Octavian's Campsite Memorial in Nikopolis

[To be proof-read and formatted. The figures can be found in the pdf version.]

The accomplishments of Augustus Caesar extend far beyond those listed in his Res Gestae. “History sees [him] as the first Emperor of Rome”, who reformed and rejuvenated the decaying Roman state “from the chaos of civil war to a system of ordered government” which “provided the firm and stable basis from which sprang the expansion and prosperity of the next two centuries” [Shotter 1991: 1-2], and which changed the course of Western history. The Battle of Actium was to be the crucial event in his final rise to power, and as Cassius Dio points out, after Actium, “Caesar [Octavian] now for the first time held all the power alone, and consequently the years of his reign are properly reckoned from that day” [Dio LI.1.2]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Augustus, or Octavian, himself was quick to recognize this, and Actium was officially proclaimed to be the birthplace of the New Order [Murray 1989: 9]. Within two years of his victory, Octavian founded the city of Nikopolis by uniting the surrounding territory [Dio LI.l.2-3; Paus. VII.18.9, X.38], at once a permanent memorial of this decisive victory [Dio LI.l.2-3; Suet. Aug. 18.2; Mommsen 1974: 295-296; Jones 1970: 41] and the centre of a newly flourishing Hellenic life [Mommsen 1974: 295] which rejuvenated an area left desolated by years of war and piracy [Murray 1989: 4]. In the city, he built two war memorials to commemorate his final ascension to power. The first was a purely Greek-style monument on Cape Actium dedicated to Apollo, with a full complement of ten ships from each of the ten ship classes which had fought in the battle [Strabo 7.7.6, cited in Murray 1989: 6; Murray 1989: 5-6, 116]. The other was the official war memorial built at the sacred site of his tent [Dio LI.l.2; Suet. Aug. 18] (Figure 1). from http://janusquirinus.org/

This campsite war memorial, as that commemorating not only Octavian’s victory at Actium, but the entire campaign, was a statement of propaganda which uses various forms imagery and symbolism to celebrate and justify an ascension to power which was unusual and to emphasize the peace and restoration of the Roman empire that this victory had brought to the world, but without actually referring to the defeated rivals. It also emphasized that the victor for whom the monument was built was a leader chosen by the gods. Because it was designed so soon after Octavian found himself alone in power, it also bore the unmistakable imprint of Octavian’s personal touch. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Today, parts of the retaining wall with a series of nose-shaped sockets in it, fragments of stone with foot-high letters, and a stylobate (Figures 2 to 6) still stand on the hill of Mikhalitzi overlooking the modern day town of Preveza which has been built over Nikopolis. The original monument is thought to have consisted of a smaller lower terrace and a large upper podium, which were separated by a long retaining wall decorated by an impressive rostra of bronze warship rams captured from Antony’s warships (Figure 7) [Murray 1988; Murray 1989: 85]. These rams, estimated to be between thirty-three and thirty-five in number [Murray 1989: 56], were mounted with their backs into the sockets in the retaining wall and arrayed in increasing sizes from right to left [Murray 1989: 85-86] until the first ram, which was a gigantic 1.38 meters wide [Murray 1989: 45] and might have weighed over two tons [Murray 1989: 86]. This arrangement served to direct the observer’s attention to the inscription of foot-high letters which began above that largest ram. Depending on the arrangement of the fragments that have been discovered, the inscription has been variously restored [see Oliver 1969; Carter 1977; and Murray 1989: 62-77]. The most recent restoration yields the following translation— from http://janusquirinus.org/

