Actium: battle, campaign, turning point

1Writing his History of Rome during the lifetime of Augustus, Livy’s account offers interesting details and focus on two turning points of the greatest importance in Roman history:1 the ending of the war against Hannibal and the ending of the civil war with the victory of Augustus. In real-time this meant that the battle of Actium (and Alexandria) saw monarchy return to Rome, after the defeat of Young Caesar’s enemies. Together they – Actium and Alexandria – form one of the most decisive turning points in world history.

2Periodization is an important tool for all historians, but used unwisely it fosters misconceptions and is at best unhelpful.2 This essay – bringing together thoughts and ideas from my thinking about Actium – will evaluate different potential ways of approaching Actium: as a battle engaged on 2 September 31 BCE; a campaign victory; a catalyst for the transition from Republic to Principate (signifying continuity); a main “Augustan” turning-point (a singular event),3 or, bringing it all together, as an idea (never static, of victory and peace) and as the foundation myth of the Augustan Principate. Let us start by stating the obvious: Actium was the main turning-point in the war against Cleopatra and Antonius, certainly so from a military point of view. It was also what made monarchy possible, inasmuch as it signified the main defeat of Young Caesar’s enemies. This is where the war was decided.4 It was declared as a “foreign” war in 32 BCE, against Egypt and Cleopatra – Cassius Dio nicely underscores the official narrative of the Augustan regime when he states that the war was declared against Cleopatra, but was in reality against Antonius5 – but later it was (also) turned into a civil war by Antonius, helping Cleopatra. Antonius was deprived of all of his powers and of the consulship, which he was due to hold in 31 BCE6 and was now a privatus; if he were to take up arms against Young Caesar and the res publica, he would declare war on the state and thus declare himself a hostis, and consequently no official hostis declaration was needed. Finally the wars – civil and foreign – were ended by Young Caesar at Actium 31 BCE, with a postscript at Alexandria 30 BCE.7

3What does “the main turning point” mean? Our evidence at times seems inconclusive. Take Cassius Dio – the main narrator of the period – who is inconsistent on the precise date for the return of monarchy to Rome (this inconsistency is no doubt (also) a product of the sources which Dio followed, many of which will have pointed in different directions). He identifies the restoration of monarchy both with the battle of Actium8 and at 27 BCE.9 Similarly, the three triumphs of 29 BCE would have been the symbol of Roman victory and consequently the ending of (civil) war. In the end it may thus be preferable to define the period from 31 to 27 BCE as a process of victory followed by a period of return to normalisation after a (mainly!) civil war. As for 27 BCE, Res Gestae 34, 1 mentions a process in 28-27 BCE; and an aureus of 28 BCE displays on the reverse a togate Young Caesar, seated on the sella curulis and holding a scroll: the legend reads LEGES ET IVRA P R RESTITVIT. This legend, leges et iura, must refer to statutes and civil rights; it also reflects the edict annulling previous illegal and unjust triumviral ordinances, as well as Young Caesar’s restoration of laws in 28 BCE, as Tacitus and Cassius Dio write.10 The acts of 28-27 BCE are essentially stages of the same measure: a triumviral edict (by virtue of Young Caesar’s powers as the sole remaining triumvir) annulling counter-customary measures of the triumviral era and celebrated/advertised by virtue of an aureus. The Settlement of 28-27 BCE – if we at all want to call it that – thus signifies the accomplishment of the triumviral assignment.11 This so-called settlement is as much about the end of the civil war period as it is about the future monarchy, and indeed perhaps even more so.

