What if Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4632
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 16:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What if Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium?
Posted By: meninwhite
Subject: What if Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium?
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 16:46
| If Anthony and Cleopatra defeated Octavian at Actiem and took control of Rome and the Empire became Egyptian and they conquerd Parthia.What if thye discoved China,Korea and Japan would they try to Conquer them? |
Replies:
Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 17:21
|
Er... Anyway, I'll move this to Historical Amusement... ------------- τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι; |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 20:59
By the time of the Battle of Actium, the Romans had yet really to figure out how to defeat the Parthians, so conquest of them would have been a fantasy. The west already knew about the east and traded with them occasionally, so there would have been no "discovery". Even if they had been meeting for the first time, why would you try to conquer lands thousands of miles away from your capital? Administration of these lands would have been impossible. Besides, eastern development was at least equal of Rome's, perhaps even more advanced. The Chinese would have defeated any Roman force. The Roman Empire would not become Egyptian. The Ptolemies were a Hellenistic dynasty, so if anything, the Empire would have taken Greek characteristics. ------------- |
Posted By: meninwhite
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 22:35
|
If they had conquered all of India and Southeast Asia how would they reacte to seeing The Pacific Ocean? |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 23:35
I would imagine it would go something like this... Marc Antony - Hark! Behold yon briny deep! 'Tis a such an ocean that is vast and harmonious! Cleopatra - Indeed! Ocean! The Nile is made humble by thine exalted majesty! Marc Antony - My heart plays a descant of wonder! Cleopatra - Enough! My loins invite thee that I may manipulate thy political arbitration!  Seriously though, I would imagine that they would be awed. However, seeing the Pacific is hardly a satisfactory reward for marching thousands of miles and losing thousands of men. ------------- |
Posted By: meninwhite
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 00:14
|
What would they do if they reached Japan,Would they try to establish trade or present Egyptian and Greek ways to them? |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 00:29
|
I doubt the Japanese would ever accept Greek culture when they already have Chinese culture just next door.
------------- |
Posted By: meninwhite
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 00:41
| I mean would Cleoptra try to force it? |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 03:10
|
She, or any of the Ptolemies after the wars of the diadochi for that
matter, did not really care much about the spreading of Greek culture.
They were content with Egypt. The immediate area around Egypt barely
felt the Hellenistic culture. Sooooo, no she would probably just take
advantage of the luxuries that China offered... if it was conquered.
------------- |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 03:35
|
I think noone lucky in the batlles the best allwayays win octavian better than mark antony. antony wasn't great warior he never had a chance against octavian. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 23:47
|
Actually Marc Antony was an excellent general, but was known to cause
instability where ever he went. In other words, people found him annoying. Julius Ceasar was known to be
frequently annoyed by him. The civil war between Octavian and Antony
could have gone
either way.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 02:17
|
I just did Actium 3 days ago at uni, so I can speak on this with quite
fresh knowledge. Basically Antony SHOULD have won at Actium and he
SHOULD have won the civil war. Antony had by far the
richer, more sophisticated, better populated, more adcanced and
stronger half of the Roman world. Also, he definitely was a very
capable commander (20 years older than Octavian, with 20 years more
experience in warfare), which is what makes it so mind boggling that he
would force a naval engagement rather than coax his enemies into
fighting one on land. Historians are of two minds as to what Antony actually wanted. Sadly we are left with an extremely biased account of him due to Octavian going into over-kill with his anti-Antony propraganda (and we all know who writes history  ). But basically
historians say that either Antony wanted the whole Roman world as his
own, or that he was an individual heavily charmed by Hellenistic
culture who was only interested in the East and desired a joint
monarchy between himself and Kleopatra, with their capital being
Alexandria (a city which made the Rome of the time look rather quiant).Also Belisarius is quite right, Cleo was an Hellenic Queen and the Empire would more likely become more heavily influenced by Hellenism. As to marching into Asia, a few punitive expeditions against Parthia are pretty likely, but any major conquests are unlikely. Going further east than Parthia was an impossibility IMO. ------------- |
