How Octavian Succeeded in Discrediting Mark Antony
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 січ 2019
- Standing in the Roman senate, Octavian read out the shocking details of Mark Antony's will. It was a devastating revelation that immediately gave the young schemer a major advantage over his soon-to-be disgraced rival.
From the Series: Eight Days That Made Rome: Rome's First Emperor bit.ly/2TOSfNy - Розваги
Using words like racist and sexist and pressing our modern day morality onto an ancient society is not how history should be framed.
Example of why some women shouldnt be trusted considering history
@@Caesar_Av_Nordland nor politics...
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't force modern morality onto societies which had entirely different social standards. However, it's far from bad history to say the Roman Republic were xenophobic nationalists - everyone was either a Roman or a barbarian to them, and barbarians were lesser people who were only fit to be ruled by the civilized Romans. 'Racist' isn't a bad word to describe that mindset.
As for sexist - dude, come on. They considered women to be literal household property. It's not unfair to judge them as a sexist society, especially given the existence of egalitarian or matriarchal societies throughout history.
Generally, it's a use of modern terminology that doesn't quite fit historical discourse, but for a TV audience, use of easily accessible language is understandable. And she's not wrong.
It's not about morality, it's about definition. The ancient Romans were xenophobic towards those who weren't Roman, even if they were under Roman control. The Romans also looked down on women and were distrustful towards them. It's just a well known fact that, by definition of those words, the Romans were racist and sexist.
I guess she was saying that Octavian was deliberately taking advantage of the all the -isms to ensure he had the support of the senate?
But yea the modern lense isn't accurate, they basically were just Roman supremacists, and Anthony was no longer Roman in their eyes.
This isn't even the part that made the Senate worry of Antonys relationship with Cleopatra, Antony had in his will that the children of Cleopatra should inherit roman lands in the east further more Antony actually was married to Octavians sister a great public insult to Octavians "family honor" aswell ,going off in Egypt with Cleopatra while also giving her cyprus making triumphs in Alexandria instead of rome an unsuccessful campaign against the parthians and on top of all that attacking a roman ally Armenia for his own "glory"
Armenia betrayed rome in favor of the Parthians during Antony's parthian campaign, so they were no longer allies. If any other roman general defeats a kingdom it worth laudation,but if Antony defeats , it becomes a betrayal to allies? Its all Augustan propaganda. Moreover his relationship with Cleopatra was first and foremost a political alliance but was portrayed as a one way love slavery by Augustus. Had Augustus not created this fuss , senate would not have done anything. Have you ever asked yourself why Senate didn't ostracize Julius caesar because of his relationship with Cleopatra even when he gave her the island of Cyprus a territorial gift? And didn't Caesar insult Calpurnia's family by living with Cleopatra? The answer lies in the fact that none of Caesar's opponents were as shrewd as Octavian to create the myth that Augustus created of antony being slavish to Cleopatra.
@@deepasrivastava863 perfectly said
@@deepasrivastava863 I think it was about his request to be buried in Egypt, Antonius had the power to give out lands in the east cause he was master of the east
Well explained, thank you@@deepasrivastava863
Octavian declared war against Cleopatra not Antony. That's why his move was so subtle and genius. Marc Antony was very much liked (more than Octavian) amongst the people of Rome and he had a lot of influence in the senate. Octavian couldn't declare war against him because senate and people would object so he went with his wife.
You don't quite mess with a man's mom(Atia).
@@Agent1W they most likely never even met in real life let alone being lovers
@@randomuser6175 Aye. That would be the fiction from HBO's Rome.
Why for these people everything is about, "racism" and "sexism"? Mark Anthony being seducted by a foreing queen , meant he was now being manipulated by a outsider, a power with different interests than that of Rome. What any of this has to do with racism?
Spot on! It seems idiots can only reflect on history through anacronism.
When i heard the racism and sexism part i was shocked, he may have been racist and sexist but that move was purely political anyone with common sense can see. I can clearly see that in few years there will be an argument that colonialism was good under queen Victoria and any one who opposes will be regarded as sexist.
That was the point. He played the racist (even if "racism" isn't the most historically accurate term it's easier than explaining the entire history of race) and sexist for political purposes, regardless of whether or not he actually was or not
That's sorta the point. It's like an American politician standing up today and saying 'My opponent is a terrible person, he's selling the hardworking small business farmers out to Mexico and/or Iran. And he's also trans'. It doesn't matter if that politician believes it, or if anyone actually believes it there actually believes it. He's playing to dominant cultural prejudices to sway the populace, so that the politicians have the excuse to do what they want. Hence why it's a gamble. If they wanted Octavian gone more than Marc, they'd have called him a liar, or accused him of sacrilege or something. But plenty saw Marc as a greater threat. Again, due somewhat to Roman prejudices of the time.