IMPERATOR CAESAR, SON OF THE DIVINE JULIUS, FOLLOWING THE VICTORY IN THE WAR WHICH HE WAGED ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC IN THIS REGION, WHEN HE WAS CONSUL FOR THE FIFTH TIME AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF FOR THE SEVENTH TIME, AFTER PEACE HAD BEEN SECURED ON LAND AND SEA (pace parta terra marique), CONSECRATED TO NEPTUNE AND MARS THE CAMP FROM WHICH HE SET FORTH TO ATTACK THE ENEMY NOW ORNAMENTED WITH NAVAL SPOILS [Murray 1989: 86]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Defining the upper terrace was a Π-shaped stoa more than 40 meters wide, with its open end facing south toward the ram display [Murray 1989: 77-85, 86]. It may have served to house the spoils from the battle for dedication, since it was common for the Greeks to dedicate military equipment in stoas, a practice that some Roman generals, including Octavian, had employed [Murray 1989: 91-93]. The stoa itself must not have been as extraordinary a sight as the ram display, since the ancient authors either failed to describe it in detail, or ignored it completely [Murray 1989: 93]. However, it did serve perhaps an even more important function of focusing a visitor’s attention on the simple consecrated site on the upper terrace where Octavian’s tent had stood; and beyond the living memorial of the city of Nikopolis, on the site of the decisive Battle of Actium and where the other war memorial stood (Figure 8). from http://janusquirinus.org/

On the upper terrace also, or possibly inside the stoa, were the bronze statues of a man and an ass, namely, Eutychos and Nikon, whom Octavian was supposed to have met on his way down to begin the battle [Plut. Ant. 65.3; Suet. Aug. 96]. These bronze statues, probably cast from one or two of the warship rams [Murray 1989: 93], were later moved to Constantinople. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Altogether, the original monument must have been very impressive (Figure 9), and in an age when visual imagery was aggressively employed as propaganda [Zanker 1988: 1], it was also laden with meaning, which could only be understood by analyzing the various elements of the monument and how they were put together. from http://janusquirinus.org/

First, the inscription, the most, if not only, blatant statement of the monument’s purpose, which was there to remind the most ignorant visitor of the achievements of the man the monument was commemorating: victory in the war against various “enemies” of the Roman state and thus, securing the peace on land and sea that enabled the Senate to close the doors of the Temple of Janus. This was significant because it had only happened twice in the entire history of the Republic. Also, to justify his campaign, which for the most part could be regarded as civil war against some of Rome’s highest ranking senators, Octavian also stressed that this campaign was “waged on behalf of the Republic,” a message reinforced by his position as consul. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, by the phrase “pace parta terra marique”, the inscription not only emphasized the peace that the victor who had dedicated this monument had brought to the battle-weary world, but also marked this monument as the victory memorial of Octavian’s entire campaign [Murray 1989: 138]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The title, “Imperator Caesar”, which Octavian chose to use here is also worth considering. It was a title which he almost always used, but which first appeared on a coin minted by Marcus Agrippa to commemorate his victory over the Gauls. Previously, Octavian would have used “Caesar Imperator”. This might seem a small difference, but it is certainly an important one. The statement of fact, the mention of the accolade, made “Imperator “, a kind of permanent attribute. “Imperator” was no longer a title, but part of his name and thus, it is implicitly a claim to be the Imperator [Carter 1970: 138]—i.e. “nomen imperatoris”. Furthermore, the use of the epithet, “Son of divine Julius” (Divi Iuli), which was another innovation on the same Agrippan coin [Carter 1970: 138] also served to underscore his pietas to his adoptive father, for whom this campaign was supposedly waged to avenge. It might also have indirectly jabbed at Antony who paraded as a Caesarean, but who, nevertheless, was not the heir of Caesar and who even harboured a few of Julius Caesar’s murderers. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The act of consecrating the site to Neptune and Mars was also in line with pietas. On another level, it also implied that Octavian was favoured by the gods to win, since it is in accordance with the Roman practice of invoking the gods to favour oneself by promise of worship and consecration. Yet the choice of gods is interesting. The choice of Neptune might be considered obvious, since the Battle of Actium was a naval battle, as might the choice of Mars, the god of war and victory. However, since it was likely that this monument commemorated Octavian’s entire campaign which was fought on both land and sea, it would seem that both gods symbolized various aspects of the entire campaign. from http://janusquirinus.org/

