Historians of antiquity are trained to be suspicious of accounts that may retroject onto the early years of figures, who were later dominant, positive traits that plausibly were exhibited only later, in essence the creation of a mythology.Footnote ¹ In the case of the Emperor Augustus, who exercised a firm control on the Roman world for over forty years after the defeat of his rival M. Antonius and introduced a new form of government, the probability that the years of his ascent to supreme power were subjected to careful recasting is very high. Here I examine an argument that was presented in 2004 on the very beginning of Octavian's public life, which, if correct, reveals a stuttering start by a young man inexperienced in the realities of Roman politics at a tumultuous moment in Roman history.Footnote ²

Mark Toher argues that the scholarly consensus that Octavian's first appearance in Rome took place in May 44 b.c. does not give due weight to the evidence of Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrHist 90 F 130.108) and Appian (BCiv. 3.105–6), both of whom (according to Toher's interpretation of their respective accounts) refer to a visit in April 44 b.c. at the time of the Ludi Cereales.Footnote ³ In Toher's scenario the impetuous novice Octavian, who has raced to Rome to take up his inheritance, suffers a rebuff from the aedile Critonius and the consul M. Antonius over his desire to display Caesar's throne and crown in the pompa circensis on the final day of the Ludi Cereales, fails to have his adoption by Caesar ratified and then retreats to Campania before returning to Rome in early May: ‘the ruthless, calculating teenager of modern scholarship gives way to a persona less dramatic and chilling, but one more human and probably more historical’.Footnote ⁴

The problem to be solved is twofold: first, to determine Octavian's itinerary between March and May 44 b.c. as closely as possible and to apply to it the most plausible calculations of the speed and type of travel; and second to consider whether Appian and Nicolaus of Damascus do in fact indicate a brief unsuccessful visit to Rome in April before the universally accepted visit in May 44 b.c. The ancient accounts provide sufficient data for the general itinerary to be reconstructed with some certainty, but the speed at which messengers, individuals, small groups or larger forces could move is the key variable in any reconstruction. In the past, scholars have relied on the disparate snippets of information on travel and correspondence that have been sifted and to a degree systematized by Riepl and others, but the creation of ORBIS, a geospatial network model of the Roman empire that allows for fourteen different modes of road travel that generate nine different calculations of speed for each road segment, offers the possibility of re-evaluating Octavian's movements with consistent criteria applied more systematically.Footnote ⁵ ORBIS cannot provide certainty: variables such as the weather (details of which do not appear in the sources), the actual condition of the roads in 44 b.c. and the movements of other characters in the story remain obscure, but it is possible to make logical assumptions as to the mode of transport for each stage of the journey.

To make the following discussion easier to follow I set out in the table below the overall chronology argued for by Toher, the slower consensus chronology presented most clearly by Alföldi and the even slower chronology for which I argue.Footnote ⁶

On 15 March Octavian was in Apollonia, and there he received a letter from his mother Atia informing him of Caesar's death and instructing him to return to Rome (Nic. Dam. FGrHist F 130.38). Her second letter, which he received only at Brundisium after landing in Italy nearby (Nic. Dam. FGrHist F 130.52), reiterating that he had been declared (ἀναδεδειγμένον) as Caesar's son, urged him to come to Rome. The absence of any reference to Octavian's adoption in Atia's first letter shows that she sent it before the contents of Caesar's will became known.Footnote ⁷ Cicero himself provides evidence that a letter sent in early April could take ten days to travel between Epirus (Dyrrhachium) and Rome (Ad Brut. 2.4.1),Footnote ⁸ so on the assumption that Atia's first letter was sent at the earliest opportunity, on the Ides of March, Octavian is likely to have known by 25 March. Toher suggests that, given the urgency of the news and the messenger's emphasis on his speed (Nic. Dam. FGrHist F 130.39), an earlier date is likely, and Gotter suggests 22/23 March.Footnote ⁹ What resources were available to Atia and her messenger in the circumstances is a matter for conjecture only. ORBIS calculates the land and sea journey (540 kilometres by road to Brundisium; 194 kilometres by sea to Apollonia) for express carriage transport at 9.4 days. If the messenger had enjoyed a constant relay of horses and travelled 24 hours per day, found a boat ready to go and enjoyed favourable winds, the journey could theoretically have been completed in between three and four days.

