Mark Anthony's Invasion of Atropatene

[Onasander]

Mark Anthony lost a quarter of his men on this failed campaign, but I can find very little about it on the net, no real notice from Azeri sites either.

 

Anyone know what happened? Any Soviet Archeologists who specialized in this and we just don't know about them because of the Cold War freeze on info passing smoothly?

 

More I learn about this, more Anthony's character grows. This and his later Armenian campaign.... just imagine him like Napoleon with his freezing legion miserable, marching back to Alexandria.... to Cleopatra. Rome is on his mind, but absurdly distant.

 

It's pitting him in a new light for me.

[barca]

Atropatene as part of his Parthian Campaign?

 

It seems to me that Anthony would have been better off letting Ventidius handle the entire expedition. Here's a nice summary.

 

 

http://www.historynet.com/mark-antonys-persian-campaign.htm

[Onasander]

I think he would of been better off just paying a token tribute via a subordinate and hiring some easy to subsidize Mercenary Calvary.... mocked up some standards and claim he recovered them until he knocked off Octavian. Be a difficult fraud to dispute. People would ask where the troops are that recovered them, he could just say they are still stationed in a far eastern city.... to the few unfortunate traders and adventurers who set out to capitalize on it, oh well.

 

What's best about looking into this, I got to find out the Roman Republic didn't die off during the well known timeline, that the Romans produced a Charles De Gualle: Quintus Labienus. He ultimately lost in the end, unlike De Gualle (unlike America as a ally in liberation against the foul Vichy, the Parthians were not up to the task of fully liberating Rome).

 

He was the last general of the republic, and refused to stand down long after all others gave up hope. From that point on, his death.... true Rome was dead, and in it's place, a endless tormented reign of Jackasses and Synchophants would torment the Romans like a surreal nightmare until the fall, when history would wipe the tears away.

[indianasmith]

I think Mark Anthony's greatest mistake was imagining he was as good a general as Julius Caesar.

[caldrail]

Marc Antony was always very much a military man. I don't know whether he compared himself to Caesar in the way you suggest - that would suggest some kind of jealousy, and in fact, the two were close political associates. Antony would later lead an army of something like 35 legions against Octavian's 30 or so. Tht's not an easy undertaking at all, requiring a capable leader able to motivate, reward, and feed his troops in the ancioent world. Antony even asked the Senate for permission to sackk a roman town in order to supply/reward them. Whilst he did eventually get ambitious regarding a new Roman/Egyptian dynasty, his campaigning was well organised, and it's noted by many commentators that Caesar was good on the battlefield, but less gifted in other military matters.

[Onasander]

Caesar is overrated, it terms of Generals. If we were to make a top ten thread about greatest threats to Rome, Caesar would be Number 1 for Conquering it, Mark Anthony 2 perhaps, With the other conquerors of Rome like the Visigoths, Turks, Lombards, Goths, Carthage....

 

But Caesar had a major advantage in being that sickly, incestuous enemy from within (he had a dream of sleeping with his mother the night before the rubicon crossing). He violated a deep strata of taboo and the Roman Military System simply wasn't designed to handle it's response. This isn't an example of genius, but of mediocre intelligence in a era that wasn't introspective or geared towards educating itself for or responding to unorthodox threats. Honestly, even the most bumbling of monarchies in Caesar's era would of figured out and eliminated Caesar fast had they been in the Roman Senate's Place.

 

And Caesar's final victory was luck in having a opponent who didn't recognize his main strength was naval. Pompey could of ripped Caesar to bits, forcing his to the hinterlands to try to recruit barbarians from increasingly limited spoils, fortify Rome and major cities, collect taxes to infinity....

 

Caesar was mediocre in a very stupid era, in the land of the blind, a one eyed man is king.

 

He knew how to exploit a taboo, but not in overcoming and replacing it. He started a dynastic monarchy, built himself a temple (which was not the norm), and was stabbed to death rightfully for it in the end. Caesar got flanked by his own stupidity. If your going to take over a political system, and morph it to another ideology.... such as Hitler, Sun Yat-Sen, Obama, George Washington, Napoleon, Robespierre.... you gotta get the underlining strata that survives to come over, switch it's values and outlooks, it's hopes and expectations, or it will backfire.

