Republic

The Republic is generally regarded as having lasted from 509 BC to 27 BC, when Octavian (taking the name Augustus) became the de facto Emperor of the Roman world. A historical sketch can do no more than highlight a few of the momen­tous events and trends in these five centuries in which Rome became a power of immense size and influence.

1.2.1 Constitutional and political developments

1.2.1.1 The magistrates

A hierarchy of magistrates was established during the early centuries of the Republic. The chief magistrates were:

(a) Consuls The abolition of the monarchy did not result in a totally new consti­tutional framework, but it did lead, according to some scholars, to the transference of kingly power to two supreme magistrates, the consuls. This power pertained in theory to all aspects of government. The traditional symbol of consular authority consisted of the fasces—bundles of sticks—carried by the consuls' lictors (personal attendants); hence the derivation of 'fascist'. As their very name implies, the con­suls were supposed to consult each other and to govern in tandem. They could veto each other's proposals, a principle that was intended to prevent tyranny but which, if abused, was a potential recipe for inaction and disaster. Since they were the commanders of the army, the consuls were appointed by the comitia centuriata, although ratification by the Senate was necessary. The appointment lasted for a year, as was the case with most magistrates. Although ultimate power lay with the consuls, there was provision in the Republican constitution for one-man rule in times of national crisis. Either consul could nominate the appointment (for a maximum of six months) of a dictator with supreme power, subject to the Senate's ratification. Such appointments occurred rarely.

For a period of some eighty years or so in the early Republic prior to 367 BC, army officers (called military tribunes) possessing consular power could be elected—and frequently were—in place of consuls on the authority of the Senate.

(b) Praetors This magistracy was created in 367 BC with the aim of reducing the legal jurisdiction of the consuls. The praetors, appointed by the comitia centu­riata, became the chief administrators of the Roman legal system, somewhat akin to modern ministers of justice. Their jurisdiction was originally exercised over Roman citizens within Rome—hence they came to be known as the urban praetors. Their contribution to the development of Roman civil law was immense, as later chapters will reveal, (see Brennan, Praetorship 1, chs. 2 and 3).

(c) Quaestors They were the counterparts of the praetors in financial matters, assisting the consuls in the fiscal administration of Rome. They were elected by the comitia tributa and, until 421 BC had to be patrician. But they had other duties— e.g. helping the consuls in the administration of criminal jurisdiction. In the later Empire, the quaestors became the principal law officers of the State, following the decline in the importance of the praetors.

(d) Censors The first censors were appointed in 443 BC by the comitia centuriata to relieve the consuls of their duty of compiling a census, in which the Roman peo­ple were classified by wealth, tribal background, and military ranking. Initially, censors had to be of patrician origin, but by the middle of the fourth century BC, this position was opened to the plebeians. The census was vital in determining the eligibility to vote, to serve in the legions, and liability to taxation. In compiling their census, the censors had the power to place a nota ('a mark of disgrace') against the name of any person who was suspected of misconduct. Serious consequences could result (see 4.4.2.5). The possession of this power naturally gave the censors considerable authority and influence. It was best to avoid displeasing the censors. The census was compiled every four or five years, the task taking about eight­een months—an exception to the practice of appointing magistrates for a year.

(e) Tribunes The tribunes were magistrates (first created in c. 494 BC, allegedly as a result of the class struggle between the plebeians and patricians) who were elected to represent the plebeian body of the people, i.e. citizens other than patri­cians. They themselves had to be plebeians. Important powers were vested in the tribunes: they presided over the concilium plebis—the plebeian legislative assem­bly; they were members of the Senate and had the power to convene it; and they had the right to veto the acts of other magistrates, thus enabling the tribunes to protect individuals against the arbitrary exercise of power. From 449 BC, the trib­unes became 'inviolable'—anyone who attacked the tribunes or hindered them in their duties would be outlawed by the concilium plebis. All this made the tribunes a potential threat to the authority of the Senate, a threat that was to materialize at times in the often-anarchic conditions of the late Republic.

(f) Aediles Their primary function was to exercise 'care' over the city and its inhabitants—e.g. ensuring an adequate supply of water and corn; maintaining public roads and buildings; controlling trade; and arranging public games. At first the aediles (normally two in number) were plebeian assistants of the tribunes. But in 367 BC, two extra aediles were created, known as 'curule' as a mark of their originally patrician status.