Toher has Octavian leave Apollonia by 27 March at the latest, positing a rapid decision by Octavian and his friends over what strategy to pursue, but in fact allowing around three days for Octavian to move. However, the historiographical tradition, both that which can be linked with the version hallowed in Augustus’ De uita sua and that more likely derived from Asinius Pollio, suggests a period of waiting in Apollonia for more information and for negotiations with representatives of the six legions amassed in Illyricum.Footnote ¹⁰ The two or three days that Toher prefers may be insufficient for this; Alföldi envisaged between four and seven and I allow six.Footnote ¹¹

Nicolaus’ description of Octavian's first days in Italy is helpfully detailed: ἴσχει τῆς Καλαβρίας τὴν ἔγγιστα ἄκραν (FGrHist F 130.47) suggests an initial landing at Hydruntum, then Octavian journeyed on foot (πεζὸς ὤδευεν) to Lupiae, some forty-five kilometres north in the direction of Brundisium. Alföldi allows just one day for this,Footnote ¹² but for moving with a body of troops without haste probably two days are required. At Lupiae he learned of his inheritance from Caesar, of Caesar's funeral, the latter having taken place on 17 March,Footnote ¹³ and of the turn of popular feeling against the liberators (FGrHist F 130.48–50) from individuals who had been there. Seemingly cautious, he awaited letters from Rome from his mother to confirm the eyewitness story: παυσάμενος δέ ποτε ἀνέμενεν ἕτερα γράμματα (FGrHist F 130.51).Footnote ¹⁴ The crossing of the Adriatic (114 kilometres) will have taken less than a day, if the winds were favourable, and the long walk two days. How long Octavian waited in Lupiae is unclear, but the inference from the combination of the indefinite ποτε and the imperfect tense ἀνέμενεν suggests certainly more than a day. This is corroborated by Appian's language ἐνταῦθα οὖν ἐνηυλίσατο διατρίβων (BCiv. 3.10). Then he travelled the forty kilometres to Brundisium, where he received letters from his mother and his stepfather, and made his decision to accept his inheritance. This he could have done in one day.Footnote ¹⁵ After consulting with his friends, he called for the baggage and funds that Caesar had sent ahead for his intended Parthian campaign, and after some investigation sent the people's money to the Aerarium. According to Nicolaus (FGrHist F 130.56–7), he rejected the advice of the friends who had been with him in Apollonia and were urging him to raise forces from Caesar's colonies; he followed the advice τῶν φίλων τοῖς πρεσβυτάτοις τε καὶ ἐμπειρίᾳ προύχουσι and set off for Rome. Although a single messenger could travel from Brundisium to Rome in seven days (Cic. Att. 11.21.1), such speed is highly unlikely to have been maintained by Octavian and his increasingly large entourage, a feature that Appian's account highlights: ὥδευεν ἐς Ῥώμην σὺν ἀξιολόγῳ πλήθει, αὐξομένῳ μᾶλλον ἑκάστης ἡμέρας οἷα χειμάρρῳ (BCiv. 3.12).Footnote ¹⁶ While Octavian did not raise an army, he certainly travelled through several of Caesar's colonies.Footnote ¹⁷ Appian adds two further elements to the tale: the journey was made solely by land and the route included Tarracina (BCiv. 3.12). The first element is plausible, but some doubt may attach to the second, as its alleged synchronization with news that Brutus and Cassius had been stripped of their provinces of Macedonia and Syria is generally rejected.Footnote ¹⁸ The shortest overland route from Brundisium to Rome certainly did not go through Tarracina, which lay on the Via Appia. According to ORBIS, the shortest route from Brundisium to Rome is 540 kilometres using the Via Latina through Casinum; if the Via Appia is used through Tarracina, the distance to be covered rises to 550 kilometres. Horace's poetical account of a journey from Rome to Brundisium (Sat. 1.5) shows that his party used the longer route via Tarracina and took around fourteen days, relying mostly on mules but with one stretch by canal.Footnote ¹⁹ ORBIS calculates the journey duration for the shortest route at 10.8 days for accelerated private transport, 9 days at the pace of a rapid military march and 8.1 days by fast carriage. Toher's reconstruction in which Octavian left Brundisium on 4 or 5 April and arrived in Rome on or around 11 April, on the most generous interpretation, requires eight days, hence equating to travel by fast carriage. If, however, we accept that Octavian acquired a substantial retinue or at least had to stop and deal with would-be followers in Caesar's colonies, the speed that he could maintain for part of his journey at least is likely to have dropped close to that achieved by an army marching with equipment, and thus according to the ORBIS model the time required for the journey might rise to eighteen days, even by the shortest route. If Octavian took the route from Brundisium to Tarentum and thence along the Via Appia to Rome, the distance rises to 560 kilometres and consequently longer travel times. Once the putative travelling time from Brundisium to Rome rises above eleven days, roughly the time generated by ORBIS for accelerated private transport, it becomes difficult to fit in the short visit that Toher envisages, however flexible one is with the events of late March/early April.

