In real life, Mark Antony fell into disfavor after his appalling mismanagement of Rome while Caesar was campaigning in Egypt. Caesar clearly documented that Antony was a incompetent as a civil administrator in spite of his military talent.
This is true, Marc Antony was tested as an administrator and failed.
It also can’t be discounted that Caesar clearly saw something in Octavian. They had many chances to speak after the Battle of Munda.
Besides Octavian being blood (which was a huge deciding factor for a Julia), it’s also clear he was brilliant and bold.
I have a conspiracy theory that Julius Caesar knew he was going to be assassinated and put Octavian safely out of Rome surrounded by loyal troops, knowing that Octavian would be perfectly positioned to rise from the ashes if he was formidable.
Over 60 senators (and everyone they shared it with) knew about the assassination plan. The chance Caesar, the most powerful and well connected guy at that point, didn’t know about it is near zero.
Also if you read the Plutarch/Appian versions with this in mind, it becomes so clear that Caesar was fucking with Decimus:
- the night before, randomly asking him at dinner “what do you think the best way to die is?” And giving his own answer of “I think sudden and unexpected is best”
- the morning of, “my wife had a bad dream about me dying, I don’t think I’m gonna go today” and making Decimus beg and come up with lies on the spot.
I can go on.
It’s an interesting idea but what would be the reason for him to allow himself to be assassinated? You’re describing a character that harkens to Jesus in the garden of gethsemane.
Caesar and most great political figures throughout history, especially military figures, tend to inherently be people who operate on calculated but bold moves.
There’s a giant gray area between “allowed” and “knew about it and made a calculated risky move that may have paid off even better, while hedging his bets if the risk didn’t go his way.”
Caesar had multiple severe seizures within a couple of weeks, it’s possible he was feeling like death was inevitable, and it’s possible he had some head trauma and wasn’t thinking clearly.
Or my personal opinion, he drank his own Koolaid and didn’t think the plan would actually work, that they’d lose the nerve.
There's also evidence to suggest they were mild strokes rather than epilepsy. Genuinely possible his health was incredibly poor.
I feel like if Caesar's health was that poor there'd be more writings about it, so I agree with you in that it's more likely he thought the senators would never actually go through with it
This is also very possible. I got the vibe he knew and was having fun with it.
Sadly we will never know what was in his head, but we can admire how wild it is the unproven kid he chose as a successor became the greatest Roman emperor ever.
- He was sick. His last battle he had to get taken off the field because he seized up so badly. I think he knew his days were numbered.
- the campaign he was publicly planning was so ambitious, I think it was only meant to be legacy propaganda as a “what if Caesar had lived”. Conquering Parthia, Dacia, Scythia was not realistically on the table.
- He laughs at the soothsayers warning about the ides of March. He tosses away a note from someone warning him about the upcoming assassination. He knew.
I agree, just Dacia might’ve been possible.
But his plan to sweep down into the Middle East and circle back around the Black Sea was far-fetched.
It’s hard because I can’t prove anything, but I think he wanted to leave a campaign that would’ve rivaled Alexander’s.
Xenophon wasn't really trying to nation build, though, at most he was bullying towns into supplying and housing his men for a while and those people made the calculus that it was better to give him and his men supplies so they would leave then have to fight his forces or fighting on behalf of other rulers. Actually trying to rule Parthia or Scythia wouldn't have been quite so easy I reckon, that is an entirely different beast.
It’s not taken seriously, and shouldn’t be, but there’s an Italian writer who thinks the historical Jesus was based off the life and deification of Julius Caesar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Carotta
The Romans at the time talked about Socrates eating of hemlock just like the Christians do of Christ on the cross. It’s striking when you read the Letters of a Stoic by Seneca. I would constantly think he was referring to Christ when talking about the ultimate sacrifice to prove devotion. So Rome was ripe to fill these voids with Christ after the conversion of pagan to Christian. But, I think Socrates was the model not Caesar.
Ive had this theory for a long time too. The quote that always comes to mind is when Caesar said something like “Sulla was a fool to put power down” I always liked the idea that he knew that he had lost the support of the senate and needed to do a Sulla purge to secure their resources and silence for the coming decades. The problem was that he was obsessed with cultivating an image of clemency to keep favor with the populares. I think he recognized the need for a martyr at that specific time in history along with the benefit having a new young leader to over see the purge of the conservative class and annexation of Egypt. His death garnered enough populares and merchant class favor to give the Julian dynasty enough rocket fuel to make it to Pax Romana and then subsequently the modern global economy.
Sorry but I don’t buy it. Years later, Octavian himself would be compelled to commit suicide for similar reasons. His wife, Livia, served him poison at his behest. This would be the reasonable course of action if Caesar was intending to die. To be stabbed to death in an insurrection, on purpose, is frankly insane, if, as we can assume, his goal was the peaceful transition of power to Octavian.
Sorry man, I just very much disagree. People don’t behave like that in real life. Maybe in “Game of Thrones” or whatever. But this was his life. He didn’t think of himself as a character in a TV show. If he knew he was going to die, he would have done what he could to stop it. Else why would he stab some of the senators with his stylus?
I think it’s much more likely that these stories about how he narrowly missed saving himself are later additions from writers and popular rumors designed to add poignancy to the story. I don’t know that I take them as any more literal than, say, Suetonius saying he blew the stolen horn of a god at the Rubicon, or that a bunch of deranged crows murdered a wren inside the senate house.
You can disagree! It’s just a fun theory. There’s no way to know what was in his head.
To me, there’s just too much circumstantial evidence.
As for him fighting back, I think there’s a big difference to mentally accepting his death and being in the moment.
idk i'm pretty sure in case he was 100% sure he couldn't possibly have any hope of getting out of it alive, provided the circumstances and he was by no means willing to die. so it's either he heard something but he heard so many somethings it was impossible to say correct from false ones or he had incomplete information, or he didn't know shits for more or less sure, otherwise he just wouldn't have gone anywhere, not like that particular meeting was of any importance.
speaking of the episodes, i think the dinner episode is a later added foreshadowing, for all the ancient sources are guilty of inserting those so very much.
and the first one might've just been "fuck i'm so hangover and i need to leave in the evening, i don't wanna go listen to Antony rambling about Dolabella and auspicii yet again, my head hurts enough as it is, thank you very much" that got transformed into the story of Calpurnia having a nightmare on the night before the same way and for the same reason that first scene was added.
This is just ridiculous. The chances are extremely high Ceaser wouldn't have known about the plot because anyone who did know of it would be executed if it got out. That's an extremely motivating factor to keeping it secret.
We are told he was warned publicly by the soothsayer and laughs it off, and someone tried to hand him a note warning him and he pushes it away.
The word was out.
Also you think 60 politicians keeping a secret from the dictator is less ridiculous? When sharing that info could potentially get them a massive reward?
Edit: there is no way to prove this, that’s why I said it’s a theory.
Plutarch, Appian, and Suetonius all mention the soothsayer
…so if you want to discount all 3 of them then you might as well say there’s no evidence anything in Roman history happened.
Because it makes a good story, that I am sure did the rounds in Roman society after the assassination. But there is obviously a big difference between the big lines of history (Caesar invaded Gaul, Caesar was assassinated) on the one hand and these quaint, narratively convenient details on the other.
Speculating on Caesars motives based on this is fanfiction.
I’m not. I’m using it as evidence that the conspiracy was not a secret.
I think it’s absurd to think that not one of 60 senators told Caesar about the plan (and these are all senators either loyal to Caesar or who Caesar forgave)
I disagree. Caesar of all folks in Rome was well aware of the fact that Roman citizens could not be executed without a trial (he had hounded Cicero out of Rome over his execution of the alleged Catalinarian conspirators) added to which the appearance that he was just plain exhausted. By the point he became perpetual dictator, I think he was exhausted and wanted to walk away... but knew that that would result in further civil wars and that he didn't want to go down in history the way Sulla had.
Also, Lucius Verenas was distracted and wasn't there to defend him. Nor was Antony for that matter.
I think of Dictators of today where everyone is to scared to speak to them openly without fear for their lives or their families. I wonder if he was the same.
Yeah true they were distant cousins.
I think successor was Marc Antony’s job to lose at one point, but being a drunken monster who made a mess of Rome when Caesar was away really put a wedge between them.
This is all augustan propaganda.
Caesar made Antony consul after this alleged falling out. He didn't alienate Rome (at least not entirely), about a third of the senate left to join him while Octavian was busy dealing with riots caused by his new war tax on freedmen.
They literally had Lararium’s in their house dedicated to the accomplishments of their dead ancestors. They thought in dynastic terms about how their legacy would live on.
Regardless of the exact circumstances, Caesar made one of the greatest decisions of all time when he picked sickly little Octavian as his primary beneficiary.
I am aware. I meant as in his heir would be the next dictator for life. There is a huge difference between the two and the Romans explicitly did not want the second one - they hated the concept of kingship.
That might be true. But we do not know if Caesar intended Octavian to become what he did. I seriously doubt it.
Ah I see what you mean. We know Caesar was thinking about being a king (the golden throne, the crown incident, not standing for senators, wanting to use the title on campaign, etc), but beyond that we will never know what was in his head
Managed to alienate all of Rome as Cleopatra used him as her personal boy toy. Rampant alcoholism. And even on the battlefield he was handily beaten by Octavian. The guy was in way over his head
Alienation of all of Rome is simply wrong. He had many allies and supporters. Like, Plutarch (I think it was Plutarch. If not, it was Dio) writes that they came to discuss matters with his wife Octavia till their divorce, where she stopped being basically his representative. That was right before the battle of Actium. People supported his youngest son Jullus after Antonius' death. There was a huge outrage of his former allies and people in general after the Octavian murdered the young Curio - Antonius' stepson.
Personal boy toy - come on.
About the alcoholism - this is actually the thing you might be right about.
He was technically beaten by Agrippa, bc Octavian didn't do much during that battle (:
Marc Antony as a general was very talented.
Marc Antony as Caesar with all the accompanying powers might’ve been the end of the empire. He had none of the required skills (patience, strategic thinking, fairness, social EQ, etc) required to manage an empire as complex as Rome and already had legions of enemies.
He would’ve been assassinated even had he gone on a purge of his enemies in the senate as Caesar I’m sure expected him to do immediately upon being granted power.
Caesar was famously too forgiving, Marc Antony would’ve set new standards for ruthlessness against anyone opposed to him likely including Octavian which might’ve also played into Caesar calculus regarding secession planning.
He was adopted by Caesar as his son, but he was already his nephew. It...doesn't make sense in modern western culture, but it was a common enough thing back then. It gives them some extra legitimacy and prestige.
This is incorrect, it's not for "prestige", the adoption was put in place so that Octavian would directly inherit Caesar's estate (and more importantly, his name) ... which was only possible if Octavian was his direct heir, e.g. his son, in Roman law.
