Roman Historian Demolishes Mark Antony
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Marcus Antonius, also known today as Mark Antony, was one of Julius Caesar's chief lieutenants. He briefly ruled Rome after Caesar's death, became Cleopatra's lover in Egypt, and fought a civil war against Octavian. Antony is often depicted as brave battlefield general--an image he actively cultivated during his own lifetime. But was he?
Historian Adrian Goldsworthy debunks the propaganda and Shakespearean character to argue that the real Marcus Antonius was NOT a brilliant commander, or even a very experienced one.
Our thanks to Dr. Goldsworthy for joining us for this fantastic interview. You can hear more from him about ancient naval warfare on the Free Stuff page of Little Wars TV in a bonus video! We also encourage you to check out his book, "Antony and Cleopatra" (2010) for a fantastic account of this violent chapter in Roman history. We'll leave a link to the book below, which is NOT an affiliate link!
www.amazon.com...
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Marcus Antonius may have been all of these things but definitely was my favorite character in the Rome series brilliantly portrayed by James Purefoy. He had the best lines.
No question. He was totally brilliant in the TV show. Such a great character and actor
thank u and I agree
Monikakk
Ice always melts. 😉
Mark Anthony has been very quiet since this video drop up
Rather quiet in the two millennia before it dropped too, to be fair
Bro is cooked 😭
Cleopatra locked the account after he promised her a nice sea cruise, which didn't quite turn out the way he expected! He did make a better voice over actor such as Jeff Wayne's 'War of the Worlds'.
Not a good look
@@SeeJayCampbell That's the joke.
"Those lions you brought me were useless, wouldn't pull my chariot for shit!" - Marc Antony
Lions. That run.
Hahaha 🤣
Camels do I look like a fucking date merchant....get out
That's much easier to do now that Mark isn't around to defend himself.
We know quite a lot of him and he is a man of great passions
Not the first time marc antony governed rome at the behest of caesar he handled himself extremely terribly. He was a bad politician and an okay commander.
He was only ever good when caesar was telling him what to do.
He better hope Marc Anthony doesn’t hear about this and nails his hands to the senate door
His soft, *pink* hands...
🤣
LOL
Oh come on, he has done that only a handfull of times.
I always love it when you guys bring on professional historians, it’s a great way to get some extra context
Thanks! We try to talk to experts whenever we can. It’s always fun to do and you learn a lot more when you can ask questions directly from them. We’ve been lucky to get some awesome interviews and guests over the years. Dr Goldsworthy is very high on that list!
He has a great series of lectures on the roman empire on his channel.
His novels are also worth reading, especially the Vindolanda series about a Roman centurion stationed near Hadrian's wall.
@@LittleWarsTV🥳
Marcus Antony: Fake it till you make it...until you suffer a catastrophic defeat at Actium.
That was just another in a list of military failures, one after another.
@@jeffreyrobinson3555 Touche :)
Yeah the battle of Philippi was an absolute disgrace 😂
@@AdamSmith-gx9qm look who he was fighting. A demoralized army led by a split command tent
I can’t play chess very well, but I have won against people that can’t play
He sounds a lot like Marshall Ney. When in charge of a smaller force under direct supervision he performs well and is personally very brave, But when charged with command of an entire army is not up to the task.
I wouldn't put Ney in the same category. He did well as a Corps commander during throughout the Napoleonic Wars. At Waterloo he was too rash and failed to properly combine arms. I would say George Custer might be a closer comparison
@@andrewtodd5919 Custer wouldn't have run away like Anthony did. 😀 This can be a good thing or a bad thing.
@@sartanawillpay7977 I agree most likely not, but comparison is more appropriate. Self aggrandizing, pompous , arrogant etc. Custer probably a far better officer but still fumbled when larger units.
@@andrewtodd5919 Custers main problem was he kept forgetting he wasn't commanding a brigade anymore
@jamesmaclennan4525 I agree plus he was actually Colonel Custer. The General was a brevet promotion which reverted back at the end of the Civil War.
Still astounds me they got this much time with Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy. Awesome
We begged nicely!