For instance, Sextus Pompey, one of the contenders for dominance after Julius Caesar’-s assassination and who was extremely popular with the Roman plebs [Zanker 1988: 40], had claimed to be the son of Neptune [Carter 1970: 138-139; Zanker 1988: 39-40]. On one occasion, upon discovering that his fleet had been sunk by Sextus Pompey, Octavian had the statue of Neptune which Sextus Pompey had dedicated removed from the pompa, and vowed that he would triumph even “over the will of Neptune” [Suet. Aug. 16]. But that turned out to be unnecessary, since Neptune obviously abandoned Sextus Pompey at Naulochus for Octavian. Thus, by Neptune’s name, the inscription also reminded the reader of the peace that Octavian “brought to the sea by suppressing the pirates” (Aug. RG. 25.1). It is then not surprising that a cameo from around the time of Actium depicted Octavian as Neptune, carrying a trident and charging his chariot past an enemy sinking beneath the waves, thought either to be Sextus Pompey or Antony (Figure 10). Later, in the Aeneid, Virgil’s most overt divine identification of Augustus is with Neptune [Vir. Aen. 1.148-56; pointed out in Ah11994: p122]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Mars also had multiple manifestations useful to Octavian’s campaign. Most importantly, as Mars Ultor, he was the god presiding over the campaign that Octavian began in order to avenge his adoptive father, and thus the story of Octavian’s evocation of Mars Ultor at Philippi [Suet. Aug. 29; see also Weinstock 1971: 128-132 for an additional meaning of the temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus]. Furthermore, Mars was the father of Romulus, the founder of Rome, and thus the ancestor of the Romans [Zanker 1988: 195-196; Weinstock 1971: 128-130]. Hence, the dedication to Mars would emphasize that the ancestral god of the Romans had chosen Octavian, as well as remind visitors to the monument of the resemblance of Octavian to Romulus in his role as the “new founder” of Rome. For instance, they might be reminded of the story that when Octavian first took the auspices as Consul, twelve vultures appeared as they had to Romulus [Suet Aug. 95]. Indeed, at around the period of the building of this monument, Octavian had thought of having himself called Romulus [Zanker 1988: 98], in the tradition of numerous statesmen from the late Republic who had tried to portray themselves as the new Romulus [Weinstock 1971: 129-130]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

It is also interesting to note that in Mars, the clans of the Julii and Octavii merged, since Mars was the lover of Venus, the goddess from whom the Julius clan claimed their descent, and also the ancestral god of the Octavian clan. In this sense, Mars’ position was symbolic of Octavian’s. from http://janusquirinus.org/

A third god who must be considered is Apollo. Even before the founding of Nikopolis, there already was an ancient sanctuary of Apollo at Actium [Miller 1994: 100], and when Octavian founded Nikopolis, he chose to dedicate an entire war monument to Apollo alone, as well as re-found the Actian Games sacred to the god [Dio LI.2]. The campsite memorial itself was built on a hill sacred to Apollo [Strabo 7.7.6, interpreted by Murray 1989: 87-90]. Indeed, Apollo was so omnipresent that Cassius Dio, and perhaps other visitors, assumed that the campsite memorial was dedicated to Apollo [Dio U.3], and today, residents of Preveza, which stands over the ancient city of Nikopolis, still assume that the ruins are of an ancient temple of Apollo [Murray 1988]. Elsewhere, Apollo would be used to symbolize this greatest military triumph of Octavian [Solomon 1994: xi], and soon after Actium, the new portrait type of Octavian took on a kind of ageless beauty which would have reminded his contemporaries of Apollo’s own features [Zanker 1988: 50]. In other words, though Apollo was not mentioned in the inscription (unless there is a whole fragment with his name missing), he was also a god, if not the most important god, to whom Octavian gave thanks for the Battle of Actium. from http://janusquirinus.org/

