Read Marcus Agrippa: Right-hand Man of Caesar Augustus Online
Authors: Lindsay Powell
Tags: #Bisac Code 1: HIS002000, #HISTORY / Ancient / General / BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY / Military, #Bisac Code 2: BIO008000 Bisac Code 3: HIS027000
Marcus Agrippa: Right-hand Man of Caesar Augustus (16 page)
On assuming office Agrippa set to work on preparations for the coming war against Sex. Pompeius.
35
To oversee the rebuilding of his fleet Caesar turned to Agrippa.
36
Agrippa had earned a formidable reputation for getting things done. Velleius Paterculus writes sixty years later,
M. Agrippa was charged with constructing the ships, collecting soldiers and rowers, and familiarizing them with naval contests and manoeuvres. He was a man of distinguished character, unconquerable by toil, loss of sleep or danger, well disciplined in obedience, but to one man alone, yet eager to command others; in whatever he did he knew no such thing as delay, but with him action went hand in hand with conception.
37
As before, he rose to the occasion and ‘set to work with great enthusiasm to fit out the fleet’.
38
Agrippa and his friend had given considerable thought to the type of warship they needed. At this point in his career Agrippa had no naval warfare experience, unlike his friend. He did, however, have a solid understanding of military strategy and tactics. Warships of the time were sleek vessels with hulls of pine waterproofed with pine tar, at the bow a protruding prow at water level capped with a bronze beak (
rostrum
), an upward curving stern, and were powered by a large single mainsail and a staysail.
39
When not moving under sail, below deck teams of oarsmen arranged in banks of two (bireme) or three (trireme) powered the ships. A trireme might measure 39m (128ft) from bow to stern, with an overall beam of 6.4m (21ft) and a waterline of 5m (16.5ft), with a crew estimated as 21 seamen, 122 rowers and 20–25 marines, including archers.
40
In contrast, Sextus’ fleet was made up of small but swift vessels called ‘liburnians’ (
liburniae
) modelled after those of the pirates his father had fought in 67 BCE.
41
Based on depictions in wall paintings and stone carvings (
plate 11
) and on coins (
plate 13
), these might measure 25.9m (85ft in length), have a beam of 3.8m (12.5ft) and a waterline of 3.6m (11ft) – though larger biremes of up to 35.6m (117ft) with a waterline of 3.9m (13ft) could have been built.
42
The crew of the smaller vessel would likely consist of 10 seamen, 60 rowers, 10 marines and 6 archers.
Traditional naval battle doctrine in the Mediterranean theatre was either to row the ship at speed and ram the side of an opponent’s vessel using the bronze
beak to sink it, or to sweep past it and break his oars to disable it. Once ‘dead in the water’ and if it was still afloat, the enemy would face the choice of surrendering the vessel or being boarded and fighting on deck to defend it. Having already faced Sextus in battle and lost, Caesar and Agrippa realized they could not defeat him using the same equipment, strategy and tactics. Instead, they invested in heavier built, heavily armed ships and leveraged their larger mass and greater firepower to counter Sextus’ advantages of agility and speed.
43
The stout construction of the Caesarian vessels would also be more resilient, reducing the risk of impact damage caused by direct ramming by Sextus’ ships.
To facilitate his marines in their assault on the enemy craft, Agrippa also incorporated several devices which had been successfully used in other naval campaigns. One of these was a mechanism to snag a ship and draw it closer. Called the
harpax
(Greek
ἅρπαξ
) – from the Latin
harpagare
, to steal, or
harpago
, robber – it comprised a chain with an iron hook or claw.
44
This grappling-iron could be fired from a catapult. The other end of the chain was attached to a windlass so that once the hook had locked securely on the enemy’s vessel the crew of the attacking ship would turn the winch and pull the captive equipment in closer and prevent its escape. Another device was the tower or turret (
turris
) upon which archers could stand or catapults could be mounted (
plate 12
), enabling marksmen to fire from a height upon the enemy ship and pick off particular targets of value. It was mounted on the deck, fore or aft, or one at both ends in the largest vessels. In bad weather, however, it could contribute to making the ship unstable. Agrippa invented a collapsible version of this launching platform – that is, it could be dismantled, and quickly reassembled – so that
en route
to the battle space it was not a hindrance.