He has a fine TH-cam channel himself, and he writes novels. He is not a secluded scholar.
Yes he fought in this campaign in that campaign and the other campaign... And then he took part in this other campaign and that campaign in this campaign. But he doesn't really have extensive military experience.... :-)
I've read Dr. Goldsworthy's book on Antony and Cleopatra, and it's brilliant. Great work with this video Little Wars.
Rome vs Parthia is very good too. I found him via LWTV -- thanks guys!
His best book, and his most insightful one (and I think the one that really made his more public reputation) was his book on the Punic Wars. If you have not read it, you really should. I have read most of his other books and they truly feel lesser in comparison.
@@cathakjordi Oh yes i just read it these past two days. Thanks for the advice as it was brilliant, interesting and insightful. I have to say Dr. Goldsworthy gets the reasons right why Rome won and Carthage lost.
Antony's attraction is his tragedy. We humans are attracted to tragedy. Perhaps because at base tragedy best describes us all.
It totally helps for any classic tragedy, that looks for fates that are "larger than life" , that Anthony's entire antics/demeanor are indeed those of a quintessential nobleman. - Cicero/Cato might both be more "tragic" in the modern sense. Their personal aspirations for greatness , as far as they exist, are however vastly outshone by Anthony's hybris.
Mark Antony takes the credit that belongs to Titus Labienus
Of Caesar's three principle Lieutenants, Anthony is the most flashy, but Labienus gave Caesar his hardest won victory at Munda, and Lepidus was his master of the horse and man in Rome, Anthony was a Caesarian (I would Argue that Lepidus was a populari rather Julius Caesarian, and Labienus was a Boni) and he was an early investor into that stock.
I see they used the three seconds of footage from Rome involving Cleopatra that wouldn't get demonetized.
Yeah, HBO really leaned into that ✨cleopatraness✨
Sorry but your point about not having much of a military carreer is quite weak if you have to say "he did well, but..." about 10 times. Anthony was vital at Alesia, Pharasalus and Philipi. What does it matter if he was not there the entire campaign? He was there when it mattered. Also the point about him losing at Mutina is quite a far stretch. 3 armies where against him and he basically surprised 2 of them before making a tactical retreat and keeping himself into the game.
I agree (esp in regards to Philipi), but he's right about the Parthian campaign and Actium ... both were disasters.
@@asmith1022He did conquer Media because of that Parthian campaign even if he suffered a big loss because of the Armenian betrayal. This is not a small thing.
In this context, I feel like HBO’s Rome portrayed him about right. There’s enough ambiguity to the depiction so that he may be largely seen as it is suggested here.
I could listen to Dr. Goldsworthy all day! Great discussion!
He has his own TH-cam channel that is worth checking out.
Would love to see more of this kind of content!
Well that’s good! Because we love military history on and off the tabletop!
"I mean Antony does win... BUT .."
"and yes he wins that battle as well... BUT.."
"and sure he wins than battle .. BUT."
"I mean he did defeat them.. BUT.."
"and then he lost.. SEE I told you so! Horrible commander."
Yea I agree he mentioned many victories. He fucked up in Parthia and fucked up the political situations while Caesar was away and when he was in Egypt but in terms of him being a bad general or commander entirely i wouldn’t write him off. He is totally right about his behavior.
If he was so great, why didn't he *win* when it mattered?
@@xotl2780 not great, not completely shite of a commander. He wasn’t at the same caliber of genius as others in the Roman world at that time.
@@xotl2780 You always lose "when it matters" because a defeat is often dramatic.
If he had lost instead of win some other battles, you would have said it was then that it mattered.
@@xotl2780 Hannibal also lost when it mattered most. A general's career and greatness can't be compressed or reduced to just 1 battle.
Idk I think Goldsworthy is a little bias against Antony I prefer prof. Jeff Tatum's take on the man. Specially after reading Tatum's new biography about Mark Antony
Me too
@@jaderafaela3583 agreed. A Noble Ruin is brilliant.
