The Power Struggle After Caesar’s Assassination

The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE created a power vacuum that would plunge Rome into its final civil war. Two primary figures emerged to dominate the political landscape: Mark Antony, Caesar’s trusted lieutenant and consul, and Gaius Octavius, the nineteen-year-old nephew and adopted son of the murdered dictator. The young heir, whom we will consistently refer to as Octavian despite contemporary sources suggesting this name carried derogatory connotations, faced immediate opposition from the established Antony. This naming distinction helps modern readers separate the young heir from his legendary adoptive father and from Caesarion, Caesar’s biological son with Cleopatra.

Antony initially attempted to marginalize Octavian by blocking his inheritance, refusing to release funds specified in Caesar’s will, and opposing his bid for tribune. Both men initially concealed their growing animosity from the public, maintaining a facade of cooperation while maneuvering behind the scenes. The tension between them would eventually erupt into open conflict, but not before both had gathered their forces and solidified their positions. The Roman legions, recognizing the shifting balance of power, ultimately forced a temporary reconciliation between the two rivals, though this truce would prove short-lived.

The Accusation That Changed Everything

In early October of 44 BCE, the conflict took a dramatic turn when Antony publicly accused Octavian of plotting his assassination. According to Nicolaus of Damascus, whose account likely drew from Octavian’s own memoirs, Antony claimed to have uncovered a conspiracy and arrested several soldiers who allegedly confessed to being hired by Octavian. The consul barricaded himself in his residence and mobilized his supporters, creating a spectacle that quickly spread throughout Rome.

Octavian, upon learning of the accusation, reportedly offered to stand guard at Antony’s bedside to demonstrate his innocence—a gesture Antony rejected while simultaneously using it as further evidence of Octavian’s guilt. Advisors urged Octavian to flee Rome until the matter could be properly investigated, but the young heir chose to remain in the city, continuing his political activities as if nothing had happened. This calculated display of confidence marked a turning point in their relationship and in Octavian’s political development.

The incident culminated in Octavian’s emotional appeal to Caesar’s veterans, where he declared: “How unjustly my father died, that people would ‘perform’ murder upon him.” This rhetorical framing positioned Antony not just as Octavian’s personal opponent but as an enemy of Caesar’s legacy—a theme that would dominate Octavian’s propaganda throughout the coming conflict.

The Birth of Political Propaganda

The accusations and counter-accusations between Antony and Octavian represented one of history’s earliest documented propaganda wars. To motivate their followers, demoralize opponents, and encourage defections from the opposing camp, both men employed what we might recognize today as sophisticated political communication strategies. Pamphlets circulated in the form of letters became a primary medium for these attacks, gradually evolving into a powerful tool for shaping public opinion.

Although Octavian and his supporters ultimately proved more successful in this propaganda battle, ancient sources suggest that Antony’s perspective never completely disappeared from public discourse. The competition between these two protagonists quickly took more concrete forms beyond mere words, with military preparations accelerating on both sides. In this escalating conflict, Cleopatra VII of Egypt would soon emerge as a central figure—a development that Octavian’s propagandists would exploit to great effect.

The propaganda war demonstrated how personal attacks could be weaponized for political purposes. Both sides understood that for accusations to be effective, they needed to be plausible enough for the public to imagine as true and memorable enough to remain embedded in popular consciousness. This early form of political marketing would set precedents for centuries of political communication to follow.

The Perusia Campaign and Sexualized Insults

The propaganda war reached perhaps its most vivid expression during the military confrontation at Perusia in 41-40 BCE. Here, supporters of Octavian and Antony—particularly Antony’s wife Fulvia and brother Lucius—engaged in actual combat supplemented by psychological warfare. Both sides employed catapults that launched not just projectiles but insults, with the ammunition itself becoming part of the propaganda effort.

The Latin term for these catapult projectiles was “glans” as they launched these projectiles, creating a crude but effective form of psychological warfare that connected military aggression with sexual domination.

This episode reveals how propaganda operated at multiple levels simultaneously. While the educated classes exchanged carefully crafted pamphlets and letters, the common soldiers engaged in more direct and vulgar forms of psychological warfare. Both approaches served the same purpose: to demoralize the enemy while strengthening the resolve of one’s own side.

The Legacy of Augustan Propaganda

Octavian’s eventual victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE against the combined forces of Antony and Cleopatra allowed nearly half a century for his version of events to become the dominant historical narrative. His court poets and historians—including luminaries like Virgil, Horace, and Livy—crafted an artistic and politically useful depiction of the conflict that emphasized Octavian’s virtue and Antony’s degeneration.

This does not necessarily mean that Octavian’s account was entirely fabricated, but it is reasonable to suspect that his supporters carefully curated and embellished the historical record. The portrayal of Antony as having abandoned Roman values for Oriental decadence, manipulated by the seductive Cleopatra, served clear political purposes. It justified Octavian’s actions while obscuring the more complex realities of the conflict.

The propaganda techniques developed during this period would influence political communication for centuries. The combination of visual symbolism, written propaganda, and targeted messaging created a template that subsequent rulers would adapt to their own purposes. Even today, political campaigns often echo strategies first deployed in the struggle between Octavian and Antony.

Reassessing the Historical Narrative

Modern historians face significant challenges when attempting to reconstruct the events of this period. The overwhelming dominance of Augustan sources means we often see the conflict through the eyes of the victors. However, by carefully analyzing these sources and considering what motivations might underlie particular portrayals, we can attempt to reconstruct a more balanced understanding.

The propaganda war between Octavian and Antony was not merely a sideshow to the military conflict—it was an integral part of their struggle for power. The ability to shape public perception proved as important as military strength in determining the ultimate outcome. Both men recognized that controlling the narrative was essential to maintaining support among the Roman people, the legions, and the political elite.

What makes this early example of propaganda particularly fascinating is how modern many of the techniques appear. Character assassination, selective presentation of facts, appeals to emotion, and the creation of compelling narratives—all elements familiar to contemporary political observers—were already being deployed with sophistication in the first century BCE.

Conclusion: The Enduring Power of Political Narrative

The struggle between Octavian and Antony represents a foundational moment in the history of political communication. Their conflict demonstrated how effectively crafted narratives could influence historical outcomes and shape how events would be remembered for millennia. The victory at Actium was not just a military triumph but a propaganda victory that established the framework for Augustus’s reign and the subsequent Principate.

The methods developed during this period—the use of multiple media, the adaptation of message to different audiences, the creation of compelling personal narratives—would influence political communication for centuries. Even today, the legacy of this propaganda war reminds us that historical narratives are often shaped as much by the victors’ ability to tell their story as by the events themselves.

Understanding this dynamic is crucial not just for historians seeking to reconstruct the past but for citizens attempting to navigate contemporary political landscapes. The techniques first refined in the struggle between Octavian and Antony continue to influence how power is pursued and maintained, demonstrating that while technology may change, the fundamentals of political communication remain remarkably consistent across the centuries.