4Having ended civil war and liberated the res publica from great dangers (see below), Young Caesar handed the state – that is, all the combined powers of the triumvirate – from his control into that of the SPQR.12 Augustus of course famously left out of the Res Gestae that many of the powers were at once (and unsurprisingly) handed back to him. The triumviral assignment became the model for Augustus’ retention of the powers needed to carry out the assignments presented to him by the Senate and the people: establishing peace at the borders. He justified this, as Cassius Dio tells us,13 by claiming that he would hold these provinces just for a limited period in order to pacify them and such neighbours as threatened them, and subsequently renewed his command for five or ten year periods throughout his reign on the grounds that the work of pacification was not yet complete (in 18 BCE, a five-year renewal, soon extended to ten, and then again for ten years in 8 BCE, 3 and 13 CE). Fixed-term tasks thus became the standard way for Augustus to justify his monarchy.14 We may even sensibly take this to suggest that Augustus purposely never wanted to define the Principate.15

5Looking back on the triumviral period, at Bononia in October 43 BCE, the triumvirs had set out to constitute the res publica and to set the state to rights, including the ending of the civil war and punishment of the assassins of Caesar.16 The assignment of the triumvirate was in principle completed at Philippi; as a result, further justifications were needed in order for the triumvirs to justify the retention of their powers beyond their assignment. Consequently the settlement of Brundisium extended the assignment: the new task given to Young Caesar was to deal with Sextus Pompeius and thus to conclude the civil war(s).17

6Strangely, however, Naulochus is often forgotten or downplayed by scholars working on the triumviral period, even though it is an important precursor for the ideology of Young Caesar/Augustus, following the battle of Actium. Two further points need to be made. Firstly, for Young Caesar/Augustus there were two vital and non-conflicting narratives: a triumphal narrative, focusing on victory against a usually but not exclusively “foreign” enemy;18 and a triumviral narrative, emphasising the ending of civil war.19 This is first visible in 36 BCE: Young Caesar was given an honorific column on the Forum, with rostra, a golden statue, and an inscription: “Peace, long disrupted by civil war, he restored on land and sea”.20 After Actium, the slogan pace parta terra marique is also used on the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis, emphasising that peace had been secured on land and sea.21 No enemy is mentioned, which in turn does point to a civil war.22 Secondly, a series of aurei and denarii issued at Lugdunum 15-10 BCE in commemoration of the victories at Naulochus and at Actium show on the reverses Apollo the lyre-player and Diana the huntress; underneath the figures the legends of ACT and SICIL are visible.23 These coins are most likely connected with the promotion of Agrippa as “co-regent” in 18 BCE,24 sparking a renewed interest in Augustus’ naval victories, including Agrippa’s role as admiral.25

7At Lugdunum Convenarum an Augustan tropaeum with a Scylla as a central iconographical part was erected at some point.26 Augustus was travelling in Spain and Gaul from 16 to 13 BCE and it seems likely that the monument was built around this time.27 With Virgil (Aen., 5, 121-123) – mentioning a Scylla – we might conclude that this is an Actium monument,28 but the fact remains that Sextus Pompeius also used Scylla on a denarius.29 There is every possibility that Young Caesar “adopted” Scylla from Sextus, just as he had Neptune.30 Schäfer in the end forces the issue towards Actium – it cannot be dismissed out of hand and that is why I chose this case – but even so, it is essential to emphasise that a ship, Scylla, rostra, as well as a globe might easily also point to Naulochus.31 Schäfer thus gives preference to Actium, but in the end the evidence points more towards Naulochus. Concerning the globe, Young Caesar/Augustus is clearly emulating the coins of Sextus Pompeius: RIC 1² Aug. 256 shows Young Caesar/Neptune on the reverse with aplustre in hand and foot on a globe, not a prow (a possible reference either to Sextus Pompeius or to Actium, depending on how the CAESAR DIVI F coins are dated), and a similar design is repeated on a coin of Pella, with a cuirassed Young Caesar standing with his foot on a rostrum.32 The globe also points towards the ideology of terra marique. The slogan pace parta terra marique is connected by several Latin authors to Augustus’ closure of the Temple of Janus as well as to his peaceful settlement after the civil war against Antonius; this is clearly reflected by Livy, who, mirroring Augustus’ bella terra et mari civilia externaque,33 writes of a period “after the battle of Actium, when the emperor Caesar Augustus had brought about peace on land and sea”.34 However, as seen above – Appian’s reference to the column monument – the slogan was already in use in 36 BCE. The slogan suggests that Naulochus and Actium were both emphasised as campaign victories, rather than straightforwardly isolated naval victories, retaking Sicily and the Eastern part of the Empire. At both Mylae and Actium there had been armies present, although the decisive engagements were fought on sea. The land battles in the end never materialised due to partly unforeseen developments: the fleeing of Cleopatra, then followed by Antonius,35 and the vast superior land forces of the triumvirs in 36 BCE.36

