jewish state emerging, whether as a client of Egypt or Parthia.

Assuming Christianity still appears, I think it's unlikely to become the official religion of Rome. However, it could easily end up dominating Egypt.

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

I doubt that we'd see a Ptolemaic Eastern Rome; Greece was barely okay with a Macedonian king, much less a Macedonian-Roman ruling from Alexandria.

 

[marktaha]

Anthony was old, his empire wouldn't live much longer than him.

His roman generals wouldn't follow an egyptian queen, and unless his kids are particulary capable they would hardly be in the position to keep the whole thing together after his death.

He was fifty. Augustus and Tiberius both reached their late seventies.

 

[Meshakhad]

I doubt that we'd see a Ptolemaic Eastern Rome; Greece was barely okay with a Macedonian king, much less a Macedonian-Roman ruling from Alexandria.

I agree. Greece would either stay with Rome or go independent.

 

[Sarufiyyun]

It's an interesting premise that I've seen once before on this site though that timeline was abandoned by its author. I reckon that if there's a stalemate, Octavian would seethe and try to focus on centralizing his hold over the West and preventing anyone from selling out to Antony. Lepidus is too timid to take the initiative to usurp Octavian and as long as Octavian has Agrippa on his side, I doubt anyone could contest him. Mark Antony probably goes mask off and roleplays as a Hellenistic despot, using the resources of the East to campaign (once again) after Parthia and emulate Alexander the Great. He either fails disastrously, likely leading to his death on the battlefield or if successful, putting him on a potential collision course with the Kushan Empire. Assuming he's a halfway decent ruler, he'll still drink himself to an early death and leading to Cleopatra having to stop her kids from plotting against each other and defending her neo-Macedonian empire from the Kushans and Rome at the same time.

 

[goumaister]

I agree. Greece would either stay with Rome or go independent.

Greece was under Antony his whole reign as a triumvirate of the East and never revolted so why would they stay with Rome?

On the topic here I see Antony's Egypt more as an evolved Roman monarchy than a Ptolemaic takeover. Cleopatra's heir was a Roman and all of the Eastern provinces that were awarded to Antony's and Cleopatra's children were going to Roman rulers as those kids would have a Roman father. So more than likely if the division of Rome comes this early the East has a huge advantage both in economy and in manpower. The only province that makes money in the West is Italy , well and Africa , but the East is prosperous. Parthia is on the defensive and Rome is out of balance after Octavian's defeat. So if Antony plays his cards well he has some time to get his shit together and create some armies and make sure his descendants don't fall into civil war.

The problem here is Antony for me. He had ruled the East for a decade and had nothing to show for it other than parties and expenses for luxury. If Ceasarion is capable as mentioned that means that he can attack Africa and cut Rome's wheat supply cause unrest. Then move either through Sicily with his navy, with better economic situation he can afford a bigger navy, and embargoes Italy. Now if Agrippa is still kicking, or some other charismatic general, he can work some miracles and stop the advance otherwise Italy will fall and Ceasarion can hand out food from Egypt and Africa to win the masses. And like that you unify Rome again under a King or whatever tittle is adopted.

Parthia is not a huge threat really. Last time they invaded they got their asses kicked so I doubt they would invade again especially with a hostile Armenia.

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

That said, Caesarion's spent his whole childhood in Egypt surrounded by Greco-Egyptian culture, and the capital is still in Alexandria. So assuming Antonius doesn't squander away the inheritance before he dies, the new Eastern Rome is hardly going to look conventionally Roman any more than the Byzantines did.

 

[ladyofnúmenor]

In my opinion the East would remain under nominal Roman oversight, overseen from the remnants of Roman Syria or Alexandria. Over time it would form a Greco-Roman cultural synthesis, similarly to the Eastern Roman Empire OTL. Principally, if Antony's Parthian campaign succeeded he would be in the same position lording over the Hellenistic world as it had been under the Macedonian Empire. I believe that it would fracture, with a Greco-Roman successor states maintaining control over various provinces. Perhaps it'd remain united with the exception of Parthia. Who knows? It's an interesting scenario and good material for a TL.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think a key factor in this scenario might have been Caesarion, Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar. In Colleen McCullough's brilliant novels, he is portrayed as being an incredibly intelligent, strategic-minded savant, much like his natural father. Of course, we don't know if that is true or not since the victorious Octavian (probably) had him murdered and erased virtually all traces of him from history. But if Caesarion was indeed a chip off the old block, and was allowed to reach the fullness of his manhood rather than being murdered at 16, he might well have forged an empire to rival Octavian's Rome - and indeed, might have bested Marcus Agrippa on the battlefield and topped Octavian from power, uniting East and West under a bird that was a hybrid of Rome's eagles and Egypt's falcon.

