WI Marc Antony decisively wins the Battles of Forum Gallorum and Mutina?

I know that marc Antony was severley outnumbered but lets say the legions that deserted from Antony don't desert and Octavian is killed in either one of the battles.

What would the outcomes of this be?

Would Marc Antony immidiately establish himself the dictator of Rome and then presumably go and attempt to defeat Brutus and Crassius?
 
Given his lack of political connections and support from the Senate, the fact that he was a horrible politician, the fact that he wasnt adopted by Caesar and has no prominent family name, as well as having no long term goals means he doesn't last long. Lets say he defeats the Optimates. Trying to rule like Sulla doesn't go well in the end. Either he is assassinated or barely hangs on to power through sheer brutality. More anarchy for the republic. The stability of the principate years don't occur. Rome fragments into permanent rival blocs of power either after he dies following a shaky dictatorship or after he is assassinated.
 
Given his lack of political connections and support from the Senate, the fact that he was a horrible politician, the fact that he wasnt adopted by Caesar and has no prominent family name, as well as having no long term goals means he doesn't last long. Lets say he defeats the Optimates. Trying to rule like Sulla doesn't go well in the end. Either he is assassinated or barely hangs on to power through sheer brutality. More anarchy for the republic. The stability of the principate years don't occur. Rome fragments into permanent rival blocs of power either after he dies following a shaky dictatorship or after he is assassinated.

One can’t judge Anthony or any other Roman statesman on Octavian/Augustus’ standard.

Anthony was from a much more prominent family than Octavian and had wide connections with prominent families on both political sides. He was friend with Brutus who imposed that Anthony be spared on the ides of March 44’s plot. He was on friendly terms with the Claudii, the Aemilianus, the Valerii, the Domitii Ahenobarbi, much more prominent families than those who initially sided with Octavian. He was the one that united both most caesarians and moderate republicans in 44.

Anthony demonstrated in 44 that he was a more than able statesman. He was just outsmarted in 43 by a more ruthless politician who wanted to trigger a new civil war to fulfill his ambitions while Anthony did his utmost to prevent a new civil war.

The one who was a new Sulla was Octavian/Augustus, not Anthony. A much more successful, coherent and ruthless Sulla than the original one, who took great care to impose his own propaganda/narrative to depict himself as the restorator of peace and republic.
 
Last edited:
One can’t judge Anthony or any other Roman statesman on Octavian/Augustus’ standard.

Anthony was from a much more prominent family than Octavian and had wide connections with prominent families on both political sides. He was friend with Brutus who imposed that Anthony be spared on the ides of March 44’s plot. He was on friendly terms with the Claudii, the Aemilianus, the Valerii, the Domitii Ahenobarbi, much more prominent families than those who initially sided with Octavian. He was the one that united both most caesarians and moderate republicans in 44.

Anthony demonstrated in 44 that he was a more than able statesman. He was just outsmarted in 43 by a more ruthless politician who wanted to trigger a new civil war to fulfill his ambitions while Anthony did his utmost to prevent a new civil war.

The one who was a new Sulla was Octavian/Augustus, not Anthony. A much more successful, coherent and ruthless Sulla than the original one, who took great care to impose his own propaganda/narrative to depict himself as the restorator of peace and republic.

So do you think Marc Antony would have ruled as dictator for life and then when he died a new generation of civil wars would happen?

I didn't know that Antony was friends with Brutus.

Would he then have even gone and attacked Brutus and Crassius in the east or would he have tried to make a peaceful deal with them?
 
So do you think Marc Antony would have ruled as dictator for life and then when he died a new generation of civil wars would happen?

I didn't know that Antony was friends with Brutus.