8The Lugdunum coins and the context of the naval victories of Augustus suggest that Naulochus simply cannot be disregarded in the case of the monument at Lugdunum Convenarum. Whatever we make of this, there is certainly no reason to underestimate the importance of Naulochus in the ideology of Young Caesar/Augustus. Naulochus was central to the ideology of Young Caesar, not only as a precursor to the Actian ideology, but also in establishing the pre-eminence of the great victor of Mylae. The column monument, as well as the general revival of naval elements – in addition to an Augustan edition of the elogium of the column of Duilius, the first great Roman victor of Mylae 260 BCE –37 seem clear evidence of Young Caesar/Augustus’ use of Duilius as a model victor and precursor of Augustus’ own deeds.38

9We may conclude that what brings the ideology of Naulochus and Actium together is the following: first, the triumviral assignment and its accomplishment. The civil war was ended in 36 BCE, and later resumed by Antonius, helping Cleopatra; this civil war was again quelled by Young Caesar in 31-30 BCE. Second, a triumph against legitimate enemies. Young Caesar was given an ovation in 36 for his victories ex Sicilia, over “pirates” and “slaves”. The “pirates and slaves narrative”39 is supported by two letters written by Young Caesar from 36 BCE which accuse Sextus Pompeius of encouraging piracy40 and also by his triumph in 29 for Actium.41 Third, even though Naulochus was the precursor for Actium, it was also important as a victory in its own right (including commemorations).

10We may add, what then about the final phase of the civil war, ending at Alexandria following the decisive battle at Actium?42 The feriae on the anniversary of the capture of Alexandria are recorded on four inscribed calendars. The Arval Fasti entry reads: Feriae ex s(enatus) c(onsulto), [q(uod) e(o) d(ie) Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) rem pu]blic(am) tristiss(imo) p[e]riculo [libera]vit.43 The fasti of Praeneste and Amiternum have very similar entries, citing the reason for the celebration, most likely from the original senatorial decree. The Senate’s decree of that year renaming the month Sextilis in Augustus’ honour includes among the reasons for this choice the fact that in that month Egypt was conquered and the civil war(s) were brought to an end.44 It should have become obvious by now that Actium never stood alone in the ideology of the victor.

11Where does that leave us? Actium is often looked at as a naval battle, which of course it is, but there is simply much more to it. This modern reading may partly stem from an imbalance in naval histories and their emphasis on naval battles.45 Actium was a campaign, and never only a battle. In Res Gestae, 25, Augustus presents the battle of Actium as “the war in which I conquered at Actium” (bellum quo vici ad Actium). Actium is also mentioned as a “local” campaign (in hac regione) on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Nicopolis/Actium.46 Murray proposes that in hac regione refers to the campaign that ended at Actium47. Importantly, Actium as a battle may function as a turning point – as it clearly does in modern scholarship – but even so, in the ideology of Young Caesar/Augustus the battle was related to the triumviral assignment not uniquely, but in a manner similar to Naulochus. Both, in consequence, were related to the bringing of peace (that is, a Roman victory).48 The period from 31 to 29 or even better, to 27, is one of victory and normalisation: victory against a foreign enemy and a return to normality after having ended the civil war(s). Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, we might talk of a triumviral period (43-27 BCE), but again, only as a subdivision of the Late Republic.49