Actually in her novel Caesarian was depicted as being intelligent, and of a kind nature. His mother lamented that he lacked his fathers ambition, and drive, and that Anthony lacked Caesar's skill as a general. Besting Marcus Agrippa is a tall order. He possessed one of the keenest strategic, and tactical minds in Roman History, as well as being a great statesmen. Agrippa was a skilled, and innovative military leader on both land & sea. At times he acted as a colleague of Augustus, rather then a mere subordinate. He was the one man Augustus could not simple dismiss.

 

[Belisarius II]

Anything is possible, but a victory of Mark Antony is highly unlike. Antony was a good tactical commander, if he had a superior general, like Caesar directing him. In supreme command he was unsure of himself, and had difficulty planning several moves ahead. Politically he was completely out maneuvered by Octavian. His drinking, and self indulgence made him a poor political, and military leader. He suffered from divided command, with his own generals hating Cleopatra, and hoping for a reconciliation with Octavian, and their fellow Romans. Most of them wanted to return to Italy, and retire with the wealth they'd accumulated in the East.

Marcus Agrippa was a superior commander on both land and sea. During the Campaign of Actium Anthony was completely outmaneuvered. Antony's seaborne supplies were cut off by Octavian's Fleet, which bypassed the Antonian forces at Actium, and secured naval bases along his LOC to the Aegean, and the East. With Octavian's Army refusing battle Antony was forced to abandon the position at Actium or starve. If the army moved away the fleet would be lost, which forced Antony to load has many of his legions as he could on his ships, and fight a naval action, to escape, while the rest of the army moved by land to follow, as best they could.

Antony thought he had a good chance of victory, because he had bigger ships, with higher castles, however his ships were encumbered by sails for a long sea voyage. for his part Agrippa had more ships, that were faster sailors, and he refused boarding actions, and instead relied on new fire projecting weapons. Antony lost the action, and Cleopatra sailed though the line to escape, then Antony abandoned his men to join her. This broke the moral of the Antonian forces, and most of the remaining legions defected to Octavian's cause.

It's hard to imagine Antony mustering the presence of mind to overcome his political difficulties, and seize the imitative from the smarter, better focused Octavian & Agrippa. Antony & Cleopatra had too many political, and military disadvantages to deal with, one of the most significant being that Italy was the source of the best soldiers of the empire. Politicly Cleopatra was a millstone around Antony's neck, but he couldn't do without her for money, and supplies. That was a conundrum he couldn't overcome. The star crossed lovers were doomed to a tragic fate.

 

[Indiana Smith]

Excellent points, Belisarius!
Marc Antony might have THOUGHT he was Caesar's equal on the battlefield, but experience proved otherwise.
One wonders how high Agrippa might have risen had Julius Caesar lived another decade or two - and whether Octavian, or another, might have become master of Rome when he died. Or, indeed, if Caesar might not have repaired and restored the Republic?

 

[tallthinkev]

All depends on what Parthia wants to do

 

[Belisarius II]

Excellent points, Belisarius!
Marc Antony might have THOUGHT he was Caesar's equal on the battlefield, but experience proved otherwise.
One wonders how high Agrippa might have risen had Julius Caesar lived another decade or two - and whether Octavian, or another, might have become master of Rome when he died. Or, indeed, if Caesar might not have repaired and restored the Republic?

Thanks. At the time of his death Caesar was preparing to lead an army of 16 legions against Parthia, to avenge Crassus. The Assassins would've been wiser to just let Caesar go. The war would've kept him away from Rome for a few years, and who knows how the situation might change by then. Caesar was 56, and he couldn't live forever, he might even die while in the East. Octavian & Agrippa were both only 18 years old in 44BC, and would've only gained some seasoning serving under the master. It's hard to say what would happen, but I think it's unlikely he'd restore the Republic. Like most men Caesar had too great a love of power to give it up.

