But first a note from our lawyers. This is a work of ancient history, any resemblance to living persons is absolutely, categorically, purely coincidental.
“Octavian claimed that Antony was a womaniser, a drunk, and an un-Roman degenerate, who had been corrupted by eastern luxury and made the slave of a wicked whore-queen.”
Octavian went on to say that Antony also had a bad side.
You're right, it is interesting - and very telling about Roman attitudes, to women, to the East, to luxury, and to monarchy. Her whole aspect could not have played more perfectly into Octavian's hands!
This is the side to the story that you do not hear as often. Antony was doomed to lose this battle of public opinion once he left Rome in Octavian's hands.
I think you are absolutely right! But I wonder how it would have looked at the time given that the East was richer and arguably a better base militarily. Was Antony aware that he was giving up the propaganda battle in the short term, but hoped these advantages would outweigh that? Or did he, perhaps, have no idea what he was dealing with in terms of Octavian's capacity for political messaging?
Neither the abject physical coward, Trump, nor the boring Boer, Musk, exhibit either VIRTVS or FORTITUDO at all. Antony, Pompey, Octavian; even Commodus and Caligula had the stomach for battle. Imagine Melania intoning to Donald that he must either come back to her carrying his shield, or being toted thereupon by comely ephebes.
During the later imperial era I think that Antony's strategy would have been a safe bet, but owing to the importance of the city of Rome and the relative power of the senatorial families during this time, I don't know that Antony could have succeeded even if he had prevailed militarily. To the Romans it would have appeared less like a civil war between magistrates and more like a foreign usurpation of their empire by a Hellenistic kingdom. I agree that Antony was out of his league on the propaganda front. This is of course why he responded with violence to Cicero's provocations.
Surprisingly relevant in the present moment!
No! Never! Pure coincidence! I promise!
I'm sure the timing of this is purely coincidental.
But first a note from our lawyers. This is a work of ancient history, any resemblance to living persons is absolutely, categorically, purely coincidental.
History may not repeat, it may not even rhyme. But it may just inspire...
Somehow the most ambitious men are also the most petty.
The more ancient history (and...not just ancient history) I read, the more I fear you are correct.
Ha! Timely…
No! Pure coincidence! lol
Thanks Honor, both knowledgeable and timely as always.
Thank you so much for reading! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
“Octavian claimed that Antony was a womaniser, a drunk, and an un-Roman degenerate, who had been corrupted by eastern luxury and made the slave of a wicked whore-queen.”
Octavian went on to say that Antony also had a bad side.
hahahaha he does sound like the dream dinner party guest doesn't he?
Isn’t it interesting that Cleopatra gets cast as the villain.
You're right, it is interesting - and very telling about Roman attitudes, to women, to the East, to luxury, and to monarchy. Her whole aspect could not have played more perfectly into Octavian's hands!
This is the side to the story that you do not hear as often. Antony was doomed to lose this battle of public opinion once he left Rome in Octavian's hands.
I think you are absolutely right! But I wonder how it would have looked at the time given that the East was richer and arguably a better base militarily. Was Antony aware that he was giving up the propaganda battle in the short term, but hoped these advantages would outweigh that? Or did he, perhaps, have no idea what he was dealing with in terms of Octavian's capacity for political messaging?
The last two novels of my Mark Antony series, Caesar's Avenger and Caesar's Nemesis dramatise this. Fascinating time.
These sound fabulous!
Thank you!
Neither the abject physical coward, Trump, nor the boring Boer, Musk, exhibit either VIRTVS or FORTITUDO at all. Antony, Pompey, Octavian; even Commodus and Caligula had the stomach for battle. Imagine Melania intoning to Donald that he must either come back to her carrying his shield, or being toted thereupon by comely ephebes.
Thanks for writing this post. My knowledge of ancient Rome is narrow and idiosyncratic, and this helps me to broaden my base a little.
During the later imperial era I think that Antony's strategy would have been a safe bet, but owing to the importance of the city of Rome and the relative power of the senatorial families during this time, I don't know that Antony could have succeeded even if he had prevailed militarily. To the Romans it would have appeared less like a civil war between magistrates and more like a foreign usurpation of their empire by a Hellenistic kingdom. I agree that Antony was out of his league on the propaganda front. This is of course why he responded with violence to Cicero's provocations.
I am amazed each time about the level of detail we have on the personal relationships of people in Classical Antiquity.
ISTR that at some point Octavian ended up with Antony's favorite horse? Or something like that.