Mark Antony

**ShadesWolf** · 05-28-2020, 17:34

Im curretnly playing through Rome2
and have now completed as Antony three times in a row, so might be a good time to move onto Octavian.

So it got me thinking, most of what we know comes from the victor of the conflict, and the sources are very much biased, in my opinion.

SO

What are peoples thoughts on Mark Antony?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 05-29-2020, 02:43

Mine are colored by McCullogh's excellent fictionalization. Not really in depth on the particulars.

**Strike For The South** · 06-06-2020, 01:31

There is always going to be bias when you're being bankrolled by the dynasty that won! Barring some massive finding of papers we are left with Plutarch and Cicero. We get a wild man, drinking and gambling his way nearly to empire. How did he get in that position? Brain? Brawn? Right place? One can't be certain.

**Ludens** · 06-08-2020, 12:49

It’s been a while since I read up on this, but at least part of it must be due to him being Caesar’s political proxy during the run up of the civil war. Caesar needed an elected official on his side - and M. Anthony was of the right age and ambition - and would be unlikely to win without Caesar’s support. This would have positioned him as a prominent member of Caesar’s entourage, more so than his later rival, the unknown and untested Octavian.

And we shouldn’t take Roman gossip at face value. Quite a few members of the Roman political elite had attracted nasty rumours during their early career, including Caesar himself.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-08-2020, 15:22

Originally Posted by Ludens

It’s been a while since I read up on this, but at least part of it must be due to him being Caesar’s political proxy during the run up of the civil war. Caesar needed an elected official on his side - and M. Anthony was of the right age and ambition - and would be unlikely to win without Caesar’s support. This would have positioned him as a prominent member of Caesar’s entourage, more so than his later rival, the unknown and untested Octavian.

And we shouldn’t take Roman gossip at face value. Quite a few members of the Roman political elite had attracted nasty rumours during their early career, including Caesar himself.

Nasty rumors were stock in trade for Roman elections. No libel or slander laws of substance back then. Attack ads are NOT a new invention.

I think Antony had been tapped as the "successor" in Caesar's faction -- he had served Caesar loyally and (at least on the battlefield) well. His mismanagement of Italy and Rome when Caesar departed for North Africa and his thwarting of Caesar's efforts clearly had him pushed to the side. I think Caesar had tapped Octavian to be his faction successor at that point -- but Caesar expected to conquer Parthia and points East and then return to Rome to live out his last decade or so. He figured he had 15 years or so to groom Octavian and could therefore afford to discard Antony.

**ShadesWolf** · 06-08-2020, 18:21

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There is always going to be bias when you're being bankrolled by the dynasty that won! Barring some massive finding of papers we are left with Plutarch and Cicero. We get a wild man, drinking and gambling his way nearly to empire. How did he get in that position? Brain? Brawn? Right place? One can't be certain.

Cicero, is quite an interesting point to discuss.
We know he wasnt being bankrolled, unlike Virgil, and he hated tyranny and felt government powers must be limited. The attack on an enemy of freedom (the second philippic against antony) is a good read.
I seem to also remember in Virgils Aeneid the shield of Aeneas shows depicts Rome's glorious future, including the battle of Actium in 31 BC, where Augustus defeated Mark Antony, setting the beginnings of a new hopefully peaceful fuure.