 

The Roman Republican faction rising up and stabbing his to death is fantastic evidence that Caesar hadn't done a very good job. He was a failure. His system, as it survived, really sucked. It produced some highlights.... Caesar's desire for a greek and latin library post-humorously came to be, so 2000 years ago we got some decent literature out of it. Some architecture, but had the republic continued, it would of produced architecture too, so hard to judge that. We certainly don't look back and marvel at the streamlined genius of his dynastic successors in how they structured the state and administered. When's the last time a politician suggested we should look back to Caesar, Caligula, or Nero for guidance in enacting political reforms? They'd get impeached on the spot.

 

The armies look fancy and tough, metal shoulders and heads, cross dressing skirts.... march up roads, stand in place, hide behind shields and disproportionate amounts of enemies die at a quarter of the effort the Romans did.... admittedly attractive.

 

Yeah.... shiny Hugo Boss troops with respectable kill ratios, and some decent ancient literature. Not like the Republic wouldn't of made literature or more streamlined armies itself had Caesar not conquered the Romans. Not really a big fan of the incestuous old fool, he failed admirably. I doubt his last thoughts was his relief he was passing on a good legacy.

 

Even Augustus marriage laws and emphasis on philosophy are derided today increasingly. His dynasty is about to be absolutely repudiated in the modern world by our own outlook and accepted customs. They have increasingly less and less to do with us, almost as if we're intentionally cleansing them from history.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Onasander

[indianasmith]

I must say, Onasander, that I could not disagree more.

 

The whole dream thing honestly sounds like propaganda made up by Caesar's enemies.  But that's completely irrelevant to the broader question.

 

Gaius Julius Caesar generaled fifty battles in his career.  Despite being drastically outnumbered in most of them, he rarely lost a battle and never

lost a campaign.  Look at the siege of Alesia - Caesar had fewer than sixty thousand men, and was facing fifty thousand Gauls bottled up inside a walled city on top of a mountain, in addition to a relief army that numbered well over 250,000.  He managed to defeat the forces marching to Vercingetorix's rescue and a sally in force from inside the city AT THE SAME TIME.  He was always in the thick of the fighting, and he won the loyalty of his men by sharing their dangers and hardships.  In the Civic Wars, he defeated two of Rome's greatest generals - Pompey at Pharsalus and Titus Labienus at Munda - despite bing outnumbered on both occasions.  He was renowned for being able to move his armies faster and further than anyone else, and still have them ready to fight at the end of the march.

   As a statesman, I think that it's erroneous to say Caesar wanted to transform Rome's government into a monarchy or any other system,  What he wanted to do was return to Rome, serve a third term as Consul after standing for election in the legal, traditional manner, and then lead an army to defeat the Parthians and avenge his old friend Crassus.  The war that followed I lay entirely at the feet of the pigheaded, blind hatred that Cato, Bibulus, and the other members of the bonii (or optimates if you prefer the traditional term) bore for Caesar.  After eight years as governor and a spectacular string of victories that no other Roman could boast of, they were going to have him tried like a common criminal and sent into permanent exile.  Caesar offered a series of compromises, and even Pompey was willing to go along with a couple of them.  But the fanatical ravings of Cato poisoned the well of compromise and forced Caesar into a civil war he never wanted.  However, once the Rubicon was crossed (2065 years ago TODAY!) Caesar was going to make sure that he won the conflict that followed.  After the dust settled, there was no one else left capable of setting the Republic back on its feet, so Caesar took the mantle of dictator to try and fix the glaring flaws that he had tried to deal with as consul and been stymied by again and again.  Even most of his enemies agreed that the reforms he undertook during the last two years of his life, when his control over Rome was absolute, were benevolent and beneficial to the people of Rome and its government.  Caesar's great weakness was his mercy - he pardoned his enemies, restored them to the Senate, and asked them to work with him to rebuild and improve his beloved Rome.  They repaid him with daggers, because they were (and remain) lesser men than he was.

 

Gaius Julius Caesar, IMO, deserves serious consideration as the greatest general of all time.  And his skills as a statesman were so superior that no one could beat him at the polls, or in the love of the common people of Rome.  If someone's greatest political fault is their clemency towards those that they have defeated, is it really their own fault when those same enemies abuse that clemency?  Or is it a mark of how fanatical, hateful, and unforgiving those political foes were?

