Talk:War of Actium

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Also, the move is not obstructed. Since the target is a redirect with one history entry, you should be able to do a move over redirect. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final war of the Roman Republic → Antony's civil war – Reverting unilateral, disputable change from a meaninigful to a meaningless title

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can you really call this war Antony's Civil War? Sure, Octavian's intent was to create a civil war between himself and Octavian, but the Roman Senate declared war on Cleopatra. Antony just happen to fight in a foreign war that became a civil war. While I think that the title may be a little long, it was the final war of the Republic. "Antony's Civil War" carries the idea that Antony started the war which happen to be a civil war. One example is Caesar's civil war. That article is properlly named because Caesar actually started a war with its intent to be a civil war.

I support a change in the article's title, but not to Antony's Civil War.

Whatever. My point is that the previous change was unilateral and disputable, and should be reverted. Then we can discuss the best name.--Semioli 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this called the episode in the Civil War called the Ptolemaic War? Dr Zak 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge?

Considering that this "war" consisted of a single naval battle, why is this article seperate from the Battle of Actium? - Vedexent 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a single battle; Actium just happened to be the most decisive one.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

For anyone not aware of the fact, this article has been under a merge proposal for some time. Since there have been no objections, or debates, I propose that it be merged in 1 week, barring any vigorous debate - Vedexent (talk) - 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Merge

While the Battle of Actium did bring an end to major hostilities, it was not the end of the war. After Octavian's victory, he marched his troops to Alexandria the year later, where he placed the city under seige. He engaged in a small battle for the seige, defeating the remainder of Anthony's troops. Following the seige and Cleopatra's surrender and suicide, Octavian returned to Rome and declared an end to the war. - Rougher07 23:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Antony-Octavian civil war? Or Second Caesarian civil war, because both claimed to be close to and follwoing Caesar's legacy.

For a name change?Tourskin 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Move Article: Great Roman Civil War

How about changing the name of the article to the "Great Roman Civil War" as both sides assembled some 200,000 soldiers each, making the total troops numbers, included navy and support units, near half a million men. This would make this war the largest war in Roman history, despite the fact that the battle of actium was its only major conflict. Following Actium, the conflict lasted another year and ended with the Siege of Alexandria and the deaths of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Rougher07 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Call me ignorant, but why do so many sources say that Cleopatra took her own life by letting a snake bite her, if she was killed by Octavian himself? Also the article on Cleopatra speaks for itself, and has very solid references. I see this as enough to change what it says in this article, as the earliest sources all conclude that she died of self-induced bite from a poisonous snake. Convincam, si negatis..! --Alexlykke (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging??

How did Octavian merge the eastern and western halfs of the roman world? There was no split between the empire for more than 200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.76.223 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Biggest war?"

Its called "The War of Actium" , Bellum Actium, Im pretty sure, but final war of republic makes sense to readers. Calling it the biggest civil war is incorrect, its not, it had one big naval battle which may be called the biggest since the 2nd Punic War. Ceasar's war was bigger, involved more casualties, and dozens of battles. Sulla v. Marius, the Social War, each are as big as the War of Actium. The third Servile War (Spartacus') involved more casualties. But you need to remember how much this is all shrouded in Ancient propgaganda. Augustus wanted to make this battle sound huge and heroic and justify the Monarchy he was creating, and as his long reign passed, as more and more time passed and less people were alive to witness it, his propaganda writers made it into a bigger and bigger deal. THe whole fleet was not sent to the bottom, previous to the battle, more and more Romans deserted Antony's cause, because he stubbornly brought Cleopatra along. Octavian had been using Cleopatra as the reason for the war, war wasnt even declared on Antony. Bringing her played into OCtavians hands for propaganda value. Many historians believe the battle to be an anticlimax, won with desertion and treachery. The fact that the legions deserted en masse in Greece after the battle shows how litttle determination and loyalty Antony's legions had. The war COULD have become one of the biggest if Octavians legions were forced to challenge Antony in a real campaign in Greece. They showed no heart. The battle only allowed Octavian freedom of the seas but the dozens of Antonys legions remained undefeated. They had no heart, no loyalty to the cause. Octavian's agents did good work. The Ceasarian name meant more and Antony's Alexandrian pretensions lost him his connection to his men.
The fact there is not one single land battle makes this war a real anticlimax. Yes, both sides had huge armies prepared for battle, Octavian's progagandists would not fail to mention if there had at least been something shred of something heroic on land to write encomiums about, as they did about Octavian's short war in Illyricum. They were forced instead to exagerrate the battle of Actium. The morale was so low that the desertions in Antony's camp began to spread to Octavians side, he was forced to retire and resettle legions before even finishing the occupation of Greece, thats how low morale was at this point for Romans fighting Romans, he retired old veterans so that the legions still under arms had something to look forward to. They were tired of these cynical power games between Roman dynasts going back to Pompey that cost them their lives. Everybody interested in the Augustan era and these questions should read Ronald Syme's "Roman Revolution" as well as the collection of essays "between republic and empire" edited by Raaflaub and Toher as a counterpoint to Syme. Syme portrays Octavian as a cold and calculating revolutionary figure with masterful use of propaganda, and his account begins with Pompey as the real death of the republic. Augustus is a real enigma to historians, but still, a likeable figure.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMalax (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 

