WI: Cleopatra and/or Antony escape to India?

[SlyDessertFox]

I strongly dispute this. Cleopatra was playing the geo-political game on extreme difficulty with virtually no external allys of note, there was literally no one or nobody that could’ve been put in her position and been likely to succeed without Rome being sucked into a time vortex by Alien Space Bats.

Here's his argument, if you want to check it out.

Obviously read the whole article to get his argument but here's his thesis paragraph:

And I won’t bury the lede here: Cleopatra, it seems to me, chose the interests of her dynasty – (and her own personal power) over those of Egypt whenever there was a choice and then failed to secure either of those things. Remember, we don’t have a lot in the way of sketches of Cleopatra’s character (and what we have is often hostile); apart from a predilection to learn languages and to value education, it’s hard to know what Cleopatra liked. But we can see her strategic decisions, and I think those speak to a ruler who evidently was unwilling or unable to reform Egypt’s ailing internal governance (admittedly ruined by generations of relatively poor rule), but who shoveled the resources she had into risky gambles for greater power outside of Egypt, all of which failed. That doesn’t necessarily make Cleopatra a terrible ruler, or even the worst Ptolemaic ruler, but I think it does, on balance, make her a fairly poor ruler, or at best a mediocre one.

You are kind of right in that Cleopatra could not succeed in the position she was in. I think what you miss though is that this was a position of her own creation. Egypt did not have to get absorbed into the empire during her rule, just as it had not done so during the rule of Auletes or anyone between him and Ptolemy X Alexander. And Egypt's direct absorption into the empire is wholly unique for Octavian's foreign policy in the east and imperial Rome's eastern foreign policy until the middle of the 1st century. None of the other client rulers of the east were absorbed into the Roman Empire by Augustus, and there were plenty of them (and all of them had sided with Antony, though crucially none had thrown in everything to his cause. They kept at least some of their options open). The only other example of this in the period of the civil wars is Pontus, and for similar reasons as Cleopatra's fate-Pharnaces made a similar mistake Cleopatra did.

Cleopatra made a gamble that she did not have to make, made a serious of super risky decisions that were not necessary (but in theory had a high reward were they to pay off). They were unwise gambles, and so she lost her kingdom and her life. We know rulers in her position (being a foreign monarch in a far, far weaker position to Rome in the east) could have succeeded (read: survived) in that position because most of them did so, largely because they bowed to reality and accepted their position as clients in their relationship to Rome. Cleopatra, like Pharnaces, had loftier ambitions than that, but lacked the political skills or resources to pull it off.

Anyway, he addresses this in the blog:

And here is where the normal argument is that Cleopatra can’t be faulted because the position of an monarch in the Eastern Mediterranean trying to survive the chaotic Roman civil wars was an impossible one, to which the obvious counter example suggests itself: Cleopatra’s own local rival Herod. Herod backed Antonius too, but unlike Cleopatra who was a reckless gambler strategically, he was cautious and kept his options open and so when Antonius lost, Herod was in a position to be able to bargain with Octavian and keep his throne, his life and his dynasty. This was not an impossible needle to thread – though it was doubtless very difficult – but it seems to have required a degree of caution that Cleopatra lacked. The irony is that Herod certainly seems in the sources a much less talented fellow than Cleopatra, just more cautious, though certainly no less ruthless.


For Cleopatra’s gamble, then, what was the payoff? It was certainly not a better deal for the Egyptians. Instead, what Antonius eventually promised her – the ‘Donations of Alexandria’ – were huge chunks of Roman territory: Cyprus, Cilicia, Cyrenaica, Syria and Armenia, with Cleopatra’s children also getting titles as rulers of Media and Parthia which Antonius presumably hoped to conquer but hadn’t. Actually reassembling those territories would have recreated a kingdom on the core combined Ptolemaic and Seleucid territories, the closest thing to reconstituting Alexander’s empire that anyone had done since the end of the fourth century.


And I think we need to understand that this is what Cleopatra – cash-strapped, debasing the currency – is buying with the wealth of Egypt: an empire outside of Egypt. By spending her money backing Antonius first against Parthia and then against Octavian, she’s hoping to buy a renewed Macedonian Empire. There are a lot of things she could have spent that wealth on. She could have tried to rebuild an Egyptian army worth the name, or engaged in actual legitimacy building in Egypt, or simply stabilized the currency. She doesn’t do those things: she has money in her pocket and so she gambles it on empire.