Would he then have even gone and attacked Brutus and Crassius in the east or would he have tried to make a peaceful deal with them?
Mark Antony's intervent and his work in calming the roman plebe was the only reason for which a bath of blood had not followed Caesar's death (as the plebe wanted kill the assassins of Caesar but killed also for mistake a couple of senators/nobles who had the same name of some cospirators). He was popular, well connected, a good general as his only major real loss was the Parthian campaign and he has some excuses for that (he started the campaign too late because he was waiting for some reinforcements who Octavian had promised to him and never sent and that was the cause of almost all the other mistakes, including the one of left behind with the rearguard almost all the military equipment and siege machines plus the majority of the supplies in the care of one of his allies, the King of Media who bretrayed him)
 
Last edited:
Mark Antony's hold on Rome would me more the one of a primus-inter-pares than the one of a dictator...
In 44, mostly thanks to Mark Antony's work the revenge for the death of Caesar was sacrificed in favour of keeping peace and avoiding another civil war.
If Octavian before departing Rome had agitated enough the city a war against Brutus and Cassius (who were in the East as magistrates of Rome) would be possible, likley or maybe inevitable...
As Octavian was the worst of the generals involved and Mark Antony the best of them the outcome will likely be the same of OTL (aka a victory of the Caesarians)...
The Proscriptions would likely been butterflied, but some people like Cicero would be exiled, and Rome would be likely governed by a Duumvirate of Antony and Lepidus (or a Triumvirate with Sextus Pompey) and Mark Antony would spend most of his time in the East, because he liked their culture and lifestyle plus he really wanted do the Parthian campaign and at least avenging Crassus and recovering the lost Eagles of the defeated legions...
 
So do you think Marc Antony would have ruled as dictator for life and then when he died a new generation of civil wars would happen?

I didn't know that Antony was friends with Brutus.

Would he then have even gone and attacked Brutus and Crassius in the east or would he have tried to make a peaceful deal with them?

I wouldn’t say “friends”, but they certainly weren’t naturally inclined to be enemies, Antony was more than willing to compromise with Caesar’s murderers, but Octavian forced him to take a stance against Brutus and Cassius, lest he be seen in front of his troops as an ungrateful man unwilling to avenge his former friend and patron.

In any case, Antony would have kept the system as it was before Caesar, while keeping for himself a permanent role of power in the East. Would that have lasted? I personally doubt that, Antony was a good subordinate, but an average politician and general at best, sustained more by popularity than skill, overconfident when things turned for the best, and rather prone to indolence and despair whenever things turned for the worst. Someone less politically savvy but more prominent and with larger connections than Octavian could have a good chance to take him out, provided he seizes the right opportunity.
 
Last edited:
A good general as his only major real loss was the Parthian campaign and he has some excuses for that (he started the campaign too late because he was waiting for some reinforcements who Octavian had promised to him and never sent and that was the cause of almost all the other mistakes, including the one of left behind with the rearguard almost all the military equipment and siege machines plus the majority of the supplies in the care of one of his allies, the King of Media who bretrayed him)

He got overconfident at Munda and was nearly wiped out. Philippi was a downright mess where soldiers clashed randomly without any imput from their generals. As for Parthia, Antony had about 100.000 men at his disposal, a good general like Ventidius or Agrippa would have started the campaign regardless, won it, and then publicly reproached Octavian at Rome for attempting to bring ruin to the Republic by not sending soldiers in time. In any case, he was following Caesar’s plans for the campaign the whole time, and the successful retreat was more due to the soldier’s effective training than any good leadership on Antony’s part. Finally, Actium, Antony had planned to trap Octavian in Greece much like Pompey did with Caesar, except he didn’t even consider that his adversary had a good enough naval force to prevent that, and not only his plan failed, but he himself got trapped in Greece. Antony was a good cavalry officer, but not much else than that.
 
Anthony was from a much more prominent family than Octavian and had wide connections with prominent families on both political sides. He was friend with Brutus who imposed that Anthony be spared on the ides of March 44’s plot. He was on friendly terms with the Claudii, the Aemilianus, the Valerii, the Domitii Ahenobarbi, much more prominent families than those who initially sided with Octavian. He was the one that united both most caesarians and moderate republicans in 44.

So since he has few political allies how is that going to help him do anything that he might want to do? I see him failing if he tried to be a dictator. I see him failing if he tried to "restore the Republic" which I highly doubt.

Anthony demonstrated in 44 that he was a more than able statesman. He was just outsmarted in 43 by a more ruthless politician who wanted to trigger a new civil war to fulfill his ambitions while Anthony did his utmost to prevent a new civil war.