Introduction a bit biased

Currently the second sentence reads like this "After the Roman Senate declared war on the Egyptian queen Cleopatra, Antony, her lover and ally, betrayed the Roman government and joined the war on Cleopatra’s side." It implies that Antony said a big "screw you" to Rome to join his mistress (actually she was probably his wife, by Egyptian law if not Roman). In reality the war was directed by Octavian with the Senate in Rome under his influence, while Antony had his government in exile (with 300 Senators joining him). To portray one as the legitimate Senate and call Antony the traitor is misleading, guided by Octavian propaganda and winners writing the history. Remember, Octavian had the oath of allegience for the war was sworn to him personally as opposed to the state of Rome.

From Shotter, David Augustus Caesar (1991) Routledge, London p. 23:

"The west was being prepared for a war that was portrayed not for what it really was- a civil war fought between two rivals for political supremacy- but as a great national crusade to defend Rome's integrity against Oriental barbarism and corruption."

From Syme, Ronald The Roman Revolution (1939, rpt 1974) Clarendon Press, Oxford p. 275:

"Created belief turned the scale of history. The policy and ambitions of Antonius or of Cleopatra were not the true cause of the War of Actium; they were a pretext in the strife for power, the magnificent lie upon which was built the supremacy of Caesar's heir [Octavian] and the resurgent nation of Italy. Yet, for all that, the contest soon assumed the august and solemn form of a war of ideas and a war between East and West."

Syme p. 288:

"The oath of allegience bound followers to a political leader in a private quarrel against his enemies, his inimici, not the enemies of the state (hostes)..."

As it is this reads as far too pro-Octavian.

130.95.108.79 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Antony's senate also included both current Roman consuls, making his Alexandrian Senate even more prestigious and arguably more legitimate than Octavian's.

220.253.171.107 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, at this point the consuls were designated by agreement between the triumvirs years before they took office. It just happened that both consuls of the year the war broke out were Anthony's men. As to the senators that fled to Antony - also his men - that was about a third of that august body. The situation is not comparable as to that in 49 BC when the senators who fled with Pompey formed a majority of that body and could arguably be called the real senate. In this final war, those who fled were a minority opposing the decision by the official senate. -- fdewaele. 9:41, 13 June 2013 (CET)

True enough about the consuls, but to say that the Senate in Rome was any more official than that at Epheseus (not Alexandria, my mistake) is a bit naive; Octavian brought armed men into the senate house for crying out loud. I'm not saying Antony was playing by the rules, I'm saying that Octavian wasn't either. To say that Antony's senate was full of Antony's supporters and therefore not valid ignores the fact that Octavian's senate was full of his. And regardless of how the consuls were appointed, the fact remains that the consuls of the day did support Antony, and as the (supposed) highest offices in Rome that surely lends credence to their organisation.

The point is that this was a civil war between two sides of the same government, not a war fighting internal insurgents as it is currently portrayed.

124.169.240.90 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Slow motion edit skirmishes over the infobox's "strength"

Re the recent edits to the infobox (it's always just the infobox) on the strength of the forces arrayed, policies state that we should have reliable sources for claims made in articles; this includes those for the strength of forces deployed at Actium (war or battle). This is always difficult, of course, for ancient conflicts; there is no extant Official History for these conflicts. A reliable source, preferably to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, should be included nevertheless. Ifly6 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Article dumbed down

the “background” section seems incredibly simplified. 100.1.132.140 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wgronwald6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wgronwald6 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)