Caesar Antonius Augustus

In 30 BC, Marcus Antonius and his wife, Cleopatra Ptolemy VII, assembled their Roman and Egyptian forces to meet those of Octavian Caesar at the Battle of Actium off the coast of Greece. As Octavian proposed a sea battle, he employed the expertise of Marcus Agrippa. Antonius, more adequate at warfare than Octavian, followed the advice of his land general, Publius Canidius Crassus, and made ready to spill Roman blood on the rugged Grecian terrain. Knowing he was outmatched but in full defiance of the scandalous actions of Antonius and Cleopatra, Octavian agreed to a land battle. Fighting with the heavy infantry, cavalry, and auxiliary forces of the Fourth legion, Antonius routed those of Octavian, the Egyptians chasing down the remnants and slaughtering those who would not defect to Antonius.

Antonius and Cleopatra moved north and stayed in Macedonia in late August of 30 BC, the general dispatching a courier back to Rome to deliver word of his victory over Julius Caesar's great-nephew. Antonius and Cleopatra took their time and enjoyed their spoils in Macedonia, birthplace of Alexander the Great and his general, Ptolemy I (Cleopatra's oldest descendent). Within weeks, Antonius and Cleopatra were presented in Rome. Cleopatra threw banquets for the Senators and Roman elite in the Palatine palace of Antonius, changing their preconceived notions of her. Antonius was soon pronounced princeps, and was then named after his good friend Julius Caesar and the month in which he defeated Octavian...Caesar Antonius Augustus.

In early 29, Cleopatra returned to Alexandria, Antonius Augustus occasionally taking leave of Rome to visit his wife in the land of her ancestors. Ptolemy Caesarion, the son Cleopatra had by Julius Caesar, was adopted by Antonius and named successor to the throne of Rome. As it was Ptolemaic custom, Cleopatra's twins by Antonius, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene II, married upon the death of their mother in year 24, and ruled Alexandria together, carrying on a Ptolemaic monarchy in Egypt. Their younger brother, Ptolemy Philadelphus, was appointed advisor and chief military commander for his older siblings in 13 BC. He died in 9 BC on the plains of Parthia, attempting to bring to fruition to campaign planned by his father, Antonius, in the year 42.

After the death of Caesar Antonius Augustus in 16 AD, Emperor Caesarion Caesar launched a massive military campaign against the Parthians under the guidence of the son of Publius Canidius Crassus, who had exeeded his father in terms of Roman military conquest. Caesarion did not see the Parthians fall to their knees. He died in 14 AD, his son by Glaphyra Minor of Cappadocia succeeding him and carrying the Romans further into empire under Roman-Ptolemaic custom.
 
Last edited:
A Iulio-Antonian dynasty, very interesting; but i want to know more exactly the end of Octavian and Agrippa (dead? imprisoned? exiled?)

And when you said Antony's twins ruled over Alexandria that means Caesarion renounced the Egyptian throne for becoming emperor?

Then, Antony in this TL give to their sons the control of Syria-Palestine and Cyprus?

Finally, about Caesarion's marriage: it's reasonable he married a oriental princess, but the Romans in the early principate could accepted a too oriented oriental dynasty?

Be patient, it's because i'm very intrigued to this TL (at this point i think you all understand i have a passion for alternative Roman TL)
 
Just as Octavian would have killed Antonius, Antonius does the same to Octavian. As the battle doesn't end up taking place at sea, Agrippa is not there, as Octavian dismisses him because he's decided to fight on land.

Caesarion bears his father's name, and although raised most of his life in Alexandria, honors Caesar by taking Rome and bringing a Ptolemaic dynastic culture to it.

The twins would be too young to govern in the Eastern territories, but by the time Cleopatra dies, they are the obvious choice, ruling together. The yougest Ptolemy could take this task on, or one of the territories, but it could also be possible for a Roman prefect to govern Syria and so on.

Good questions. I should have more clear. If you have more disputes, feel free, mate.
 