1.2.1.2 Class warfare: the struggle of the orders

Many of the early constitutional and political developments in the history of the Republic were engendered by friction between the orders—the patricians and the plebeians.

(a) Plebeian discontent The main political grievance of the plebeians was that the magistracy was entirely in the hands of the patricians in the earliest years of the Republic. Moreover, there was considerable anxiety about the exercise of consular power, and uncertainty about its extent. Another important cause of friction was the status of the plebeian assembly—its resolutions (plebiscita) were not consid­ered to be binding on the whole people. Moreover, there were economic causes for plebeian discontent—the Draconian law of debt, for example. A man who was unable to pay his debts, often a plebeian, could be seized by his creditor and sold as a slave, or even executed (see 3.2.3.1). And the plebeians complained that they were prevented from acquiring rights in land belonging to the State (agerpublicus).

(b) Concessions In the course of this struggle, the general trend was towards a gradual improvement in the position of the plebeians. It was brought about by concessions that were forced mainly by the threat of secession. The plebeians would simply leave the city (or threaten to do so) and encamp in the surrounding hills until the patricians agreed to their demands. The city would grind to a halt. And there were occasional threats to establish a rival city. The potential consequences Were so serious that the plebeian demands were usually conceded promptly.

The earliest important concession was to allow all Roman citizens the right of appeal to the people against a sentence of death imposed by a magistrate. In 494 BC, the plebeians were allowed magistrates of their own—the tribunes—with power to protect the plebeians and veto the acts of other magistrates. In 451-450 BC the plebeians secured the publication of the Twelve Tables, Rome's first 'code of law', as a response to the complaint that the consuls were administering the law in an arbitrary fashion. A clear statement of the law was essential, and the Twelve Tables largely provided it. The struggle of the orders was thus directly responsible for this vital development in the evolution of Roman law.

A particularly violent period of discord led to crucial developments in 367 BC. Two new magistracies (the praetors and the curule aediles) were created; and new laws were enacted, the leges Liciniae Sextiae, which constituted a landmark in the struggle of the orders. This legislation provided inter alia that one of the consuls had to be a plebeian; that there should be a restriction on the maximum amount of pub­lic land that a citizen could hold; and that the colleges of priests should be opened to plebeians—a most significant development because the executive government of Rome often turned on the priestly interpretation of the oracles. Moreover, the military tribunate was abolished. The enslavement or execution of debtors for non­payment of debts was eventually ended by the lex Poetelia of 326 BC.

In 287 BC came the final chapter in the struggle of the orders—the lex Hortensia. This law removed the need for patrician ratification of plebiscita. More than two centuries of conflict came to an end. Henceforth, the plebeian assembly was to prove to be the most politically powerful and important of the Republican legisla­tive assemblies.

1.2.2 Territorial expansion

1.2.2.1 Within Italy

The defeat of the Etruscans in 505 BC by the Latin League ensured that the fledg­ling Roman Republic would be free of Etruscan hegemony. Rome herself eventually fought the Latin States and managed to defeat them at Lake Regillus in c. 496 BC. A treaty followed that established peace and an alliance between the combatants. Significantly, Rome agreed to extend some of the rights of Roman citizenship to her neighbours, including the rights of intermarriage and participation in the Roman legal process.

Somehow Rome survived. Soon her armies were on the march again, extend­ing her borders and her sphere of influence. Three wars were fought against the Samnites (from the Apennines east of Rome). They had become the dominant power in several areas once held by the Etruscans. Rome suffered a crushing defeat at the Caudine forks in 321 BC, but eventually emerged triumphant following the victory at Sentinum in 295 BC. Roman hegemony was established over much of the mainland of central Italy, helped especially by the policy of founding colonies of settlers in new areas and building impressive roads radiating from Rome. A network of alliances was carefully maintained. Historians have tended to deny that Rome's expansion at this time was the result of some conscious policy or grand design. It was more a case of reaching ad hoc solutions to problems as they arose: 'The whole approach was empirical, working from precedent to precedent according to each individual case, the relationship with every community in turn being considered on its own merits' (Grant, M., History of Rome (1996), 55). A similar approach—but in a different context—would be evident in a later age in the problematic literature of the classical jurists (see 2.3.4.3). But, although some of the conflicts that befell Rome were essentially defensive in origin, the planting of colonies all over Italy makes the thesis that there was no policy of expansion difficult to justify. Certainly, the ending of the internal struggle of the orders enabled Rome to direct her energies outwards.