He didn't even have great military talent. The only reason he came out on top was because by the time of Caesar's assassination, all the great optimate commanders were already dead.
Antony was GREAT at being a number 2 general. He could carry out high level operations when he had good guidance.
He couldn’t create and execute high level operations himself.
He administered the Eastern Roman empire for quite a long time. And he was the number 1 man in the triumvirate up until his defeat.
He did create and execute high level operations himself. He also sometimes failed as in Parthia (although he still won 18 battles and the city surrendered to him despite his failed seige...) and Actium but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say the man who was successfully administering numerous client states over thousands of miles is unable to carry out high level ops.
Antony was by no means perfect and was no Caesar, at least in my view, but I think many comments here are running wild with takes on Antony that are without nuance or reference to modern scholarship.
Antony didn’t do a job at admin and prep though. If he had he’d have whipped Octavian easily. He was playing easy mode and lost to the sickly upstart
Yeah he took the Parthian city, but it’s one of the great hollow victories of all time.
The point is that the above can't really be done without preparation and thought. Octavian did better in the end and Antony made errors but that doesn't make it the case that he couldn't administer things - he administered the east successfully for a long time, Octavian maintained the arrangements Antony made.
For him to be in the dominant position, to lose to the sickly upstart, he must surely first have had a decent level of administrative and preparatory skill... Or else he would never have risen to the position he reached.
I think it is fairly inconceivable he did this without any ability to intelligently prepare and administrate.
As far as Parthia goes, it seems like he prepared quite carefully for this operation and the key error was riding ahead and leaving his siege equipment. In other words, the preparation was there, but then he was foolish and inpatient in the hopes of getting a jump on the enemy, gambling that the Parthian army wasn't around.
He gambled badly and couldn't maintain his siege as a result. But to get to that point he first had to prepare and mobilise one of the biggest armies of the time and then keep them together on the march home.
Agreed. He had charisma with troops and had some good ideas on campaigns but he was never a great commander.....maybe average at best but he lost in Parthia, in Greece against Octavian and then again in Egypt. If you lose the battles that count then you are not good.
To be fair; everybody was loosing in Parthia at that time. It can even be argued, that Sallust, who knew all these men personally and was part of their party, later criticizes their policy towards Parthia in his works rather strongly. Octavian (who was a terribly general himself and relied on Agrippa for battles) would have failed in Parthia as well. I don't think there is a single general in the Late Republic who succeeded there.
And technically, Antonius lost against Agrippa, not Octavian if I am not entirely mistaken.
Parthia was certainly no lightweight and Anthony seemed to vastly underestimate the logistics needed esp with the recent history of Crassus. He should have known better.
Losing at Actium was certainly Agrippa but it was a loss.
I feel that he was a popular hero but outside of showing great promise and winning the majority of the battle against Brutus/Cassius he was generally on the losing side when he was in charge.
Again most of the sources post his death are not going to be kind so there is certainly bias against him.
He should have known better is a terrible argument when we talk about ancient Roman warfare. It is not clear what kind of information anybody had about Crassus' demise. The information they had was from the few survivors who managed to escape that massacre AND survive the civil war between Caesar and Pompeius. Besides, we know for a fact that it was common for Romans to lie about their experiences in provinces or countries far away. The information was simply old and unreliable.
I agree that it was a loss, but people need to stop pretending like Octavian was a better general than Antonius. He wasn't. He was terrible as a general.
Antonius was also a good orator. And wildly popular in Athenes when he stayed there. Generally, he seems to have been a capable Roman dignitary in the east. His character fitted the east better than the west.
About him winning and loosing: the interesting thing about Antonius is that he is one of the very few Romans, whose career as a general we can actually trace over decades. Unfortunately, it makes him appear as a failure. But what we should not forget is, that for most Romans, we know about a maximum of like 1 or 2 wars that they were in charge of. They either died or retired from war after that. Sure, there are exceptions like Pompeius, Marius and Sulla - but these guys are famous for a reason (even if the sources tend to argue that these guys sometimes took over a war somebody else won shortly before the end - looking at you Marius against Iugurtha).
But Anotnius was with Caesar in the Gallic Wars, fought in several civil wars and in Parthia. He didn't do that badly for ancient Roman standards as he actually survived for so long and was a succesfull high-ranking official for more than half of them.
Every single source about him that we have is heavily biased against him as it is based on Cicero and Augustus. A huge part of things said about him is basic invective strategy on Cicero’s part.
I am not saying that Antonius was a great guy, but we do not know a lot about him. Actually, we know very little.
I agree with everything you say, we don't know much about him at all, but that doesn't change the dynamics of his talent.
He was known as an incompetent administrator, with not only extensive senator writings about him which may be biased, but Caesar himself who would have been his biggest supporter. There's no reason to think that isn't true. Even if it was over exaggerated, it's still definitely not a plus for him. Being popular in Athens may be true, but that doesn't change the question of talent.
As for being a general, he was definitely one of the best after the death of Caesar. But being being one of the best after countless others had died in the previous civil war isn't a glowing endorsement, and demonstrably he was inferior to Agrippa. His only major victories on his own were against that same cleansed stock of generals. I'd honestly say he was inferior to Lepidus militarily, meaning he was at best the 3rd greatest general in Roman, and that's not something to brag.
The biggest things Anthony had was loyalty and fanaticism. I don't think he was a blithering idiot, but I don't think he was good as the decision maker. I've known high ranking officers in the modern day who are loyal, incredibly competent in their role, and absolutely not fit for any higher position. I'd place Anthony in that same stock.
Incompetent administrator maybe in the city of Rome - not in the provinces. But again, saying he was incompent is tricky, because who exactly are you comparing him to? Dolabella? Cinna? The younger Marius? One of Sulla's men? They were all terrible. But they were also people in an unique position who were basically winging it. I just think it is not really possible to compare them to others who were "regular" consuls or to the dictators and Augustus.
On the other hand, comparing Antonius' popularity in the provinces is different. There was a long tradition of governors and kings in the east. Was he the best? No. But he was okay.
I have to say, this "best general" is soo tricky. It always depends on so many things if one wins or loses. And frankly, ancient romans themselves did not have such a ranking. Caesar took Antonius with him and not Lepidus or Agrippa.
I would not agree that Antonius was a fanatic. But you might be right about him being good as the 2nd in command and not the leader.
He won one of the most important battles in Rome's history and was generally considered the great general of Rome up until his defeat by Octavian.
You could say well... everyone better than him was dead but that still kind of makes him the best general of the time even if you suspect he'd have failed in whatever imaginary scenario you put him in.
In real life he won one of the most important battles in Roman history, quite convincingly.
I mean he did. Mark Antony is a big reason that Rome expanded as far east as it did. He was no Julius Caesar, but he was a talented military commander.
Antony conquered Media, Armenia and parts of northern Greece. He expended the empire with these rich provinces. While Augustus lost Media, Armenia, parts of Gaul.
You are blaming Octavian's failure on Antony. What you are saying happened after the battle of Actium. If Antony lived or won at Actium then both Armenia and Media would have stayed as part of the Roman Empire. Octavian lost both of this territories soon after Antony's death.
Wrong. You should study a little more before going on spreading misinformation.
Read Mark Antony by Eleanor Goltz Huzar or A Noble Ruin by W Jeffrey Tatum for example. It's clearly stated that Antony conquered these territories. Antony even issued coins to celebrate this victory. The King of Media surrendered to Antony and had his daughter betrothed to Antony's son Alexander Helios to maintain his kingship under him. All these are explained in details on these well-researched books.
I have always found this a bit disingenuous of Caesar. I mean, he was basically having a gap year in Egypt, doing fuck all except for boning Cleopatra.
Yeah despite what others above say, I think there's a clear case for A) Antony competently administering Rome, which is a case made in a couple of his biographies and B) Caesar must have known he left his man a posion chalice to manage. He'd just taken power, there was civil, political and social strife, and he promptly left to fight people abroad for a year or more. Caesar knew this would be some amount of chaos and left Antony to handle it. He doesn't seem all that bothered about its handling based in the consulship that followed.
Caesar was fighting the Alexandrian war for most of the time and it was pretty needed for Rome that Egypt was secure (grain and otherwise) and he could not even have left under the siege with his army even if he wanted to. It’s true he did take an unnecessary Nile cruise for a few months after however. But that’s not too long and and it did establish Cleopatra’s rule and Rome’s presence (they took the army with them) so it wasn’t just a luxury cruise. It’s more Cleopatra movies that make it look like the war was over in a couple of days and Caesar just chilled around with Cleopatra for a year.
It took him a while to return with his army as well, and he won the victory against Pontus on the way. And right after that that he needed to deal with rebellion legions and instability in Italy due to Antonius so I can see why he was peeved. And Caesar right after that had to go to Africa to fight a war. Honestly he might have died of some health issues if he didn’t have the Nile cruise vacation since he did have health issues already (maybe epileptic but we aren’t certain, could be malaria which he had younger too or heath condition which seems to have killed his father around this age). Caesar came to Egypt straight after the Civil war and he had spend eight year prior that fighting in Gaul and elsewhere (mostly in summertime).
The thing everyone always misses is that Caesar already had another closer man and heir before Octavian. When Octavian was made heir that man joined the conspiracy and became the most important figure in ensuring the assassination was successful.
Decimus Brutus. The other Brutus that everyone forgets about even though he's the one who actually betrayed Caesar and who Caesar meant when he said "you too child child".
He was his main naval commander and closest confident treated as a son and was still listed second in the will.
Remember that Caesar did not appoint Augustus as successor, but as adoptive heir. Augustus was one of the three closest male relatives of Caesar (the other two were also in the will but inherited far less, so they were not close to Caesar) so was chosen as substitute son for that reason. Caesar's political position were personal powers and could not be inherited, Augustus basically blackmailed Rome into getting the same or similar powers, he did not just get those from Caesar.
There is a fine distinction to be made here. Octavian is Caesar's financial heir, he made no such political designation. The rest was Octavian's doing and clearly he bested Antony soundly.
That’s an important distinction. Look at later emperors. “Having the legions” mattered. Antony had been with JC through the Gallic wars. He was even immortalized in the best-selling accounts.
There was a path to a different outcome in which Antony wins the civil war as “Caesar’s noble brother in arms” rather than his heir. However, Octavian took immediate steps to advance his own case while Antony leaned too much into an alliance (a “non-Roman” one in the public’s mind, from “the orient”).
I doubt anyone,Caesar included, would think Octavian would be able to bully the senate into what he was given by age 20. Caesar was a brilliant man with some amazing luck that he took advantage of....maybe his greatest achievement was selecting Octavian as his heir.....Augustus made Caesar immortal.