A key part of Toher's argument is that Octavian was in Rome by 11 April, because for him to have been in the Naples area on 18 April, as Cicero records (Att. 14.10.3), he must have left Rome on or before 14 April, and some days would be required for the attempted completion for the business and the rebuffs with which Octavian met.Footnote ²⁰ The first mention by Cicero of Octavian in his extant correspondence occurs in a request to Atticus on 11 April (Att. 14.5.3) in Rome for news of Octavian's aduentus. From Astura Cicero is responding to Atticus’ news that Octavian had arrived or perhaps was expected shortly:Footnote ²¹ if he had arrived in Rome, that must have been early on, or before, 10 April, as a letter from Rome would require at least one day to reach Astura (93 kilometres). Even more pressure would thus be put on Toher's chronology for the journey from Brundisium to Rome. In fact, it becomes impossible: Octavian and entourage could not have reached Rome on 9 April, having left Brundisium on 4 or 5 April, as Toher posits, without a journey of Caesarian celerity (one unsung by the sources).

That the aduentus referred to by Cicero may be Octavian's arrival in Italy is denied by Toher because of the lateness of the date. Indeed, if the aduentus is restricted to Octavian's landing alone, Toher's point is powerful, but Cicero's combination of aduentus, concursus and νεωτερισμός describes well the series of actions taken at Brundisium (i.e. the public announcement that Octavian would take up his inheritance, the rallying of Caesarian supporters and the seizure of Caesar's war-chest for his campaign) and would fit just as well with Appian's description of Octavian's progress from Brundisium attracting large support from Caesar's veterans as with a putative arrival in Rome. If Octavian progressed at a slower rate than Toher believes, even as late as 11 April Cicero will not have known precisely where he was and may have believed that Atticus, in Rome, would have fresher news.Footnote ²² In fact, Octavian may have been close to Beneventum, as Cicero himself made a leisurely progress from Latium to Campania.Footnote ²³

If there was no time for the visit to Rome that Toher envisages, what can be said about the journey that Octavian took to Campania? Octavian's route from Brundisium to the edge of Campania, to Calatia, where veterans of Caesar's legio VII had been settled, lay a straightforward 340 kilometres along the Via Appia; from Calatia he may have gone via Capua or via Suessula and Acerrae to Naples. The former is more likely, although the route was longer, because of the large number of settlers in the colony at Capua who received their land under the terms of Caesar's agrarian law of 59 and whose support for Octavian could be tested.Footnote ²⁴ The overall journey of around 380 kilometres would, according to the ORBIS model, have taken 13 days at the pace of a marching army, 11 days at normal private transport, 8 days at accelerated private transport.Footnote ²⁵ If we assume that the slower end of the range is appropriate for the kind of entourage that Octavian attracted and makes due allowance for the gathering of support from communities along the way, then, even with Toher's date of 4 or 5 April for leaving Brundisium, Octavian would only arrive on the Campanian coast on or shortly before 18 April. On this reconstruction, although Octavian has not raced, neither has he dawdled so as to merit Toher's description of a ‘leisurely itinerary’.