There were bound to be considerable dangers in extending Roman power throughout Italy. To the north, beyond Etruria, lay Cisalpine Gaul ('Gaul this side of the Alps'). Occasional aggression by its tribes against Roman interests necessi­tated action. After another Gallic invasion was repulsed in 225 BC, Rome decided to pacify the area. Mediolanum (Milan) was captured by a Roman army in 222 BC, and there followed the establishment of several colonies in the Po Valley. A large part of Cisalpine Gaul was annexed.

Potentially greater problems lay in the south, where Greek and Carthaginian influence was strong. As Rome expanded southwards, some of the cities that had been originally founded by the Greeks welcomed alliance with her. Others did not, fearing that Rome was attempting a unification of Italy under her yoke. One such reluctant entrant to the Roman orbit was the thriving maritime city of Tarentum— it asked for aid from Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus (in Greece). He gave it, but at some cost. The Roman armies, although initially defeated, inflicted such heavy losses on Pyrrhus that his position became precarious—the 'Pyrrhic victory'—forcing him to abandon Tarentum, which eventually surrendered to the Romans in 272 BC. Rome was now the mistress of Italy, sustaining her hegemony through the foundation of more colonies, and by the maintenance of generally good relations with her allies throughout Italy.

However, the loyalty of Rome's allies was strained to breaking point in the last century of the Republic over the issue of citizenship. Rome, once so magnanimous in her grants of citizenship (or its attendant privileges) to her neighbours, gradu­ally became decidedly less generous. Roman citizenship had become highly prized and jealously guarded; so, when it was refused even to the staunchest of allies, it is, hardly surprising that their resentment became acute. In 91 BC, Rome’s Italian allies L rebelled. Although the revolt was crushed two years later, the Social War resulted in a political triumph for the 'defeated' allies—Rome conferred its citizenship throughout Italy. Henceforth, Rome and Italy were synonymous.

1.2.2.2 Beyond Italy

(a) Carthage The capture of Tarentum brought Rome within the sphere of influ­ence of the Carthaginians, a proud trading people who had become masters of the western Mediterranean. Relations between Rome and Carthage had been good since the earliest days of the Republic (secured by various treaties) but deteriorated sharply once Rome established control over the ports of southern Italy. This was Rome's first contact with a mighty foreign empire that had arisen after the fall of the Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great. Control of Sicily was the ostensi­ble issue that eventually drove the two powers to war. The first Punic War (264-241 BC) was one of the most bitterly fought in Rome's history, both sides sustaining ter­rible losses. Rome emerged victorious: the Carthaginians were forced to abandon Sicily. In 238 BC, Rome annexed Sardinia and Corsica. The newly acquired territo­ries became provinces that were directly ruled from Rome. They were not granted any substantial degree of autonomy—both a departure from previous practice and a model for the future. Here we have the beginnings of Rome’s overseas Empire, a new epoch in her history.

Despite the losses resulting from the first Punic War, Carthage remained the chief power in the western Mediterranean. Control of Spain proved to be the catalyst for further hostilities—the second Punic War (218-201 BC). The early stages of this cat­aclysmic conflict saw Rome brought to her knees by Hannibal's armies as they swept their way through Italy following an epic crossing of the Alps. After a terrible defeat at Cannae in 216 BC, Rome seemed certain to fall to the invaders; but her allies in central Italy held firm in their allegiance. The Romans refused to fight another open battle, or to negotiate peace. Within sight of Rome, Hannibal turned aside, lacking the means to sustain a potentially long siege. This proved to be the turning point of the war. From then it was a tale of virtually unbroken Roman success: Hannibal was confined to the role of a marauder; his brother was killed trying to reinforce him; and Rome found a great general, Scipio Africanus, who ended Carthaginian power in Spain and attacked Carthage herself. Hannibal was forced to retreat from Italy in order to defend his homeland. At Zama in 202 BC, Scipio won the decisive battle that broke Carthage and resulted in her having to cede her powerful fleet and Spain. Rome triumphed, but she had been stretched to the limit.