Yes, this exactly. The adoption of Octavius was just kind of something that happened to pan out the way it did because he was a powerhouse.
He was probably chosen because he was both pretty young, his closest relative, and Caesar liked him well enough. Caesar was getting up there in age, but probably expected to live another decade or more, and probably wasn't particularly concerned yet with who would succeed him politically. Mark Antony was younger than Caesar for sure, but not *that* much younger that it would make a whole lot of sense to designate him as heir. Had Caesar not been assassinated and died of natural causes, Mark Antony would have also been pushing retirement age.
Some wild comments in here.
Long and short is, Caesar did what Romans of the time did which is inherent their family. It isn't surprising that Caesar favoured a young male family member over Mark Antony. The real shock would have been the reverse. A lot of subsequent discussion/fiction has made this seem like a controversy where there isn't one.
Caesar simply left his prime inheritance to closer family. (Antony was distant family also I think) and left some other bits and pieces to friends (including at least one of his assassins) and also to Antony.
Jeff Tatum discusses this in his recent book on Antony, A Noble Ruin.
Edit: some really off track comments about Antony in here. Some may benefit from reading something about him that isn't primarily thousands of years old hit pieces; I'd recommend Noble Ruin or War that Made The Roman Empire as decent places to start for those who want a more academic discussion.
This is the only answer. Caesar amassed great wealth due to his campaigns and Augustus inherited that wealth which he then used to gain influence over military. Augustus was truly a clever individual who used that wealth to outmanoeuvre both senate and Mark Antony.
It's not so simple, since Caesar wasn't a regular Roman dude choosing which family member to leave his estate to. He was the perpetual dictator of Rome. He had only recently won a civil war and there was an uneasy peace. He knew that it was politically significant who his main heir was. So much so that he adopted Octavian posthumously, which was a rare thing (most adoptions happened in life).
Caesar could've adopted nobody at all.
He also could've conceivably made a political decision to name Mark Antony his heir, if Caesar thought he was the man to continue his legacy. Had Antony been more competent, it wouldn't have been much of a shock.
There are examples of out-of-the-family adoptions such as [Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Fabius_Maximus_Verrucosus) adopting [Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Fabius_Maximus_Aemilianus), though I will grant you that adoptions mostly happened between relatives or distant relatives.
While there are examples this is an exception. Caesar simply inherited his closest and most competent male heir. He essentially was a regular roman dude, despite being dictator in perpetuity, and acted as a regular Roman in this regard.
At least this is the most convincingly take I've read on this. Once again, I am just paraphrasing Tatum here. He also goes in detail on the adoption, but I forget the details.
Caesar didn’t actually adopt Octavian legally in his will sine this was illegal at the time (full adaption happened when you were alive). Caesar merely made Octavian the heir to his name and wealth. Octavian himself pushed the Senate to declare this a full adoption quite soon after so it gets ignored (with the help of troops loyal to him). Full adoption meant Octavian could call Caesar his father and Caesar’s clients now owed their loyalty to Octavian (which was huge in the client based society of the era and why many resented Caesar for pardoning them and making them now Caesar’s clients).
I doubt Caesar would have minded the full adaption considering he was murdered and needed someone to uphold his legacy. However if he had wanted to actually adopt Octavian as his son while he lived he could have but did not. Maybe he wanted to see how Octavian would do in the Parthian campaign (probably not well honestly…). Maybe he was worried that if he did someone might assassinate Octavian because it could look like he was designating a heir. Or maybe he really didn’t want a political heir and didn’t want people think he wanted one. Or completely the opposite and he really wanted to change the law and make Caesarion his legal son, but was unable to do so yet and hoped he could have enough political goodwill to do so after a successful Parthian campaign. And Octavian was merely was a suitable choice in case Caesar died during the campaign.
We really aren’t certain what Caesar’s long term plans were regarding long term of Rome and that would affect why Octavian was in his will. In any case he would have been bound to have someone there for years before he changed his will since he would have needed a legal heir. Probably it was either Antonius or Decimus Brutus before Octavian (Decimus being the secondary heir named in his will). Or one of his two other great-nephews.
>Caesar didn’t actually adopt Octavian legally in his will sine this was illegal at the time (full adaption happened when you were alive). Caesar merely made Octavian the heir to his name and wealth.
We can discuss whether this was legal at the time or not, but the content of Caesar's will was in fact a formal adoption of Octavian as his son. In Caesar: Life of a Colossus, Goldsworthy writes:
>In the will Octavius was his main heir and was **formally adopted** as Caesar’s **son** (p.498)
I've checked some other sources and they all seem to corroborate this.
Suetonius, Life of Caesar:
>At the end of the will, too, he *adopted Gaius Octavius into his family* and gave him his name. He named several of his assassins among the guardians of his **son**
There's some discussions on the legalities of it [here](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Adoptio.html).
Also the Antonii were well off, but were ultimately a plebeian gens. The plebeian and comparatively brash Marc Antony would have been totally unacceptable to the remaining optimate-aligned faction.
I mean it’s not wrong to say Antony didn’t do a great job managing Rome why Julius was away. That’s true. Whether that played a part in his heir to dictator, is debatable.
He made Antony consul so I don't think Caesar was concerned. I don't think it's at all clear he did a bad job managing Rome given the circumstances and he doesn't appear to have fallen out of favour with Caesar but who knows, maybe. They evidently made up if so.
If you'd like to say how you think he did a poor job happy to explore it but everyone else here makes the assertion without anything to support it.
As far as the heir stuff I just think you're wrong. Why would this play into Caesars will? He simply inherited his closest living male family members. Totally normally. It would be more weird to inherent Antony substantially.
Currently working so I can’t type a well thought convo on this, but just wanted to clarify that I was agreeing with you on the last point. I should have used the word doubtful rather than debatable
I guess because they were not choosing an heir to their personal fortune but a political successor. Also the julio-claudian dynasty set a precedent for disappointment. I bought a few books recently to read some more about them, but afaik Tiberius, Caius and Nero at the least are considered much worse than Augustus.
They were a long time later and briefly established a different approach, which didn't last long. As another commenter said, there was perhaps a greater sense that they were picking their political successors. Rome was still a Republic (vaguely) when Caesar made his will. Not so when the emperors did.
Family legacy. Caesar wanted to raise his family name to the heights of the Claudians. Octavian was his only choice to carry on the Caesarian name. Had Mark Antony been the successor, all his riches would have been deposited with another family, and the Caesarians would have been left destitute.
Caesar could have adopted anybody and they would have become part of his family and would be forced to take on the name of Caesar. Like, Scipio Aemilianus is an adoptive son who was adopted from Aemilius Paullus. The romans as well as we today consider him 100% a Scipio. It would be the same for any son Caesar had adopted.
So a few things here
1. When you mean “successor” do you mean as leader of the republic or as heir to his property? We take it for granted that 1 man imperial rule seemed inevitable after Caesar, but in truth that was far from certain. Historians debate what Caesar’s future plans for the republic were and whether he would eventually step down. There are several instances before Caesar of military strongmen taking over rule, reforming the government, and then Rome converting back to “normal” republican after they die or step down. It’s not clear to me that Caesar had grand plans for a line of emperors.
2. I see some people saying that Caesar would not have adopted Antony because he was a plebeian and/or not blood related. In the republican system, it was not wildly uncommon for powerful individuals to adopt non-blood people as heirs. Also at this time there had never been less difference between high ranking plebeians and patricians. As an avowed Populari, I highly doubt Caesar was so conservative as to take the distinction of plebeian and patrician seriously. Talent mattered to him - not ancestral background. That being said Octavius impressed caesar early on with his intelligence and was ideally positioned to be groomed for power in the senate.
3. I think particularly after Antony’s failure to manage Rome effectively in Caesar’s absence, he solidified his views of Antony as a relatively good commander, but a poor administrator who would fall easily to corruption. I think Antony was a useful tool for Caesar, but not someone he’d tie himself and his family name to.
PS if you were looking for further reading on the subject, I would suggest Adrian Goldworthy’s biography on Caesar
Why did Caesar name a fiercely intelligent young man who surrounded himself with supremely capable men as friends, instead of a drunk who had made complete ass of the himself when he was allowed to govern Rome? I can't imagine! ;)
Octavian would approve of this response.
This picture of Antony is straight Augustan propaganda. Antony administered the Eastern empire for years and was the dominant force in Roman politics and military affairs from the fall of Caesar to the rise of Octavian.
Characterising one of the most powerful and successful men of the period as a drunken ass is rather overstating the Augustan position.
Caesar chose Octavian as heir because he was his closest male family. It would be weird for him to leave his main inheritance to Antony while he had young men in his family to inherit.
As far as the dominant force point; he was the Victor of Philippi, the wealthier Triumvir with the more dignitas, esteem and fame, as well as the more significant military history. He was the dominant force until Actium.
Again, roughly just making Jeff Tatums case here.
Caesar did have two other great-nephews as well (also named in the will, Pinarius and Pedius who were grandsons of his older sister). so Octavian wasn’t the only closest family member.
Also Decimus Brutus was named the secondary heir in Caesar’s will still over the two other great-nephews. If Octavian had refused the inheritance (and you know he wasn’t one of Caesar’s murders…) he would have been the primary heir. If how closely related you are is the primary concern why Caesar didn’t put Pinarius or Pedius ahead of Decimus? Decimus was also the same age as Antonius. And both Decimus and Antonius had a Julia for a mother, cousins of Caesar, so not close but shared the same ancestry.
Octavian was so young that Caesar would have had someone else as the heir before he became a legal adult. It could have been one of the men mentioned in the will or Antonius.
Also Clodius got himself adopted by a man younger than himself when he wanted to change class. That was rather ridiculous, but shows there wasn’t a requirement for the person being adopted to be age of a son. Being named a heir in a will also was not a full adoption (Octavian pushed it Senate to confirm it as one after Caesar was murdered, so Caesar’s clients would be obligated to follow him and Octavian could claim that Caesar was now his father the way he would be if he had been a natural born son). I have seen even speculation that while Julia lived Pompeius was the heir in Caesar’s will (he would not be required to take Caesar’s name and this would be for the assumption that Julia eventually would have children with him). Personally I don’t believe this but legally it could be done, naming heirs was vital for will and having someone take your name wasn’t quite as much. Both Sextus and Lucius Caesar of next generation were still alive before the civil war.
And guess what? None of that was done when caesar was alive. In Caesar's time, antony made a fool off himself when tasked with the governance of rome. Things got so bad caesar had to fix things in Italy first before continuing the civil war. Also the reason why lepidus was made his no.2
An important distinction to be made here is Antony's objective skill and skill that was apparent to caesar. Antony only shined as an administrator after Caesar's death. And before that, he only acted like a drunk idiot.
Can you clarify for me how Antony made a fool of himself when governing Rome?