Fixing the date of Octavian's arrival in Rome in May would enable us to see how long he spent in Campania and thus determine whether the last stage of the journey was different from the earlier stages or whether we have a consistent progress. Cicero's correspondence gives clues as to (his perception of) Octavian's state of mind and location: first, on 19 April Cicero learned from Cornelius Balbus illum hereditatem aditurum. sed, ut scribis †ῥιξοθεμιν† magnam cum Antonio (Att. 14.10.3),Footnote ²⁶ on 21 April Octavian was at his stepfather's villa near Cumae (Att. 14.11.2), on 22 April he met Cicero at the latter's villa at Puteoli (Att. 14.12.2). Cicero expresses his doubts about Octavian's character and his advisers, and anticipates exacerbated language (at the least) against the liberators once Octavian reached Rome: quid censes cum Romam puer uenerit, ubi nostri liberatores tuti esse non possunt? Footnote ²⁷ From Puteoli on 11 May Cicero asked for news on Octavian's contio (Att. 14.21.4), indicating that he had heard from Atticus of Octavian's arrival in Rome and of his intention to speak to the people, probably through the assistance of one of the tribunes, even L. Antonius. How much Octavian was able to organize while on the road and how long after his arrival in Rome he addressed the people are unknowns.Footnote ²⁸ As the turn-around time for an exchange of correspondence between Atticus in Rome and Cicero in Campania was between four and six days,Footnote ²⁹ the earliest Atticus could have mentioned Octavian's actual arrival was 9 May, which must be the terminus ante quem. The terminus post quem is around 26 or 27 April: Octavian was near Puteoli on 22 April (Att. 14.12.2) and would have required a minimum of four days to travel the 231 kilometres to Rome via Capua and then the Via Appia.Footnote ³⁰ If Dio (45.5.2) is to be believed, Octavian did not enter Rome with a large retinue, and so this leg of his journey could have been accomplished faster than that between Brundisium and Campania.Footnote ³¹

Both Nicolaus and Appian indicate that Octavian was twice thwarted in attempts to display the sella of Caesar: in both authors the second rebuff occurred before the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris held in July and the first occurred in connection with games that were being organized by the aedile Critonius.Footnote ³² On Toher's accelerated chronology Octavian was in Rome shortly before the ludi Cereales (12–19 April) and therefore could approach Critonius for an alteration to the ceremonial, probably of the culminating circus games to be held in the Circus Maximus on 19 April. The chronology for which I am arguing precludes Octavian's presence in Rome before 26 April. Previous holders of this position posit two alternative solutions: i) because of the situation in Rome soon after Caesar's death the Ludi Cereales were postponed until May or June,Footnote ³³ or ii) the games presented by Critonius were the Ludi Florales (28 April to 3 May).Footnote ³⁴ Neither solution is expressly supported by the extant evidence. In fact, the absence of M. Antonius from Rome at the time of the Ludi Florales, and thus the impossibility of his intervening against Octavian probably rules out the latter.Footnote ³⁵

Identification of the games would assist in pinning down Octavian's movements. Allusive references by Cicero to Atticus in letters of 18 and 22 May enable us to place in mid May a formal announcement to the people by Octavian of games in honour of Caesar, those that were celebrated between 20 and 28 July 44 and later became the annual Ludi Victoriae Caesaris,Footnote ³⁶ de Octaui contione idem sentio quod tu, ludorumque eius apparatus et Matius ac Postumus mihi procuratores non placent (Att. 15.2.3), and a response by some tribunes vetoing the display of Caesar's sella, de sella Caesaris bene tribuni (Att. 15.3.2). Toher takes the tribunician action to refer also to the future games.Footnote ³⁷ Nothing, however, prevents the tribunician veto applying to something more immediate, a putative delayed celebration of the Ludi Cereales in the otherwise festival-free days of mid to late May or June. It is from Appian's narrative that assistance must come in dating and identifying these games.