The acquisition of territory by conquest inevitably brings problems. Despite the severe losses sustained in defeating Hannibal, Rome was soon engaged in seem­ingly incessant warfare as she strove to protect her gains and her allies, especially in Spain and Africa. One can certainly detect in this era an unyielding resolve to retain what had been bloodily acquired. Carthage was again defeated in 146 BC, this time in a mercifully short war that broke her power forever. Rome ruled supreme in the western Mediterranean.

(b) The eastern Mediterranean The death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC was followed by the collapse and fragmentation of his once mighty Empire. Rome's interests enmeshed her in a complex series of diplomatic manoeuvres in the area. She made and broke alliances, played off one State against another, and generally engaged in promoting her interests in a manner that any skilled practitioner in realpolitik would applaud. Philip V of Macedonia was confronted by Rome at the request of one of her Greek allies and defeated in 197 BC. Macedonia and Greece were added in 146 BC to the burgeoning total of Roman provinces.

In Asia Minor, Rome was at first content to foster a loose confederation of allies that acknowledged her supremacy. However, such diplomacy did not always bring the peace and stability that Rome craved: Mithridates VI, King of Pontus, proved a particularly troublesome fellow. In 88 BC, he overran a large part of Asia Minor and then invaded Greece, where he was greeted as a liberator rather than as a tyran­nical aggressor—much to Rome's consternation. Several expeditions against him failed. He was not finally defeated until 66 BC, when he fell victim to the brilliant generalship of Pompey, who restored order throughout the area, as well as further increasing Rome's territory and income. Syria was annexed; and Jerusalem was captured in 63 BC.

(c) The Gauls Cisalpine Gaul continued to be a prickly thorn in Rome's side. Effective control over the area was a Roman dream rather than reality. There were frequent uprisings by the Gallic tribes settled there, and incursions by maraud­ing Gauls from over the other side of the Alps. In any case, Rome needed to protect the land route to Spain. Roman armies started to venture further north beyond the mountains and were generally successful. The conquest and annexation of southern Gaul in the late second century BC led to the creationof a new province— Gallia Narbonensis. But in 105 BC, the Roman army was heavily defeated at Arausio (Orange) by Germanic tribes advancing westwards. They occupied the province for several years before being crushed by the Roman general, Marius.

Roman control of Gaul remained confined to the south for the next fifty years, until Julius Caesar (made governor of Gaul in 59 BC) defeated a succession of Gallic tribes in a protracted campaign lasting some ten years. Caesar's victory at Alesia in 52 BC against the formidable Gallic leader Vercingetorix proved to be the decisive engagement. This campaign greatly extended the size of the province. Across the sea lay the mysterious land of Britain. Twice Caesar invaded it, mainly to protect his northern frontier and to claim the glory of having extended Roman power beyond the seas.

1.2.3 The collapse of the Republic

The Republican constitution was inherently flawed. In particular, the concept of joint magistracy, coupled with the magisterial right of veto, was potentially fraught with problems (Mousourakis, Legal History, 39-48). So, too, was the vesting of mili­tary, executive, and even judicial powers in magistrates who could easily transpire to be rivals. Fortunately for Rome, the control exercised by the Senate, and the good sense of most of her office-holders, prevented serious problems for much of the time. The position of the Senate was paradoxical. It enjoyed, throughout much of the Republic, a pre-eminent position in terms of prestige and moral authority. It was the consultative and advisory body of government. The convention became established that magistrates had to consult the Senate on all-important matters. Moreover, it exercised a large measure of control over the State's finances and foreign relations—the Senate authorized and ratified treaties and alliances with other powers (see further Jolowicz and Nicholas, Historical Introduction, 30-45). On the other hand, the Senate lacked the right to make law. But woe betide the magistrate or the general who disregarded the Senate's advice. Of course, the authority and prestige of the Senate depended on the way that it discharged its functions. Until the late Republic, the leadership that the Senate provided was generally of a high order. Its astute handling of the various crises during the desperate years of Hannibal's inva­sion earned it a formidable reputation for years to come as a repository of political, legal, and military experience. For a century-and-a-half after the end of the struggle of the orders, the internal political situation of Rome was relatively stable. But with hindsight, we can see that if anyone successfully challenged the authority of the Senate, the Republican constitution would be in the greatest jeopardy.