It's amazing that we have such good chronicles of this most dramatic time in all of Roman history. For instance, the very words that Octavian spoke on this day!
Perfect actor to play Octavian. The likeness is uncanny.
Agreed. Marc Antony is also very well cast!
What series is?
He looks nothing Augustus... His facial features are to northern, all Roman portraits depict southern Europeans, and look like Italians.
@@Hamitic_Race no they dont
@@secretunknown253
Yeah they do, breath hard chump.
It had nothing to do with man against woman. You academics are shameless.
Marxist thought. Always wants to make it identity politics.
This whole conflict stemmed from Octavian being mad that Anthony was cheating on his sister so he wanted to do something about it. Some misogynist indeed.
Yes it had, based on Augustus' propaganda narrative. Framing Cleopatra as a wizard and demonlike succubus. Evil women seducting. That where concepts the plebs understood.
She didn't read Machiavelli and thinks that politics is all idealism and not a game of power and interests.
"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man. This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves." - the prince by Machiavelli
yes it had. Roman society was highly sexist and Mark Anthony was viewed as bewitched by a woman hence not fit to rule Rome. For Rome man only was considered able to deal wih politics
Nice to see the gaurds holding faces instead of swords. Accurate.
Wasn’t Augustus Caesar considered to be the greatest of the Roman emperors because he improved the circumstances of the empire to such a great degree. You portray the greatest Roman emperor as a whinny millennial.
Ok boomer
That’s actually Trajan
Octavian was actually a shrewd politician and statesman and not a good soldier as Antony or Caesar .
@@pauleldho6470 But he made rome more stable than ever before, made it last longer, ended civil wars, and enforced corrupt senators from taking more fr the common people.
Augustus was a political mastermind. For war? He had Agrippa.
They were perfect together.
You know, the guy who played Octavian, almost resembles him. I kinda wish HBO Rome would have used him.
The actor looks nothing like Augusta's statues if that's what you mean.
@@legioxciicorvus5917 Augustus' statue is remake of what Augustus really looked like
Well in my opinion Simon Woods was actually a perfect choice. He did a great job acting as the extreamly intelligent and ruthless politician but still very much concerned with the lives of his people and friends. And dear lord, you could feel Octavian's eyes drilling into you from the screen - a quality the historical Augustus was time and again described to exhibit.
Uhh... You do realize that HBO's Rome is about 15 years old now right? This guy would've been a child during that time of production. Secondly, this guy doesn't seem like a horrible actor but he doesn't seem like a good one either. He might be good for an overly dramatic drama though.
@@legioxciicorvus5917 He looks like a mix between Augustus’ (likely idealized) statues and historical accounts of him being physically weak.
Um, where's the part where he declares his children through Cleopatra heirs of the East? That was even worse.
Octavian was ceasers greatest legacy and mistake,the important this about Augustust he loved ceaser he also at the same time wanted to be powerfull and more than him.
Which he did
Octavian was everything the Senate feared Caesar was.
Thank the Heavens for it! The world would not be the same without Augustus. He took a dying republic and reforged it into a shining empire that still inspires people to this day.
Mistake? Octavian's rule made Rome the strongest country in the world. People who came after him messed it up
Racist? Nonsense. Cleopatra was Greek. Modern day ClapTrap.
So, the Romans viewed literally every non-Roman as barbarians. Cleopatra was a barbarian queen. It's not modern day racism, but it was analogous. Ignoring contemporary Roman prejudices would be modern day claptrap.
Hey, maybe don't try to filter history through the lens of third wave Feminism. Rome, for its time, was one of the most progressive societies in the world. FFS, Octavian's mother and wife had significant pull in Roman society; something that would've been utterly alien to most people at that time elsewhere.
Even this professor Maria Wyke seems to understand that, because her explanation has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with xenophobia. Romans were incredibly xenophobic, which cannot be denied, and it is that which Octavian used to discredit Antony. The fact that Cleopatra is Egyptian and displays a lack of conservative Roman traits. Though granted, most of it was probably slander. Cleopatra most likely wasn't the seductress history stereotypically portrays her as.
@@heiveldboy Once again, were Romans any more xenophobic than any other culture at the time? Romans weren't so much xenophobic as they were committed to the idea of Rome itself, to something bigger than themselves that they could take pride in, and Antony's defection had to do more with the fact that one of Rome's greatest heroes of the time had turned his back on Rome.
Rome itself had pretty good relations with other cultures, although it was obviously on Roman terms.
