dantem said:
Just noticed more that once that Octavian[us] Augustus was often named 'Master of Propaganda". What if Mark Antony and Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium? Where they both carriers of at least some of the true inheritance of Caesar, having spent so much time with him?
Yes, Octavianus' "New World Order" was predicated on propaganda. He had his two pals, Maecenas and Agrippa who were actually the main elements of the "image of Augustus". Maecenas coopted Horace and Vergil for propaganda purposes, and there was also Livy who wrote history according to the "new vision of Rome".
There were two very early propaganda projects, it seems. The first was the setting of Cicero in the correct light which was favorable to Augustus and also laid the groundwork for Cicero to be diminished in stature. Jerome Carcopino examines this issue in depth and it is worth reading. It's better than a whodunnit! The second is the work of Valerius Antias who did an early re-write of ancient Roman history, creating the myth of the "vow against kings" that was supposed to get the assassins of Caesar off the hook for breaking their sacred vow to protect his person.
In the first case, the editing/selection of the letters of Cicero was clearly overseen by a careful hand favorable to Augustus. And this hand also made sure that the letters of Caesar were NOT included. Carcopino assumes that this was done because Caesar might have written something that made himself look bad, but considering the attitude that Augustus took toward Caesar, on the advice of his propaganda master, it is more likely that the letters of Caesar would have made Augustus look bad in comparison. It is also extremely unlikely that Caesar would have written anything compromising to Cicero to begin with.
In the second case, after he had hunted down and killed the assassins of Caesar and thereby glorified his "pietas", Augustus (or his handlers) saw that it would be useful to gain the adherence of the old nobility of which the assassins were members. Thus, the blame for the civil war and the horrors of the triumvirate of Octavianus, Antony and Lepidus, was heaped on Caesar, the man, while Caesar the god - the parent of divus filius, i.e. Augustus - was glorified. This was why it was necessary to create the above-mentioned "myth of the oath of the first Brutus" and his gang and the whole Roman people that was to be obligated onto their descendants. They had to be 'cleansed'. So, Valerius Antias created that myth - and others - and Livy used Antias as his source for many "ancient events" that never happened. Livy was "approved" by Octavianus - that is, guided.
The reason for this was that the army, Caesar's veterans, were fiercely loyal to him and it was for this reason that Augustus did not openly defame Caesar, he just promoted himself as the "son of Caesar" and took a rather circuitous route of marginalizing Caesar in every way possible. In the later years of his reign, when most of Caesar's veterans were likely dead, he did things that he would never have gotten away with earlier. He wasn't a fool: he knew that the army had made him Imperator and the army could un-make him.
As for the battle of Actium, the great myth of the battle of Romans against the evil demon Queen of Egypt, was a propaganda coup. Syme's book is worth reading just for his analysis of that event.
I have problems with Antony myself because he was too willing to compromise with the assassins from the beginning, but then he was a nobile and only a friend of Caesar's, not a strong adherent of his principles. But Antony was not the evil adversary that he was painted by Augustus in cahoots with Cicero. But don't imagine that he was a carrier of they truth about Caesar in any respect. Antony was out for Antony and Cleopatra for his own reasons.
Cicero thought he was using Octavianus to destroy Antony and had visions of seizing power himself, and all the while, whoever was advising Octavianus had the intention of using Cicero to destroy Antony all the while planning to then get rid of Cicero.
Of course, it IS possible that Octavian was a pathological individual (I think he was, I just haven't categorized him yet) and was smart enough to play Cicero as he did. Again, read Syme's discussion of this - which is brilliant - to see just what kinds of games were going on. In all of it, the ugliest, most disgusting character of all is Cicero.