Mark Anthony left Rome for Egypt , then to the Bronx , NYC , where he became a very good salsa 💃 singer 😮😢
IDK Marc Antony was probably the best military successor the era offered. He wasn't the same strategic genius ceasar was but his conduct at Philippi, and his ability to adapt and build fortifications showed that he was a competent commander. Not only that but his resolve in the siege of Mutina was admirable, He was out numbered 3 to 1 and was able to outmanuvre the senate by digging in, and rushing out from his defensive position while his opponents were mustering for the battle. He forced the Senate to fight on his own terms and managed to kill 2 consuls in the process. He also delivered a masterful speech at Caesar's funeral that on the surface promised amnesty but threatened repurcussions to the murder of his friend. On that day at least he could not have played things better.
Wrong, Agrippa was by far the best commander of his generation
My grandmother told me Marc Antony was black. Julius Casar too. And Chairman Mao. Also Montezuma. And don't forget Catherine the Great.
😂😂😂
"Anthony was not a good commander nor a good administrator"
Last time someone critisized Antony, he was beaten to death by a scroll.
Studying and learning history is one of the best aspects of miniature wargaming. Brilliant insight.
what is miniature wargaming? I have never heard of it
@@agoup1 Using miniatures, scaled down versions of the real thing, to simulate combat.
Very interesting color commentary as I'm rewatching Rome- I think they got some parts of this right but like anything in TV there are parts they missed. Thanks for sharing
The image I get of Antony is basically a more fun Sulla. I think HBO's Rome gives him great little moments where he shows a saviness that maybe he hid from most people, playing up this character that's formed in time, but those closest to him knew that he was sharper than he would ever give himself credit. I think he's a classic chip on his shoulder kinda guy, who was an expert at masking and played his cards close to the chest, and he goes out after a decade where he was arguably the most powerful person in the Mediterranean. He really deserves to be mentioned among Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, because he played the game just as much and is part of the foundation of the imperial attitude. He might be the first to truly lean into the crown, by all accounts he very much enjoyed the trappings of Hellenistic monarchy, after the Treaty of Brundisium.
Very well said, a fun fact to why Anthony hated Cicero was that his stephfather was sentenced to death in the Cataline Conspiracy. Also Plutarch hated Anthony for his eastern fascination and adoption of hellenism like you say, there is a discussion to be had of what was most virtous of stoic Roman ideals vs heroic Hellenistic ideals but our historic accounts are biased against Anthony, and though I love Cicero, especially his mind, Anthony had good reason to nail him.
Apparently Sulla was a party animal that loved Greek culture like Antony
Thank you, doctor Goldsworthy for everything you have done to popularise Roman history. I love "The Fall of Carthage" and "The Life of a Colossus". And you have been great in Time Commanders.
Greetings from Poland.
The scholar is very eager on his assessment. I like very much his books. History always fights the tendency to idealization... at any rate, Mark Anthony will always be sympathetic for everyone.
respect to whoever chose to use the RTW soundtrack music
"...He contemplates having his slave kill him."
I mean who hasn't?
I wonder if the composer of the soundtrack for Rome: Total War, knew that his piece wouldn't just be for a video game, but would go on to represent practically the whole Roman and Antiquity age.
Mark-Antony : "Don't try to demolish me, I can do it myself."
Thanks for this wonderful video!
He wasnt better commander than Agrippa, neither best politician than Octavian.
Octavian genius was to have the humility to recognize that Agrippa was better general than him and empowered him.
Still, I think Mark Anthony always had the makings of a Varsity athlete.
I also feel like Antony didn’t evolve with the evolving warfare. Agrippa paid attention to how Caesar multi-tasked in strategies, adapted as he went. It always struck me that Antony was kind of always doing the same old Republic style of strategy, whereas Agrippa, and others who subordinated Caesar, were starting to think in 3d when it came to battles.
"As thick as two short planks." Ouch.
Well said Geoff..👍
He sounds like he's great at tactics but poor in logistics.
Like Pompey, turning up at the end
TW Rome one music is always appricated
Good summary. Anthony was a perfect example of failing up.