 

[not livius]

Caesar doesn't appear to have had any interest in restoring republican govenment, and I can't see why he would want to change that after a victory in Parthia. A failure in Parthia would have made his opinion less important, though.

I think Actium is too late for an Antonian victory, although a result where Octavian died would certainly have shaken things up and might have left Antony and Cleopatra more or less independent in Egypt, and thus the stalemate Meshakhad proposed -- perhaps Octavian dies early on and Antony and Cleopatra don't withdraw, so he keeps his legions instead of leaving htem behind with no choice but to surrender. The question is how much of the eastern empire he would have been able to keep either personally or through the kingdoms granted to his children. The political scene in Rome would be too chaotic for anyone there to bother him -- I agree that Lepidus would try to make a comeback but I don't know whether he could. Agrippa doesn't have the standing to take power independently, but he would try as well, I'm sure. It would be a free-for-all.

 

[Belisarius II]

Caesar doesn't appear to have had any interest in restoring republican govenment, and I can't see why he would want to change that after a victory in Parthia. A failure in Parthia would have made his opinion less important, though.

I think Actium is too late for an Antonian victory, although a result where Octavian died would certainly have shaken things up and might have left Antony and Cleopatra more or less independent in Egypt, and thus the stalemate Meshakhad proposed -- perhaps Octavian dies early on and Antony and Cleopatra don't withdraw, so he keeps his legions instead of leaving htem behind with no choice but to surrender. The question is how much of the eastern empire he would have been able to keep either personally or through the kingdoms granted to his children. The political scene in Rome would be too chaotic for anyone there to bother him -- I agree that Lepidus would try to make a comeback but I don't know whether he could. Agrippa doesn't have the standing to take power independently, but he would try as well, I'm sure. It would be a free-for-all.

Yes Octavian dying around the time of Actium would shake things up, in the long run. The problem is the Senate had already declared war on Cleopatra. No regime in Rome could accept the land grants Antony gave to Egypt. Antony's Legions still wanted a reconciliation with what ever faction was in power in Rome. Bringing Egyptian, and other foreign armies into Italy would be a political disaster, but Cleopatra would insist on bringing troops loyal to her if she went to Rome. The Romans would never accept moving the capital to Alexandra, but that was a must for her, because she couldn't rule from Rome, and she couldn't let Antony out of her personal influence. He can't rule with her, and he can't rule without her.

In the short term the war would just go on. The commander of Octavian's land forces was General Titus Statilius Taurus, a very competent general in his own right. All he'd have to do was continue the strategy they were using, and they would get the same results. Antony would be forced to try to break out of the trap he was in, or starve. If Antony moved with his army overland to Thessaly, he'd have to abandon his Egyptian allies, and his fleet, and Cleopatra would never permit that. His alternative is a naval battle, and we know the odds were against him there. At Actium Antony was in a vice grip, with no good options.

To change the situation Antony would have to act long before Actium. if he'd forged an alliance with Lepidus his position would be much stronger. On the downside it seems Lepidus's Legions had little loyalty to him, since they went over to Octavian the first chance they got. He might come to an agreement with Sextus Pompey, to provide covert add, if for nothing else but to keep him in the field. When Antony made a new pact with Octavian in 38BC he gave him 200 ships, in exchange for 8 legions, for his war with Parthia. If he dropped the Parthian War he wouldn't need the legions, and Octavian wouldn't get the ships, delaying Octavian's defeat of Sextus Pompey. Alternatively he might have made the same deal with Lepidus, and jointly conquered Sicily with him, and gotten 8 Legions for the Parthian War that way.

Any way to keep more players in the field would help, because once it was just Octavian & Antony the odds would turn heavily against him. If Antony could keep the game going till Caesarian reached manhood, and taken him to Rome, he could use him to challenge Octavian claim to be Aeir to Caesar. Caesarian would try to build a party around himself, with the wealth of his mother, and the support of the Antonian Faction. If the kid is up to it things could get interesting.