Some suggestions: If Agrippa was dismissed, i think it's reasonable supposed he survived; so let him received the grace from Antony and later as historical allowed him to marry Octavian's daughter Iulia, so creating however the Iulio-Claudian family (Agrippa later died and Iulia married Tiberius, then Agrippina Maior married Germanicus etc.) and making them as the leaders of hidden repubblican opposition but with legitimate claims to the principate thanks to the common heritage of Iulius Caesar: this surely created a more troubled situation in Rome :D

I think also you must concentrate about cultural and religious matters: surely the religious impact change radically, also in relation of both Christianesim and Mythraism (i imagine a more hard proselitism); about culture, the fall of Octavian means also that of Maecenas, so no his circle; but doesn't mean for example that Virgil didn't wrote Aeneid (pratically i think he could write an Aeneid in honour of Caesarion instead of Octavian). Alas, the monumental story of both Rome and Alexandria changed as well, so it could be interesting see the alternative evolution of the cities.

Naturally they are only suggestion, it is your right to develop your TL as you like.
 
Very interesting idea, but I have something to dispute:
1. The eighth month was renamed in 8 BC as August in honor of Augustus, not the other way around. Octavian get the title because it means "majestic" and "venerable". So maybe you should choose another title for Antony?
2. Why would the Romans accept Antony as princeps? In OTL Octavian get all the titles, positions, and honors because he was carefully conceiving his true power and authority, and maintaining the facade of Republic. IMO Antony wouldn't really care with Rome at all and let the Senate running the government, while he will stay in Egypt with Cleopatra...
 
Ryu,

Good suggestions, my Romanesco friend. Of course, you speak of smaller details while gave the big picture. I should've explored all possibilies more closely. These are great findings though, surely to be taken into consideration. In further postings, maybe I will take on the cultural and religious change brought on by the Macedonian-Egyptian influence. Of course, we would have probably never had a Constantinople and would've had no terrible emperors such as Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero. As you said, Agrippa probably would have been pardoned by Antonius and therefore would have played a large role in the family line. But, you're right, Agrippina Minor would have been born and would've probably still married Germanicus, thus giving birth to Gaius Caligula. But, maybe Antonius doesn't adopt Tiberius? And if Tiberius had never become emperor, neither would have Caligula. Part of Caligula's madness had to do with what Tiberius did to his family members and what he was forced to wtiness at Capri (I think the other part of his madness was due to lead poisoning). So basically, no Tiberius, no tyrannical Caligula.


Rex,

I am a Roman historian and everything I have read about Octavian's ascent tell me was called Augustus for the month of his victory, as he did defeat Antonius and Cleopatra in late August of 30. Basically, the shoe would be on the other foot. Antonius would have defeated Octavian in August instead, and would be honored in this way. I think in order to escape the possible assassination that Caesar had faced, Antonius would have ruled proficiently in Rome, occasionally sailing to Alexandria to reunite with his wife (and vice versa). It's possible that Antonius would have had the Senate run things in Rome, but knowing his character, I think would have much rather preferred to be emperor. He was fair and just, but he was also Antonius, bravado ruling many of his decisions. Good points and ideas, though, and thanks for your suggestions.
 
Very interesting idea, but I have something to dispute:
1. The eighth month was renamed in 8 BC as August in honor of Augustus, not the other way around. Octavian get the title because it means "majestic" and "venerable". So maybe you should choose another title for Antony?
2. Why would the Romans accept Antony as princeps? In OTL Octavian get all the titles, positions, and honors because he was carefully conceiving his true power and authority, and maintaining the facade of Republic. IMO Antony wouldn't really care with Rome at all and let the Senate running the government, while he will stay in Egypt with Cleopatra...

Augustus derive from "Augeo", which means increase (the prosperity of Roman people); it was originally a honorific title with religious valence, and only with Diocletian become a costitutional title. Octavian chosen that title instead to "Romulus", which was too monarchic, and we must remember his first costitutional role was that of "princeps", which is the first of all senators. The main wrong statement about the Roman Empire is thinking was a pure monarchy, while it was only by fact: istitutionally, the Republic was never abolished, the same Augustus talked of "Res Publica Restitutio" in the Res Gestae. Octavian accurately chosen to not use monarchical titles, and he remained on the republican legitimacy in all his reforms.