And loses. Again. Now our sources for the Battle of Actium (31) are not great; they cannot agree, for instance, on how many ships were present and of course they are uniformly hostile to Cleopatra. Nevertheless there are some things that are pretty clear: Antonius’ key supporters recognized almost immediately that having Cleopatra with the combined land-and-naval force was a liability. They also seem generally to have opposed her military judgment, which given that Cleopatra has, at this point, mishandled every army and fleet she has ever touched, seems reasonable. But Cleopatra doesn’t seem to have wanted to leave and given the extent of her support, Antonius could hardly send her away. Her insistence on staying motivated the defections of several of Antonius’ key supporters, both Roman but also some of his client kings. Cleopatra also pushed Antonius to formally divorce Octavia, a political misstep that empower Octavian’s PR machine in Italy. In short, as in Rome in 46-4 and as in Alexandria in 51-49, Cleopatra, while charming, intelligent and eloquent, seems to have been quite bad at the basics of managing difficult politics, alienating people Antonius needed to not alienate just as her pre sence in Rome alienated people Caesar needed to not alienate. ... I find it striking at this point that Antonius and Cleopatra return to Egypt after the battle and, as far as we can tell, make no effort to prepare for Octavian’s inevitable invasion. Antonius makes some desultory efforts en route to gather some of his remaining Roman forces (these fail), but Cleopatra doesn’t seem to have, for instance, attempted to raise an Egyptian army to defend Egypt. Cleopatra spends the rest of 31 trying to negotiate with Octavian, but makes no effort to prepare a defense of Egypt or even to raise a meaningful army which might serve as a bargaining tool. Crucially, and I think this serves as a rather grim final word on Cleopatra’s efforts – however substantial they may have been – to woo the Egyptian people. Even with a foreign invader on Egypt’s doorstep, there’s no evidence of any native Egyptian rallying to Cleopatra’s cause.

 

[Elfwine]

Cleopatra made a gamble that she did not have to make, made a serious of super risky decisions that were not necessary (but in theory had a high reward were they to pay off). They were unwise gambles, and so she lost her kingdom and her life. We know rulers in her position (being a foreign monarch in a far, far weaker position to Rome in the east) could have succeeded (read: survived) in that position because most of them did so.

Do you think that she'd make similar gambles if she escapes to the east, or would this one failing make her more cautious in any attempts at power?

Edited: It seems like her making that escape with anything but her life (And Antony's) would take someone able/willing to make some different choices in the first place, but such a someone might still believe they're better at this than they really are.

 

[Belisarius II]

IIRC, this was actually Pompey's idea after Pharsalus. Go to India (or at least, somewhere beyond the Persians), and get himself hired as a general or advisor. I'm not sure if Antony could pull that off. Perhaps if Cleopatra brings Ceasarion?

Sure, they could live like wealthy exiles, but what would be the point? Antony was a broken man who would lose the last of his honor as a Roman of his class. Cleopatra would become a nonentity, which was what she spent her whole life fighting not to be. Caesarion would be a curiosity as the only son of the Great Ceasar. He could end up like the Bonny Prince Charles. A drunken wastrel of a failed dynasty.

By killing themselves they forever became the star-crossed lovers, and Antony became once more a noble Roman. His children by the sister of Augustus carried his noble line forward into the age of the Empire. As for Caesarion, like Napoleon's son he never got a break, nobody today knows who he was. It's tough living up to a father like that.

 

[Belisarius II]

Hmm, yes that makes my idea seem even more implausible than it already was. Unfortunately, a still-pagan Ancient Egyptian kingdom being found in South Africa during the Age of Exploration seems like it might make for a great TL. (Or Crusader Kings II mod; they already have an Aztec Invasion, so why not an Ancient Egyptian Invasion from South Africa?)

Though, I suppose it might depend on their personalities. I do not know whether Cleopatra and Marc Anthony were the kind of person to go 'I'd rather be ruler of a town at the end of the world than a mere rich noble in a prosperous and civilized country'.

In 30 BCE they're not young anymore ether. Antony was 53, and Cleopatra was 39 or 40. That doesn't seem old today but at the time people aged faster, and healthcare was primitive. Adventures are for the young and bold.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Do you think that she'd make similar gambles if she escapes to the east, or would this one failing make her more cautious in any attempts at power?