1.2.3.1 The Gracchi brothers

Things started to go seriously wrong in the period of the Gracchi brothers. Tiberius Gracchus, tribune in 133 BC, tried to deal with the plight of the peasant farmers who had been dispossessed of their smallholdings while engaged on military ser­vice. The farmer-soldier often found on his return that his smallholding had been absorbed into a larger estate. Tiberius' agrarian reforms imposed limits on the amount of public land that could be held by any individual. The land recovered from overlarge estates was to be distributed to the dispossessed. These proposals threatened the interests of wealthy landowners, many of whom were members of the Senate. So, Tiberius took the radical step of putting his plans to the plebeian assembly for enactment without first consulting the Senate. His enemies regarded his behaviour as arrogant and autocratic and murdered him.

A similar fate befell Tiberius’ brother, Gaius, tribune in two successive years, 123- 122 BC. His reform programme was far more radical and wide-ranging than that of Tiberius. Hardly any aspect of the government of Rome was left untouched by him. One particular measure earned Gaius great unpopularity with the Senate—he excluded senators from hearing cases of provincial mismanagement. This action was seen as a serious diminution of the powers of the Senate. Moreover, Gaius ignored the Senate and took his proposals straight to the plebeian assembly, which he dominated through his oratory and the force of his personality. He seems not to have learned the lessons of his brother's demise and he, too, was struck down.

The Gracchi brothers had exposed fundamental flaws in the Republican constitu­tion. A man with ideas, courage, and a charismatic personality could appeal directly to the people as its 'protector', thus reducing the Senate to the role of an impo­tent bystander. The only reason that the Gracchi had failed was that at the critical moment, they had lacked an army. But the army, as a key player in the internal politics of Rome, was about to take the field.

1.2.3.2 Armies and generals

The heavy defeat suffered at Arausio in 105 BC hastened the reorganization of the Roman army into a fully professional, volunteer force dependent for its pay and conditions of service on individual commanders. A popular general had a dangerous weapon in his hands, capable of crushing any resistance, including that of the Senate. The remaining years of the Republic were plagued by cri­ses, disorder, and civil war, often precipitated by the abuse of power by military strongmen—something that the Republican constitution was meant to prevent. The chief figures in this unhappy phase of Roman political history were:

(a) Marius A highly successful general who achieved distinction in campaigns against Jugurtha in Numidia (Africa) and against the Germanic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul. His victories ended a series of reverses that had thrown doubt on Roman military supremacy, and which had brought the Senate much criticism. Marius proved adept at exploiting the hostility felt towards the senatorial class, thus fur­ther weakening the Senate's waning authority. Greatly popular with the army, he managed to be elected consul six times between 107 and 100 BC. This was unprecedented and (legally) highly dubious. Marius was quite capable of using the army to sweep away political opposition. In 100 BC, senatorial resistance to Marius’ reforms quickly evaporated at the sight of his soldiers marching on the Senate—a black day for the Republic. Blacker days were to follow.

(b) Sulla He succeeded Marius as the strongman of Rome. Sulla was a redoubt­able general, distinguishing himself in the Social War and against the formidable Mithridates. Sulla was not averse to using his army against fellow Romans in the pursuit of personal ambition. Twice his legions marched on Rome and ruthlessly crushed senatorial opposition from his rivals for power. But Sulla was much more than a ruthless soldier. He was responsible for a considerable amount of reform— legal, constitutional, and administrative. He reformed the criminal process by establishing a system of jury courts to try particular categories of crime. He con­siderably restricted the powers of tribunes, thereby ensuring that the Senate recov­ered some of its lost authority and prestige. Further, Sulla doubled the size of the Senate (from 300 to 600) by introducing many of his supporters from the equestri­ans, an order which formed a very important power bloc, largely consisting of the wealthiest citizens of Rome rather than those of patrician stock. They were termed the equites ('horsemen' or 'knights') because in early Rome they constituted the bulk of the cavalry.

(c) Pompey Following Sulla's death, Pompey eventually established himself as the most powerful man in Rome. He was a superb general, perhaps the finest of all Republican commanders. In 67 BC, Pompey was entrusted with unprecedented powers of command, which he used to great effect to crush the threat of piracy in the Mediterranean before embarking on a most successful campaign in the east. On his triumphant return, Pompey tried to obtain ratification for his reorganization of the Roman provinces in the east, but he met unexpected political opposition. It was overcome, with the aid of Julius Caesar, a patrician who had acquired great pres­tige and influence during Pompey's absence. Renewed opposition from sections of the nobility led Pompey to make an informal alliance in 60 BC with Caesar and Crassus ('the First Triumvirate'). Caesar then secured for himself the governorship of Gaul, where he displayed impressive qualities as a general and empire builder. Crassus was less fortunate, leading his army to a terrible defeat at Carrhae in 53 BC by a much smaller Parthian army. An unprecedented barrage from mounted arch­ers destroyed the Roman legions and the victors executed Crassus.