So what was the significance of Apollo? First, Apollo was expropriated by both Octavian and his enemies, such as Brutus and Cassius [Zanker 1988: 49; Weinstock 1974: 14], for their propaganda during the civil wars [Moles and Gosling, as cited by Ah11994: 117; Weinstock 1971: 14-15], and the outcome clearly showed that Octavian was the chosen one of Apollo. Indeed, an anecdote had it that when celebrating his birthday at Samos in the autumn of 42 B.C.E., Brutus anticipated the outcome of Philippi by quoting from the Iliad: “but destructive fate by the hand of Leto’s son has killed me” [App. BC. 4.134.564, as cited in Weinstock 1971: 14]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Apollo was also an ancestral god of the Julius clan [Weinstock 1971: 12]. More importantly, Octavian had chosen Apollo as his special patron, and had over the years come to identify himself, and be identified with Apollo [Zanker 1988: 48-53; Miller 1994: 100; Ahl 19994: 117-122, Weinstock 1971: 15]. Indeed, at the notorious Feast of Twelve Gods, the young Octavian had come dressed as Apollo [Suet. Aug. 70]. This identification with the multi-faceted Apollo proved useful in representing the various characteristics and propaganda of Octavian’ s campaign and ascension to power. First and foremost, Apollo stood for discipline and morality [Zanker 1988: 52; Clay 1994: 27], as well as “purification and punishment of any form of excess”, and thus well represented the war against Antony, the New Dionysus. Also, Apollo, like Mars Ultor, was a god of vengeance as indicated by his slaughtering of the children of Niobe [Zanker 1988: 85] and thus represented the campaign against the murderers of Julius Caesar. Indeed, Octavian had ascribed his final victory over Sextus Pompey, who had harboured many of Julius Caesar’s murderers, primarily to the help of Apollo and his sister Diana [Zanker 1988: 50]. Furthermore, Apollo was linked to the Republican theme of libertas [Ahl 1994: 117], thus suggested that Octavian’s campaign was on behalf on the Roman state, and enabled Augustus to later claim that he liberated the Republic [Aug. RG. 1]. Another aspect of Apollo useful to Octavian was his role as the mediator between Jupiter and mankind [Clay 1994: 29], thus also implying a similar role for Octavian. After the victory at Actium, Apollo, who had been used since Sulla to allude to the promise of a bright future, then “took on his role as singer, lyre player, the patron and inspirational genius of literature, and god of healing and reconciliation” [Zanker 1988: 49], and represented the peace Octavian had brought as well as the program of cultural rejuvenation to which Octavian had put himself soon after Actium. Finally, “as the prophetic god” [Zanker 1988: 53], it was only appropriate that he was present at the birthplace of the New Order to “proclaim the long-awaited new age”. from http://janusquirinus.org/

With the presence of three gods who were so intimately involved with Octavian’s victory, it may be asked why Dionysus, as the patron god of Antony and who, like Neptune and Apollo, had deserted Octavian’s enemy, was conspicuously absent from the war memorial. Most importantly, Dionysus was a god of revelry and drunkenness, was in conflict with Roman traditions [Zanker 1988: 441 such as dignitas and gravitas, and Antony’s loss of support from the Romans had been closely associated with his identification with Dionysus. Thus, this is not a god with whom Octavian would want to be associated. Furthermore, Dionysus was too closely identified with Antony, and Octavian would not want the visitors to this monument to be reminded of Antony, a great Roman who probably still had a large following of supporters in so short a time after Actium. from http://janusquirinus.org/