In this case we have Antony as only winner in the civil war:but he couldn't impose a pure monarchy because the Romans, or to better say the Senate, will never accept this radical solution, and staying in Egypt sure make in the end his position more difficult ( the senate, the older supporters of Octavian could easily reorganize). So Antony, even if he wanted to stay with Cleopatra, must remained in Rome to reorganize the Republic, creating the Principate; and because Augustus is not a familiar title, Antony could claim as well.
 
Rex,

I am a Roman historian and everything I have read about Octavian's ascent tell me was called Augustus for the month of his victory, as he did defeat Antonius and Cleopatra in late August of 30.

This is why he's called Sextilius??? When was the month renamed to August? After this, no?
 
This is why he's called Sextilius??? When was the month renamed to August? After this, no?

August was originally named Sextilis in Latin, because it was the sixth month in the original ten month Roman calendar under Romulus in 753 BC, when March was the first month of the year. About 700 BC it become the eighth month when January and February were added to the year before March by King Numa Pompilius. And then in 8 BC it was renamed by the Senate, like I said before, in honor of Augustus.
Btw, there is also one story that Augustus chose this month to take his name rather than his birth month (September), which was traditional, as a mark of honour to the defeated Queen Cleopatra the last ruler of Egypt, this being her birth month.

Anyway, RyuDrago have some good answers to my question, and therefore I agree that there is also a possibility that Antony chose the title "Augustus" too...
 
Dear author,
just a little note.
Powerful as Antonius may be, he cannot declare Caesarion "heir to his throne", since he is not emperor in the modern sense of the term, but princeps inter pares (first among equals) in the senatus.
The (maybe fictional) continuity of Republican institutions is the only way to manage Rome at the time.
Thus, Antonius could declare Caesarion as heir of his personal patrimony, which would mean also to declare him as his political heir and giving him a big push forward towards the position, but not to appoint him as heir to the imperial throne, since such a throne did not exist yet, neither metaphorically nor as a golden chair
 
Good point. But, I posed my possibilty supposing Antonius proposed the same changes as Augustus, making room for an emperor.
 
Good point. But, I posed my possibilty supposing Antonius proposed the same changes as Augustus, making room for an emperor.

Mailinutile2 was right, in OTL Augustus didn't go around and telling everyone that Tiberius is the "heir to the throne". Instead he share, legally and officially, all of his powers and titles: Imperium Maius (commander of all of the Roman legions), Princeps Senatus (head of the senate), Tribunicia Potestas (head of all of the tribunes/magistrates), and Pontifex Maximus (supreme religious leader).
Maybe Antony will follow that route...?
 
Dear author,
just a little note.
Powerful as Antonius may be, he cannot declare Caesarion "heir to his throne", since he is not emperor in the modern sense of the term, but princeps inter pares (first among equals) in the senatus.
The (maybe fictional) continuity of Republican institutions is the only way to manage Rome at the time.
Thus, Antonius could declare Caesarion as heir of his personal patrimony, which would mean also to declare him as his political heir and giving him a big push forward towards the position, but not to appoint him as heir to the imperial throne, since such a throne did not exist yet, neither metaphorically nor as a golden chair

No, Antony could claim Caesarion as his heir if he extended to him the tribunicia potestate and the imperium proconsulare maius, as Octavian did with Agrippa and then to Tiberius; Caesarion could become a princeps iuventutis and so he become the legitimate heir.
 
No, Antony could claim Caesarion as his heir if he extended to him the tribunicia potestate and the imperium proconsulare maius, as Octavian did with Agrippa and then to Tiberius; Caesarion could become a princeps iuventutis and so he become the legitimate heir.

Well, that's not "claim a heir" literally. Most of the Romans were still believing that they live in Republican, not Imperial, state. Officially and legally, as OTL Augustus himself claimed, it was only a "power-sharing".
 
Of course, Antonius would not be the sole power. Just as Octavian proclaimed, the rule of Antonius would also be one of power-sharing with the Senate. But he would still recognized as emperor.
 
Top