Probably Wishful Thinking

[Minimalist]

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/egypt-...index.html

Tunnel discovered beneath Egyptian temple may lead to Cleopatra's tomb, archaeologist says

People always expect to find what they wish to be there.

Unlikely that Octavian would have permitted any elaborate funeral for a recently defeated enemy.

[abaris]

Unlikely that Octavian would have permitted any elaborate funeral for a recently defeated enemy.

This being the operative part. I'm hard pressed to name the tombs of Brutus, Cassius or Mark Anton either.

[no one]

They're a little late. Mark Antony discovered that tunnel a long time ago. 

[Minimalist]

Unlikely that Octavian would have permitted any elaborate funeral for a recently defeated enemy.

This being the operative part. I'm hard pressed to name the tombs of Brutus, Cassius or Mark Anton either.

The Romans practiced cremation at the time.  It would have been up to the families to build memorials which might not have been wise given the triumph of Octavian.

[abaris]

The Romans practiced cremation at the time.  It would have been up to the families to build memorials which might not have been wise given the triumph of Octavian.

Same as with the Jesus controversy, I don't think, any of them got more than being left to rot as enemies of the state. Their heads may have made it back to Rome. A a symbol of triumph - maybe.

[Minimalist]

Interesting observation, Abs.  Recalling that these were civil wars in which Brutus, Cassius, and Antony died - or really committed suicide - I can't recall instances where the Romans dishonored the bodies of the dead - especially Patrician dead - in that way.  Slaves who were crucified were left to rot, of course, but plebian soldiers of defeated armies were usually allowed to defect to the winning side if they survived the battle.  

I may have to look into that some more.  Generally speaking though, Patricians who were implicated in plots against the emperors were given the chance to kill themselves and if they declined they were decapitated.  

Sadly, it is not the kind of thing that historians speak about at length.

[epronovost]

Interesting observation, Abs.  Recalling that these were civil wars in which Brutus, Cassius, and Antony died - or really committed suicide - I can't recall instances where the Romans dishonored the bodies of the dead - especially Patrician dead - in that way.  Slaves who were crucified were left to rot, of course, but plebian soldiers of defeated armies were usually allowed to defect to the winning side if they survived the battle.  

I may have to look into that some more.  Generally speaking though, Patricians who were implicated in plots against the emperors were given the chance to kill themselves and if they declined they were decapitated.  

Sadly, it is not the kind of thing that historians speak about at length.

I do believe Cicero's head was exposed after his death though it was supposed to be an exceptional thing for a man of his stature and rank to be treated as such.

[Cavebear]

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/egypt-...index.html

Tunnel discovered beneath Egyptian temple may lead to Cleopatra's tomb, archaeologist says

People always expect to find what they wish to be there.

Unlikely that Octavian would have permitted any elaborate funeral for a recently defeated enemy.

Romans seem to have had an interesting relationship with enemies. Non-civilized (in their view) meant no respect for the defeated. But others of older civilizations fascinated them. They admired the Greeks (and the Ptolemaic Kingdom was a favorite since it was based on Alexander The Great who they admired as a conqueror). So, I suggest Octavian would have granted a royal memorial.

It is easy to treat the defeated kindly for political purposes. It's not like they are going to bother you again.

[Minimalist]

Romans seem to have had an interesting relationship with enemies.

Indeed they did.  In fact, their leniency in overrunning Italy in the 3'd and 4th centuries BCE and incorporating their defeated Italic enemies into a complex system of alliances did much to enable them to survive Hannibal's invasion in the period of 217-205.  Few Italian communities went over to Hannibal in spite of his early victories as they knew what their relationship was to the Romans but the Carthaginians were regarded as an unmitigated evil.  As you suggest, the Greek colonies ( Locri, Tarentum, Croton) of the south were treated with restraint as well even though they had called in Pyrrhus to help them after Sentinum.  The Roman attitude towards Greece itself was quite complicated but for nearly 50 years they tried to settle the constant strife among the Greeks until they finally had enough and sacked, burned and leveled Corinth in 146.  The message to Greece was "Cut the shit.  We're taking charge."  Largely, they obeyed.

But the Germans, Gauls, Spaniards, etc were not so fortunate.  By then the Romans had figured out that slavery was a way to pay for their wars and it ended up destroying the Republic.

[abaris]

The problem is, we have only the accounts of the victors. Or the ones having an agenda.

Nero was a monster, going by most Roman accounts. But history tells a very different tale. Such as him opening his vast property to host the homeless after the great fire. Or him rebuilding the city with more regard to public safety. The story of him fiddling while Rome was burning is totally out of the window. He wasn't even there when it happened, but he returned immediately to take care of the situation.

[Minimalist]

Absolutely and Nero is only one of the figures for whom all we have written is the accounts of his enemies.  Caligula and Herod the Great are two more who come to mind.  None of them faced any sort of popular revolts.  The upper classes - the ones who did the writing, I might add - were taxed to pay for building schemes and other public works projects which benefited the commons by providing services and employment.  There was no point in taxing the poor.  The poor didn't have any money.  So you will get no argument from me about that observation.

Even Epy's observation above merits some scrutiny.  As she said, the story of Cicero's death and the subsequent dismemberment of his body did not reflect well on Marc Antony.  Could it be true?  Sure.  They were old enemies and Cicero never could keep his mouth shut.  But it is also true that the story arises in Livy's history and Livy would have been a teenager living in Padua in the far north when Cicero was killed.  More importantly, by the time he was writing his history Antony was long dead and was ultimately defeated by the current Emperor Augustus.  Would Livy have embellished the story to make Antony look bad?  Sure - probably an equal chance with the earlier observation.  Who can say but your point about writers having an agenda is spot on.