45
Yet another piece of equipment was nicknamed the ‘raven’ (
corvus
, Greek
κόραξ
). It was a movable bridge which provided marines with a means to board and fight the opposing side. Attached to a pole, the bridge of the
corvus
would be rotated 908 over the side of the ship, then lowered with ropes and pulleys. It locked into the deck of the enemy vessel with the sharp metal spike – the beak of the ‘raven’ – attached underside at the end.
46
It had been used in the first real naval battle between Carthage and the Roman Republic; it took place at Mylae (present day Milazzo) in 260 BCE. With the ship locked by the spiked platform, the triumvir’s marines could board Sextus’ boat and engage his crew in hand-to-hand combat taking advantage of their better equipment and training. Agrippa’s innovation was to bring these simple mechanical devices together – a collapsible version of the
turris
to fire the
harpax
, the
corvus
to bridge the two ships – to help make a clash on the sea more akin to one fought on land, which, in theory, favoured the triumvir’s side.
Agrippa injected urgency to the manufacturing project and engaged the patriotism of local communities in the enterprise so that soon ‘all along the coasts of Italy vessels were being built’.
47
He brought discipline to the process of what today would be called ‘organization and methods’. He recognized that once constructed at their disparate supply shipyards, the ships needed a single assembly point for final outfitting and a practice space where the crews and marines could be trained to use their equipment at optimum performance levels. ‘Since no shore
was found where it was safe for them to come to anchor,’ writes Dio, ‘inasmuch as most of the coast of Italy was even at that time without harbours, he conceived and executed a magnificent enterprise’.
48
Agrippa established such a location (
plate 10
) by connecting two natural inland lakes to create two enclosed spaces for his men to train on (
map 4
). Dio explains:
At Cumae in Campania, between Misenum and Puteoli, there is a crescent-shaped region, surrounded, except for brief gaps, by small, bare mountains; and it contains a branch of the sea which is like a bay and is divided into three parts. The first is outside, near the cities, the second is separated from it by a narrow strip of land, and the third, which is marshy in character, is seen at the very head of the inlet. The last is called Avernus, and the middle one the Lucrine Lake; the outer one is a part of the Tyrrhenian Sea and is classed with it also by its designation. Now since the Lucrine lay between a sea on either side, Agrippa cut narrow channels at this time, close to the shore on both sides, through the strip of land that separated it from the open sea, and thus produced excellent harbours for ships.
49
It was a massive undertaking and the engineering challenges Agrippa’s architects and builders had to overcome were enormous. Archaeological examination of the site in 2006 has revealed use of Roman hydraulic concrete on a massive scale.
50
Marking the entrance to the harbour were moles, each over 220m (721ft) long and 20–30m (66–98ft) wide, forming breakwaters with a channel of 40m (131ft) wide. Defining the ends of the moles was a series of large pillars of concrete (
pilae
), six on the port side (viewed from the sea) and one on the starboard. The
pilae
on the port side mole measured 1.6m (5.2ft) thick and on the starboard side only 1.5m (4.9ft) thick. The outer
pilae
each had four sides, measuring 9.6–11.1m (31–36ft) wide, with an overall height of over 6m (19.6ft). Analysis of cores taken from samples of
pilae
revealed wide variation in the proportions of materials used to make the concrete. Some had large pieces of aggregates mixed in with good quality mortar. Others comprised small aggregate of local tufa and little lime, making the mix porous, which suggested to the authors of the report that the builders used too much sea water in the concrete, rather than the result of being subjected to rough seas, since the chemical composition was consistent across the harbour. The inference is that the cement and aggregate were hurriedly mixed and poured into the wooden formworks. The labourers had to work fast because Agrippa had a tight deadline. That the harbour complex was complete by the end of 37 BCE was an astonishing achievement, one sufficiently noteworthy that both Vergil and Pliny the Elder cite the harbour as one of the man-made wonders of Italy. In the
Georgics
the poet sang:
Or sing her harbours, and the barrier cast
Athwart the Lucrine, and how ocean chafes
With mighty bellowings, where the Julian wave
Echoes the thunder of his rout, and through
Avernian inlets pours the Tuscan tide?