Toher's reconstruction of Octavian's movements depends in the second instance on his interpretation of key passages in Appian's and Nicolaus’ respective narratives. I aim to show here that a correct reading of Appian certainly does not support Toher's interpretation and that the transmission of Nicolaus’ text makes the chronological reference of the key passage questionable.

Appian plausibly made use of three main sources in Book 3 of his Bella Ciuilia, the De uita sua of Augustus, the Historiae of Asinius Pollio and the Annales of L. Scribonius Libo, to create a detailed narrative of 44–43 that is marred by internal inconsistencies, but generally minor in nature.Footnote ³⁸ For the issues that concern this argument his narrative is essentially chronological except for overlaps necessitated by the narratological needs, for example to deal with Dolabella's position in order to set up the clash of the two protagonists M. Antonius and Octavian, and for dealing with events taking place simultaneously in different parts of the empire, for example with the physical absence of Octavian from Rome when he took his first steps.Footnote ³⁹ The opening narrative strand (3.1–8) concludes with the Senate's assigning of Syria to Dolabella, Macedonia to M. Antonius and new provinces to Brutus and Cassius. The assignment of the consular provinces is plausibly to be fixed in mid April, after the suppression of the false Marius, but that of the praetorian provinces only in July or early August.Footnote ⁴⁰ Other material also shows that when dealing with Brutus and Cassius Appian strays beyond the chronological limits of the narrative, but the key detail of the liberators leaving Rome in mid April appears in the correct chronological position.Footnote ⁴¹ Having summed up the narrative with the words τὰ μὲν δὴ γινόμενα ἐν Ῥώμῃ τοιάδε ἦν (3.9), Appian's narrative shifts to focus on Octavian, who was in Apollonia when news of Caesar's death arrived, and traces his steps to Rome, his acceptance of his inheritance and then a climactic interview with M. Antonius marked by a pair of speeches (3.14–20). At first glance, then, it could appear that Toher is correct to put Octavian's arrival in Rome in mid April and that Appian's consolidated narrative of the struggles between the protagonists begins at that point (3.21). However, Toher's argument requires that there be another chronological dislocation in order that the confrontation between Octavian and Critonius (3.28) can relate to the ludi Cereales held in April.

Does the intervening narrative (3.21–7) support Toher? Appian presents, in sequence, (i) Octavian's sale of the properties he had inherited from Caesar to fulfil his promises to the people (3.21), (ii) the lawsuits brought against Octavian by numerous individuals and his losses (3.22), (iii) Octavian's further liquidation of his patrimony to counter the expenditure by C. Antonius in preparation for Brutus’ staging of the Ludi Apollinares of early July and to bribe the tribes (3.23), (iv) popular protests during these games, (v) the decision of Brutus and Cassius to leave Italy (3.24), (vi) M. Antonius’ conception of a plan to have the Macedonian legions transferred to him (3.25), (vii) his spreading of a rumour of a Getic invasion (3.25), (viii) followed by his proposal to abolish the dictatorship and (ix) his instructions to his brother C. Antonius to bring the Macedonian legions over to Italy (3.25).Footnote ⁴² It is clear that Appian does not relate all this in strict chronological order and that most events that can be dated occurred in June: (i–iii) Octavian's financial and legal woes can plausibly be extrapolated back to May but continued through June;Footnote ⁴³ C. Antonius’ role in relation to Brutus’ games started around mid June;Footnote ⁴⁴ (v) Brutus’ decision to leave Italy had been formulated in early June;Footnote ⁴⁵ (vi) M. Antonius’ plans in relation to the exchange of provinces go back at least to late April, but were only realized in June;Footnote ⁴⁶ (viii) the final passing into law of Antonius’ proposal to abolish the dictatorship belongs early in June.Footnote ⁴⁷ Apparently falling outside this timeframe is (vii), the rumour of a Getic invasion of Macedonia, which Magnino places in April. However, if Appian's focus is on M. Antonius’ manoeuvres over an extended period moves to realize his plans, but particularly on the realization of them, this slight back-reference is intelligible.Footnote ⁴⁸ Clearly out of place is the description of popular reaction at the Ludi Apollinares (iv), but its appearance is plausibly to be explained by Appian carrying on thematically from the material on the preparation for the games and Octavian's promised largess (iii). What is abundantly clear is that the events of these chapters did not come before the Ludi Cereales, if they were held in April 44 b.c., or even before the Ludi Florales of late April/early May.