Edited: It seems like her making that escape with anything but her life (And Antony's) would take someone able/willing to make some different choices in the first place, but such a someone might still believe they're better at this than they really are.

I imagine the game is up at that point and she just settles into exile. She'll have money, but not enough to really do anything with-perhaps get involved in local court politics wherever she is. But regardless of what remains of her ambitious, she doesn't seem to be delusional or megalomaniacal. I imagine she'd be able to see the writing on the wall much as anyone else.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Here's his argument, if you want to check it out.

Obviously read the whole article to get his argument but here's his thesis paragraph:

That´s not the part which I meant to emphasize.
Cleopatra´s political skills for her own benefit is what I meant.

In any case it is clear that Cleopatra achieved no groundswell of support in Egypt in those early years: she had to raise her army in Syria and in the event it wasn’t the stronger force as she and Caesar spent the winter of 48/7 besieged in Alexandria by Ptolemy XIII’s then larger army

while she was by all accounts very intelligent, she doesn’t seem to have been very good at all of the skills necessary to actually succeed at those gambles. But how am I seeing the pattern here?

Well, Cleopatra appears in our sources in 51 BC at the death of her father, being made co-ruler with her brother Ptolemy XIII. As noted in the timeline above, within the year she is at odds with her brother and his advisors and by 49 is clearly on the losing side of the dispute. It is not surprising that the twenty-year-old Cleopatra lacked the political acumen to outmaneuver Potheinos and Ptolemy XIII’s other key supporters but it is worth noting that she does indeed lack it. In noted contrast to Octavian who at 20 is busy outmaneuvering Antonius and Cicero in Rome to claim the mantle of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar.

When Cleopatra was playing politics for herself (51...48), she was pissing off neutrals and rallying people to her opponents. When she was an ally of one powerful man (Caesar 46...44, Antonius 33...30), she was still pissing off neutrals/his allies and being a load for him - perhaps dragging down both.

With money and some soldiers in India, what would Cleopatra accomplish?
Conquer, gain more allies and found a new empire?
Buy herself a safe retirement?
Piss off her prospective hosts and the captains who joined her in exile, and get robbed and murdered or extradited?

 

[Parmenion]

Sure, they could live like wealthy exiles, but what would be the point? Antony was a broken man who would lose the last of his honor as a Roman of his class. Cleopatra would become a nonentity, which was what she spent her whole life fighting not to be. Caesarion would be a curiosity as the only son of the Great Ceasar. He could end up like the Bonny Prince Charles. A drunken wastrel of a failed dynasty.

By killing themselves they forever became the star-crossed lovers, and Antony became once more a noble Roman. His children by the sister of Augustus carried his noble line forward into the age of the Empire. As for Caesarion, like Napoleon's son he never got a break, nobody today knows who he was. It's tough living up to a father like that.

I agree their story would probably end at this point, but the people with real potential are their children. I can imagine many greekoid kings would be eager for their dynasty to have a legitimate claim to Egypt through a direct decendant of the diadochi. I could see Cleopatra's daughter marrying the heir, or Cesarion perhaps marrying a kings daughter and taking over when things go South for the Indo-Greeks around the turn of the millenium. Antony might also be able to make himself useful with Greco-Roman military reforms.

 

[Belisarius II]

I agree their story would probably end at this point, but the people with real potential are their children. I can imagine many greekoid kings would be eager for their dynasty to have a legitimate claim to Egypt through a direct decendant of the diadochi. I could see Cleopatra's daughter marrying the heir, or Cesarion perhaps marrying a kings daughter and taking over when things go South for the Indo-Greeks around the turn of the millenium. Antony might also be able to make himself useful with Greco-Roman military reforms.

Almost anything is possible. You could write a TL like that, and it could be very interesting. I just thought that if they ran away their whole legend as tragic lovers in history would be lost. Cleopatra dying from a cobra bit that would make her immortal in death was the greatest ending she could have. Antony dying on his own sword was the proper ending for a great Roman lord defeated in war. In death he retrieved his honor in the eyes of his countrymen. Running away would diminish him in the eyes of his fellow Romans and to himself. As for their children the future for them in the East is open for your imagination.