My point is that the lack of political clout means Antony will fail to prevent a new civil war. The subsequent civil war between Octavian and Antony more than justifies my assertion that he wasn't the greatest politician.

The one who was a new Sulla was Octavian/Augustus, not Anthony. A much more successful, coherent and ruthless Sulla than the original one, who took great care to impose his own propaganda/narrative to depict himself as the restorator of peace and republic.

It wasn't just propaganda/narrative, the principate really was much more stable than the republic's final years no question. Even Rome itself was much more peaceful under the new police watch compared to the gangs that used to run the city. Octavian fundamentally differs from Sulla because his reforms did successfully enshrine a stable lasting dictatorship. Sulla's reforms did not. This is where the Antony comparisons come in if he chooses to be a dictator. He isn't like Octavian as you have pointed out.

But you are avoiding the question of what Antony would do if he decisively won the two battles with Octavian dead and the Senate with no army, and then the Optimates being defeated as well. By then Antony will have to rule as dictator for the rest of his life as he has made too many enemies. But it will be a shaky dictatorship as Antony is no Octavian. For his own survival Antony will have to be brutal. Else he gets assassinated probably. After he dies the power vacuum would probably mean another civil war.
 
So since he has few political allies how is that going to help him do anything that he might want to do? I see him failing if he tried to be a dictator. I see him failing if he tried to "restore the Republic" which I highly doubt.



My point is that the lack of political clout means Antony will fail to prevent a new civil war. The subsequent civil war between Octavian and Antony more than justifies my assertion that he wasn't the greatest politician.



It wasn't just propaganda/narrative, the principate really was much more stable than the republic's final years no question. Even Rome itself was much more peaceful under the new police watch compared to the gangs that used to run the city. Octavian fundamentally differs from Sulla because his reforms did successfully enshrine a stable lasting dictatorship. Sulla's reforms did not. This is where the Antony comparisons come in if he chooses to be a dictator. He isn't like Octavian as you have pointed out.

But you are avoiding the question of what Antony would do if he decisively won the two battles with Octavian dead and the Senate with no army, and then the Optimates being defeated as well. By then Antony will have to rule as dictator for the rest of his life as he has made too many enemies. But it will be a shaky dictatorship as Antony is no Octavian. For his own survival Antony will have to be brutal. Else he gets assassinated probably. After he dies the power vacuum would probably mean another civil war.

Agreed, I’ve always thought Antony performed rather well in 44 as politician because he had already planned everything in advance since he caught wind of the conspiracy from Trebonius.

But he won’t necessarily need to be dictator for life, he can’t be actually, he himself lawfully abolished the title, going back on his word would create some turmoil in the Senate. He could do what Caesar originally planned to do however, leave the West to his partisans (Pollio, Lepidus and Plancus already had armies there)while keeping control of things from afar in the East, and dedicate himself to campaigning. Will it work in the long run? Don’t think so, and in, say, ten years tops there would have been the next round of civil wars.
 
Last edited:
So do you think Marc Antony would have ruled as dictator for life and then when he died a new generation of civil wars would happen?

I didn't know that Antony was friends with Brutus.

Would he then have even gone and attacked Brutus and Crassius in the east or would he have tried to make a peaceful deal with them?

Let me précise the point about friendship or amicitia. Among Roman politician aristocrats, friendship did not refer to actual friendship relationships you and your best friends. It means that they respected each other, had courteous and non hostile relationships although not necessarily always on the same political side or the same political position, and considered on another as kind of peers (or as quasi-clients too).

Marcus Junius Brutus was not a real caesarian. He had just recently rallied to Caesar after having initially sided with Pompey and Cato (Brutus’ maternal uncle).

He thought Caesar’s dictatorship was the problem and just wanted to get rid of Caesar, in which he demonstrated he had no political brains (as Cicero perfectly understood). But his participation was vital for the plotters to have any chance to turn their projected murder of Caesar into a political success because Brutus was the one who could gather the optimates and the caesarians that were disappointed with Caesar (such as Decimus Junius Brutus, and Gaius Trebonius who had tried to bring Anthony into a previous conspiracy against Caesar in autumn 45) and so Brutus was able to force his conditions on Cassius and his optimate allies (just kill Caesar and the oligarchic republic will miraculously be restored).