If we pass over for the moment the episode that Toher wishes to fix to mid April, does Appian's following account continue logically and consistently from the earlier narrative? Appian's ἐν ταῖς ἑξῆς θέαις (3.28) refers unquestionably to the games of 20–28 July, which were given by Octavian himself;Footnote ⁴⁹ Octavian's stirring up of the people against M. Antonius on account of Caesar fits well with the context of late July, when feelings had been stirred up again by Octavian's games. The reconciliation forced upon the protagonists by the soldiers (3.29–30) is most plausibly dated to the very end of July.Footnote ⁵⁰ At this point particular problems emerge in Appian's narrative: he presents in detail the legislative machinations around the law to secure Cisalpine Gaul for M. Antonius and a surprising role for Octavian in supporting the proposal against the wishes of the people. This actually took place in early June and duplicates, with great expansion in detail, the contents of the end of chapter 27.Footnote ⁵¹ A very similar duplication, this time of the soldiers’ initiative to reconcile Octavian and M. Antonius, embellished with a lengthy speech by the latter and concluding with the new detail of a ceremony of reconciliation on the Capitol, follows shortly (3.32–9). Sandwiched between the two duplications is the story of how Octavian's election as tribune of the people was thwarted (3.31).

The chapter that is central to Toher's case is, then, itself sandwiched between material that relates to the period May to July 44. It repays some further discussion (3.28):

The beginning clearly synchronizes C. Antonius’ mission to the Macedonian legions with the preparations for Critonius’ games:Footnote ⁵² Goukowsky considers the synchronization an artificial creation that must be rejected, on the grounds that C. Antonius was in Rome in June and July, the legions crossed the Adriatic only in October and C. Antonius assumed a provincial command only in late November.Footnote ⁵³ However, in a letter of 10 July written from Puteoli (Att. 16.4.4) Cicero believes that the legions were on their way to Brundisium. Another letter from 25 October (Att. 15.13.2; cf. Fam. 12.23.2) reveals that two legions had arrived in Rome, thus proving that they had landed in Brundisium by the beginning of October, but how much earlier is impossible to determine;Footnote ⁵⁴ C. Antonius’ presence in Rome in July is not explicitly fixed by any extant text, as his name does not appear in connection with the actual performance of the Ludi Apollinares (in Brutus’ stead); and he need not have been granted a province in order to fulfil a special request from the consul. Moreover, Appian's exact wording ἔμελλε ποιήσειν need not mean that C. Antonius immediately left Rome in mid June; it can describe something less immediately active and be consistent with a departure from Rome within a month.Footnote ⁵⁵ Appian's account also requires the presence of M. Antonius in Rome shortly after Octavian's arrival. Cicero's correspondence indicates an extended absence of the consul from Rome, something concealed in Appian's account of his activities: M. Antonius had left Rome by 28 April (cf. Att. 14.15.1) and returned between 18 and 21 May.Footnote ⁵⁶ Their place in Appian's account, the need for M. Antonius’ presence and Cicero's information about a tribunician veto against Octavian's proposal to display Caesar's sella plausibly fix Critonius’ games between mid May and the Ludi Apollinares which began on 6 July. It fits with all of the data, if Critonius’ games were the rescheduled Ludi Cereales, for which there was room in the calendar after the Lemuria of 13 May. Appian's account of Octavian taking Critonius before M. Antonius can be fitted in towards the end of the latter's games, in the second half of May.

