Talk:Battle of Actium
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Actium article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 2, 2004, September 2, 2005, September 2, 2006, September 2, 2007, September 2, 2008, September 2, 2009, and September 2, 2010.|
Alright, so I think that the first sentence should be broken down into:
The naval Battle of Actium was the defining battle of the Post-Caesarian Roman Civil War and, arguably, the most important battle in Roman history. It took place on September 2, 31 BC, on the Ionian Sea near the Roman colony of Actium in north-western Greece. The primary combatants were Mark Antony and Octavian (who would later become the first Roman Emperor).
But since the text was taken from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, I'm not sure if it should be edited. Thoughts? User:Corporal 07:19, 8 October 2005
- It's always OK to fix up 1911EB text, whether to modernize the style or add content. Just be careful when rewording not to accidentally say something you didn't intend; 1911EB contributors were some of the best scholars of all time, and they were very good at getting all the nuances right. Stan 16:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What gulf was is fought outside of
The Gulf of Actium (go figure!=3)
Major edits from stub to article
Whef...finally got it done. This is my first major edit and might need some correcting. I created the battlebox, split the text in four parts and added some more from Actium Project and the Antony page in Wikipedia. Added also an image of the battle right under the battlebox Olli
The Aftermath section refers to Antony dying in Cleopatra's arms, but then later to her receiving news of his death, which sounds contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it does. I may clean it up to avoid the contradiction at some point Bigmac31 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's substitute B.C.E. for B.C. and C.E. for A.D.
- Lets not as most of the encyclopedia is already written with BC and AD dates - Vedexent 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The article Final war of the Roman Republic seems to be nothing more than an elaboration on the events leading up to, and following, the battle of Actium - which was the sole event of the "war" as there was no land engagement in the "war" and but a single naval battle: this one. It seems that the "Final war of the Roman Republic" is not a particularly encyclopedic title, nor does there seem to be much - if any - scholarly distinction between the Battle of Actium and the "war" in general. To most authors the war is the battle and vice versa. Much of the information about events leading up to the battle, and events following the battle could be nicely rolled into this article. - Vedexent 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I second this proposal. Sinerma 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections, or debates, I propose that it be merged in 1 week, barring any vigorous debate - Vedexent (talk) - 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I OPPOSE, the naval battle is only a part of the final civil war, the article should therefore limit itself to the battle and a short aftermath and leave the rest, including the short land campaign and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra to the general article. -- fdewaele, October 7, 15:10
- I also disagree. The Battle of Actium does not cover the entire campaign capturing Alexandria and/or securing Egypt for the Romans User:Dimadick
- As do I, it would be quite illogical to merge these articles. Although the battle of Actium was obviously the most famous and largest engagements of the war there is much much more to the conflict than just the naval battle, just the political enviorment leading up to the confrontation is enough to fill multiple articles. I feel both obligated and justified to remove the merge request at this time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This artical actually requires extensive expanding as a lot of interesting and relevant events are not mentioned. A few corrections are needed as well. My guess is if the source is from 1911 as stated above, a lot of new information has come to light since. Wayne 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The latest Penguin edition of "The Reign of Augustus" by Dio presents an alternative hypothesis about the battle; that it was not a pitched battle, but rather Antony's attempt at breaking enemy lines and escaping (which explains why Cleopatra sailed off so quickly; her forces were never intended to fight). This is laid out in Book 50, note 66. Do any other sources have this view? If so, it might be worth putting mention of it into the main article. I can provide more details if anyone wants them, don't have the book with me atm. Canislupisbarca 19:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The article refers to Agrippa as an admiral. I was under the impression that word did not exist until well into the Age of Sail. Perhaps it can be removed or changed. Lastofthewalkers (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)lastofthewalkers 20:00EST March 7, 2008.
While it's wrong to call him "Admiral Agrippa" as if it was Agrippa's actual military title, calling him "admiral Agrippa" (as I've edited) is alright (as would calling any Roman commander of land troops "general" as opposed to "General"). Agrippa's actual title during the Actium campaign is unknown (according to Broughton's "Magistrates of the Roman Republic"), although he ranked as a promagistrate. I'd guess proconsul.184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Actium
By the time of the Battle of Actium, Cleopatra as the richest woman in the world was funding Mark Anthony's army. At the end of the battle both Anthony and Cleopatra sail away. With Cleopatra is the money chest and Anthonys army's next round of wages.
Having seen Cleopatra sailing away with their next round of wages, the majority of Anthony's army must have rapidly realised that the only way for more money was to seek "conciliation" with Octavian.
As the the "conciliation" seems to have been comparatively bloodless for a defeated army, Octavian must have pragmatically decided that there had already been enough killing and accepted Anthony's experienced soldiers into his own army . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Died in her arms vs. heard the news about his death
"Failing to escape on board ship, he stabbed himself; and, as he did not die at once, insisted on being taken to the mausoleum in which Cleopatra was shut up, and there died in her arms. The queen was shortly afterwards brought from this place to the palace and vainly attempting to move Octavian's passions or pity.
When Cleopatra heard the news about Mark Antony's death,"
Yes it is important and I have changed it in that sense. TrustyJules (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Julius —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules (talk • contribs) 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Improving references and consistency
I made two edits primarily to add references to 'contemporary' historical sources in this case Cassius. The text of this article was at odds with the text in the life of AGrippa - Octavian's commander. The latter had the references and so I amended the text also in the sense that where Ocatvian wanted to let Anthony slip out to attack him in the rear Agrippa prevailed on him not to let that happen. According to Cassius Agrippa is said to have pointed out that Anthony's sails would allow him to escape to Egypt and so battle should be offered as it duly was. Apparently some source juicely added that Octavian wanted to avoid battle and simpy capture Cleopatra to use her for his triumph!
The other minor thing I did is to add a reference to the section of the battle where it is stated Anthony was undermanned due to desertions and malaria. This is referenced by Cassius and I believe worth adding here.
The way this article is currently worded takes a rather strong approach in favor of Octavian's position, to the point of portraying the man as an innocent victim or defender against Antony and Cleopatra's aggressionLorzu (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC).
Not sure where you get the impression that the article is not neutral. It correctly references the end of the second triumvirate as the basis for the war. The article fails more blatantly in the references to Caesarion and so forth but it is not pro Octavian I would say. Can you elaborate? TrustyJules (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Death of Cleopatra
The main authority for the death of Cleopatra is Plutarch. In his epic poem he gives the details of death by snake bite then further on comments that this was only the gossip in Rome at the time of the events and that he personally didn't believe the story.
Anthony as a true Roman in complete defeat, then does the honest thing and falls on his sword. Cleopatra as the "wicked oriental Queen" who had seduced Anthony then took poison, possibly Hemlock, in the traditional Greek manner.
From here on the story is embellished by the Octavian faction who needed the "wicked oriental queen" as a political rallying point. At this stage the snakebite story is spread in Rome.
- Plutarch (Antony 83) and Cassius Dio (Roman History 51, 12-13) report that Octavian once visited Cleopatra when she had been taken prisoner by his men. The meeting took place in one of the last days of Cleopatra's life but the course of their conversation is told very differently by Plutarch and Cassius Dio. Modern historians generally believe the story. --Oskar71 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)