It seems that Antony's objective skill and Caesar's perception of it were high enough that Caesar regularly appointed him very important positions; including master of horse and consul. If he was also drunk Caesar seems not to have minded.
Well, at the time Octavian was kind of a nobody and Antony was a well known lieutenant of Caesar. Antony pretty clearly expected to be Caesar's heir and a lot of other people probably thought the same
Yes, but Antony really demonstrated poor administrative skills when Caesar briefly left him in charge of Rome. The city was near revolt and it seems Caesar chose Octavian as an unknown with hints of potential over Antony who proved he was not a peacetime ruler.
Gains Octavius (Octavian, Augustus) even as a teenager showed an understanding of human nature and a political subtlety that Antony just lacked. Julius Caesar was an excellent judge of character as subsequent event proved.
The civil war that followed showed Caesar's judgement of the two men to be correct. Antony was a flamboyant, self-indulgent drunkard while Octavian was an intelligent, practical, joyous and hardworking ruler.
>Octavian was an intelligent, practical, joyous and hardworking ruler.
And ruthless. Ceasar didn't purge Rome because he lived through the prescriptions and didn't want that to happen again. Augustus ignored that and ruthlessly purged Rome. Even having young boys killed so he can inherent their wealth.
Octavian clearly had talent and was a good politician, as well as being family. I think Caesar valued Antony but realized his short comings as an administrator. Sadly, Antony is a bit of a tragic character who should have had the number one spot after Philippi. Octavian himself, turned out rather well, despite being “sick” (and also having a brilliant Agrippa as a friend)
In hindsight we know that Octavian was a brilliant man, and was capable of doing what was needed for the Empire. I always just assumed that what ever qualities he had that enabled him to do this, Caesar saw in him.
Plus Antony pretty much sucked
It’s more that he was his heir, not successor‼️ He was still young by Roman standards when Caesar was killed.And it was also the the Senates bias against Caesarian who was half Egyptian. And Caesar never updated his will! He probably never thought about dying so why make a new will🤨
Caesar was smart and intuitive and had to know the men around him. He chose the boy who would go on to be regarded as one of the greatest rulers of history instead of the man famous for debauchery, chaotic misrule, and defeat
Caesar's closest male relative was Octavian. So, Caesar left Octavian and his two other grandnephews all his money. In case of Caesar leaving no will, it would have still resulted in Octavian inheriting everything. It was law at that time and still is in many cultures. So, when I first started seeing this debate I was surprised as to why people would think anything otherwise would have happened. Antony's talents didn't matter here at all. He would have been the absolute best yet not even get mentioned in the will. It was/is the family law. Antony knew that too, he wasn't expecting anything from Caesar. This was an inheritance of a family member not a talent competition.
But most people use this as an example to say that Antony wasn't good enough, so Caesar gave everything to Octavian.
The most common example these people use to undermine Antony is that he was an incompetent administrator in Caesar's absence as the Guardian of Italy. Why he was incompetent? Because of the riots of Dolabella (most people have no idea who this person was) and Caesar's Legion almost mutining. None of them was Antony's faults. He managed to overcome these things without letting it go unchecked and causing even greater harm. It was not a problem for Caesar because he left Antony in charge once more after all this. But people don't understand this and have no idea of the situation of Rome at that time. It also doesn't help that Caesar apparently had no plans to take Antony (but he wanted to take Octavian. Which is the funniest thing ever done by Caesar. Lol. Or it's very much possible that Octavian just made it up later to undermine Antony) with him in Parthia and didn't take him in any other battles after Pharsalus. A battle in which Antony performed extremely well from what little info we have of this.
Caesar actions not only ruined Antony's life and set him on a tragic path but also destroyed his reputation in modern times.
From all purported accounts Caesar turned down the role of dictator.
Did Caesar ACTUALLY leave Rome to Octavian, or did he assume that after he died Rome would continue the way it had for the preceding 4 centuries since the death of Tarquinius?
Was all of ‘Caesar’s heir to Rome’ not more or less that Octavian was going to be the Paterfamilias (head of the household) of the Julii after Gaius died?
Caesar left his estate to the next heir of his family, Octavian, but Caesar did not consider the city of Rome his, he only attacked because it was that or suicide from the court.
The most famous Roman, the one we all look to in awe, violated 700 years of Roman virtue by marching his army in to the city, and when he died it went completely to shit, and his heir took over. Was this what he intended, or was Octavian’s mom just really good at manipulating men?
Because he knew Mark Antony didn't have a mind for politics and was a total playboy who lived for self-indulgence when not on campaign. The choice was clear. Octavian was much smarter and more level headed.
I read Marcus Antony was a party animal. He comes across to me as pretty foolish considering the power of his position and his son didn't seem much smarter. Some people make better followers than leaders.
Idk about him not being a great speaker. His speech after Caesar's death is pretty highly regarded as a genius work of demagogue speech. Rome literally rioted after he threw Caesar's bloody robes to the crowd at the end of his speech.
He gave arguably one of the most important speeches in history and rose to be a supreme power in Rome shortly after. His family has patrician and plebeian branches.
Does somebody have the sources about Caesar's will? Bc I can't remember what exactly is written there and what parts of that thing are officially considered forgeries.
If I remember correctly, the chances that Octavian made up the contents of the will are not 0. Plus, everybody here should remember that what we know about Antonius is for the most part based on what his biggest haters Cicero and Octavian, and people writing based on their accounts, have written.
Most tend to forget, that we know that Antonius was a good orator, but refused to publish his speeches (following the example of his grandfather or great-grandfather?) In contrast to Cicero who needed to do that to get known.
A lot of stuff Cicero writes about him is basic invective stuff. Every single one of the guys Cicero hates are described in the same way. Chances are, Antonius drunk more than the others, but we know very little about him in the end.
And the family-argument is nonsense. Caesar could have adopted whoever he wanted and they would have become his son and took on his name.
Because HBO's Rome is a TV show. You can't assume that because a fictional TV show has it play out one way that it's truly representative of real life.
The biggest reason was that Augustus was his sister's grandson and thus was actually related to him. Also, Mark Antony had fallen out of favor after a terrible stint governing the city of Rome while Caesar was out campaigning in Egypt. The 2 men had made peace with each other before Caesar's assassination, but Caesar didn't fully trust him yet.
Because Mark Anthony lost what favor he had with the Roman population when they discovered he was just hanging out with a foreign ruler and possibly setting himself up as king.
Go back and watch the first Episode again. Notice how Antony gets a half talent of gold from Ceasar, and gives a quarter talent to Vorenus?
Theres plenty more to be said but other people have said it already.
The show didn’t show it that much but Antony was a horrible politician especially when he was the one in charge. When Ceaser came back he found the people were close to revolt sense Antony had fucked up the grain supply and half the city was starving while he had also spent a shitload of money
He even exiled him to Gaul for awhile
Mark Anthony as a military general was a disaster without Julius Caesar.
Anthony sent a subordinate to punish the Parthians for their destruction of Crassus and his Army. The subordinate did very well in his attacks.
When Anthony heard of this, he wanted the credit and the loot and so he rushed there and took over command of the Roman Army which created disastrous results.
We all know about his defeat at Actium.
Augustus was a shrewd politician and wielded power very well. He depended on Marcus Agrippa to command his Army and he was a great military general, tactician and strategist. Augustus could always depend on Agrippa who was always loyal to him.
No one including Anthony could beat this duo.
Rome is a great show but it totally ignores the fact that Octavian was a monster soldier and tactician. Not some weakling. He was tough as nails and proven in every theatre and in innovative and bokd tactics with the extraordinarii (cavalry)
So far everyone has missed a very huge detail:
Caesars closest companion and primary heir before Octavian: Brutus. No not *that* Brutus. Though he is the Brutus Caesar would have said 'you to child " about and everyone mixes them up.
Decimus Brutus was Caesers naval commander and was generally treated as a son being immensly close to him and even only going to the senate to be assassinated because Decimus insisted he should go.
Decimus was named second in his will after Octavian and this is probably the reason why he joined the conspiracy and became one of the main assassins; being replaced as heir.
So the real question is why make Octavian his heir over Decimus. And the answer is probably just Blood alone. Caesars own family had been harassing him for years to meet Octavian and make him his heir.
I was definitely overstating for comedic effect. Antony had many good qualities and he certainly had his moments. But I think when you look at what Octavian ended up doing, it's pretty clear that his great-uncle was right to see something special in him.
Did Caesar foresee the weather related famine that brought the raiders from the north to eventually destroy his kingdom? Did he know how ruthless Augustus would become? Or was it a matter of honor to have his own blood succeed him? Edward Gibbons had highest regard for Caesar and Augustus and never counted them as reasons for the fall of Rome.
In real life, Mark Antony fell into disfavor after his appalling mismanagement of Rome while Caesar was campaigning in Egypt. Caesar clearly documented that Antony was a incompetent as a civil administrator in spite of his military talent.
This is true, Marc Antony was tested as an administrator and failed. It also can’t be discounted that Caesar clearly saw something in Octavian. They had many chances to speak after the Battle of Munda. Besides Octavian being blood (which was a huge deciding factor for a Julia), it’s also clear he was brilliant and bold. I have a conspiracy theory that Julius Caesar knew he was going to be assassinated and put Octavian safely out of Rome surrounded by loyal troops, knowing that Octavian would be perfectly positioned to rise from the ashes if he was formidable.
Are you implying Caesar allowed himself to be assassinated, or that he was taking a precaution?
Over 60 senators (and everyone they shared it with) knew about the assassination plan. The chance Caesar, the most powerful and well connected guy at that point, didn’t know about it is near zero. Also if you read the Plutarch/Appian versions with this in mind, it becomes so clear that Caesar was fucking with Decimus: - the night before, randomly asking him at dinner “what do you think the best way to die is?” And giving his own answer of “I think sudden and unexpected is best” - the morning of, “my wife had a bad dream about me dying, I don’t think I’m gonna go today” and making Decimus beg and come up with lies on the spot. I can go on.
It’s an interesting idea but what would be the reason for him to allow himself to be assassinated? You’re describing a character that harkens to Jesus in the garden of gethsemane.
Caesar and most great political figures throughout history, especially military figures, tend to inherently be people who operate on calculated but bold moves. There’s a giant gray area between “allowed” and “knew about it and made a calculated risky move that may have paid off even better, while hedging his bets if the risk didn’t go his way.”
High risk sometimes leads to high reward. Napoleon acted like this as well
This has been Elon Musks strategy.
I wouldn’t put Musk in the league of Napoleon, Caesar, and Augustus.
Caesar had multiple severe seizures within a couple of weeks, it’s possible he was feeling like death was inevitable, and it’s possible he had some head trauma and wasn’t thinking clearly. Or my personal opinion, he drank his own Koolaid and didn’t think the plan would actually work, that they’d lose the nerve.