It might also be worth mentioning that the close identifications of the two generals with their two respective gods proved also to be useful to Octavian’s image in another way. While Apollo was a sharp antithesis to Dionysus, it was because Dionysus can be regarded as a negative complementary of Apollo. Both are associated with creating idyllic happiness, both are patrons of drama and the arts, and like Dionysus, Apollo’s character floats between extreme polarities [Bierl 1994: 81-83]. Nevertheless, Apollo upheld order while Dionysus only created chaos. In other words, what Dionysus could do, Apollo did as what the New Dionysus could do, the protégé of Apollo did better. Interestingly, probably circulated by Octavian’s partisans, recounted that in an oracle to Octavian’s father, Dionysus had foretold that Octavian would be the ruler of the world [Suet. Aug. 94]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Another feature of the monument which would remind the visitor that Octavian was the one chosen by the gods, was the statues of Eutychos and Nikon, i.e. Luck and Victor [Suet. Aug. 96; Plut. Ant. 65]. The appearance of the pair to Octavian before the Battle of Actium was probably regarded as a premonitory sign that the gods had chosen him, and in an age when Luck was worshipped as a deity [Carter 1970: 184], the appearance of Eutychos did not carry the sardonic overtone it would today. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The rostra with its giant rams also served as evidence of the virtus of the man who captured them. Unless some smaller-sized sockets lie buried at the unexcavated eastern end of the wall, it seems that Octavian had deliberately enhanced this view by omitting examples from moderate- and small- sized ships in this monument, and simply mounted every large example that fell into his hands, as the irregular number of sockets in each size group implied [Murray 1988]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

However, as is often the case with Octavian, there is a more subtle meaning to the rostra, which would have been obvious to educated visitors of the time. To commemorate his triumphs, Octavian had at least two rostras built. This memorial at Nikopolis was one, and the other was the speaker’s platform at the Forum in Rome. This other rostra at Rome was located directly opposite the old one, which Julius Caesar had moved to the middle of the west side of the Forum [Zanker 1988: 80], and which probably provided the inspiration for the Nikopolis rostra [Murray 1989: 117]. The old rostra displayed the rams from historic naval victories won in the old Republic, and thus by the juxtaposition, and the allusion to this juxtaposition, the rams captured in a civil war, were purged and unmistakably linked to those from the glorious days of the Republic [Zanker 1988: 80; Murray 1989: 116-121]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, this old Rostra was built over an even older one by the censor M. Antonius, the grandfather of Mark Antony, and under Julius Caesar, Antony had been responsible for moving it from the southernmost speaker’s platform to its location at western end of the Forum, where it remained during the Empire [Murray 1989: 118-120]. Antony had been allowed to put his name on the finished monument [Dio 43.49.2, as cited in Murray 1989: 120]. Thus, the old Rostra is closely associated with Mark Antony, and a juxtaposition of a new rostra decorated with rams from Antony’s fleet would subtly hint at the outcome of Antony’s betrayal [Murray 1989: 121]. This may also partially explain why Octavian chose to use so many large rams in Nikopolis. By doing so, he clearly portrayed himself as the ultimate victor, one who won against the man whose family had also been triumphant at one point, but whose victories, as indicated by the captured rams, were not as impressive as his. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, while in Rome, Octavian was bound by the conservative sensitivities of the Romans, but in Nikopolis, he was freer to emphasize his victory, and thus the scale of the rams, just the rest of the Nikopolis monument was one more appropriate to a Hellenistic monarch, or to an Alexander [Murray 1989: 124]. In other words, this ram display is a Roman rostra built to a Hellenistic scale, reflecting the synthesis between Greek and Roman elements observed by Gage and others in this monument [Murray 1989: 115]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The stoa is another example of such an incorporation of Greek elements into a monument celebrating Roman victory. Π-shaped and set on a lofty terrace, it is reminiscent of the upper terrace at the Asklepieion on Kos [Murray 1989: 86, 124], a magnificent piece of Greek architecture. from http://janusquirinus.org/

An interesting question then is why Greek elements were incorporated into the war memorial that was meant to commemorate the victory associated with the founding of the Roman Empire. Indeed, this monument is the only one in Nikopolis that even had any Roman elements. As Mommsen points out, “everything properly Italian was carefully avoided in the erection of the town as well as in the religious arrangements, however natural it might be to mold after the Roman fashion the ‘city of victory’ so intimately associated with the founding of the empire” [Mommsen 1974: 296]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