Dr. Goldsworthy might not be in his 20s anymore, but calling him ancient is a bit harsh no? ;)
Strong video on a really strong channel! Keep the mix of fun gameplay and short and well done history lessons coming. :)
Wait, "A chariot driven by lions?" Gonna need a cage to drive this thing.
Well said James's 👍
Hi Sean. Love the engagement with history, regardless of any opinions shared. But any personal attacks or insults are removed on this channel. This is not that kind of space.
I love Adrian Goldsworthy's books and respect him enormously as an historian... the dramatic and ominous music is a distraction from what is being said here...
Much appreciated!
It is interesting how various historical figures often get lionized
Really sad that I'm going to Uni to do a Masters Degree in History and that the course doesn't have ancients or medieval history on it. Great video as always guys!
ancient history is generally nestled under classics and medieval history often has a field of its own outside of history as well.
@@VLSG Very true. I did a brief study of medieval and ancient history as a module on my undergrad degree though. But that was fascinating learning about stuff like the Roman Legion system and such.
Antony ruled the Eastern half of the empire successfully. That is his major achievement.
Yes. Augustus did very little to alter antonys arrangements.
Augustan Slander! Antony a stud
The obvious winner, Octavius, had little physical courage, he wasn't especially robust, but of course he was uber observant and educated himself. Cold, calculating precise and was the true politician.
Very interesting. Never thought of it this way, but it makes sense.
He's asleep on my couch but muttered "prick" at you
This is scholarly chatter. He mentions Antony is this battle and that action, and then says, something dismissive about the battle, but fails to keep track of how many battles and action Antony to part in! This is a scholar that hasn’t tasted battle himself. Even a small action, with maneuvering and combat is “epic” and meaningful to the men that faced the swords, spears, arrows and charging horses of the enemy. To belittle Antony’s battle prowess in this manner is disingenuous and just bored scholar’s attempt to say something “new”. It’s all a bit rubbish actually.
You won’t find an individual on earth who’s “tasted” the kind of battle the ancients fought. Up close, personal, slow and exhausting.
Regardless, he’s not talking about Antonius the soldier, but Antonius the general, and as general he’s led his army in two military catastrophes, namely the Parthian expedition and the Actium campaign. Antonius simply was not a great commander.
Meanwhile Mark Anthony to this guy " you frog spawned homunculus !" 🤬🤬🤬
I dont agree. He had military experience, he was a simple, loyal, bold and flashy commander with a few moments of briliance. When he was in military he was capable luteinant, when he was in politics he always loyally defended Caesar. Then capitalized on Caesar s death like a pro, then basically won at philipy in one move. Still pushing on with his boldness, same with partthians same with actium. It was not crazy clever but reasonable and consistent with his military mind. Of course he had a lot of flaws but this guy almost negates all of his positives... Ultimately he was beaten thanks to a woman.
You should hear what Antony has to say about this guy.
Antony is the Anakin Skywalker of Rome.
He didn't have the power Anakin did. I'd say Octavian was more like Anakin.
I don't want to be the guy that shows this video to Anthony...
Me: *Hey!* It's that time commander guy.
Everyone else: #sigh#
You have to learn more History about Marc Antony!
Historia Civilis had a very great portrayal of Antony, down to his 4 sides
Well said admiral..
Antony reminds me as a super magnified version of the 19th century US Army adventurer George Armstrong Custer in a strange way.
Antony was the male and roman version cleopetra.
Much as I love and respect Mr. Goldsworthy’s work, I have never understood this point about Anthony he is often making. Was Antony a military rival to a Caesar? Of course not. But he was certainly not devoid of military virtues and popular with his soldiers. And going on about how he was not that experienced in the course of recounting campaign after campaign where he is involved (often successfully) does not really compute. Anthony was a flawed commander but far from an empty helmet. I think the ancient sources lay out this impression quite well overall.
Exactly. Antony was one of the grate generals that suvived the war. The was no Alexander oder Ceasar but he was a good General.
