Who was in the right?

Who should have won? Who was the better person?

What does it matter who the better person was?
Octavian was the better Emperor.

Was Claudius better than him?

It does actually matter too btw.

no one on Sup Forums wants a histoical discussion?

Sup Forums doesn't know its chang dynasty terracotta statues by heart

MARCUS ANTONIUS BLACKS HIS EYES WITH SOOT LIKE A STREET WALKER, HE STARES INTO THE SUN AND PRAYS TO LIZARDS!

Octavian was infinitely better.
Rome reached its peak during his rule.

illiterate scum
Antony/Augustus for anyone who wants too know.

What do you think specifically made him better/great? I happen to agree btw.

Marc Antony
>too busy chasing Egyptian ass
>fucks with too much faggy eastern shit
>only claim is he was friends with Caesar
>outmaneuvered by a teenager


Octavian/Augustus
>legitimate heir
>pragmatic ruler
>had Agrippa help him get shit done

Augustus was objectively superior

>caring about nonwhite "empires"

Franks > Romans

>Rome peaked during Augustus

Nah my man, Trajan

Augustus got a month named after him.
Antony got an insect.
Month is better.
Augustus wins.

kek i read this in the voice of the news reader from Rome.

true roman bread

depends

marc antony would have created what you call an alexandrian empire in union with cleopatra
and caesarion as heir to Rome.

shit would have been what emporers became, except there would be a legit line of succession from the get go, with the donations of Alexandria

thats victors written history.

marc antony was clearly the favoured diplomat and soldier but their religious values were inherently diferent.

>Rome was not an empire

lol

Well Antony dipped at the final battle and sailed to Egypt so he turned out to be a fucking loser faggot

all those historian polacks moved to /his/ to discuss history now sadly. I remember the time when Sup Forums speaks Latin

Et culturae declines ubique visibilis est. Haud multo ante Graecorum et Latinorum essent pro aliqua necessitate linguarum universitates gradus.