Posted By: meninwhite
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 02:30
| It turrns out Anthony wanted the Roman empire under his rule and to influnce in with Hellenism and then campaingn agaisnt Parthia I mean they might go father. |
Posted By: meninwhite
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 02:48
|
Hey The Brtish Empire did! |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 03:34
|
where is his victorious he defeated in the persian campaign He was a great lover not a leader if he military genius why he was defeat in actium ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 03:45
Well that is according to what has come down to us from Octavian, who took every opportunity he could to slander Antony as being under the insidious influence of this Hellenic Queen. In actual fact Antony proved to be a fairly good administrator, he in particular anited the various Kingdoms in Asia Minor by setting up a client-patron system between himself and them. In this way he ensured their loyalty, that they kept peace with eachother, that they provide troops and that the local territories remained loyal. He also did manage to adapt himself to Eastern warfare, managing to capture greater Armenia which he declared the property of one of his children by Cleo (much to the consternation of the men in Rome). He was an inexperienced and capable military commander, but why he allowed disasters like Actium and the invasion of Parthia to befall him leaves me a little stumped. The only thing our historical sources can attribute to him is his ever increasing drinking, his increasing infatuation with Cleo and the fact that as time went by he became more Hellenized and more inclined to pretend to be a god rather than remain a traditional pragmatic Roman commander. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 12:53
The British Empire was 1800 years later, with 1800 years of better technology, faster ships, and vastly improved ways to communicate. I do not think the British Empire would be a good example.
You seem not to realize that Actium and the Persian campaign were not Antony's only military ventures. He served under Julius Ceasar in Gaul and was instrumental in his victory there. He was not a military genius. We only say that he was an excellent general. Antony lost the Battle of Actium because he was not naval commander, but a field general. At sea, he was competent at best. As I have said before, by the time of the Second Triumvirate, the Romans were still stumped on how to beat the Parthians who fought in a way completely alien to them. I doubt even Ceasar could have beaten the Parthians with the current knowledge they had. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 16:24
| In my opinion if Antonius won at Actium the civil war would have been continued. Antonius was a better soldier than Octavian who wasnt a soldier at all but Romans wouldnt accept hellenic queen and her influence on the republic. Sooner of later in Italy, Gaul, Africa or Spain someone else would raise an army and lead it against Antonius. And Antonius definatelly didnt have the luck of Caesar nor had his skills. Actually I belive that most of the senators would leave Rome before Antonius arrived there, being scared of Antonius and new proscriptions. It was impossible to rule Rome without being accepted by Roman elites and they would never accept Antonius and his hellenic queen. Even if he subdued Rome it would be only matter of time when someone would assasinate him, just like Caesar was assasinated. Maybe Antonius was a better soldier than Octavian but Octavian was much better politician than Antonius. In political sence of this word Octavian was a heir of Caesar while Antonius wasnt. Altough the best people of Rome were already murdered during proscriptions of the second triumvirate, there still were some able politicians and generals who could overthrown Antonius. |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 17:13
|
The Chinese would have defeated any Roman force! (Belisarius wrote the first sentence) Belisarius how can you say something like this. Who do you think you are the master of military history or what! Do you even know the type of helmet the Roman army gave to the Legionaries in the Late Republic? Do you know the organization of the first cohort in a Legion in the Late Republic? Do you even know the types of spears the Auxiliaries used in the Late Republic? Do you know anything about the Roman army in the Late Republic with out researching it on the internet like a cheater? ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 19:53
|
Well that's rude. Is anyone else getting the impression that Rome is
just a little bit close-minded? Sir, I realize that you must be an avid
fan of Roman history, believe me I am too, but I really think you are