Dead right. Well said 🙏👍
What perhaps the video fails to make understandable is that Antonius actually began his military career later than the average Roman nobilis did, so he did have less experience than others. Antonius began military service when he was around 26, compare that to other renowned Roman generals of the first century BCE like Pompeius, who started at 17 and Caesar, at 19. Countless others, less famous today also of the first century began service in their late teens: Q. Sertorius, L. Valerius Flaccus, P. Sestius, L. Licinius Murena, M. Porcius Cato and the list goes on.
@@ulyssesocounter8488 But it doesn’t seem that Antony’s late start and debaucherous youth held him back much, does it? It may even have been an advantage to his career from the political perspective. By comparison Pompey who started early in the military was a notoriously poor politician. Antony sees to be the kind of man who could handle both the politics in Rome and an army, as he did before Pharsalus as Caesar’s man in Rome and then at Pharsalus commanding the left.
@@gonatas1 Pompeius terrible at politics? He managed to become consul at 36, without ever becoming quaestor or praetor. He managed to achieve for himself the glory of three triumphs, one of which of grand proportions. Nothing in Rome was ever said or done in the 50’s without taking Pompeius into consideration. If he had won Pharsalus, he would be remembered as the most eminent Roman of the first century.
As for Antonius, I wasn’t talking about his political career, and I never even said that he delayed his career because of debauchery. He was a drunkard, but his military career was probably held back by other considerations. Regardless, Goldsworthy said that he didn’t have much experience in war, and I ventured to give better explanation about this. His later success in the political arena is another matter.
This man is a true historian and a grand teacher.
Thanks so much for sharing this!!!
Having recently read Jeff Tatum’s ‘A Noble Ruin - Mark Antony, Civil War, and the Collapse of the Roman Republic’ I’m a little unimpressed with Goldsworthy and his take on Antony.
The Tatum book is really interesting. It definitely gave me a new appreciation for Marcus Antonius.
And while Dr. Goldsworthy certainly made many valid criticisms of Antonius' military record (especially in regards to Actium), I do think he was overall a little unfair. In particular I think he undervalued Antonius' military actions in Caesar's Civil War (where Antonius showed a lot of creativity and daring in getting his half of the army to Caesar past the Pompeian blockade) and especially in regards to Mutina. Yes, Antonius ultimately lost the Mutina Campaign, but given that his army was outnumbered something like two to one (the Republicans having 13 legions: 4 under Decimus Brutus, 2 under Octavian, 3 under Aulus Hirtius, and 4 under Gaius Pansa to Antonius' 6 legions) and also outnumbered in veteran troops (the Republicans having something like 5 veteran legions against Antonius' 3), Antonius still gave them a very hard fight and did an excellent job of extracting his army after the battle. I also think Antonius deserves a lot of credit for keeping the core of his army loyal after Mutina. It was very easy in the civil wars at that time for commanders to see their entire armies defect to the other side (e.g. Publius Vatinius losing his 3 legions to Marcus Brutus, or Aulus Alienus losing his 4 legions to Gaius Cassius Longinus, or Decimus Brutus losing a whopping 10 legions to the Triumvirs). Thus, the fight that Antonius was able to keep so many of his men loyal (and find new recruits) even after suffering a major defeat at Mutina, shows that Antonius must have been an incredibly charismatic commander in his prime.
@@bwg4608, very well put. And I’m glad you liked the book. I’ve become a bit of a fan of Tatum’s.
@@janm.johansen9806 Exactly. Tatum's book is a much better take on Antony, whereas Goldsworthy only repeats augustan historians and adds nothing new to the discussion.
@@susmitadeb2913 Oh, are you saying that his criticisms of Antony are not based on fact?
@@AlanJeffery-y5f Because he is just repeating Octavian's pet historians. He does not have any independent take or criticism. He does not consider that what we know about Antony is from highly hostile sources. Antony was the first roman whose memory was damned after his death, all pro-Antonian sources were destroyed, and no one dared to write anything that painted him in a positive light.
He fought the Parthians. He not win but did some daring things.
The view is good from the cheap seats.....2000 years later.