@@LabTech41 Yes. They were. Being committed to the idea of Rome (and being Roman) is a very nationalistic notion. It went so far that the very notion of not being Roman (even merely Italian) was something that always haunted you if you wanted to pursue any sort of career in Rome. And calling non-Romans barbarians is a rather xenophobic thing, wouldn't you say?
As for the argument that Anton's defection had more to do with him turning his back on Rome. Well yeah. How do you accomplish this? By appealing to the inherent elitism of the Romans compared to the Egyptians. It's the same way people have appealed to the xenophobia of its own land/empire/people for centuries now.
If Rome had good relations with other cultures, how come so many of their vassals were in constant rebellion? Gaul comes to mind. Vercingetorix had no real issue convincing Gaul to liberate themselves. Germania comes to mind, with Arminius easily convincing them to break apart from the empire to regain their independence. Spartacus comes to mind, Parthia comes to mind, Egypt comes to mind, etc, etc, etc. Let's not get things twisted here: Rome conquered these other cultures and subjugated them. Romans felt they were entitled to the vassalage of these other people. That requires a certain elitism and xenophobia, if you ask me.
So the sexism argument I'll grant you, but Romans were arrogant, racist and xenophobic to a fault. It actively hurt their diplomatic relations time and again. There is a reason why the Roman army never lacked for activity.
@@heiveldboy They weren't racist, they disregarded other cultures, as long as you were roman you could be blue that you would be respected, it had nothing to do with a person's race but rather their culture.
Xenophobia, anti-Greek, and anti-Egyptian sentiments were a real thing. She's just using the word "racism" as a shorthand so that the average viewer will be able to relate it to something they already have knowledge of.
And while today's sexism didn't exist then. It * pales * in comparison to the generalized gynophobia that attends patriarchal societies, including the Roman republic. Being more progressive than their Greek predecessors is not saying much, really. Pre-Hellenized Egypt had treated women far better than 1st century Rome.
If the will had not been good ammunition for Octavian, I guess he would have quietly returned it, or maybe forged one.
Any "historian" who uses Suetonius as a reliable source is a joke.
Marc Antony was also bribing Rome for more power in Spain. Egypt controlled the grain. The territories Octavian controlled were starving
Octavian lightning starts playing
It was the fact Marc Antony named Caesarian as his heir and the heir as the Emperor of Rome after he died. He also named himself and Cleopatra as a god/goddess.
I'd like to thank history of Rome by Mike Duncan for the history knowledge of Rome....also britianania got the last laugh on the Romans as all actors portraying them now apparently need to have British accents.
Racist and Sexist? I hate when modern Leftist sensibilities color the motives of people long since dead. And I must ask, why aren’t Muslim conquerors characterized in the same light? Or how about Chinese conquerors? Or maybe the Mongols?
So was his claim fabricated or was that actually the contents of the will?
More than two thousand years later, there is no evidence left to prove either one. Your guess is as good as anyone's.
They totes banged
maybe the will was forged but what he said still could have been Mark Anthonys intentions ? they waere both in the game of power none of them would have thought twice about playing any kind of tricks if it would have helped them to power
I am a huge fan of Antonius, I believe the content of the will are true, he was eventually buried in Egypt and few years back he held a ceremony that is regarded as the donations of Alexandra
Raycist and sexist society ?That is why that society ruled the known world at that era Miss Karen. Patriarchy and citizenship was the key to Roman success , you just rather use the words Raycist and Sexist :D you poor thing.
Not really. It was key to Roman failure. Rome preventing non-citizens from gaining status and respect led to their allies (especially the Germanic ones) deserting/turning on them, and the sexism... well that was a complex topic that wasn't helped by Christianity, but it definitely didn't help that capable administrators, politicians and diplomats were excluded due to a surplus of ova. But please, I'm sure you did a thesis on the subject that you'd like to share.
Shadow of Rome game is perfectly based on Julius Caesar death.
And they say politics now were crazy!
It is unfair to blame augustus for toppling democracy, because although the roman republic was a voice of people, it was only for the rich
It's a shame that many so interesting documentations are country and regions locked.
Dear Smithsonian, limiting such interesiting shows to certain regions, making the interesting trailers worldwide available thanks to the global nature of the internet and locking out large parts of the world is how you get product pirates. I'm living in Germany, just wanted to buy it legally on iTunes, Google Play or Amazon Prime but in my German localized Amazon Prime, Google Play and iTunes it can't even be found and IF I would have to break the rules of these trading platforms.
Its so stupid on an inmeasureable scale to even have introduced this limitations in a modern global world.