But Anthony played his part masterfully in the spring of 44.

First of all, he avoided the Caesarian party to split and kept it into the dominant force on the Roman political stage.

Then he did his utmost to prevent civil war and to however marginalize Brutus, Cassius, and those who had openly supported Caesar’s murder.

And Anthony, to give credentials to the moderates and to all those who had been upset by Caesar’s too overtly monarchic rule, carried a law to abolish the dictatorship.
So definitely, Anthony would not proclaim himself dictator.

So he would dominate the stage for several years. But avoiding the civil war will make him less dominant and his domination last less than with the civil war. Victory in war made principes more crushingly dominant.
 
One can’t judge Anthony or any other Roman statesman on Octavian/Augustus’ standard.

Anthony was from a much more prominent family than Octavian and had wide connections with prominent families on both political sides. He was friend with Brutus who imposed that Anthony be spared on the ides of March 44’s plot. He was on friendly terms with the Claudii, the Aemilianus, the Valerii, the Domitii Ahenobarbi, much more prominent families than those who initially sided with Octavian. He was the one that united both most caesarians and moderate republicans in 44.

Anthony demonstrated in 44 that he was a more than able statesman. He was just outsmarted in 43 by a more ruthless politician who wanted to trigger a new civil war to fulfill his ambitions while Anthony did his utmost to prevent a new civil war.

The one who was a new Sulla was Octavian/Augustus, not Anthony. A much more successful, coherent and ruthless Sulla than the original one, who took great care to impose his own propaganda/narrative to depict himself as the restorator of peace and republic.

I think Antony was a very capable man, just one who made an enemy of one of the few who were better than him.
 
I think Antony was a very capable man, just one who made an enemy of one of the few who were better than him.
Octavian was better than him only in propaganda (and ambitions) and maybe politics and was really lucky to have people like Agrippa (and Antony himself before him) near to him as the great Augustus was a walikng disaster from the military point of view
 
Octavian was better than him only in propaganda (and ambitions) and maybe politics and was really lucky to have people like Agrippa (and Antony himself before him) near to him as the great Augustus was a walikng disaster from the military point of view

Looking at what happened in 44 and 43 BC, and seeing as how a callow untried inexperienced 18-19 year old who was very sickly and unsoldierly, with nothing but Caesar's will and name, outmaneuvered him and ran circles around him, a 40 year old military and political veteran, I would say he is utterly inferior to Octavian in politics, and inferior to Agrippa militarily. You can't separate Agrippa from Octavian, as Agrippa was with Octavian from before Caesar's assassination, and was utterly loyal to him.

Octavian isn't militarily talented, but he knew the fact, he knew how to choose his friends and how to spot military talent, and how to make those talents work for him.
 
Looking at what happened in 44 and 43 BC, and seeing as how a callow untried inexperienced 18-19 year old who was very sickly and unsoldierly, with nothing but Caesar's will and name, outmaneuvered him and ran circles around him, a 40 year old military and political veteran, I would say he is utterly inferior to Octavian in politics, and inferior to Agrippa militarily. You can't separate Agrippa from Octavian, as Agrippa was with Octavian from before Caesar's assassination, and was utterly loyal to him.

Octavian isn't militarily talented, but he knew the fact, he knew how to choose his friends and how to spot military talent, and how to make those talents work for him.
And as a ruler, that is arguably much more important than being a military genius yourself.A ruler cannot be everyone at once.He needs to know how and how to delegate to.
 
Looking at what happened in 44 and 43 BC, and seeing as how a callow untried inexperienced 18-19 year old who was very sickly and unsoldierly, with nothing but Caesar's will and name, outmaneuvered him and ran circles around him, a 40 year old military and political veteran, I would say he is utterly inferior to Octavian in politics, and inferior to Agrippa militarily. You can't separate Agrippa from Octavian, as Agrippa was with Octavian from before Caesar's assassination, and was utterly loyal to him.