Snows always melts my guy.
Augustus was however a political animal.
This Roman Historian has his own TH-cam channel where he regularly uploads about Roman history so if you at all enjoyed this go check him out!!!
Luck in war is more useful than courage…
What's the music in the background?
"To play act being Bachus"...lol, I'm stealing that, if only I could find a way to use it.
Never got the hype behind Antony. He wasn’t even Caesar’s chief subordinate, that was Labienus. Octavian bested him in their first battle, before the Triumvirate formed.
Totally makes sense if he was portly; he was a hard-drinking aristocrat, not a young dashing cavalry officer. As a soldier he was a poor politician and as a politician he was a poor soldier; man had no grasp of logistics. At his best he may have been a John B. Hood.
I would say his service at Alesia would show he was quite capable
Come un Italiano, sono estremamente stanco degli storici del mondo anglo-sassone che pretendono di capire i Romani. Si dovrebbe credere che storici Italiani (Roma e' in Italia dopo tutto) non esistono.
I'm heart broken. I always loved Marc Antony.... Of course that's the one from Shakespear not the real guy. Love this lesson I just learned thanks for sharing.
@@85Funkadelic, then you should give Jeff Tatum’s book on Antony ‘A Noble Ruin’ a read. It’s a little less biased.
It's almost unfortunate that we wind up with Caesar getting assassinated over a political dispute, after essentially presiding over the dismantling of the Republic. The fact that he is one of the (if not the) great Roman conquerors sometimes gets overshadowed (or, more compelling, he was so influential politically that his military successes were embellished to match his August stature by the 40's BCE).
Either way, Caesar was so successful in Gaul, and later in the Civil War, that his mediocre lieutenant winds up a household name.
Interesting.
The music was so loud I just couldn't hear what he's saying.
"Oh good news..bad news huh"...
So...aside from fighting and winning in Judea, Egypt, Gaul, Macedonia, Greece [2x] and Spain he wasn't a good or brave soldier?
McClellan catching strays!
And Plutarch compares him with Demetrius. Demetrius was a far superior commander and strategist than Antony could ever be.
Ahh a fellow Octavian fan
This man "im going to destroy this hearthrob's career".
Great RTW music and a great roast of Anthony
A roast is done with affection, while the person is alive. This is just a trashing, 2000 years later.
@@tricivenola8164 defend Anthony in a response video
It's very easy to disparage someone who can't defend himself and whose history was distorted by his enemies. But he was great and will remain so in the hearts of the people who can see through the thick web of propaganda.
@@RealMrStreets I don't need to. Read the comments!
I think its wrong to say Marcus didnt have a lot of experience. Was he military genius? No. But you dont need to spend years in the field to gain some hard experience. The experience with Ceasar alone would be sufficient to understand the basic of what can be done and how to do it. And dont forget, these commanders were not commanding alone, they had no-name experienced soldiers to advise them, especially in the Ceasarion party.
This man is a Catonian.
If you want to hear what happened to poor Anthony, listen to the mighty words of Dovahatty. There, you will find the truth.
This is nothing more then barbarian propaganda
So... what did you do in YOUR life Mr. Goldsworthy?
You quoted Bedford Forrest. 2:46
i like mark antony because his name is catchy
Seems like he was Rome’s Banastre Tarleton.
Absolutely phenomenal breakdown!
Anthony undertook Julius Caesar's planned campaign versus the Parthians to regain the status lost due to the defeat of Crassus at Carrhae. Anthony managed to lose his baggage train and seige equipment which doomed his invasion to failure. While not captured and killed like Crassus he lost a good portion of his army for no gain other than the killing of a lot of Parthian soldiers.
Marc Anthony seemed like a 2IC at best. Physically brave but not a good strategic or tactical ? thinker.
That worked best when Caesar could put him in a spot to succeed with a small force he could do it. Plan a massive operation and produce original useful tactics, apparently not.
He conquered Media because of this campaign and later annexed Armenia. He made gains. So, the campaign was not a complete failure like popularly believed.
@@susmitadeb2913 Cool.