In 30 BC. e. Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII committed suicide after being defeated by Octavian's forces in the civil war.
But what if Antony and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian, the man who became Rome's first emperor? Would they have become rulers of Rome? How could history have turned out differently?
Civil war
First, it helps to understand what led to the war. After Julius CaesarAfter the assassination of Russia in 44 BC. Three main factions fought for power: Octavian, Caesar's great-nephew, adopted son and heir; Mark Antony, one of Caesar's generals; and Brutus and Cassius, both senators. However, the senators were soon defeated and committed suicide.
Before his death, Caesar had a relationship with Cleopatra. VII, ruler of Egypt. Cleopatra had a son named Caesarion, whose father she claimed was Caesar. But he never recognized the boy as his son. After Caesar's death, Cleopatra and Antony became a couple and had three children, although they most likely did not officially marry.
At this time there was an uneasy power-sharing agreement between Octavian, who was based in Rome, and Antony, who was based in Alexandria. But then in 32 BC. A civil war broke out for control of Rome and its territories.
The turning point in the civil war was the Battle of Actium, which took place on September 2, 31 BC. e. During this battle, the fleet of Antony and Cleopatra was destroyed, and Octavian gained control of the Mediterranean Sea. Although further battles took place on land, the forces of Antony and Cleopatra were unable to recover from the loss of their fleet.
Cleopatra and Antony died in 30 BC. BC, and Egypt was included in the Roman Empire as a province in 30 BC. e. Soon after this, in 27 BC. e., the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title “August“, and he became the first emperor of the Roman Empire.
But what could have happened if the lovers had defeated Octavian?
Is Cleopatra limited?
There is a wide range of possibilities in this what-if scenario, scientists say.
One possibility is that Cleopatra's power would have been limited to Egypt and parts of the Middle East. Some scholars have said that it would have been difficult for Cleopatra to play a large role in the Eternal City. “I don't see a role for Cleopatra in Rome” Jeffrey Tatumprofessor of classics at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, told Live Science in an email, noting that Octavian's supporters used propaganda to smear Cleopatra.
Lee FratantuonoProfessor of Classics at Maynooth University in Ireland, agreed, noting that Cleopatra, an Egyptian ruler of Macedonian origin, would not have been accepted by the people of Rome. “Her presence at his side aroused patriotic sentiment in Italy, and it is unlikely that Antony could have achieved long-term success in the central and western Mediterranean had she been in a prominent position,” he told Live Science via email.
Antony had sons and stepsons from previous marriages, and he could try to bring them to power in Rome, rather than himself. Antony “had what Octavian did not have – an abundance of children and stepchildren, especially male ones, which he could take advantage of.” Jane Draycotta senior lecturer in classics at the University of Glasgow, told Live Science via email.
Antony and Cleopatra, along with their children, may have been more focused on Egypt and the Middle East, where the Romans faced a formidable enemy in the Parthian Empire in what is now predominantly Iran. Antony may have wanted to spend his time fighting them rather than trying to rule Rome itself, Draycott said.
Cleopatra as a queen?
Another possibility is that, despite Cleopatra's opposition, she could still rise to power in Rome, ruling alongside Antony, who would become emperor. Prudence Jonesprofessor of classics at Montclair State University in New Jersey, said in an email.
If they achieved this, “we could expect greater balance between the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire.” Jones said Egypt was an important part of the eastern part of the empire.
“If power had been more balanced between the eastern and western parts of the empire, rather than centralized in Rome, European history might have looked very different,” Jones told Live Science. “Western Europe could have remained rural for a longer period of time with less Romanization, especially in Gaul and Britain, if more resources had been directed east. Greek culture could have a greater influence throughout Europe, perhaps with fewer Romance languages and more modern languages related to Greek.”
Egypt could “maintain a degree of independence and function as a client kingdom,” Jones said. Perhaps Antony would have avoided centralizing the administration of the Roman Empire to the extent that Octavian did.
We “cannot assume that Antony would have had Octavian's desire and skill in developing a bureaucracy,” Jones said. “Without central control, the Roman Empire might have been more of a Greco-Roman-Egyptian confederation.”
Return him to the Senate?
Another possibility is that instead of trying to control Rome himself or through his sons and stepsons, Antony could return the city and some of its territories to the Senate and keep Rome as a republic, Tatum said.
It is possible that “he would have returned the republic to the Senate and Assemblies,” Tatum wrote in his book.Noble Ruin: Mark Antony, Civil War and the Collapse of the Roman Republic(Oxford University Press, 2023). “By enjoying his wealth and prestige from a distance, perhaps even from Alexandria, he could exercise influence without dominating affairs or changing the fundamental nature of the republic.”
It's also possible that whatever decisions Antony and Cleopatra made could have sparked a new civil war with other aristocrats vying for control of Rome and its territories, Tatum said in an email.