Toher rightly extracts from Nicolaus’ account of Octavian's clash with M. Antonius over the commemoration of Caesar at the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris in July that there had been an earlier clash (FGrHist F 130.108):

The corrupt second πρὸς ἀλλήλους conceals the name of the obstructive individual who was the subject of ἐδόκει; αὖθις προελθών and ὅμοια show that there was a previous encounter with M. Antonius and similar threatened punishment if Octavian persisted.Footnote ⁵⁷ Toher is right to argue that this earlier confrontation was at or before Critonius’ games,Footnote ⁵⁸ but his further insistence that Nicolaus’ account presupposes a direct move from Brundisium to Rome by Octavian by mid April is problematic. Nicolaus’ account of Octavian's actions concludes in chapter 57 (FGrHist F 130) with the words ἀπό τε Βρεντεσίου ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης, chapters 58 to 106 focus as an excursus on the assassination of Caesar concluding with the events of 16 March, and then in chapter 107 the focus returns to Octavian.Footnote ⁵⁹ Crucially at this point the tenth-century a.d. excerptor stops copying verbatim and begins to summarize. Even on Toher's interpretation, the excerptor has excluded a fair amount, the events of at least a month, including the actual arrival of Octavian in Rome and the declaration of his acceptance of the inheritance, both of which were certainly in Augustus’ De uita sua. Because of his theme περὶ τῶν ἐπιβουλῶν κατὰ βασιλέων γεγονυιῶν, the excerptor has chosen to focus on the difficulties faced by Octavian in his struggle with M. Antonius: Octavian was advised by his friends to be friendly towards M. Antonius (FGrHist F 130.107), but none the less difficulties emerged.Footnote ⁶⁰ The excerptor's formulation to describe the mutual accusations that took place, πολλῶν δὲ καὶ ἄλλων αἰτίων συμβάντων, is clearly a piece of summarizing of what he conceives as escalating hostility. His narrative picks up the story in detail only in mid July with the ludi Victoriae Caesaris, Octavian's paying to the people of (some of) the legacy set by Caesar's will (FGrHist F 130.109), his subsequent withdrawal to his home in fear (FGrHist F 130.114) and then the soldiers’ initiatives leading to a formal public reconciliation on the Capitol (FGrHist F 130.114–19).Footnote ⁶¹ Nothing, then, in Nicolaus’ account precludes that Octavian's first clash with M. Antonius occurred in mid May in connection with the delayed Ludi Cereales organized by Critonius.

If, as I suggest, the brief unsuccessful visit to Rome by Octavian in mid April 44 b.c. envisaged by Toher did not occur, and his ‘impetuous youth who trusted to boldness and rash decision … and so encountered defeat and embarrassment’ disappears,Footnote ⁶² what picture does the ancient evidence support? Toher is right to question the idea of a precocious eighteen-year-old statesman, the incarnation of prudence, that Syme's account hallows. The longer chronology of Octavian's advance to Rome can be held to reveal much uncertainty and hesitation on the young man's part, which could perhaps be construed as over-preparation and excessive consultation (not, of course, how Augustus chose to present himself), behaviour appropriate to one who was not sure how to navigate the political shoals that had brought Caesar to grief. This cautious Octavian, even when he did take his case to Rome, encountered stiff opposition: although Nature (or clever planning) conspired to give him a glorious haloed aduentus to the city, some three weeks after Toher suggests, that was rapidly forgotten in a series of rebuffs and defeats at the hands of M. Antonius, Dolabella and others that led Octavian to withdraw from public life (FGrHist F 130.114). It was only during the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris in July, when by selling off assets Octavian was able to pay some of the cash legacies set down in Caesar's will, when the unexpected comet appeared that Octavian expeditiously appropriated for Caesar, giving him a unique opportunity to be the champion of the Caesarian cause, and, most importantly of all, when Caesar's veterans, who had flocked to Rome in numbers for the games, intervened that his position became powerful. As Nicolaus’ subsequent account emphasizes, it was the loyalty of these veterans that was crucial to Octavian's outmanoeuvring of M. Antonius in November 44 b.c.