12However we approach Actium, isolating it to (only!) a battle – it was in fact portrayed as a campaign victory, won at Actium, with a postscript at Alexandria – in the end makes little sense when trying to understand the ideology of Augustus. It is an integrated part of understanding the transition from Republic to Principate – and incorporates the last phrase of the wars of the triumvirs, followed by a period of normalisation: 32-27 BCE. The victory at Actium brought about monarchy in Rome, but isolating this process from Late Republican and triumviral history in general would be wrong: we cannot understand Actium properly without understanding Naulochus, and we cannot understand Actium’s (and Naulochus’s) proper place in Augustan ideology without taking later developments from 27 BCE and beyond into account (retrospectively; a main issue here is the relatively poor state of our evidence). Approaching Actium or indeed the Settlement of 28-27 BCE as “turning-points” always brings with it the danger of eliding the continuation from Republic to Principate (even if we finally put the red herring of the so-called restoration of the Republic to rest).50 One of the biggest drawbacks with periodization, certainly so when used together with the concept of turning point(s), is the tendency towards fragmentation. The obvious conclusion would seem to be to look at the triumvirate and the reign of Augustus as one integrated period (that is, as distinct from other periods); but again, this would only create new boundaries and new potential fragmentation. This would also have a predisposition towards Young Caesar/Augustus. In the end the best title for a book looking at Augustus’ lifetime might be: Augustus. Life of a Dynast! These and similar discussions about periodization may at time seem arbitrary, but they are not; this is about us, as scholars, trying to make sense of the evidence. Perhaps in the end our difficulties more than anything show the brilliance of Young Caesar/Augustus when it comes to politics and ideology. There was never, ever, only one narrative – and this includes also evidence from “the other side”.

13On a final but equally relevant note to our understanding of Augustus, there remains the question of the aftermath. What implications did Actium and Augustus’ “phase IV” operations – that is, activities undertaken after combat in order to stabilise and reconstruct the area of operations –51 have upon the Principate? Unsurprisingly, military victory was part of that picture: like the generals of the Republic, the princeps’ success depended upon victory, albeit not necessarily in person (indeed, Augustus did not campaign in person after the Cantabrian Wars in Spain).52 Legitimacy, too, played its part. Flaig has suggested that while the Principate itself possessed legitimacy, its individual holders had only acceptance:53 to gain pre-eminence, victory in war was crucial.54 Never more so, perhaps, than in the aftermath of a civil war, where victory functioned as a means of justification for the arrangements put in place after the conflict; Vespasian and Septimius Severus are excellent examples of this aspect (emperors could adopt, or claim to adopt, varying dimensions of Augustus’ ideology, so emphasising that they had done just as the great Augustus once had). A further “phase IV” operation – a notably stabilising aspect, again informed by the troubles of the Late Republic – was the nature of public power and the role of the soldiery within it. Ando has accurately described this process under Augustus: regular terms of military service, plus taxes used to pay salaries and discharge bonuses, all resulted in a hiatus between periods of service and a “performance of citizenship” as well as a greater degree of separation between the soldiery and the individual commander than had previously been the case. In other words, “the performance of citizenship effectively [transformed] the soldiery into a servant of the state”.55 To describe this procedure in a different way: Augustus evidently needed to lay to rest the troubled times of the Late Republic (but not, as is so often wrongly claimed, by ignoring civil war): he had to create a system capable both of terminating civil war and reuniting society in the aftermath. In so doing, he instituted a flexible system: in the end, it was paradoxically the very act of making the emergency permanent that helped Augustus to avoid turning the Principate into something permanent. Certainly, Agrippa and Tiberius (as well as other “princes”) were given honours and powers; but only gradually. Thus, Augustus’ new infrastructure only gradually gave powers to his successor, that is Agrippa and later Tiberius (of course succession was a given; this was after all a rather traditional monarchy). This system was swiftly lost with Caligula, who received the full suite of powers on the day of his accession. What Augustus would have thought of this remains unclear; probably he would have abhorred it! Having said that, the imperial office never really entirely lost its rather ill-defined nature, courtesy of Augustus.