As for Antony as a military advisor yes, he could do that, but it's not like they never had access to other generals since the time of Alexander to help them. The problem with converting to Greco-Roman tactics is they conflict with the local conditions of climate, and culture. They had their own methods of warfare which were very effective. The Persians never started fighting like Romans but refined their doctrine to deal with them. After all they'd defeated Antony. Antony was a successful subordinate commander under Ceasar but was unsuccessful in supreme command. Anthony lacked the strategic genius of a commander like Ceasar or Belisarius but was a good tactician.

 

[Parmenion]

snip

I just might take you up on that once I'm finished with my current TL, thanks for the idea

 

[prani]

Apparently after Actium Cleopatra came up with plan to escape to India. The plan ran into trouble and Antony convinced her to give up. What if it worked? Could the two of them make a name for themselves in the Greco-Indian kingdoms?

Greco Indian kingdoms is a bad idea cause they by the time of the end of the Roman Republic was on its last legs, Indo Scythians, Indo Parthians (Rather the branch of the Parni tribe that broke off into India they were more of allies to the Iranian Parthians) had overthrown them and finally the Kushanas assimilated whatever Greek influence into their empire in a one last big Hurrah of Hellenism, as eventually Kushanas went native with Iranic religion and Indic religions.

IF they want to be successful they should head for the western coast of India, these parts are well isolated, fertile, plenty of water, lots of spices, lot of city states who were united under the Mandala system of Hindu/Buddhist politics. If they make off with a lot of the wealth they could set up a city state easily, if they make off with some of the wealth it would be a beginning of a very powerful family on the western coast

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Like others have said, if they actually get away to India with some supporters and gold they won’t do anything really (if they evade assassination and all) and won’t be as famous as iotl without their tragic and story worthy deaths. They’ll be interesting footnotes in history at best. Maybe we know a bit about their lives post exile and hear a few things about their kids and grandkids and then they fade from history as just a rich family of foreign origins. Maybe a future rebellion in Egypt or something is lead by someone claiming to be a descendent of cleopatra? Maybe with their money and skills they can somehow prevent the last of the Greek kingdoms from falling? But I find that unlikely.

 

[prani]

They’ll be interesting footnotes in history at best. Maybe we know a bit about their lives post exile and hear a few things about their kids and grandkids and then they fade from history as just a rich family of foreign origins.

pretty much, if they did come to the west coast, they'll blend in with other Romans and Greeks ( People who are most likely from the Middle east, we actually had very few Italic people here as Merchants but we did have a lot of Greeks) like my city had Roman and Greek trading emporiums and some of the prominent local (native) trading families did inter-marry and soon the lines between the Barbarian ( Melech) and Native would disappear as they are absorbed and they will forget their origins barring a few descendants.

Like there has been speculation that some Roman and Greek politicians or business men back during those days did end up in India's west coast when they fell foul of local Roman governor. But then again these are not Romans of European origin but then again Roman Empire is pretty Mediterranean-West Asian in character so that should not be much of a surprise.

Like others have said, if they actually get away to India with some supporters and gold they won’t do anything really (if they evade assassination and all) and won’t be as famous as iotl without their tragic and story worthy deaths.

They will be remembered like Kaiser Valerian but for very different reasons. I mean Marc Antony and Cleopatra were prominent people, they were not nobodies like some Syrian/Anatolian/Greek/Egyptian Merchant or politician in exile because he ran foul of local authorities. I am pretty sure the Romans would start a propaganda campaign saying that they were assassinated by pouring molten gold or by using a exotic snake or they were killed by exotic mythical creature of the orient.

Who knows may be the narrative in OTL is a Roman Propaganda and that both of them did end up leaving for Arabia or Iran or India and they lived peaceful lives after that.

Maybe a future rebellion in Egypt or something is lead by someone claiming to be a descendent of cleopatra?

Given how passive Egypt as a Roman province was, very unlikely. It is kinda strange that for all her legend, people of Egypt back then, just shrugged and accepted the Roman overlords.

 

[Lalli]

Given how passive Egypt as a Roman province was, very unlikely. It is kinda strange that for all her legend, people of Egypt back then, just shrugged and accepted the Roman overlords.

Yeajh. There hardly would be Egyptian revolt since OTL didn't see any beside someone usuprer trying claim Roman imperial throne. But it is pretty understandable. Ptolemaic Dynasty was seen only just foreigners and Egyptians weren't too intrested about them altough surely respected them since pharaohs were divine people and rising against them was same if they would had revolted against gods. One reason their passivity probably was that Romans left them mostly alone so Egyptians didn't care as long as Romans didn't intervene their religious life.