51
Map 4.
Portus Iulius
.
The polymath wrote with awe, ‘I pass in silence … the Tyrrhenian Sea separated by an embankment from Lake Lucrinus.’
52
With an eye to its obvious propaganda value, Agrippa named the installation
Portus Iulius
in honour of his friend.
53
Sadly, an earthquake in the sixteenth century destroyed the last remaining standing structures.
Headquartered at the nearby seaside resort of Baiae (Baia) Agrippa worked tirelessly on the project. ‘Here’, explains Dio, ‘Agrippa, as soon as he had constructed the entrances, set about collecting his ships, which he proceeded to equip with decks, and his oarsmen, whom he trained to row on practice benches.’
54
The training was intense and lasted up to the end of the first half of the following year.
55
The burden on the Italian cities to continually supply manpower for the war effort was heavy and to supplement the recruitment drive some 20,000 slaves were given their freedom by Caesar and drafted into Agrippa’s navy as oarsmen.
56
They received an unexpected windfall of freedom, but they faced a tough and unrelenting training regimen. Learning to row in unison to power the ship demanded physical stamina and endurance as well as co-ordination, as well as skill to manage the complete rigging of the massive square mainsail of the single tall mast. ‘Building an imposing fleet in lakes Avernus and Lucrinus,’ writes Paterculus, ‘by daily drills he brought the soldiers and the oarsmen to a thorough knowledge of fighting on land and at sea.’
57
Indeed, by the spring of 37 BCE, when Antonius arrived at Tarentum with 300 ships, Caesar felt it unnecessary to meet his colleague to receive them, so confident was he in his own fleet.
58
Relations between the two triumvirs had become strained in the intervening years. Aware of the situation, Octavia interceded between her husband and brother to reconcile the two men. In the autumn she approached Agrippa and Maecenas and succeeded in persuading them to support her.
59
With his two closest confidants on her side, Caesar finally relented to his sister’s wisdom and agreed to meet his estranged colleague. At Tarentum on the Taras River the two men met and discussed their military predicaments.
60
A transfer of military assets was agreed: Caesar would provide 20,000 legionaries for Antonius’ war in Parthia. In return for these Antonius would furnish Caesar with 130 ships to prosecute his war against Sextus, and in a show of his good faith Caesar released 1,000 picked men immediately. The two agreed to extend the term of their triumvirate for a further term of five years. Antonius also agreed to strip Sextus of the privileges he had been granted at Misenum, making him a legitimate target for Caesar’s campaign, which resumed as soon as Antonius departed for the East.
61
Up to this time, there is no mention of Agrippa having married. It was likely during this year that the 27-year-old Agrippa first took a wife. His bride was Caecilia Attica, the daughter of Cicero’s closest friend and correspondent T. Pomponius Atticus.
62
Many had tried to secure her hand in marriage from a very young age, but her father had waited until she was 14-years-old, then considered to be of marriageable age.
63
The marriage was arranged by M. Antonius, perhaps as early as 42 BCE at Tarentum.
64
Agrippa could have married a girl from a patrician family, but either because of modesty or preference, he chose to
marry one from the equestrian class.
65
It speaks highly of Agrippa’s character that the discerning man such as Atticus was, would agree to him marrying his daughter. Agrippa had the highest regard for his father-in-law and formed a close bond with him that endured for the rest of his life.
66
The couple appear to have enjoyed a contented union and soon tried to have children. Sometime between 37 and 33 BCE a daughter was born and given the name Vipsania Agrippina.
67
She likely remained in Rome while Agrippa attended to military matters. Caesar, meanwhile, had dumped Antonius’ sister and married Livia Drusilla on 17 January 38 BCE, even though she was pregnant by Ti. Claudius Nero. After her son Decimus (later changed to Nero) Claudius Drusus was born, the baby was promptly handed back to her former husband, to raise him and his older brother Tiberius in his household.
68
