Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 We know that Antonius was Caesar's most trusted ally/friened/officer etc', he became consul and magister equitum under him so Caesar must have "liked" him . We have a detailed narrative for their political relationship . I saw BBC' Caecar the other day and was surprised again to see Caesar's attitude towards Antonius, "he" talked to him with bitterness, ignored his advices and actually behave like someone who hated him . It was the same as in HBO's Rome and the same as in other shows about the couple since shakespeare . Why ? I can't remember Plutarchus', Cicero's, Sallustius' and the others words about their personal relationship (my bad memory) . What do you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 We know that Antonius was Caesar's most trusted ally/friened/officer etc', he became consul and magister equitum under him so Caesar must have "liked" him . We have a detailed narrative for their political relationship . I saw BBC' Caecar the other day and was surprised again to see Caesar's attitude towards Antonius, "he" talked to him with bitterness, ignored his advices and actually behave like someone who hated him . It was the same as in HBO's Rome and the same as in other shows about the couple since shakespeare . Why ? I can't remember Plutarchus', Cicero's, Sallustius' and the others words about their personal relationship (my bad memory) . What do you think ? Do you recall in the documentary if it was after Antonius' general failings in administering Rome during Caesar's absence? If it was after, then the account could be considered generally accurate (I'm guessing of course since I haven't seen it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Do we have any primary sources indicating whether Caesar liked Antony or not? I don't recall any. My guess would be that Caesar would have been fine with Antony's pedigree but considered him an embarrassing sot nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Do you recall in the documentary if it was after Antonius' general failings in administering Rome during Caesar's absence? If it was after, then the account could be considered generally accurate (I'm guessing of course since I haven't seen it). The documentary dealt with the years 52 (before Alezia) to 48 (after Pharsalus) . So two points - 1. It was before Caesar absence so why his attitude ? 2. Let say that we are dealing with the years after 48 - Do we have sources for Caesar attitude ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Do we have any primary sources indicating whether Caesar liked Antony or not? I don't recall any. I thought so too . None the less - Caesar bad attitude towards Antonius repeat itself in documentaries . Can't understand it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Yes it's definitely a strange one. I don't think Caesar would have even considered giving Antonius so much responsibility if he did not think him capable of do the job he required done. His loyalty was without question as was his courage so I don't really see any obvious reason why Ceasar's dislike of him is often portrayed in documentaries, TV/movies etc. Maybe people just think that because their characters were so different, Caesar was refined, eloquent, not a big drinker where as Antonius was considered an oaf, a thug who spent most of his time whoring and drinking to excess and had no respect for other people of rank, maybe people just presumed that Caesar would dislike this man, but from what we've read then it appears there's no evidence of dislike what so ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Plutarch mentions some possible strife (though hardly anything definitive) in Life of Antonius 9-10 It's possible that Cicero may have made claims that Caesar disliked in Antony in the Philippics to sway the people against him, but I don't recall any specific incident. Any determination from those lengthy works would require a rather in-depth review of course. It's also important to point out the contrary that several sources clearly indicate Caesar's trust of Antonius on the battlefield and with political appointments (at least in general) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I agree that the characters of Caesar and Antony were sufficiently at odds to suspect that Caesar may have disliked Antony. There are also a couple of incidents (neither definitive of course) that could add weight to that suspicion. First, there was the strange business at the Lupercalia. Maybe Antony was only testing the waters on Caesar's behalf, but Caesar certainly gave the outward appearance of being annoyed, and it's possible that he really was annoyed with Antony. Much more gravely, though, there is the apparent fact that Antony was in the company of Trebonius mere moments before Caesar got a groin full of Brutus' steel. Again, it's not definitive evidence that Antony was in on the conspiracy, but it is odd that he was dallying with the Liberators just when he was needed and that he seemed equally eager to reconcile with them too (for a time). As I say, neither of these events proves anything, but one wonders how far Caesar--who had divorced a wife for much less than Antony's antics--trusted this drunken lieutenant who paraded naked through Rome and who cavorted with Caesar's mortal enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pompieus Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I think Marcus Portius has it right. Caesar recognized Antonius as the ablest and most useful of his partisans but he was ambitious and could be wild, willful and rash (thug and oaf may be a little strong - you can't go by Ciciero) like his friend Curio had been.I think Caesar made best use of him he could - with reservations. Note that Trebonius and several other conspirators were also partisans of Caesar. All of them were doing what Roman aristi=ocrats had always done, using their connections to get ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaiaCaesari524 Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Ooo, what's BBC Caecar? Is that a tv show? I am absolutely fascinated by him and would love to delve into another show about him We know that Antonius was Caesar's most trusted ally/friened/officer etc', he became consul and magister equitum under him so Caesar must have "liked" him . We have a detailed narrative for their political relationship . I saw BBC' Caecar the other day and was surprised again to see Caesar's attitude towards Antonius, "he" talked to him with bitterness, ignored his advices and actually behave like someone who hated him . It was the same as in HBO's Rome and the same as in other shows about the couple since shakespeare . Why ? I can't remember Plutarchus', Cicero's, Sallustius' and the others words about their personal relationship (my bad memory) . What do you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 we don't have to rely on them to verify the caliber of Antonius as both a commander and a statesman, as his deeds were eloquent enough (in spite of his purported alcohol abuse). On the first count, his performance at the left wing of Pharsalus and especially at Philippi should be more than enough evidence. On the second, just check out on his record as the autocratic ruler of the Eastern half of the Roman world for a full decade; the comparison of the financial status of Egypt before and after him is especially noteworthy. I agree that Antony should be judged primarily by his deeds rather than by hear-say. But I'm not sure even that evidence supports a positive appraisal of Antony's ability as a commander and statesman. Yes, when Antony had Caesar's veterans under his command, he didn't always lose. But a commander's ability has to be evaluated by his performance in all his roles -- logistics, tactics, and strategy. At Mutina and at Actium, Antony's command at logistics and strategy were shown to be middling at best. I'm curious, though, about Antony's role in the Egyptian economy. What exactly did he do that supposedly caused an improvement in the Egyptian economy? Also, why didn't he do that in Italy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) I agree that Antony should be judged primarily by his deeds rather than by hear-say. But I'm not sure even that evidence supports a positive appraisal of Antony's ability as a commander and statesman. Yes, when Antony had Caesar's veterans under his command, he didn't always lose. But a commander's ability has to be evaluated by his performance in all his roles -- logistics, tactics, and strategy. At Mutina and at Actium, Antony's command at logistics and strategy were shown to be middling at best. Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingsoc Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 defeated by Agrippa and his far stronger fleet was hardly any evidence of military incompetence. What always puzzled me about his actions in Actium is why after the defeat in the naval battle he didn't try to make use to his Legions and preferred to fled to Egypt? he seem to just lose faith after Agrippa victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) What always puzzled me about his actions in Actium is why after the defeat in the naval battle he didn't try to make use to his Legions and preferred to fled to Egypt? he seem to just lose faith after Agrippa victory. Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.