A rift eventually developed between Pompey and Caesar, partly the result of Pompey's irritation that memories of his past military deeds were being eclipsed by the news of Caesar's Gallic exploits. The untimely death of Caesar's daugh­ter, whom Pompey had married to cement the political alliance, led to a further Weakening of the ties between the two men. In 52 BC, Pompey was elected as sole consul after a period of anarchy during which factional discord had resulted in the murder of candidates for high office and the burning down of the Senate. Pompey restored order but made the rift between himself and the absent Caesar seem irrevocable by passing laws openly aimed at Caesar. Such actions did Pompey little credit—a pity, since for much of his distinguished career he had acted with a measure of integrity unusual for the age.

(d) Julius Caesar Returning to Italy after his long absence in Gaul, Caesar crossed the river Rubicon with his army in 49 BC, ignoring a decree that he was to resume the status of a private citizen oh his return. The crossing of the Rubicon was perceived as a culmination of the deteriorating relations between Pompey and Caesar—a virtual declaration of civil war. The prospect of the two ablest Roman generals of the time in open conflict, of Roman armies slaughtering one another, was what the Republicans most feared. The critical weakness of the Republican constitution, the vesting of military and executive authority in potential rivals, had become tragically evident.

In the hostilities that followed, Julius Caesar emerged totally triumphant. Pompey fled to Egypt and was murdered there in 48 BC. Caesar became the undis­puted master of the Roman world. He had himself appointed dictator for life. The title was not a hollow one, for Caesar was the complete autocrat. However, he showed remarkable clemency (for that time) towards those who had formerly opposed him. Such magnanimity enabled him to restore good order after the bitter civil war of the previous years—a considerable achievement. And, he instituted an ambitious programme of reform that demonstrated his understanding of some of the administrative and economic problems that beset the Roman world at that time. His astonishing energy, multifarious talents, and consuming interest in a diverse range of matters mark him out as one of the outstanding figures in world history. Had he lived longer, who knows what more he might have achieved? But he was destined to rule Rome for no more than four years. Caesar became hated by elements of the senatorial aristocracy for his autocratic ways and disregard of the Republican constitution, and in 44 BC, he was assassinated.

(e) Octavian (later Augustus) He stands at the crossroads of Roman history—the last of the great figures of the Republic, but the first emperor. He was related to Caesar and was named by him as his heir. Although aged only eighteen when Caesar was murdered, Octavian's connections immediately marked him out as a potential leader of the Caesarian party, and as a rival to Mark Antony (who had been Caesar's closest colleague). So, the last few years of the Republic witnessed intermittent feuding between Antony and Octavian. For a while, they formed an alliance with Lepidus, another of Caesar's lieutenants—a new triumvirate. Its object was to take revenge on those Republicans implicated in Caesar’s murder. They succeeded, and their revenge was terrible. In 43 BC, a large number of sena­tors were butchered, including that redoubtable orator, statesman, and man of let­ters, Cicero. A year later, the forces of Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's murderers, were defeated at Philippi. The Republican cause was effectively finished.

For a few years there was a measure of harmony between the rulers of the Roman world. Antony, still the senior partner in the triumvirate, married Octavian’s sis­ter. But Antony's obsession with pursuing war in the east against the Parthians, one of Caesar's unfinished projects, led him to Egypt, and to the arms of her scheming queen, Cleopatra. The whole world knows about their romance. It has inspired some great works of art. Life with Cleopatra seems to have made Antony forget his wife, his duties, his very homeland. It may be that he was planning to establish an empire of the East as a rival to Rome. With hindsight, we can see that Octavian and Antony were on a collision course even more inevitable than that between Pompey and Caesar. Rome was again plunged into civil war. The naval battle at Actium in 31 BC proved to be a significant victory for Octavian. Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide soon after, and Octavian annexed Egypt. His triumph was complete—he was now the master of the Roman world. He was to remain master for the next forty-five years.