This blend of Greek and Roman elements is reflective of the philhellenism begun in the Roman Republic and brought to its hey day in the Roman Empire. Greek culture was regarded as the epitome of culture, as indicated by the way many Romans tried to graft their ancestry into Greek mythology and the re-invention of the founding myth of Rome to link it to Troy. Thus, in his victory monument, it was only logical that Octavian would try to live up to this standard. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Moreover, in this age of transition, there were among the people, expectations of salvation and of a saviour. Roman culture was not adapted to deal with this, and the only language available in which to express and address these expectations was that of Greek culture [Zanker 1988: 44]. Similarly, only Hellenistic art could provide military victors of the time, including Octavian, with an impressive medium in which to express their assertions of power [Zanker 1988: 2]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, in this period of rejuvenation, the rich cultural language of the Greeks was a logical source to be drawn on, especially since the assimilation of Greek culture had already been begun before Octavian’s time such that most of Rome’s aristocracy was by now Hellenised [Scullard 1982: 189-190], and to Octavian, Greek culture, together with traditional Roman culture, was a rich of moral precepts [Suet. Aug. 89]. The long tradition of Greek culture also grafted the new changes onto the past, especially important in an age of transition to a people who emphasized mores maiorum. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Another reason for the overwhelming Hellenistic element in the founding of Nikopolis and its two war memorials could be attributed to Octavian’s own background. Other than Apollo, another figure with whom Octavian had identified himself was Alexander the Great. For instance, in the thirties B.C.E., a story circulated, and which is reflected on a glass cameo, that Octavian’s mother conceived the boy not by his putative father, but by the god Apollo, in the form of a snake—the same story told of the conception of Alexander [Suet. Aug. 94; Zanker 1988: 50]. Yet another story recounted that when Octavian’s father consulted the oracle of Dionysus about his son’s destiny, as mentioned above, a pillar of flame shot into the sky as it did once before for Alexander [Suet. Aug. 94]. It was also said that when Octavian was at Alexandria, he had the sarcophagus containing Alexander’s mummy removed from its shrine, and after a long look at its features, showed his veneration by crowning the head with a golden diadem and strewing flowers on the trunk, but refused to visit the Mausoleum of the Ptolemies by saying that “I came to see a King, not a row of corpses” [Suet. Aug. 94]. Perhaps most importantly, the seal Octavian used between those of the sphinx of Apollo and his own image bore the image of Alexander [Suet. Aug. 50]. With such an admiration for Alexander in mind, it is not surprising that he should have chosen to follow the Greek traditions stretching back to Alexander of establishing “Victory Cities” near the sites of major battles and to make a purely Greek dedication of whole ships, and to build his official war monument on such a massive scale as Alexander himself would have done [Murray 1989: 124]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, Octavian, like all aristocratic Roman youths, was educated in Greece, and was thus exposed and bathed in Greek culture for most of his education. Indeed, he was said to have had ambitions to be as proficient in Greek as in Latin [Suet. Aug. 89] and went so far as to have himself initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries of Demeter and Persephone [Suet. Aug. 93; Dio LI.4.1]. Thus, it is not surprising that there is such a Greek influence in the monument. Perhaps a note of irony might be mentioned here. This victory monument, built to commemorate a victory over Antony, the New Dionysus who was supposedly corrupted by the worst of the Hellenistic cultures, and his ally, Cleopatra, the last of the Hellenistic monarchs, turned out to be in the steps of Alexander and other Hellenistic monarchs, and built with Egyptian wealth, well reflecting the quote from Horace that “Captive Greece captured the victor” [Hor. Epo. 2.1.156, as quoted in Zanker 1988: 1]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