Octavian isn't militarily talented, but he knew the fact, he knew how to choose his friends and how to spot military talent, and how to make those talents work for him.
Mark Antony was no way inferior to Agrippa in military talent (the only direct confront between them, at Actium, was in truth a win by Antony who was able to break the naval siege of Agrippa and escape with the bigger part of his fleet). Agrippa was loyal to Octavian sure but still was not Octavian himself and Antony in 44-43 mostly undervalued the ambition and arrogance of Octavian but many other people made the same mistake including the super experienced politician Cicero (who helped a lot Octavian against Antony in that period, by the way thinking who Antony was dangerous and Octavian inoffensive)...

And as a ruler, that is arguably much more important than being a military genius yourself.A ruler cannot be everyone at once.He needs to know how and how to delegate to.
Antony also was good in that (before being destroyed by Octavian's propagand) and was much respected by his peers and his tentative to keep the peace in Rome in the confusion who followed the death of Caesar was good and great as without him and his woprk a bloodbath would have been inevitable (as it had already begun) and the consequences would have been likely disastrous for both sides. Octavian was much more ruthless than him, noncurant of anything but his ambitions and a master in propaganda and had the big lucck to have a friend like Agrippa who was great in the exact thing he needed the most
And for ruling Rome in that period you needed to be great in politic but also on the field
 
Octavian was better than him only in propaganda (and ambitions) and maybe politics and was really lucky to have people like Agrippa (and Antony himself before him) near to him as the great Augustus was a walikng disaster from the military point of view

I hadn't seen Octavian show any tactical skills (all his victories were mop-up operations, heavily outnumbering the enemy, or commanded by someone else and in the case of Activum the last two) but he did know stuff about keeping supply lines ready and the troops armed and fed. That should be a no-brainer, but in these days many generals went in without supply lines or knowing if the land can even support them. You can use supply lines from home. You can bring a shipload of stuff and hide it in a fort. You can forage off the land if you can keep your foragers safe. You can't just blindly walk in and hope that your foragers will find food and come back. Many generals of this time did. Some got lucky, others were forced to take long detours on their campaign just to get food. Being able to organize and make sure everyone has food in his belly, pay in th pocket, and something to stab the enemy with already put him above many Greek, Mithriadric, and Gaullic generals form just a few decades before. Ok, Antony knew organizations too and was a great tactician on top of that, but I'm saying by knowing some no-brainer stuff the great Augustus was better than many of his era. At lot of leaders at this time made decisions which don't even make sense without hindsight.

Propaganda was pretty critical. Octavian actually managed to keep Antony out of Rome for several years to get more political support from those who were financially able. Antony resorted to using Cleopatra's treasury to get funds to rearm, but that was wasted time in the meantime.

OK Octavian personally certainly isn't Antony's better in military capability. From the point of view of who to avoid making an enemy out of, Agrippa is basically a tool for Octavian's will and he was utterly loyal, not some opportunistic man following the winning side. Antony cannot win Agrippa over and if he makes an enemy of Caesar's adopted son, he had better be Agrippa's better. I don't think that is the case for sea battle.

At Forum Gallorum, he was already outnumbered before two legions defected, so it probably didn't matter who was the better commander unless Antony could pull off a Cannae. I don't think the Romans are going to fall for that again. And even if he could, the Senate loyalists could raise another force 8/7 the size of Antony's and can probably hold him off as long as they stay on the defensive.
 
Mark Antony was no way inferior to Agrippa in military talent (the only direct confront between them, at Actium, was in truth a win by Antony who was able to break the naval siege of Agrippa and escape with the bigger part of his fleet). Agrippa was loyal to Octavian sure but still was not Octavian himself and Antony in 44-43 mostly undervalued the ambition and arrogance of Octavian but many other people made the same mistake including the super experienced politician Cicero (who helped a lot Octavian against Antony in that period, by the way thinking who Antony was dangerous and Octavian inoffensive)...


Antony also was good in that (before being destroyed by Octavian's propagand) and was much respected by his peers and his tentative to keep the peace in Rome in the confusion who followed the death of Caesar was good and great as without him and his woprk a bloodbath would have been inevitable (as it had already begun) and the consequences would have been likely disastrous for both sides. Octavian was much more ruthless than him, noncurant of anything but his ambitions and a master in propaganda and had the big lucck to have a friend like Agrippa who was great in the exact thing he needed the most
And for ruling Rome in that period you needed to be great in politic but also on the field

Augustus career would show the opposite. He was terrible in the field, but was the greatest Emperor of Rome.

