How Can Octavian Lose the Battle of Actium?

I'm currently thinking of ways that Octavian could have lost the civil war against Marc Antony and Cleopatra and I'm guessing that Actium was probabaly one of the most decisive battles of Octavian and Antony's civil war. How then could Octavian lose Actium?
 
I'm currently thinking of ways that Octavian could have lost the civil war against Marc Antony and Cleopatra and I'm guessing that Actium was probabaly one of the most decisive battles of Octavian and Antony's civil war. How then could Octavian lose Actium?

Anthony manages to trick his way out of the battle all together. It gets decided on land where Caesar's right hand cuts down Octavian's Legions and installs a more blatent dynastic system on Rome with Caesar's son as the heir to the Empire.
 
Does Octavian actually get killed in the end? I'm aiming for him to live a bit longer, but in a reduced position. On the other hand, would Octavian's defeat actually prolong the Roman Republic and killing off the seed that became the Roman Empire?
 
Quintus Dellius does not defect to Octavian and doesn't betral Antony's plans to the enemy. Marcus Agrippa has an accident or gets ill, or Octavian decides he needs to prove his commanding abilities, so he decides to lead the battle personally - and AFAIK he wan't a good commander. Cleopatra has stronger nerves and Egyptian fleet actually engages the enemy.
 
1) No outbreak of malaria amongst Antony's crews. That will give him fully manned ships.

2) Less choppy seas thus making it easier for his ships to maneouvre.

Of course if in 32BC Antony had defeated and not retreated from Octavian's ships at Corcyra his army would have landed in Italy and we would be looking at a whole different scenario.
 
The Egyptian fleet can also lure Octavian's fleet inland and maybe Octavian would have to be forced to engage Antony and Cleopatra's forces, maybe?
 
On the other hand, would Octavian's defeat actually prolong the Roman Republic and killing off the seed that became the Roman Empire?

I can see Rome being partitioned or collapsing, but trying to restore the Republic would be like trying to resurrect a corpse.
 
I can see Rome being partitioned or collapsing, but trying to restore the Republic would be like trying to resurrect a corpse.

In this case, maybe Octavian still lives but as the biggest loser of the civil war against Marc Antony. With the Roman Republic on the verge of collapse, could Octavian (if he was still alive) be forced to rebuild his powerbase further north? I mean, while Antony and Cleopatra would take huge chunks out of the Roman edifice. Alternatively, could Octavian be content with ruling the Balkans though?
 
Last edited:
Does Octavian actually get killed in the end? I'm aiming for him to live a bit longer, but in a reduced position. On the other hand, would Octavian's defeat actually prolong the Roman Republic and killing off the seed that became the Roman Empire?

Interesting notion, but I have the idea Caesarian will be sitting on Rome's throne by the time he is 25 if he is even close to as competent militarily as his dad and politically as his mom.
 
I was also thinking of breaking the Roman Republic up into three domains though, with an idea about Agrippa becoming king in the east, and this may occure if Octavian is dead or alive.
 
Interesting notion, but I have the idea Caesarian will be sitting on Rome's throne by the time he is 25 if he is even close to as competent militarily as his dad and politically as his mom.

I certainly doubt it, for one thing because awesome isnt genetic especially for Roman Emperors, they've had some awful luck with genetics in the past. I mean the Macedonians may have been their longest chain of good emperors who where the kids of the previous emperor. For another, well frankly he wouldnt be Roman enough for the patricians back in Rome to allow it. He may well end up dead by a some new Cincinnati if he tries anything in politics.
 
Last edited:
Marc Antony lose the battle of Actium mostly because Quintus Dellius betray him and his plane to Octavian. Without this is likely who Antony's plan (who was broken the siege and take the fleet out and regroup his army in some other place) will be successful and Octavian can not use Actium for his propaganda because was vital for Antony and Cleopatra take their fleet (with the Egyptian treasure who was on Cleopatra's ships) out of Actium. The treasure alone (of which the Roman and Allies generals do not know anything) was the reason for which Antony need a naval and not land battle for exit from Actium because they can not transport his on land and can not left it to Octavian
 
I remember being taught that Agrippa was a brilliant naval commander but not Antony's equal on land. Is there any truth to this idea?
 
I remember being taught that Agrippa was a brilliant naval commander but not Antony's equal on land. Is there any truth to this idea?

It's hard to know since Agrippa didn't fight that many land battles. It's possible that Antony might be the better simply from weight of experience, but it's also possible that Agrippa was a real military wunderkind with the superior organizational skills that naval combat then required. I'd be inclined to give the hypothetical land victory to Antony, but with the caveat that Agrippa might well find a way to salvage the situation.
A post-Actium standoff in the event of a limited Antony victory is actually quite likely, in my opinion. The most likely long-term outcome is a severe decline in Roman power in the Eastern Med.
 
It's hard to know since Agrippa didn't fight that many land battles. It's possible that Antony might be the better simply from weight of experience, but it's also possible that Agrippa was a real military wunderkind with the superior organizational skills that naval combat then required. I'd be inclined to give the hypothetical land victory to Antony, but with the caveat that Agrippa might well find a way to salvage the situation.
A post-Actium standoff in the event of a limited Antony victory is actually quite likely, in my opinion. The most likely long-term outcome is a severe decline in Roman power in the Eastern Med.

Well, except that late Republican Rome didn't like long-sterm standoffs. In the long run, just as in the Mithridatic Wars, I imagine that Rome would keep sending forces against Antony and Cleopatra until the job was finished.
 
I was also wondering if there may be a cold peace between Octavian and Antony in the event of either a minor/Phyrric Antony victory in Actium or a stalemate. With the possible decline of Roman power in the Eastern Med, there is definitely no way Octavian would actually let Antony keep the east though.
 
Well, except that late Republican Rome didn't like long-sterm standoffs. In the long run, just as in the Mithridatic Wars, I imagine that Rome would keep sending forces against Antony and Cleopatra until the job was finished.

Stand-off is probably not the right phrase. More like a see-saw war, with Octavian and crew fending off an invasion of Italy, and then, who knows? If Octavian eventually prevails (and he has age and healthy lifestyle choices on his side) he wouldn't necessarily have defected Antony legions on his side, and the Asian monarchies would perhaps be harder to subdue or buy off. He might well conclude a peace with Cleopatra that sees her still in charge of Egypt. And of course Parthia would be rather stronger vis-a-vis everyone else. So I still see Roman power in the East not being what it was. The situation would be very unstable, and, it's anyone's guess how it would turn out in the long run.
 
Top