[Onasander]

It was one of his own generals who recorded the incest dream.... I can't recall his name, but have a thread on him, the general built that same latin-greek library, and stayed neutral in the Octavian-Anthony War, and hosted Augustus little literary and dinner party escapades. The name will pop in my head later.

 

Ceasar wasn't that good, he had a decade to train his men in Gaul to carry heavy loads, while overcomming leg dominance. The main factor that determines the regular movement of infantry unit isn't a stable cadence in march, but evening out the dominant leg to the weaker leg.

 

I did this as a teenager, I had right leg dominance. I took even strides on even railroad tracks, and counted my footsteps in relationship to the evenly spaced wooden poles holding up curbs on the side of the road while running uphill in West Virginia.

 

After I got out of the military, I could barely walk, leg severly atropied (right leg) and two years later I got to the point I could walk about two miles a day.... I adopted the Cynic Lifestyle, and carried heavy weights.... without much cartlidge left in my knee. I walk with a much shorter stride, but can carry weight again.... it's the even stride that matters, speed results from gait.

 

His army did this. He was a decent infantry commander in this regard.

 

However, not great. He usually outnumbered his enemies, especialy the Guals, and fought defensively even on the offense (which I don't disrespect) and relied on allies.

 

He really wasn't at risk in Gaul, and he and he alone started (restarted) the Civil War. He got lucky Pompey fell for it.

 

Yet for his role in destroying the sovereignty of the Roman Senate, starting imperial worship of the emperor, the mass flatters (flatters should be punished), and himself as the start of a dynastic monarchy, he is easily Rome's greatest enemy and Greatest traitor. His death, at the hands of the Senate, says it all. Death to Tyrants.

[caldrail]

 

 

Caesar was mediocre in a very stupid era, in the land of the blind, a one eyed man is king.

Might help if you open your eyes a little. As for not being at risk in Gaul, are you serious? He was sometimes found in the front rank fighting alongside his men. I call that a little risky, never mind the hazards of war lasting for years, involving not only the defeat of an entire region but twice making a landing on foreign shores.

 

 

 

Yet for his role in destroying the sovereignty of the Roman Senate, starting imperial worship of the emperor, the mass flatters (flatters should be punished), and himself as the start of a dynastic monarchy, he is easily Rome's greatest enemy and Greatest traitor. His death, at the hands of the Senate, says it all. Death to Tyrants.

Caesar did not destroy the sovereignty of the Senate. They never had any to begin with. But as it happens, Caesar was careful enough to recognise that the Senate contained the most influential men in society and treated them respectfully even after assuming full ruling power as dictator-for-life. Hardly Rome's greatest enemy, and bear in mind, it was a minority of senators who acted against him, typical of their comnspiratorial behaviour.

[indianasmith]

I seem to recall that Caesar was outnumbered in virtually every battle in Gaul, especially at Alesia.

He didn't start "mass worship of the Emperor."  For one thing, he was not an Emperor and did not envision becoming one.

He asked for the appointment as dictator so he could legally, constitutionally institute the reforms that the Republic desperately needed.

When the cowed Senate offered him the appointment for life, he reluctantly accepted - because he needed longer than a year to fix things

and wanted to make sure his reforms would not be undone the minute he left Rome.

  While I think the point about the Emperors being a monarchy under a different name has some merit, let's be honest: most of that can be laid on the lap of Augustus, not Julius.

  I think Cato, the pigheaded Caesar-phobe, did far more to destroy the Republic than Gaius Julius Caesar did. Why was it so wrong for Rome's greatest general to come home and run for another term as Consul?  If Cato had allowed this, the Republic would have endured and been better for a year of Caesar's guidance.

[Onasander]

Adharbadigan = Azeribajian

http://www.avesta.org/mp/jamaspi.htm

 

This Zoroastrian text of course predates the events discussed in this thread, but adds a important cultural element to any historian writing on this subject in the future.

 

I wasn't even trying to look for it, just decided to explore this text on it's own merits.

 

I was of the impression that the Vedic/Zoroastrian Religions, after they 'diverged' adopted each others Gods as their Demons, to this day.

 

I know vedic(ish) temples pop all the way west to Antioch and Ugarite and Hurrian lands, so it may be profitable to investigate this possibility that Atropatene may of been not so much Zoroastrian but heretical from their perspective. A big time gap however to consider.