Talk:Mark Antony

Inconsistent authors

@Editoronthewiki: Hello there. In your recent edits, you added two references to – presumably? – the same book but credited two different authors, one Barry Strauss and one Ian Davidson. Could you clarify in the article as to which is which?

Also, if you're interested in further additions to the article, I'd highly recommend finding if possible a copy of CAH² 9 (1994), which provides a detailed narrative of this period in chapters 11–12. Morstein-Marx's Julius Caesar and the Roman people (2021) I think gives the best recent analysis of whether Caesar really wanted to be king and includes including the diadem incident and the differences between the five sources: Dio, Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch (wrong as usual), and Nicholaus. Ifly6 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Ifly6: Ah, I'm sorry about that! fixed. Thank you for the recommendations as well. Editoronthewiki (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dubious

There's a number of dubious claims that I've reworked rather quickly.

• In the lede, the senate doesn't declare war: the people (in the centuries) do.
• The First Triumvirate isn't some kind of backroom coup. The allies were unpopular, knew it, and any domination was shortlived. See eg Gruen LGRR (1995) or our own article on the First Triumvirate.
• Legate is not a rank. It is a position.
• The death of Julia in 54 had little to do with the falling out between Pompey and Caesar; again see Gruen LGRR (1995).
• Milo is not a Pompeian ally; he gets thrown under the bus immediately. Nor is he an "optimate". The "optimates" don't exist... Milo's activities are just as self-serving as Clodius'.
• The pontifex maximus is not the head of the [sic] Roman religion. The pontifices, augurs, and quindecemviri are all separate priests; there is no "head".
• Antony took over Curio's place in the tribunes; the idea of "both Pompey and Caesar lay down their commands" did not emerge from Antony. The idea that Caesar was afraid of prosecution is dubious. See Morstein-Marx Caesar (2021) App'x 4; also Caesar's civil war and Julius Caesar.
• Antony was not expelled from Rome; Antony left after the senate said his safety could not be guaranteed.
• Caesar wasn't declared a traitor, just hostis.
• A propraetor need not previously be a praetor. Cato in 58 BC is pro quaestore pro praetore. Similarly, proconsuls many times by this point had been appointed without holding the consulship.
• Lots of "Antony is Caesar's top general" fluff. WP:PEACOCK.
• Caesar was made dictator in absentia in 48 after Pharsalus. The 11-day dictatorship was in 49, when Caesar in Italy. These should not be confused. Caesar did not sail to Italy then hop back to Greece to pursue Pompey. He pursued him directly through Asia minor.
• Meier Caesar (1995), Badian in OCD⁴, etc agree that Caesar had no knowable constitutional programme.
• Octavian never called himself Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
• Lepidus was elected pontifex maximus, albeit irregularly.
• Octavian was elected consul in August 43, albeit irregularly.
• There's no reason to set up the proscriptions then not talk about Antony's role in getting Cicero killed and then talk about Cicero minor getting to announce Antony's death.
• When someone starves you to interdicting shipment, you don't shift your sympathies towards that person: The lack of food in Rome caused the public to blame the Triumvirate and shift its sympathies towards Pompey.
• This is nonsense and I lack the time to figure it out:

To secure the peace, Octavian betrothed his three-year-old nephew and Antony's stepson Marcus Claudius Marcellus to Sextus' daughter Pompeia. (Appian, The Civil Wars, Book 5, 73.)

Obviously two boys cannot both marry the same girl. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Antony&diff=prev&oldid=1213209226. Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Going native" as a casus belli should be cited directly with a quote since it's a rather extraordinary claim. WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

Further work on this article is needed. The sourcing in many portions is just a paraphrase of Plutarch and Appian. It isn't as if there are not good sources on Antony and his times. CAH² vols 9–10 might be a good start at least for the events. It's strange also that this article is much more a recounting of the events generally than specifically Antony's part in them. The perspective of the article definitely needs shifting. Ifly6 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

There are modern sources:

• Tatum, W Jeffrey (December 2023). A noble ruin: Mark Antony, civil war, and the collapse of the Roman republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-769490-9.
• Welch, Kathryn (19 Apr 2023). "Antonius, Marcus (2), Roman consul and triumvir, 83–30 BCE". Oxford Classical Dictionary online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.547. ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5.

Note also re some of the older sources, in Welch's 2023 OCD Online article—

Modern scholars frequently characterize Antonius as a victim, first of Cicero’s rhetoric and then of young Caesar’s attacks on his character and ability. Even more problematic is the tendency of modern biographers to accept Plutarch’s moral agenda uncritically.

The note given at the end of uncritically is—

E.g. Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony: A Biography (London: Croom Helm, 1978); Adrian Goldsworthy, Antony and Cleopatra (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010); and Pat Southern, Mark Antony: A Life (Stroud, UK: Amberley Publishing, 2010).

If someone is wanting to take a stab on this article, I would definitely get Tatum (2023). Some interpretation and conclusions may differ from the more traditional biographies. Ifly6 (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wgronwald6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wgronwald6 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)