This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Actium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Temrhianna.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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
What gulf was is fought outside of
The Gulf of Actium (go figure!=3)
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 194.66.238.27 ( talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's substitute B.C.E. for B.C. and C.E. for A.D.
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)
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. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"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.[3]
When Cleopatra heard the news about Mark Antony's death,"
So, if he died in her arms why would she have "heard the news about [his] death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.10 ( talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The translation is rather "Our Sea" than "Roman Mediterranean", anyone think this is worth editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekpatterson ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
TrustyJules ( talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Julius
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 aggression Lorzu ( 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)
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.
There is one point not covered in the article. Did Cleopatra and Octavian ever meet? AT Kunene ( talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
All information in long sentences to which the Shuckburgh citation attached are plagiarism. The 1917 publication date does not give us free license to copy and paste material from this source, without quotation marks to indicate that the material is verbatim from that source (or without the hard work required to cite the ideas certain from Shuckburgh, but make the prose fully original, and one's own).
Please to not respond superficially to these tags—either reverting, because you wish for prettified appearance over substantive progress, or moving around a word or two in each sentence to hide the substance in a likewise prohibited close paraphrase.These choices are easier than what is needed, and only hide the deeper problems to make them less easily diagnosed in future. (The cancer will still be present—lack of attributions to sources used, and lack of prose original to editors—but just harder to diagnose than at present.)
For at this juncture, all material of the article has to be considered suspect (that is what plagiarists accomplish at WP), and so the article needs to be checked, as a whole, for plagiarism, both with respect to the Shuckburgh sentences, but also for all the vast expanses of unsourced and so unverifiable text that appears in almost every section.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Actium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I read through the article that has been created thus far and I cannot help but feel like there is more to Anthony and Cleopatra's story. How much did their relationship affect the outcome of the battle? Anthony is portrayed as almost being controlled by Cleopatra's desires. He even breaks off from his fleet to pursue her during the engagement which caused his entire force to scatter? Temrhianna ( talk) 04:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Temrhianna
In the Order of battle section, I see Anthony: 500, including 230 large galleys; Octavian: 250. Then in the Combat section, I see Anthony: 140; Octavian: 260. Perhaps someone could investigate Antony's strength. Jontel ( talk) 19:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the various ancient sources, Octavian had between 250 and 400 battle ships and Antony, with his numerous oriental allies, had between 170 and 500 ships, out of which 60 Egyptian ships (Plutarch, Antony, 70). In addition, each had hundreds of supply ships.
This is still an issue in 2024. Battle of Actium#Order of battle says 250 and 400. Battle of Actium#Combat says there were 140 and 260. The sources used are either ancient or from 1917. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The last known mention of Lucius Gellius Poplicola was in Plutarch; "And now, as Agrippa was extending the left wing with a view to encircling the enemy, Publicola was forced to advance against him, and so was separated from the centre." This action was immediately followed with Cleopatras retreat, and the beginning of the end of Marc Antony. Poplicola is never mentioned again in any known historical texts, his last known action being charging into battle separated from the rest of his fleet, never to be heard of again. Do we need a body in order to classify one as killed in action? Beaten Corpse ( talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This article states: "It was there that Antony's fleet faced the much larger fleet of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships under commanders Gaius Sosius and Agrippa." This implies that Gaius Sosius was the commander of the fleet opposing that of Antony.
However, the article on Gaius Sosius itself states: "He commanded part of the fleet of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium in 31 BC, following which he was taken captive." This asserts that Gaius Sosius was in fact a commander of Antony's fleet.
This is a clear contradiction and must be resolved. 83.87.45.143 ( talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Actium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Temrhianna.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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
What gulf was is fought outside of
The Gulf of Actium (go figure!=3)
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 194.66.238.27 ( talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's substitute B.C.E. for B.C. and C.E. for A.D.
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)
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. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"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.[3]
When Cleopatra heard the news about Mark Antony's death,"
So, if he died in her arms why would she have "heard the news about [his] death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.10 ( talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The translation is rather "Our Sea" than "Roman Mediterranean", anyone think this is worth editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekpatterson ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
TrustyJules ( talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Julius
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 aggression Lorzu ( 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)
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.
There is one point not covered in the article. Did Cleopatra and Octavian ever meet? AT Kunene ( talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
All information in long sentences to which the Shuckburgh citation attached are plagiarism. The 1917 publication date does not give us free license to copy and paste material from this source, without quotation marks to indicate that the material is verbatim from that source (or without the hard work required to cite the ideas certain from Shuckburgh, but make the prose fully original, and one's own).
Please to not respond superficially to these tags—either reverting, because you wish for prettified appearance over substantive progress, or moving around a word or two in each sentence to hide the substance in a likewise prohibited close paraphrase.These choices are easier than what is needed, and only hide the deeper problems to make them less easily diagnosed in future. (The cancer will still be present—lack of attributions to sources used, and lack of prose original to editors—but just harder to diagnose than at present.)
For at this juncture, all material of the article has to be considered suspect (that is what plagiarists accomplish at WP), and so the article needs to be checked, as a whole, for plagiarism, both with respect to the Shuckburgh sentences, but also for all the vast expanses of unsourced and so unverifiable text that appears in almost every section.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Actium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I read through the article that has been created thus far and I cannot help but feel like there is more to Anthony and Cleopatra's story. How much did their relationship affect the outcome of the battle? Anthony is portrayed as almost being controlled by Cleopatra's desires. He even breaks off from his fleet to pursue her during the engagement which caused his entire force to scatter? Temrhianna ( talk) 04:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Temrhianna
In the Order of battle section, I see Anthony: 500, including 230 large galleys; Octavian: 250. Then in the Combat section, I see Anthony: 140; Octavian: 260. Perhaps someone could investigate Antony's strength. Jontel ( talk) 19:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the various ancient sources, Octavian had between 250 and 400 battle ships and Antony, with his numerous oriental allies, had between 170 and 500 ships, out of which 60 Egyptian ships (Plutarch, Antony, 70). In addition, each had hundreds of supply ships.
This is still an issue in 2024. Battle of Actium#Order of battle says 250 and 400. Battle of Actium#Combat says there were 140 and 260. The sources used are either ancient or from 1917. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The last known mention of Lucius Gellius Poplicola was in Plutarch; "And now, as Agrippa was extending the left wing with a view to encircling the enemy, Publicola was forced to advance against him, and so was separated from the centre." This action was immediately followed with Cleopatras retreat, and the beginning of the end of Marc Antony. Poplicola is never mentioned again in any known historical texts, his last known action being charging into battle separated from the rest of his fleet, never to be heard of again. Do we need a body in order to classify one as killed in action? Beaten Corpse ( talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This article states: "It was there that Antony's fleet faced the much larger fleet of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships under commanders Gaius Sosius and Agrippa." This implies that Gaius Sosius was the commander of the fleet opposing that of Antony.
However, the article on Gaius Sosius itself states: "He commanded part of the fleet of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium in 31 BC, following which he was taken captive." This asserts that Gaius Sosius was in fact a commander of Antony's fleet.
This is a clear contradiction and must be resolved. 83.87.45.143 ( talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)