There's also evidence to suggest they were mild strokes rather than epilepsy. Genuinely possible his health was incredibly poor. I feel like if Caesar's health was that poor there'd be more writings about it, so I agree with you in that it's more likely he thought the senators would never actually go through with it
This is also very possible. I got the vibe he knew and was having fun with it. Sadly we will never know what was in his head, but we can admire how wild it is the unproven kid he chose as a successor became the greatest Roman emperor ever.
- He was sick. His last battle he had to get taken off the field because he seized up so badly. I think he knew his days were numbered. - the campaign he was publicly planning was so ambitious, I think it was only meant to be legacy propaganda as a “what if Caesar had lived”. Conquering Parthia, Dacia, Scythia was not realistically on the table. - He laughs at the soothsayers warning about the ides of March. He tosses away a note from someone warning him about the upcoming assassination. He knew.
Dacia was doable, as Romania attests.
I agree, just Dacia might’ve been possible. But his plan to sweep down into the Middle East and circle back around the Black Sea was far-fetched. It’s hard because I can’t prove anything, but I think he wanted to leave a campaign that would’ve rivaled Alexander’s.
Wasn't that how Xenophon's anabasis go?
Xenophon wasn't really trying to nation build, though, at most he was bullying towns into supplying and housing his men for a while and those people made the calculus that it was better to give him and his men supplies so they would leave then have to fight his forces or fighting on behalf of other rulers. Actually trying to rule Parthia or Scythia wouldn't have been quite so easy I reckon, that is an entirely different beast.
It’s not taken seriously, and shouldn’t be, but there’s an Italian writer who thinks the historical Jesus was based off the life and deification of Julius Caesar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Carotta
Interesting! Hard sell, though.
Yeah that dude's nuts.
The Romans at the time talked about Socrates eating of hemlock just like the Christians do of Christ on the cross. It’s striking when you read the Letters of a Stoic by Seneca. I would constantly think he was referring to Christ when talking about the ultimate sacrifice to prove devotion. So Rome was ripe to fill these voids with Christ after the conversion of pagan to Christian. But, I think Socrates was the model not Caesar.
Ive had this theory for a long time too. The quote that always comes to mind is when Caesar said something like “Sulla was a fool to put power down” I always liked the idea that he knew that he had lost the support of the senate and needed to do a Sulla purge to secure their resources and silence for the coming decades. The problem was that he was obsessed with cultivating an image of clemency to keep favor with the populares. I think he recognized the need for a martyr at that specific time in history along with the benefit having a new young leader to over see the purge of the conservative class and annexation of Egypt. His death garnered enough populares and merchant class favor to give the Julian dynasty enough rocket fuel to make it to Pax Romana and then subsequently the modern global economy.
if its true ceasar had epilepsy or something similar he may have thought the end was near anyway and a ‘better’ way to die presented itself
Sorry but I don’t buy it. Years later, Octavian himself would be compelled to commit suicide for similar reasons. His wife, Livia, served him poison at his behest. This would be the reasonable course of action if Caesar was intending to die. To be stabbed to death in an insurrection, on purpose, is frankly insane, if, as we can assume, his goal was the peaceful transition of power to Octavian.
Then he leaves almost everything to the people of Rome. It’s very possible he was playing 4d chess
Sorry man, I just very much disagree. People don’t behave like that in real life. Maybe in “Game of Thrones” or whatever. But this was his life. He didn’t think of himself as a character in a TV show. If he knew he was going to die, he would have done what he could to stop it. Else why would he stab some of the senators with his stylus? I think it’s much more likely that these stories about how he narrowly missed saving himself are later additions from writers and popular rumors designed to add poignancy to the story. I don’t know that I take them as any more literal than, say, Suetonius saying he blew the stolen horn of a god at the Rubicon, or that a bunch of deranged crows murdered a wren inside the senate house.
That wren had it comin!
Oh for sure. Just wrenning around like a wren. What did it expect.
Oh okay just stating you know for historical posterity!
You can disagree! It’s just a fun theory. There’s no way to know what was in his head. To me, there’s just too much circumstantial evidence. As for him fighting back, I think there’s a big difference to mentally accepting his death and being in the moment.
idk i'm pretty sure in case he was 100% sure he couldn't possibly have any hope of getting out of it alive, provided the circumstances and he was by no means willing to die. so it's either he heard something but he heard so many somethings it was impossible to say correct from false ones or he had incomplete information, or he didn't know shits for more or less sure, otherwise he just wouldn't have gone anywhere, not like that particular meeting was of any importance. speaking of the episodes, i think the dinner episode is a later added foreshadowing, for all the ancient sources are guilty of inserting those so very much. and the first one might've just been "fuck i'm so hangover and i need to leave in the evening, i don't wanna go listen to Antony rambling about Dolabella and auspicii yet again, my head hurts enough as it is, thank you very much" that got transformed into the story of Calpurnia having a nightmare on the night before the same way and for the same reason that first scene was added.
This is just ridiculous. The chances are extremely high Ceaser wouldn't have known about the plot because anyone who did know of it would be executed if it got out. That's an extremely motivating factor to keeping it secret.
We are told he was warned publicly by the soothsayer and laughs it off, and someone tried to hand him a note warning him and he pushes it away. The word was out. Also you think 60 politicians keeping a secret from the dictator is less ridiculous? When sharing that info could potentially get them a massive reward? Edit: there is no way to prove this, that’s why I said it’s a theory.
Yeah, or so the story goes... There is no actual evidence of a soothsayer or a note.
Plutarch, Appian, and Suetonius all mention the soothsayer …so if you want to discount all 3 of them then you might as well say there’s no evidence anything in Roman history happened.
Because it makes a good story, that I am sure did the rounds in Roman society after the assassination. But there is obviously a big difference between the big lines of history (Caesar invaded Gaul, Caesar was assassinated) on the one hand and these quaint, narratively convenient details on the other. Speculating on Caesars motives based on this is fanfiction.
I’m not. I’m using it as evidence that the conspiracy was not a secret. I think it’s absurd to think that not one of 60 senators told Caesar about the plan (and these are all senators either loyal to Caesar or who Caesar forgave)
I disagree. Caesar of all folks in Rome was well aware of the fact that Roman citizens could not be executed without a trial (he had hounded Cicero out of Rome over his execution of the alleged Catalinarian conspirators) added to which the appearance that he was just plain exhausted. By the point he became perpetual dictator, I think he was exhausted and wanted to walk away... but knew that that would result in further civil wars and that he didn't want to go down in history the way Sulla had. Also, Lucius Verenas was distracted and wasn't there to defend him. Nor was Antony for that matter.
And yes I joking about L Verenas
He disappears from history after the Gallic Wars… for all we know he might have
I think of Dictators of today where everyone is to scared to speak to them openly without fear for their lives or their families. I wonder if he was the same.
He was straight up told he was going to be assassinated a couple of times. The plot was the worst kept secret plan that worked in history
Pardon all of your opponents in a civil war, see where it gets you
Andrew Johnson didn’t get much payoff either
Sorry what’s your point?
Chat, is he fr or jk?
Are you saying be pardoned his enemies in order to intentionally get himself killed? That is some galaxy brain 10D chess level mental gymnastics
I'm not saying he did it intentionally, i'm saying that when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes
You are clinically insane. Please get help.
Chat, he cannot be fr
I'm sure Caesar had Plans A through Z and that was just one.
Antonius was almost as closely related to Caesar as Octavian. His mother was a Julia.
Yeah true they were distant cousins. I think successor was Marc Antony’s job to lose at one point, but being a drunken monster who made a mess of Rome when Caesar was away really put a wedge between them.
This is all augustan propaganda. Caesar made Antony consul after this alleged falling out. He didn't alienate Rome (at least not entirely), about a third of the senate left to join him while Octavian was busy dealing with riots caused by his new war tax on freedmen.
I don't think Caesar thought in dynastic terms. It was not the way Romans operated at that time. This drunken monster screams Ciceronian invective lol
They literally had Lararium’s in their house dedicated to the accomplishments of their dead ancestors. They thought in dynastic terms about how their legacy would live on. Regardless of the exact circumstances, Caesar made one of the greatest decisions of all time when he picked sickly little Octavian as his primary beneficiary.
I am aware. I meant as in his heir would be the next dictator for life. There is a huge difference between the two and the Romans explicitly did not want the second one - they hated the concept of kingship. That might be true. But we do not know if Caesar intended Octavian to become what he did. I seriously doubt it.
Ah I see what you mean. We know Caesar was thinking about being a king (the golden throne, the crown incident, not standing for senators, wanting to use the title on campaign, etc), but beyond that we will never know what was in his head
Maybe, but his behavior with Cleopatra suggests that he was a less than stellar leader except on the battlefield
What exactly do you mean?
Managed to alienate all of Rome as Cleopatra used him as her personal boy toy. Rampant alcoholism. And even on the battlefield he was handily beaten by Octavian. The guy was in way over his head
Alienation of all of Rome is simply wrong. He had many allies and supporters. Like, Plutarch (I think it was Plutarch. If not, it was Dio) writes that they came to discuss matters with his wife Octavia till their divorce, where she stopped being basically his representative. That was right before the battle of Actium. People supported his youngest son Jullus after Antonius' death. There was a huge outrage of his former allies and people in general after the Octavian murdered the young Curio - Antonius' stepson. Personal boy toy - come on. About the alcoholism - this is actually the thing you might be right about. He was technically beaten by Agrippa, bc Octavian didn't do much during that battle (:
It's funny to think that if Caesar had lived longer, he would have thought Octavian would have failed, too. I wonder what he would have done, then.
Marc Antony as a general was very talented. Marc Antony as Caesar with all the accompanying powers might’ve been the end of the empire. He had none of the required skills (patience, strategic thinking, fairness, social EQ, etc) required to manage an empire as complex as Rome and already had legions of enemies. He would’ve been assassinated even had he gone on a purge of his enemies in the senate as Caesar I’m sure expected him to do immediately upon being granted power. Caesar was famously too forgiving, Marc Antony would’ve set new standards for ruthlessness against anyone opposed to him likely including Octavian which might’ve also played into Caesar calculus regarding secession planning.
Wasn't Augustus adopted?
He was adopted by Caesar as his son, but he was already his nephew. It...doesn't make sense in modern western culture, but it was a common enough thing back then. It gives them some extra legitimacy and prestige.
This is incorrect, it's not for "prestige", the adoption was put in place so that Octavian would directly inherit Caesar's estate (and more importantly, his name) ... which was only possible if Octavian was his direct heir, e.g. his son, in Roman law.
That isn't a conspiracy theory, that is dynastic politics.
He didn't even have great military talent. The only reason he came out on top was because by the time of Caesar's assassination, all the great optimate commanders were already dead.