Antony was a fool because he made Octavian an enemy by refusing to give over Caesar's money that he kept when Octavian first applied to him as Caesar's heir. That doesn't require underestimating Octavian. That only needed Antony being faithful to Caesar's will. Every misfortune that happened afterwards sprang from that decision.

Octavian then realized Antony was his enemy, and would not give Caesar's fortune to him without a struggle. Then of course, Octavian appealed to the people of Rome and of Caesar's veterans complaining of Antony's treatment of him, that brought Octavian his first following. So he needed Caesar's partisans and clients to win his struggle with Antony.

Of course, that undermined Antony's position as a moderate consul who brokered a compromise. Now, to Caesarians, he seemed a traitor who let go of the assassins. And Antony's conduct towards Octavian alienated a lot of legions, and several declared for the heir of Caesar.

So Antony had to do acts to win back the adherents of Caesar who was going to Octavian because of Antony's actions towards Caesar's heir. But those acts would alienate the moderates and the Republicans in the Senate.

But that was not enough to bring the Senate against Antony. It needed something to make them think that they can win.

So they turn to Octavian. But why? Why trust a callow 18 year old? Who was anathema to all their principles, and who was now illegally recruiting an army.

Enter Cicero. And it wasn't just chance. Ever since Octavian entered Italy after the assassination, Octavian cultivated the great orator. He visited him regularly, he wrote to him for advise, etc. so much so that despite his misgivings, Cicero began to think of Octavian as a protoge, a useful tool, despite the fact that everything about Octavian should have made Cicero wary.

So Octavian and Cicero made a pact. Cicero would legalize Octavian's position, and Octavian would join his legions with the legions of the Consuls Hirtius and Pansa and become the humble servant of the Senate, and by extension, Cicero.

Meanwhile, Antony went to Cisalpine Gaul to claim the province from Decimus Brutus, who Antony approved as governor in the aftermath of the assassination. Of course, Decimus refused. Why should he give way to Antony? So Antony besieged him in Mutina.

Octavian then became co-commander with Hirtius and Pansa in the Mutina campaign...

Just looking at the events would show that Antony really was outmaneuvered, outwitted, etc by a 18 year old boy would show either that Antony is a utter dunce of a politician, or that Octavian is a really good politician, far better than Antony.

As for Agrippa, Octavius made him his friend and follower before Caesar's assassination. Being utterly sickly, he knew he would not be a good soldier, so he made friends with a provincial nobody, Agrippa, who was of the same age of him, who would fight for him.

That shows that he knew how to select his friends and subordinates, estimate their talents, and use them, even before he even became Caesar's heir.

As for propaganda, it's part of politics. After all, you need propaganda to win friends, and detach the supporters of the other side. Losing the propaganda was really shows' Antony's ineptness as a politician. He, a far better soldier than Octavian, could lose the propaganda war really shows something.

As for Agrippa and Antony, Agrippa is better. Actium is Agrippa's campaign, and for Antony a very winnable war.
 
Mark Antony was no way inferior to Agrippa in military talent (the only direct confront between them, at Actium, was in truth a win by Antony who was able to break the naval siege of Agrippa and escape with the bigger part of his fleet).

Antony lost more than half his fleet, his whole land army, and more importantly, his prestige as military leader. He didn’t win at all, he merely survived.
 
Antony lost more than half his fleet, his whole land army, and more importantly, his prestige as military leader. He didn’t win at all, he merely survived.
Well, Octavian was a genius of the propaganda... I really do not think anyone else would have been able to sell the success of Antony's plan (that was not a sea battle but Antony's fleet was escaping from the siege of Agrippa with all their gold (main reason for which the major battle was the one on sea and not the one of land) as fleeing from the battlefield abandoning his men. And who Antony was able to escape when one of his most trusted men defected the prevoius evening, revealing Antony's battleplan to Agrippa and Octavian is nothing short of a miracle (sure Antony was smart enough to not say the true reason for which he had chosen to give the priority to the sea escape instead of the land battle, in which he was better, aka who they need to takew with them a lot of gold)
 
Top