 

[Parmenion]

Given how passive Egypt as a Roman province was, very unlikely. It is kinda strange that for all her legend, people of Egypt back then, just shrugged and accepted the Roman overlords.

They had a history of doing that to be fair, the Egyptians really didn't care much who ruled them as long as they weren't dicks about it.

 

[prani]

Yeajh. There hardly would be Egyptian revolt since OTL didn't see any beside someone usuprer trying claim Roman imperial throne. But it is pretty understandable. Ptolemaic Dynasty was seen only just foreigners and Egyptians weren't too intrested about them altough surely respected them since pharaohs were divine people and rising against them was same if they would had revolted against gods. One reason their passivity probably was that Romans left them mostly alone so Egyptians didn't care as long as Romans didn't intervene their religious life.

They had a history of doing that to be fair, the Egyptians really didn't care much who ruled them as long as they weren't dicks about it.

how would you two reconcile the myth, the legend of cleopatra that we built up over the years with the reality, like NO ONE back then cared when she was deposed or disposed. Augustus came along, improved the infrastructure and brought in wealth from India, China and rest of Asia and Africa through Egypt, taxed it and used the surplus grain to feed the growing Italian peninsular and people forget that she existed back in the past.
Like was she that bad? or was she so irrelevant ? or both?
I mean Justinian's wife Theodora was more relevant to history than Cleopatra ever was.

 

[Parmenion]

how would you two reconcile the myth, the legend of cleopatra that we built up over the years with the reality, like NO ONE back then cared when she was deposed or disposed. Augustus came along, improved the infrastructure and brought in wealth from India, China and rest of Asia and Africa through Egypt, taxed it and used the surplus grain to feed the growing Italian peninsular and people forget that she existed back in the past.
Like was she that bad? or was she so irrelevant ? or both?

I think the point is she was an sharp minded negotiator, who was good at playing politics (though not everyone agrees there) and was able to be a big player in a male dominated world. She was a big wig who's fame comes from her interactions with other big wigs, not really her relations to the commoners.

 

[prani]

I think the point is she was an sharp minded negotiator, who was good at playing politics (though not everyone agrees there) and was able to be a big player in a male dominated world. She was a big wig who's fame comes from her interactions with other big wigs, not really her relations to the commoners.

But for me Theodora and Justinian are THE ultimate power couple in the Mediterranean culture, their life story is a real fairy tale.

As i said nothing in history would change if Marc Anthony and Cleopatra survived in India. They're as good as dead, albeit a comfortable afterlife in all probability.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

rising against them was same if they would had revolted against gods.

The Egyptians seemed quite comfortable revolting against gods, then.

They had a history of doing that to be fair, the Egyptians really didn't care much who ruled them as long as they weren't dicks about it.

The Egyptians had as much a history of rising up against foreign rulers (including the Ptolemies) as they did of meek acceptance. The issue is, for the Egyptians Roman rule was arguably not as bad as Ptolemaic rule-at least under Roman rule Greeks were not a privileged caste above native Egyptians, as was the case with the Ptolemies.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

how would you two reconcile the myth, the legend of cleopatra that we built up over the years with the reality, like NO ONE back then cared when she was deposed or disposed. Augustus came along, improved the infrastructure and brought in wealth from India, China and rest of Asia and Africa through Egypt, taxed it and used the surplus grain to feed the growing Italian peninsular and people forget that she existed back in the past.
Like was she that bad? or was she so irrelevant ? or both?
I mean Justinian's wife Theodora was more relevant to history than Cleopatra ever was.

Shakespeare. Same reason people care way more about Agincourt than Orleans.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Putting aside (for now) what he would actually do about it* -- how does the escape of Cleopatra, her children (including Julius Ceasar's son), and Mark Antony affect how Octavian manages to consolidate his power in the next few years? Is his victory diminished compared to OTL, and does that affect how Rome responds? Does he have to look over his shoulder about potential fifth-columnists rallying around a potential Antonine Return? Does he feel any need to be more cautious about Egypt, potentially even propping up a puppet Pharoh rather than outright annexing it?

And once we answer these, we can ask -- in general, just how "expensive" for Cleopatra and her family to remain alive, and is it enough that doing something about it (see footnote) might be worth the investment? And depending on wha he decides and what happens -- how is subsequent Roman history affected?

*whether he'd send an army or assassins east, as previous posts speculate or argue against