And when you have the product pirates you, the content producers with this provincial stance on distribution in a global world with the global internet with the global available information are complaining about product piracy, so, get your sterces bovinem together and make such shows gloablly and therefore legally availabe, you'll even will earn more money by refraining from this backwards thinking in country borders even within this global internet.
To be frank the move was dastardly and vicious. But Antony himself knew exactly what he was doing by allying himself with Cleopatra. He controlled the food and supplies to Rome and the western provinces and therefore could in the mid term, become the center of power and could dictate the matters of all Rome single handedly.
This was a fight between two gangsters.
Hero's of Olympus any1
Women should not be telling us history if they are going to push their agenda unto the story. It should be told without bias, not with a feminist perspective. I would think the Smithsonian would know better than to join the culture war and just be neutral.
Edit: fixed grammer
So it's Ok for guys to push agendas by telling history? I joke, but my guy, they just referenced the fact that Rome was sexist and racist. Which it was, both by modern times and in its own time. Women were barred from office of state, and were generally not allowed to do anything near politics. This was seen as deeply unnatural to Roman culture, and there's a whole load of nuance which intersects with their views on sexuality, but the upshot is that ignoring Roman cultural biases and prejudices of the time would be pushing an agenda into the story. And the racism was another complex topic, but can be boiled down to: non-Romans were seen as inferior. Which isn't the same as modern day racism, but was functionally very similar. Acknowledging them as a reason why Octavian's speech was effective should be as controversial as saying some politicians get a bit racist in modern day speeches.
Frustrating how on your channel app not only do you not have a way to search for this show which isn't readily listed, your 'send feedback' option doesn't work to ask about a search function either, which is unbelievably cowardly. Anyway, love this because Bettany Hughes is awesome, wish your app had a search function so I could actually watch it.
The Smithsonian lost all credibility with that woke SJW document they published.
>women narrator screeching about racism and sexism in ancient rome
Instant dislike
Because she’s too obsessed with her modern intersectional feminist ideology that she boils down a complex political scenario down to racism and sexism. The racism charge makes even less sense. Its just pure ideology. It’s just as goofy as if a fundamentalist Muslim were to blame ancient Rome’s trouble during the 3rd century on their lack of adherence to Islamic morals.
Bettany Hughes, what a woman
Mary Beard is better. This documentary is so biased against Rome and has so many historical inaccuracies.
HBO Rome 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
Rubbish! Utter modern feminist tosh!
This would have been good if the acting wasnt terrible.
That's just terrible compared to HBO Rome
So...this is where modern presidents get their ideas from?
The last woman is a joke
Unusual for its times, and perhaps more modern and progressive in ways than today: "And we all know of Cleopatra's sexual conquests". Aye, times were different, back then, when women were the sexual predators, and men were the prey, and Octavian was playing a Roman Social Justice Warrior, standing up for poor, weak, deluded Marc Antony and almost enslaved Rome against the feminine charms of Cleopatra and the potentially impending tyrannical Alexandrian usurpation of the Roman empire, where the Ptolemies would inherit all of Rome's hard-fought and won earnings and land.
Times have changed, huh? And yet, after so much has changed, so much still remains the time: power, politics, sex, war, peace, tension, scandals, the ancient equivalent of 'Wikileaks' and all other such things seem to be a constant in the sordid world of high politics.
I hope this all was sarcasm.
@@Aristonike9999 sarcasm or not, social commentary is social commentary. And all social commentary drips with the poison of a bitter heart at a bitter world with bitter injustice with man's never ending inhumanity and injustice towards man (or women to women, or men to women, or women to men, what's the difference? It's a post feminist society. All humans are equal, not only in rights, but even also, hand in hand, in responsibility, including culpability in sins. Not sure why that was worth fighting for for feminists, but never mind).
There is nothing new under the sun. The wisest man was right.
Stolen
As a cougar hunter that historian lady is perfect to me.
Racist and sexist? *B-b-b-based?!*
I m straight; Betty is straight(?)
But l experience Betty & wash up on the shore of Sapho lsle?
Princeps Agustus
Bettany Hughes is the best
No.
Why are the romans angry about eygpt queen intercourse life. They are just as out going about it as she was. I don't understand ?
beacuse in the will the eastern territory of rome would be given to Cleopatra and her children
Also because she was a queen and a woman. You might notice every Roman politician was a guy. Culturally, for Rome, a woman holding political power was deeply uncomfortable. Unnatural even. And the idea that she controlled one of their most powerful politicians was something they were culturally primed to believe, as shown by their depictions of most Roman women to get any political power.
Basically there were reasonable pragmatic concerns, but there were also cultural prejudices.
@@callumjohnston858octavian was based