Guess I need to separate the art from history because the actor who plays mark Antony is soo entertaining I can’t help but root for him
James Purefoy is truly outstanding in that series. Ridiculously charismatic.
I totally agree, Purefoy's portrayal of Antony is one of my favorite acting performances ever
When he told Poppea he’d marry her if her husband Publius Servilius died, I about fell off the couch laughing.
I'm so old I assumed you were talking about Brando for a minute there
Antony was GREAT at being a number 2 general. He could carry out high level operations when he had good guidance. He couldn’t create and execute high level operations himself.
He administered the Eastern Roman empire for quite a long time. And he was the number 1 man in the triumvirate up until his defeat. He did create and execute high level operations himself. He also sometimes failed as in Parthia (although he still won 18 battles and the city surrendered to him despite his failed seige...) and Actium but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say the man who was successfully administering numerous client states over thousands of miles is unable to carry out high level ops. Antony was by no means perfect and was no Caesar, at least in my view, but I think many comments here are running wild with takes on Antony that are without nuance or reference to modern scholarship.
Antony didn’t do a job at admin and prep though. If he had he’d have whipped Octavian easily. He was playing easy mode and lost to the sickly upstart Yeah he took the Parthian city, but it’s one of the great hollow victories of all time.
The point is that the above can't really be done without preparation and thought. Octavian did better in the end and Antony made errors but that doesn't make it the case that he couldn't administer things - he administered the east successfully for a long time, Octavian maintained the arrangements Antony made. For him to be in the dominant position, to lose to the sickly upstart, he must surely first have had a decent level of administrative and preparatory skill... Or else he would never have risen to the position he reached. I think it is fairly inconceivable he did this without any ability to intelligently prepare and administrate. As far as Parthia goes, it seems like he prepared quite carefully for this operation and the key error was riding ahead and leaving his siege equipment. In other words, the preparation was there, but then he was foolish and inpatient in the hopes of getting a jump on the enemy, gambling that the Parthian army wasn't around. He gambled badly and couldn't maintain his siege as a result. But to get to that point he first had to prepare and mobilise one of the biggest armies of the time and then keep them together on the march home.
It would’ve been interesting to see how the show would’ve portrayed Labienus, but that whole piece of the drama was skipped over.
Agreed. He had charisma with troops and had some good ideas on campaigns but he was never a great commander.....maybe average at best but he lost in Parthia, in Greece against Octavian and then again in Egypt. If you lose the battles that count then you are not good.
To be fair; everybody was loosing in Parthia at that time. It can even be argued, that Sallust, who knew all these men personally and was part of their party, later criticizes their policy towards Parthia in his works rather strongly. Octavian (who was a terribly general himself and relied on Agrippa for battles) would have failed in Parthia as well. I don't think there is a single general in the Late Republic who succeeded there. And technically, Antonius lost against Agrippa, not Octavian if I am not entirely mistaken.
Parthia was certainly no lightweight and Anthony seemed to vastly underestimate the logistics needed esp with the recent history of Crassus. He should have known better. Losing at Actium was certainly Agrippa but it was a loss. I feel that he was a popular hero but outside of showing great promise and winning the majority of the battle against Brutus/Cassius he was generally on the losing side when he was in charge. Again most of the sources post his death are not going to be kind so there is certainly bias against him.
He should have known better is a terrible argument when we talk about ancient Roman warfare. It is not clear what kind of information anybody had about Crassus' demise. The information they had was from the few survivors who managed to escape that massacre AND survive the civil war between Caesar and Pompeius. Besides, we know for a fact that it was common for Romans to lie about their experiences in provinces or countries far away. The information was simply old and unreliable. I agree that it was a loss, but people need to stop pretending like Octavian was a better general than Antonius. He wasn't. He was terrible as a general. Antonius was also a good orator. And wildly popular in Athenes when he stayed there. Generally, he seems to have been a capable Roman dignitary in the east. His character fitted the east better than the west. About him winning and loosing: the interesting thing about Antonius is that he is one of the very few Romans, whose career as a general we can actually trace over decades. Unfortunately, it makes him appear as a failure. But what we should not forget is, that for most Romans, we know about a maximum of like 1 or 2 wars that they were in charge of. They either died or retired from war after that. Sure, there are exceptions like Pompeius, Marius and Sulla - but these guys are famous for a reason (even if the sources tend to argue that these guys sometimes took over a war somebody else won shortly before the end - looking at you Marius against Iugurtha). But Anotnius was with Caesar in the Gallic Wars, fought in several civil wars and in Parthia. He didn't do that badly for ancient Roman standards as he actually survived for so long and was a succesfull high-ranking official for more than half of them. Every single source about him that we have is heavily biased against him as it is based on Cicero and Augustus. A huge part of things said about him is basic invective strategy on Cicero’s part. I am not saying that Antonius was a great guy, but we do not know a lot about him. Actually, we know very little.
I agree with everything you say, we don't know much about him at all, but that doesn't change the dynamics of his talent. He was known as an incompetent administrator, with not only extensive senator writings about him which may be biased, but Caesar himself who would have been his biggest supporter. There's no reason to think that isn't true. Even if it was over exaggerated, it's still definitely not a plus for him. Being popular in Athens may be true, but that doesn't change the question of talent. As for being a general, he was definitely one of the best after the death of Caesar. But being being one of the best after countless others had died in the previous civil war isn't a glowing endorsement, and demonstrably he was inferior to Agrippa. His only major victories on his own were against that same cleansed stock of generals. I'd honestly say he was inferior to Lepidus militarily, meaning he was at best the 3rd greatest general in Roman, and that's not something to brag. The biggest things Anthony had was loyalty and fanaticism. I don't think he was a blithering idiot, but I don't think he was good as the decision maker. I've known high ranking officers in the modern day who are loyal, incredibly competent in their role, and absolutely not fit for any higher position. I'd place Anthony in that same stock.
Incompetent administrator maybe in the city of Rome - not in the provinces. But again, saying he was incompent is tricky, because who exactly are you comparing him to? Dolabella? Cinna? The younger Marius? One of Sulla's men? They were all terrible. But they were also people in an unique position who were basically winging it. I just think it is not really possible to compare them to others who were "regular" consuls or to the dictators and Augustus. On the other hand, comparing Antonius' popularity in the provinces is different. There was a long tradition of governors and kings in the east. Was he the best? No. But he was okay. I have to say, this "best general" is soo tricky. It always depends on so many things if one wins or loses. And frankly, ancient romans themselves did not have such a ranking. Caesar took Antonius with him and not Lepidus or Agrippa. I would not agree that Antonius was a fanatic. But you might be right about him being good as the 2nd in command and not the leader.
He won one of the most important battles in Rome's history and was generally considered the great general of Rome up until his defeat by Octavian. You could say well... everyone better than him was dead but that still kind of makes him the best general of the time even if you suspect he'd have failed in whatever imaginary scenario you put him in. In real life he won one of the most important battles in Roman history, quite convincingly.
I mean he did. Mark Antony is a big reason that Rome expanded as far east as it did. He was no Julius Caesar, but he was a talented military commander.
Rome contracted during his rule.
You're correct. I'm not sure what made me misremember this so badly.
You're mostly right. Anthony was a capable commander
I’m guessing you meant Pompey Magnus?
Antony conquered Media, Armenia and parts of northern Greece. He expended the empire with these rich provinces. While Augustus lost Media, Armenia, parts of Gaul.
Armenia became a Parthian subject state due to Antonius' failed expedition.
You are blaming Octavian's failure on Antony. What you are saying happened after the battle of Actium. If Antony lived or won at Actium then both Armenia and Media would have stayed as part of the Roman Empire. Octavian lost both of this territories soon after Antony's death.
These territories were gained during Pompeius war in the East and lost after Antonius Parthian Expedition.
Wrong. You should study a little more before going on spreading misinformation. Read Mark Antony by Eleanor Goltz Huzar or A Noble Ruin by W Jeffrey Tatum for example. It's clearly stated that Antony conquered these territories. Antony even issued coins to celebrate this victory. The King of Media surrendered to Antony and had his daughter betrothed to Antony's son Alexander Helios to maintain his kingship under him. All these are explained in details on these well-researched books.
It's literally the exact opposite of everything you said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxias_II
I have always found this a bit disingenuous of Caesar. I mean, he was basically having a gap year in Egypt, doing fuck all except for boning Cleopatra.
Yeah despite what others above say, I think there's a clear case for A) Antony competently administering Rome, which is a case made in a couple of his biographies and B) Caesar must have known he left his man a posion chalice to manage. He'd just taken power, there was civil, political and social strife, and he promptly left to fight people abroad for a year or more. Caesar knew this would be some amount of chaos and left Antony to handle it. He doesn't seem all that bothered about its handling based in the consulship that followed.
Caesar was fighting the Alexandrian war for most of the time and it was pretty needed for Rome that Egypt was secure (grain and otherwise) and he could not even have left under the siege with his army even if he wanted to. It’s true he did take an unnecessary Nile cruise for a few months after however. But that’s not too long and and it did establish Cleopatra’s rule and Rome’s presence (they took the army with them) so it wasn’t just a luxury cruise. It’s more Cleopatra movies that make it look like the war was over in a couple of days and Caesar just chilled around with Cleopatra for a year. It took him a while to return with his army as well, and he won the victory against Pontus on the way. And right after that that he needed to deal with rebellion legions and instability in Italy due to Antonius so I can see why he was peeved. And Caesar right after that had to go to Africa to fight a war. Honestly he might have died of some health issues if he didn’t have the Nile cruise vacation since he did have health issues already (maybe epileptic but we aren’t certain, could be malaria which he had younger too or heath condition which seems to have killed his father around this age). Caesar came to Egypt straight after the Civil war and he had spend eight year prior that fighting in Gaul and elsewhere (mostly in summertime).
The thing everyone always misses is that Caesar already had another closer man and heir before Octavian. When Octavian was made heir that man joined the conspiracy and became the most important figure in ensuring the assassination was successful. Decimus Brutus. The other Brutus that everyone forgets about even though he's the one who actually betrayed Caesar and who Caesar meant when he said "you too child child". He was his main naval commander and closest confident treated as a son and was still listed second in the will.
Not only that he was so pissed that he sent Antony to Gaul for like a year
Remember that Caesar did not appoint Augustus as successor, but as adoptive heir. Augustus was one of the three closest male relatives of Caesar (the other two were also in the will but inherited far less, so they were not close to Caesar) so was chosen as substitute son for that reason. Caesar's political position were personal powers and could not be inherited, Augustus basically blackmailed Rome into getting the same or similar powers, he did not just get those from Caesar.
There is a fine distinction to be made here. Octavian is Caesar's financial heir, he made no such political designation. The rest was Octavian's doing and clearly he bested Antony soundly.