However, unlike Antony and other philhellenes like Nero and Hadrian, Octavian chose to assimilate Greek culture into his Roman empire, instead of being assimilated into Greek culture. Perhaps that is why he chose Apollo, the most Greek of all Greek gods [Solomon 1994: dust cover], but also the most Roman of all Greek gods. Similarly, it is mistaken to believe that in the Augustan age, the resulting Graeco-Roman culture was merely Greek civilization dressed up in Roman guise. Instead, Rome injected her own spirit into it [Scullard 1982: 189]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

In essence, this campsite memorial was also a monument to Octavian’s complex personality, a contradictory but effective mix of majesty and minimalist, pietas and pride. This is most obvious in the stark contrast between the grand scale of the monument and the simplicity of the sacred site of Octavian’s tent, reminiscent of a man who had the ambition to conquer and transform an entire empire, but also believed in pragmatic simplicity [Suet. Aug. 72-76]. Indeed, he was so disdainful of pretentiousness that he went as far as to demolish a house built by his grand-daughter Julia on too lavish a scale [Suet. Aug. 72]. The presence of the statues of Eutychos and Nikon also reflected his absolute faith in certain premonitory signs. The complex blend of symbolism in the monument, too, is reflective of the enigmatic character of the man who published a Res Gestae which has been described as “[l]ike Augustus...unique, defying verbal definition and explaining themselves” [Syme 1939: 524]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Likewise, the looming presence, but absence of any concrete mention of Apollo in the war memorial is also typical of the man who deliberately removed some eighty silver statues of himself which had stood in a city in Asia Minor [Aug. RG. 24; Suet. Aug. 52] in that his presence was felt and acknowledged, but not blatantly stated. from http://janusquirinus.org/

It may be noted that though a note of supreme confidence, reminiscent of a man who claimed “I found Rome a city of bricks; but left her a city of marble” [Suet. Aug. 28], permeated the monument, the monument was a dedication to the gods, which contrasted with Octavian’s portrayal of himself as a god common to the earlier part of his career, such as in the cameo mentioned above. In that way, this monument also marked the change in Octavian’s character that differentiated the ruthless, ambitious and probably arrogant Octavian from clement and pious Augustus. In other words, this monument can be said to mark not only the birthplace of the New Order, but also that of Augustus, the masterly statesman. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, this act of consecrating to the gods instead of portraying himself as a god is also reflective of the new visual language of the Augustan age which Octavian had to create for his cultural program to redress Rome’s cultural and the associated moral decay in its theme of pietas, a virtue which was !o be the focal point of his cultural restoration. This shift in emphasis from self- aggrandising tendencies, a trend which had begun since Sulla, to that of the veneration of a leader chosen by the gods was regarded as contributing to the complete moral revival in the Augustan age [Zanker 1988: 3, 102-103]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The intricate combination of symbols was also indicative of this new visual language. Indeed, it has been said of the Augustan age that” [i]t is astonishing how every kind of visual communication same to reflect the new order, how every theme and slogan became interwoven” [Zanker 1988: 101]. Such a system was probably adopted to enable a now vast empire to have a common and easily grasped means of referring to the Augustan age and achievements of Octavian. In this, the imagery of Actium, in p~ supplied by the victory monument itself, especially its rostral display, was to play an important role. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Finally, the location of this monument to a victory over Rome’s enemies in Greece expanded the notion of Rome from that of the city on Tiber to an empire spread over the entire Mediterranean, and implied that the peace brought by Octavian benefited the entire empire. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Thus, the imagery of this war memorial supplemented the text of the inscription to deliver the powerful message of a pious Roman general whose just cause, virtus, and support from the gods enabled him to subdue Rome’s enemies and establish peace in an embattled era. So, even though modern day scholars such as Syme may accuse Actium of being a “shabby affair, the worthy climax to the ignoble propaganda against Cleopatra” [Syme 1939: 297], through the potent imagery of this monument, it did not make a difference. In the end, it was the phrase “pace parta terra marique” that had the greatest impact. And thus Philippus in a tribute to Augustus said of the monument at Nikopolis,