overreacting. I say again, the Chinese would have defeated any Roman force sent against them at this time. The Chinese were at a technological level far ahead of Rome by the Late Republic. The Chinese were making wide use of the crossbow when the Romans were still using slings and hand-proprelled projectiles as their main missile weapons. The Chinese ruled an empire that stretched from the Korean peninsula to the Himalayas when the Romans were still struggling to conquer the Italian peninsula. The entire standing Roman army at the time of the Late Republic was at about 350,000 men. The Chinese had about a million defending their capital alone. The eastern Roman empire grew rich because of trade with the east. China was where most of this trade originated. That said, Antony will not be sending the entire Roman army in this eastern expedition. To do so would leave the empire undefended. He would be sending a group of legions, a fraction of the Roman armed forces. Would this army be sufficient to conquer an entire empire, defended by an army of well-trained, well-equipped men numbering in the millions, with the vast resources of China behind them? The historical argument finished, you proceeded to insult my intelligence and my integrity. I do not presume to be the master of military history. I have always endeavored to make the most neutral and logical comments possible. If there is anyone reading this believes otherwise, plese make yourself known. It seems that you are suggesting that you are the master of military history. You call me a cheater when it comes to research. I have not spent hours of my life reading scores of books with pages numbering in the hundreds for someone to tell me that my history knowledge comes from the internet. I would like an apology and we can forget this little scuffle ever happened. Then we can return to discussing this topic without any more outbursts. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 20:37
|
Rome, Belisarius is quite right here. I love Roman history too but let's face the fact that for most of its history since 220 BC China has been the most militarily and economically viable state on the planet. There is a reason Rome fell long ago and China retains a history continuous to the present. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 21:25
|
Bah, how many times is this thread going to be carted around from one forum to another?! ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 23:42
|
Hey Belisarius Rome of the Late Republic was not still conquering Italy and it was larger then the chinese dynasty of the time' and also the roman army in the Late Republic had many siege weapons and technology they got from the greeks. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 00:32
|
I never said that Rome of the Late Republic was still conquering Italy. I said that while the Romans were still conquering Italy, the Chinese Empire spanned from the Korean peninsula to the Himalayas. It is true that the Romans may have controlled a little bit more territory than the Han, but a lot of this excess was uninhabited frontier in the west. There is also the fact that the Roman Empire's population at this time was about 40 - 45 million, compared to the 70 million the Han controlled. Greek technology? Give me an example of Greek military technology, besides siege weapons, that the Romans implemented because to be honest, I can not think of any. Siege weapons? These are not much good unless you are trying to take a city, and the Romans would be defeated long before they reached a walled town. The Chinese had their own versions of the ballista and trebuchet-like weapons. I now iterate. The Chinese were on a technological level higher than that of the west. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 02:54
|
What ever Belisarius. you think you know alot about the roman army of the late republic but you dont even know one fourth of it. So I suggest you just do some research. witch will take you a while because of many different opinions on the subject. Also what are you talking about saying the western provinces were uninhabited? are you forgeting the Iberian tribes and the gallic ones resently conquered by the romans that were now part of the dwindling Republic. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 09:05
|
What he means is that the western provinces were poorly populated
compared to nations like China. This was an inherent problem which
remained until the population explosions we see from the 10th-14th
centuries AD, long after the Roman Empire had collapsed. If we look at
the Roman Empire in 360 AD we see it divided in two, when civil war
broke out between the two the Western Emperor Julian could only muster
30-40,000 men for his march eastward. Now this is after a long period
of Roman rule with long established government and military
institutions. Let's go back to China during the Warring States period in the middle of the first millenium BC (about 1000 years before Julian went on his civil war). In this period China was divided into roughly 12 warring states. Now in one battle during this period the state of Qin was successful. After the battle they found they had amassed a total enemy deathcount of 480,000 men! Nothing the Romans fielded in one battle compared to that (and that's just the defeated army, the victorious one was larger) This is the defeated army of ONE of 12 major states in pre-Shi Huang De China. Now can you imagine half a millennium down the track with all those states united how absolutely enormous the military manpower of China was? It easily dwarfed anything Rome was able to put into the field. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 14:04