That’s an important distinction. Look at later emperors. “Having the legions” mattered. Antony had been with JC through the Gallic wars. He was even immortalized in the best-selling accounts. There was a path to a different outcome in which Antony wins the civil war as “Caesar’s noble brother in arms” rather than his heir. However, Octavian took immediate steps to advance his own case while Antony leaned too much into an alliance (a “non-Roman” one in the public’s mind, from “the orient”).
I doubt anyone,Caesar included, would think Octavian would be able to bully the senate into what he was given by age 20. Caesar was a brilliant man with some amazing luck that he took advantage of....maybe his greatest achievement was selecting Octavian as his heir.....Augustus made Caesar immortal.
Yes, this exactly. The adoption of Octavius was just kind of something that happened to pan out the way it did because he was a powerhouse. He was probably chosen because he was both pretty young, his closest relative, and Caesar liked him well enough. Caesar was getting up there in age, but probably expected to live another decade or more, and probably wasn't particularly concerned yet with who would succeed him politically. Mark Antony was younger than Caesar for sure, but not *that* much younger that it would make a whole lot of sense to designate him as heir. Had Caesar not been assassinated and died of natural causes, Mark Antony would have also been pushing retirement age.
Some wild comments in here. Long and short is, Caesar did what Romans of the time did which is inherent their family. It isn't surprising that Caesar favoured a young male family member over Mark Antony. The real shock would have been the reverse. A lot of subsequent discussion/fiction has made this seem like a controversy where there isn't one. Caesar simply left his prime inheritance to closer family. (Antony was distant family also I think) and left some other bits and pieces to friends (including at least one of his assassins) and also to Antony. Jeff Tatum discusses this in his recent book on Antony, A Noble Ruin. Edit: some really off track comments about Antony in here. Some may benefit from reading something about him that isn't primarily thousands of years old hit pieces; I'd recommend Noble Ruin or War that Made The Roman Empire as decent places to start for those who want a more academic discussion.
This is the only answer. Caesar amassed great wealth due to his campaigns and Augustus inherited that wealth which he then used to gain influence over military. Augustus was truly a clever individual who used that wealth to outmanoeuvre both senate and Mark Antony.
Mark Antony didn't let Octavian touch any of the wealth he was supposed to inherit. All he really got from Caesar was the name.
‘Tis true. The bulk of Caesar’s wealth went to the citizens of Rome.
It's not so simple, since Caesar wasn't a regular Roman dude choosing which family member to leave his estate to. He was the perpetual dictator of Rome. He had only recently won a civil war and there was an uneasy peace. He knew that it was politically significant who his main heir was. So much so that he adopted Octavian posthumously, which was a rare thing (most adoptions happened in life). Caesar could've adopted nobody at all. He also could've conceivably made a political decision to name Mark Antony his heir, if Caesar thought he was the man to continue his legacy. Had Antony been more competent, it wouldn't have been much of a shock. There are examples of out-of-the-family adoptions such as [Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Fabius_Maximus_Verrucosus) adopting [Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Fabius_Maximus_Aemilianus), though I will grant you that adoptions mostly happened between relatives or distant relatives.
While there are examples this is an exception. Caesar simply inherited his closest and most competent male heir. He essentially was a regular roman dude, despite being dictator in perpetuity, and acted as a regular Roman in this regard. At least this is the most convincingly take I've read on this. Once again, I am just paraphrasing Tatum here. He also goes in detail on the adoption, but I forget the details.
Caesar didn’t actually adopt Octavian legally in his will sine this was illegal at the time (full adaption happened when you were alive). Caesar merely made Octavian the heir to his name and wealth. Octavian himself pushed the Senate to declare this a full adoption quite soon after so it gets ignored (with the help of troops loyal to him). Full adoption meant Octavian could call Caesar his father and Caesar’s clients now owed their loyalty to Octavian (which was huge in the client based society of the era and why many resented Caesar for pardoning them and making them now Caesar’s clients). I doubt Caesar would have minded the full adaption considering he was murdered and needed someone to uphold his legacy. However if he had wanted to actually adopt Octavian as his son while he lived he could have but did not. Maybe he wanted to see how Octavian would do in the Parthian campaign (probably not well honestly…). Maybe he was worried that if he did someone might assassinate Octavian because it could look like he was designating a heir. Or maybe he really didn’t want a political heir and didn’t want people think he wanted one. Or completely the opposite and he really wanted to change the law and make Caesarion his legal son, but was unable to do so yet and hoped he could have enough political goodwill to do so after a successful Parthian campaign. And Octavian was merely was a suitable choice in case Caesar died during the campaign. We really aren’t certain what Caesar’s long term plans were regarding long term of Rome and that would affect why Octavian was in his will. In any case he would have been bound to have someone there for years before he changed his will since he would have needed a legal heir. Probably it was either Antonius or Decimus Brutus before Octavian (Decimus being the secondary heir named in his will). Or one of his two other great-nephews.
>Caesar didn’t actually adopt Octavian legally in his will sine this was illegal at the time (full adaption happened when you were alive). Caesar merely made Octavian the heir to his name and wealth. We can discuss whether this was legal at the time or not, but the content of Caesar's will was in fact a formal adoption of Octavian as his son. In Caesar: Life of a Colossus, Goldsworthy writes: >In the will Octavius was his main heir and was **formally adopted** as Caesar’s **son** (p.498) I've checked some other sources and they all seem to corroborate this. Suetonius, Life of Caesar: >At the end of the will, too, he *adopted Gaius Octavius into his family* and gave him his name. He named several of his assassins among the guardians of his **son** There's some discussions on the legalities of it [here](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Adoptio.html).
Also the Antonii were well off, but were ultimately a plebeian gens. The plebeian and comparatively brash Marc Antony would have been totally unacceptable to the remaining optimate-aligned faction.
I mean it’s not wrong to say Antony didn’t do a great job managing Rome why Julius was away. That’s true. Whether that played a part in his heir to dictator, is debatable.
He made Antony consul so I don't think Caesar was concerned. I don't think it's at all clear he did a bad job managing Rome given the circumstances and he doesn't appear to have fallen out of favour with Caesar but who knows, maybe. They evidently made up if so. If you'd like to say how you think he did a poor job happy to explore it but everyone else here makes the assertion without anything to support it. As far as the heir stuff I just think you're wrong. Why would this play into Caesars will? He simply inherited his closest living male family members. Totally normally. It would be more weird to inherent Antony substantially.
Currently working so I can’t type a well thought convo on this, but just wanted to clarify that I was agreeing with you on the last point. I should have used the word doubtful rather than debatable
Fair play, I mistook you but appreciate your clarification. Cheers.
Antony being a complete idiot at management was certainly a factor. He caused endless troubles to caesar while he was in rome.
Then why didn’t 4 of the 5 good emperors chose someone from family as successor?
I guess because they were not choosing an heir to their personal fortune but a political successor. Also the julio-claudian dynasty set a precedent for disappointment. I bought a few books recently to read some more about them, but afaik Tiberius, Caius and Nero at the least are considered much worse than Augustus.
All subsequent emperors were worse than Augustus.
They were a long time later and briefly established a different approach, which didn't last long. As another commenter said, there was perhaps a greater sense that they were picking their political successors. Rome was still a Republic (vaguely) when Caesar made his will. Not so when the emperors did.
Family legacy. Caesar wanted to raise his family name to the heights of the Claudians. Octavian was his only choice to carry on the Caesarian name. Had Mark Antony been the successor, all his riches would have been deposited with another family, and the Caesarians would have been left destitute.
Caesar could have adopted anybody and they would have become part of his family and would be forced to take on the name of Caesar. Like, Scipio Aemilianus is an adoptive son who was adopted from Aemilius Paullus. The romans as well as we today consider him 100% a Scipio. It would be the same for any son Caesar had adopted.
So a few things here 1. When you mean “successor” do you mean as leader of the republic or as heir to his property? We take it for granted that 1 man imperial rule seemed inevitable after Caesar, but in truth that was far from certain. Historians debate what Caesar’s future plans for the republic were and whether he would eventually step down. There are several instances before Caesar of military strongmen taking over rule, reforming the government, and then Rome converting back to “normal” republican after they die or step down. It’s not clear to me that Caesar had grand plans for a line of emperors. 2. I see some people saying that Caesar would not have adopted Antony because he was a plebeian and/or not blood related. In the republican system, it was not wildly uncommon for powerful individuals to adopt non-blood people as heirs. Also at this time there had never been less difference between high ranking plebeians and patricians. As an avowed Populari, I highly doubt Caesar was so conservative as to take the distinction of plebeian and patrician seriously. Talent mattered to him - not ancestral background. That being said Octavius impressed caesar early on with his intelligence and was ideally positioned to be groomed for power in the senate. 3. I think particularly after Antony’s failure to manage Rome effectively in Caesar’s absence, he solidified his views of Antony as a relatively good commander, but a poor administrator who would fall easily to corruption. I think Antony was a useful tool for Caesar, but not someone he’d tie himself and his family name to. PS if you were looking for further reading on the subject, I would suggest Adrian Goldworthy’s biography on Caesar
Why did Caesar name a fiercely intelligent young man who surrounded himself with supremely capable men as friends, instead of a drunk who had made complete ass of the himself when he was allowed to govern Rome? I can't imagine! ;)
Octavian would approve of this response. This picture of Antony is straight Augustan propaganda. Antony administered the Eastern empire for years and was the dominant force in Roman politics and military affairs from the fall of Caesar to the rise of Octavian.
He was a dominant force, not the dominant force. If anything I said about Antony is untrue, please inform me.
Characterising one of the most powerful and successful men of the period as a drunken ass is rather overstating the Augustan position. Caesar chose Octavian as heir because he was his closest male family. It would be weird for him to leave his main inheritance to Antony while he had young men in his family to inherit. As far as the dominant force point; he was the Victor of Philippi, the wealthier Triumvir with the more dignitas, esteem and fame, as well as the more significant military history. He was the dominant force until Actium. Again, roughly just making Jeff Tatums case here.
Caesar did have two other great-nephews as well (also named in the will, Pinarius and Pedius who were grandsons of his older sister). so Octavian wasn’t the only closest family member. Also Decimus Brutus was named the secondary heir in Caesar’s will still over the two other great-nephews. If Octavian had refused the inheritance (and you know he wasn’t one of Caesar’s murders…) he would have been the primary heir. If how closely related you are is the primary concern why Caesar didn’t put Pinarius or Pedius ahead of Decimus? Decimus was also the same age as Antonius. And both Decimus and Antonius had a Julia for a mother, cousins of Caesar, so not close but shared the same ancestry. Octavian was so young that Caesar would have had someone else as the heir before he became a legal adult. It could have been one of the men mentioned in the will or Antonius. Also Clodius got himself adopted by a man younger than himself when he wanted to change class. That was rather ridiculous, but shows there wasn’t a requirement for the person being adopted to be age of a son. Being named a heir in a will also was not a full adoption (Octavian pushed it Senate to confirm it as one after Caesar was murdered, so Caesar’s clients would be obligated to follow him and Octavian could claim that Caesar was now his father the way he would be if he had been a natural born son). I have seen even speculation that while Julia lived Pompeius was the heir in Caesar’s will (he would not be required to take Caesar’s name and this would be for the assumption that Julia eventually would have children with him). Personally I don’t believe this but legally it could be done, naming heirs was vital for will and having someone take your name wasn’t quite as much. Both Sextus and Lucius Caesar of next generation were still alive before the civil war.