Bronze jaw-beaks, ships’ voyage-loving armor, we lie here as witnesses to the Actian War. Behold, the bees’ wax-fed gifts are hived in us, weighted all around by a humming swarm. So good is the grace of Caesar’s law and order; he has taught the enemy’s weapons to bear the fruits of peace instead. [Phil. Anth. Pal. 6.236, as cited in Murray 1989: 10]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Primary Sources
Augustus. “Res Gestae.” in Lewis and Reinhold 1990.
Cassius Dio. Roman History. With an English translation by E. Cary. Vol. V. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. Reprinted 1955.
Pausanius. Guide to Greece. Vols. I & II. Translated by P. Levi. Revised edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979.
Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Vol. II. Translated by J. Dryden, edited by A.H. Clough. New York: The Modern Library, 1992.
Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by R. Graves. Revised with an Introduction by M. Grant. Revised Edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1989.
Virgil. The Aeneid. Translated by D. West. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1991.

Secondary Sources
Ahl F. 1994. “Apollo: Cult and Prophesy in Ovid, Lucan and Statius.” in Solomon 1994: 113-134.
Bierl A. 1994. “Apollo in Greek Tragedy: Orestes and the God of Initiation.” in Solomon 1994: 81- 96.
Carter J. 1970. The Battle of Actium: The Rise and Triumph of Augustus Caesar. New York: Weybright and Talley.
Carter J. 1977. “A New Fragment of Octavian’s Inscription at Nicopolis.” ZPE. 24:227-230.
Clay J.S. 1994. “Tendenz and Olympian Propaganda in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo.” in Solomon 1994: 23-36.
Jones A.H.M. Augustus. London: Chaatto & Windus, 1970.
Lewis N. and Reinhold M., ed. 1990. Roman Civilization. Vol. I. 3rd Ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Miller J.F. 1994. “Virgil, Apollo, and Augustus.” in Solomon 1994: 99-112.
Mommsen T. 1974. The Provinces of the Roman Empire: From Caesar to Diocletian. Translated by W. P. Dickson. Chicago: Ares Publishers. Unchanged Reprint of London, 1909.
Murray W.M. and Petsas P.M. 1988. “The Spoils of Actium.” Archaeology. 41: 29-35.
Murray W.M. and Petsas P.M. 1989. “Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the Actian War.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 79 Part 4. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.
Oliver J.H. 1969. “Octavian’s Inscription at Nicopolis.” AJP. 90: 178-82.
Stillwell R., ed. 1976. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rogers R.S., Scott K. and Ward M.M. 1990. Caesaris Augusti: Res Gestae et Fragmenta. 2nd Ed. Revised by H. W. Benario. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Scullard H.H. 1982. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome 133 BC to AD 68. 5th Ed. London: Routledge. Reprinted 1992.
Sherk R.K., ed. 1984. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shotter D. 1991. Augustus Caesar. London and New York: Routledge.
Solomon J, ed. 1994. Apollo: Origins and Influences. Tucson, AZ and London, UK: The University of Arizona Press.
Syme R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinstock S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
White W.P. 1985. “Plans of Nicopolis in the Archives of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane In Oriente, 1986-87. LXIV-LXV: 295-325.
Wiseman J. and Dousougli-Zachos A. 1994. “The Nikopolis Project 1991-1993: Overview of the Multidisciplinary Study of Southern Epirus.” Meeting Abstract. American Journal of Archaelogy. 98: 315.
Zanker P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Reprinted 1990.

Updated on 7th August, 2004.

*My professor's comments:

This is quite splendid, a first-class job combining excellent research, intelligent analysis and fine writing. Your are quite right to see the memorial as pivotal in the transition from “Octavian” to “Augustus”, though I would stress the knowing and manipulative dimension of this more than you.

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links

• His achievements
• His city of marble
• His portraiture
• His humour
• His sayings
• His critics
• Sourcebook
• Links