Frankly, now I am speechless. My research sufficient, it is your sources which I suspect need some verifying. All this time that I spoken with you, not once have you presented any historical facts or suggested any probably scenarios to support your theory. All you have been saying is, "Rome is the best, no one can beat Rome, because Rome is the best and everyone else is useless". If you know so much about Roman history, then tell us how you think a single Roman army could subjugate all of China instead of how you believe I am wrong. If I am so wrong, prove it. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 18:19
|
Thats funny that you underestimate my intelligence on Rome because I havent gone full indeplth on the things I say. Hey Belisarius you really are a funny person saying that when I dont say anything indepth that its funny. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 18:21
|
But you have not said anything to support your claims at all, so it is funny that you would suggest you could go in depth at all. Well go ahead then. Don't hold back. I am always up for historical discussion. It is when somebody insults my intelligence and my integrity then does nothing but make childish comments that I get upset. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 23:39
|
Hey Belisarius you really are a funny person saying that when I dont say anything indepth that its funny. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 23:55
|
Belisarius come on explain. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:19
|
Can you be any more immature? You have yet to present any
arguments other than the "
All this said, I ask you again, how can a singular Roman army conquer all of the Han Empire? Please, say something mature this time. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:54
|
ok I will say that the roman army could not have conquered china and also thanks for the great info. so no hard fellings. though I do have to say do not underestimate the legions of Caesar because I still think Caesars 10 Legions, Numidian cavalry, Gallic cavalry, German cavalry, Balearic slingers, and Cretan archers could put up a good fight against a Han army. Were do you get your info because Ive been look for that info for a while. Also Im truly sorry for what I said. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:09
|
It is no problem at all. We are all on this forum so we can learn from
each other, as long as we keep an open mind. Roman history, especially
Byzantine history, is my favorite era in history. For what I wrote above, I used information from the Osprey series of books on ancient China. There are also many books on Rome made by Osprey. Otherwise, I read lots of encyclopedias, talk with professors, and e-mail historians. ------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:22
|
how do you know these historians and do you know anyone that can help me with finding out exactly how many people were in the legion in the time of Caesar and the amount of men were in Caesars Cavalry forces (Gaulic, German, and Numidian). Trust me its hard finding info on the subject because I have been searching for a while. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:27
|
I do not know any historians personally, I just find their names on
articles, books and things like that. If precise numbers are what you
are looking for, Dr. Kenneth W. Harl is some one you should get in
touch with. He is a professor at Tulane University and you could
probably get his e-mail at the Tulane site.
------------- |
Posted By: Rome
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:34
|
what is the exact site name. ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 08:44
|
I found it for you. I do not know if posting e-mail is allowed, so I'll pm you it. ------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2011 at 15:59
| Best title of this topic would be:Why Cleopatra has lost the battle of Actium!?! |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2011 at 18:10
|
Good old Cleo! What a girl! But not much of an admiral! Perhaps she should have used a lot of Greek Merc's?/pirates?
I consider this just another version of almost any of the plays done before and after Shakespeare! Mostly it is Bull-sh-t!" Please report any "real" facts, that support such a battle, or even the existance of her? By the use of the word "real", I would suggest an account of this war and its subsequent end, engraved within stone? Or better yet, found within surviving papyrus letters, etc.? Just where are the stones? And, if they do exist, just how were they dated? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2011 at 18:53
|
Social security number was personal data those days also! My intention was:Were her connections with Mark Antony reason for battle above?!?Official history told us,Mark had been sent in Egypt,as Cleopatra's assassinator!?!According to data about the Second Triumvirate,alliance with Cleopatra was just his personal escape out of Augustus's assassins .He had found his existence in Triumvirate unsecured.Their army was destroyed from inside.Who did this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Triumvirate |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2011 at 04:34
|
Do you know main motive for this?Egypt had controlled all trading routes with China,India and Africa.Cause those days ship trading was mostly practiced,Rome had created Empire with known coastal lines.Control of trading and huge sea armada was main strategy for British Empire in beginning of 19 century also! |