Who should have won? Who was the better person?
Who was in the right?
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.