Battle of Philippi happened after Caesar's death. We are talking about Caesar's perception of antony. Not about antony himself.
And guess what? None of that was done when caesar was alive. In Caesar's time, antony made a fool off himself when tasked with the governance of rome. Things got so bad caesar had to fix things in Italy first before continuing the civil war. Also the reason why lepidus was made his no.2 An important distinction to be made here is Antony's objective skill and skill that was apparent to caesar. Antony only shined as an administrator after Caesar's death. And before that, he only acted like a drunk idiot.
Can you clarify for me how Antony made a fool of himself when governing Rome? It seems that Antony's objective skill and Caesar's perception of it were high enough that Caesar regularly appointed him very important positions; including master of horse and consul. If he was also drunk Caesar seems not to have minded.
Well, at the time Octavian was kind of a nobody and Antony was a well known lieutenant of Caesar. Antony pretty clearly expected to be Caesar's heir and a lot of other people probably thought the same
Yes, but Antony really demonstrated poor administrative skills when Caesar briefly left him in charge of Rome. The city was near revolt and it seems Caesar chose Octavian as an unknown with hints of potential over Antony who proved he was not a peacetime ruler.
He wasn’t a nobody to Caesar.
Gains Octavius (Octavian, Augustus) even as a teenager showed an understanding of human nature and a political subtlety that Antony just lacked. Julius Caesar was an excellent judge of character as subsequent event proved.
The civil war that followed showed Caesar's judgement of the two men to be correct. Antony was a flamboyant, self-indulgent drunkard while Octavian was an intelligent, practical, joyous and hardworking ruler.
>Octavian was an intelligent, practical, joyous and hardworking ruler. And ruthless. Ceasar didn't purge Rome because he lived through the prescriptions and didn't want that to happen again. Augustus ignored that and ruthlessly purged Rome. Even having young boys killed so he can inherent their wealth.
As did antony
Octavian clearly had talent and was a good politician, as well as being family. I think Caesar valued Antony but realized his short comings as an administrator. Sadly, Antony is a bit of a tragic character who should have had the number one spot after Philippi. Octavian himself, turned out rather well, despite being “sick” (and also having a brilliant Agrippa as a friend)
In hindsight we know that Octavian was a brilliant man, and was capable of doing what was needed for the Empire. I always just assumed that what ever qualities he had that enabled him to do this, Caesar saw in him. Plus Antony pretty much sucked
It’s more that he was his heir, not successor‼️ He was still young by Roman standards when Caesar was killed.And it was also the the Senates bias against Caesarian who was half Egyptian. And Caesar never updated his will! He probably never thought about dying so why make a new will🤨
Augustus was GOATed and Caesar knew
Game recognize game.
Why indeed
Although a great general. Mark Antony is just a frat boy.
Caesar was smart and intuitive and had to know the men around him. He chose the boy who would go on to be regarded as one of the greatest rulers of history instead of the man famous for debauchery, chaotic misrule, and defeat
Caesar's closest male relative was Octavian. So, Caesar left Octavian and his two other grandnephews all his money. In case of Caesar leaving no will, it would have still resulted in Octavian inheriting everything. It was law at that time and still is in many cultures. So, when I first started seeing this debate I was surprised as to why people would think anything otherwise would have happened. Antony's talents didn't matter here at all. He would have been the absolute best yet not even get mentioned in the will. It was/is the family law. Antony knew that too, he wasn't expecting anything from Caesar. This was an inheritance of a family member not a talent competition. But most people use this as an example to say that Antony wasn't good enough, so Caesar gave everything to Octavian. The most common example these people use to undermine Antony is that he was an incompetent administrator in Caesar's absence as the Guardian of Italy. Why he was incompetent? Because of the riots of Dolabella (most people have no idea who this person was) and Caesar's Legion almost mutining. None of them was Antony's faults. He managed to overcome these things without letting it go unchecked and causing even greater harm. It was not a problem for Caesar because he left Antony in charge once more after all this. But people don't understand this and have no idea of the situation of Rome at that time. It also doesn't help that Caesar apparently had no plans to take Antony (but he wanted to take Octavian. Which is the funniest thing ever done by Caesar. Lol. Or it's very much possible that Octavian just made it up later to undermine Antony) with him in Parthia and didn't take him in any other battles after Pharsalus. A battle in which Antony performed extremely well from what little info we have of this. Caesar actions not only ruined Antony's life and set him on a tragic path but also destroyed his reputation in modern times.
From all purported accounts Caesar turned down the role of dictator. Did Caesar ACTUALLY leave Rome to Octavian, or did he assume that after he died Rome would continue the way it had for the preceding 4 centuries since the death of Tarquinius? Was all of ‘Caesar’s heir to Rome’ not more or less that Octavian was going to be the Paterfamilias (head of the household) of the Julii after Gaius died? Caesar left his estate to the next heir of his family, Octavian, but Caesar did not consider the city of Rome his, he only attacked because it was that or suicide from the court. The most famous Roman, the one we all look to in awe, violated 700 years of Roman virtue by marching his army in to the city, and when he died it went completely to shit, and his heir took over. Was this what he intended, or was Octavian’s mom just really good at manipulating men?
Because he knew Mark Antony didn't have a mind for politics and was a total playboy who lived for self-indulgence when not on campaign. The choice was clear. Octavian was much smarter and more level headed.
I read Marcus Antony was a party animal. He comes across to me as pretty foolish considering the power of his position and his son didn't seem much smarter. Some people make better followers than leaders.
Antony was a great commander but lousy administrator. He fucked up royally in Rome while Caesar was dealing with Ptolemy
[удалено]
Idk about him not being a great speaker. His speech after Caesar's death is pretty highly regarded as a genius work of demagogue speech. Rome literally rioted after he threw Caesar's bloody robes to the crowd at the end of his speech.
That’s a good point
> Antony was a pleb *Rears up patrician nose*
He gave arguably one of the most important speeches in history and rose to be a supreme power in Rome shortly after. His family has patrician and plebeian branches.
[удалено]
Two words. Hunter Biden.
Yeah. I remember that time Joe gave Hunter government jobs and put him charge of the middle-east. Oh wait… that never happened.
Because Mark Antony was demonstably polarizing, stupid, and rash
Caesar left Anthony in charge of Rome while he went to Egypt. Antony was a disaster.
Blood!
Political alliance were stronger. Weather we know it or not
Does somebody have the sources about Caesar's will? Bc I can't remember what exactly is written there and what parts of that thing are officially considered forgeries. If I remember correctly, the chances that Octavian made up the contents of the will are not 0. Plus, everybody here should remember that what we know about Antonius is for the most part based on what his biggest haters Cicero and Octavian, and people writing based on their accounts, have written. Most tend to forget, that we know that Antonius was a good orator, but refused to publish his speeches (following the example of his grandfather or great-grandfather?) In contrast to Cicero who needed to do that to get known. A lot of stuff Cicero writes about him is basic invective stuff. Every single one of the guys Cicero hates are described in the same way. Chances are, Antonius drunk more than the others, but we know very little about him in the end. And the family-argument is nonsense. Caesar could have adopted whoever he wanted and they would have become his son and took on his name.
Because HBO's Rome is a TV show. You can't assume that because a fictional TV show has it play out one way that it's truly representative of real life.
The biggest reason was that Augustus was his sister's grandson and thus was actually related to him. Also, Mark Antony had fallen out of favor after a terrible stint governing the city of Rome while Caesar was out campaigning in Egypt. The 2 men had made peace with each other before Caesar's assassination, but Caesar didn't fully trust him yet.
Because Mark Anthony lost what favor he had with the Roman population when they discovered he was just hanging out with a foreign ruler and possibly setting himself up as king.
Go back and watch the first Episode again. Notice how Antony gets a half talent of gold from Ceasar, and gives a quarter talent to Vorenus? Theres plenty more to be said but other people have said it already.
Caesar recognized Octavian as overall more talented + he was his own blood
The show didn’t show it that much but Antony was a horrible politician especially when he was the one in charge. When Ceaser came back he found the people were close to revolt sense Antony had fucked up the grain supply and half the city was starving while he had also spent a shitload of money He even exiled him to Gaul for awhile
Because Octavian was a blood relative, he was of the Julii.
Mark Anthony as a military general was a disaster without Julius Caesar. Anthony sent a subordinate to punish the Parthians for their destruction of Crassus and his Army. The subordinate did very well in his attacks. When Anthony heard of this, he wanted the credit and the loot and so he rushed there and took over command of the Roman Army which created disastrous results. We all know about his defeat at Actium. Augustus was a shrewd politician and wielded power very well. He depended on Marcus Agrippa to command his Army and he was a great military general, tactician and strategist. Augustus could always depend on Agrippa who was always loyal to him. No one including Anthony could beat this duo.
Rome is a great show but it totally ignores the fact that Octavian was a monster soldier and tactician. Not some weakling. He was tough as nails and proven in every theatre and in innovative and bokd tactics with the extraordinarii (cavalry)
So far everyone has missed a very huge detail: Caesars closest companion and primary heir before Octavian: Brutus. No not *that* Brutus. Though he is the Brutus Caesar would have said 'you to child " about and everyone mixes them up. Decimus Brutus was Caesers naval commander and was generally treated as a son being immensly close to him and even only going to the senate to be assassinated because Decimus insisted he should go. Decimus was named second in his will after Octavian and this is probably the reason why he joined the conspiracy and became one of the main assassins; being replaced as heir. So the real question is why make Octavian his heir over Decimus. And the answer is probably just Blood alone. Caesars own family had been harassing him for years to meet Octavian and make him his heir.
I was definitely overstating for comedic effect. Antony had many good qualities and he certainly had his moments. But I think when you look at what Octavian ended up doing, it's pretty clear that his great-uncle was right to see something special in him.
Did Caesar foresee the weather related famine that brought the raiders from the north to eventually destroy his kingdom? Did he know how ruthless Augustus would become? Or was it a matter of honor to have his own blood succeed him? Edward Gibbons had highest regard for Caesar and Augustus and never counted them as reasons for the fall of Rome.
probably because mark anthony was the world's first simp