Octavian vs Mark Antony

>>2751290
Octavian clearly. Anthony was more interested in having power than using it.

>>2751290
>soldier with little political competence
>politician hand picked by Ceasar
Gee I fucking wonder

>>2751290

Anthony.

Octavian was a punk kid that got lucky, 99/100 Anthony wins.

File: Chad.png (149KB, 471x599px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 471x599px

>>2751290
>brave soldier chad with huge experience of conquest and administration as Caesar's lieutenant
>literal who twink who hides in swamps during battles and let's based Antony do all the work and kills children
hmmm, really makes you think....
>b-but he was handpicked by Caesar!!!
Yes, but Caesar didn't expect to get killed when Octavian was still a boy. He obviously planned to mentor Octavian first.
Therefore Antony is the clear choice.
>b-but Ovatvian defeated Antony!!!
Wrong again, Octavian let Agrippa do all the hard work.
Also, it was a naval battle, not a proper battle.

>>2751290
Did Antony plan to make himself emperor?
If not i think its a pretty easy choice

>>2751605
>Agrippa beat Anthony
>Agrippa chose Octavian
Clearly Octavian is the better choice.

>>2751597
t.Cleopatra

>>2751620
Agrippa was a cunning warrior, but he was also a good friend.
Octavian got lucky Agrippa was one of the few people to ignore his autism

>>2751630
>Octavian
>autism
Rome HBO was cool but not very historically accurate anon.

>>2751605
Antony was a violent drunk

File: persepolis.jpg (370KB, 600x410px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 600x410px

>>2751642
>exiled his own daughter
>killed children
>extraordinarily pale
That's enough evidence for me desu lad
>>2751647
so was Alexander the Great.

>>2751619
>trusting the fucking senate

>>2751667
>That's enough evidence for me desu lad
Of psychopathy maybe, certainly not autism.

Antony was a lazy drunkard who got lucky that he was a decent soldier. No political ability and not much intelligence

>>2751676
>Of psychopathy maybe, certainly not autism.
Would it help if I told you he was obsessed with Sonic?

>>2751667
Alexander the """great""" is overrated as hell and not worthy of much praise beyond quality generalship.

>>2751691
It would convince me outright.
Post proofs.

File: 1456886714273.png (248KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 600x600px

>>2751290
It depends on who would I have been, and on the exact conflict we're talking about, since there were at least 3 separate conflicts between them.
The first was before the Liberators war when young Octavius recruited a couple of legions despite being civilian and helped the senate to defeat Mark Antony before switching sides and demanding consulship from them despite being 20. I this point I would have supported the senate and by proxy Octavious.
The second was when Mark Antony's wife and brother tried to rise an anti-Octavious rebellion in Italy while Mark Antony was busy fucking Cleopatra in Egypt. Obviously, theirs was the losing side so I would have sided with Octavius again.
The third was when Mark Antony went full basileus and started to distribute Roman provinces as fiefdoms to Cleopatra's children, so it's obviously any decent Roman would have supported Octavius.
So, I guess I would have just supported Octavious, not because he was great, but because the other side was even worse. Then again, I do think the Principate was the best thing that had happened with the Late Republic.

>>2751682
>No political ability
Was it Octavian who turned Rome against Brutus or Antony?

>>2751647
>>2751682
>lazy drunkard
>violent drunk

You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>2751290
Octavian, easy choice.
Antony was a cuck for cleopatra and had no political skill to use all that power
He would have been deposed or killed in months

>>2751713
>extremely popular politician is assassinated
Wow, what a triumph that he managed to make people dislike the assassins

>>2751730
If it was so easy then why didn't anyone else do it?
Face it, Antony was based. We would be colonizing space by now if not for the Julio-Claudian dark ages

>>2751630
He was not a friend. Octavian literally made him relevant. It was a clientela relationship.

>>2751734
>why didn't anyone else do it
Cause Antony was the leading Caesarian politician at the time?

>>2751735
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vipsanius_Agrippa
>However, Agrippa was about the same age as Octavian (the future emperor Augustus), and the two were educated together and became close friends.
>>2751737
But I thought he had no political skill? How did he manage to lead the Caesarian faction then?

>>2751743
He was just a lackey under Caesar
In the republic you could easily rise through the ranks as a soldier even if you were a terrible politician

>>2751749
>lackey under Caesar

they literally shared power in all but name.

>>2751759
He was only at whatever position he had for his military ability, not because he was a good politician

>>2751290
Mark Antony was objectively the good guy

>>2751713
>>2751734
Actually, Antony made peace with the Liberators immediately after the assassination, they'd agreed no one should be held responsible and then proceeded to divide provinces between them. It was Octavious who started MUH CAESAR thing with literal mass bribery at the funerals, swearing to revenge his adopted father, virtually forcing Antony into a confrontation with the senate. Which Octavious then used first to side with the senate to the consulship and then to side with Antony and Lepidus to dominate the Republic.
Octavious was a political genius and Mark Antony was to match no him.

>>2751794
Antony would've destroyed the state if he led it

>>2751605
>naval battle
>not a proper battle

>>2751605
> Also, it was a naval battle, not a proper battle.
Both the Pelopnessian and the First Punic wars were decided with naval battles tho.

>>2751826
>>2751812
Don't forget that in the time period, naval battles were usually larger in scale and more destructive in terms of fraction of total forces committed than land battles ever did.

>>2751803
At the time he did make peace with the liberators. However, at the funeral he incited the crowd to a riot with his speech and by removing Caesar's blood-stained toga and naming each of his wounds

>>2751290
Neither. I would have been a supporter of the anti-Caesar conspirators.