Talk:Mark Antony

Sources

There are modern sources:

• Tatum, W Jeffrey (December 2023). A noble ruin: Mark Antony, civil war, and the collapse of the Roman republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-769490-9.
• Welch, Kathryn (19 Apr 2023). "Antonius, Marcus (2), Roman consul and triumvir, 83–30 BCE". Oxford Classical Dictionary online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.547. ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5.

Note also re some of the older sources, in Welch's 2023 OCD Online article—

Modern scholars frequently characterize Antonius as a victim, first of Cicero’s rhetoric and then of young Caesar’s attacks on his character and ability. Even more problematic is the tendency of modern biographers to accept Plutarch’s moral agenda uncritically.

The note given at the end of uncritically is—

E.g. Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony: A Biography (London: Croom Helm, 1978); Adrian Goldsworthy, Antony and Cleopatra (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010); and Pat Southern, Mark Antony: A Life (Stroud, UK: Amberley Publishing, 2010).

If someone is wanting to take a stab on this article, I would definitely get Tatum (2023). Some interpretation and conclusions may differ from the more traditional biographies. Ifly6 (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The BMCR review was very positive. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2024/2024.11.51/. Ifly6 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wgronwald6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wgronwald6 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Mark Antony → Marcus AntoniusMarcus Antonius – It seems to be that the common referral to the general is by his non-Anglicized name, Marcus Antonius. The page on WP:COMMONNAME cites Mark Antony as the more commonly used of the two, yet he is mostly referred to in historical contexts, where he is called Marcus Antonius. He is not an enduring figure in popular culture, like Caesar or Cleopatra, and the only people who know who he is are mostly historians. There seems to be inconsistency with many major websites, with some calling him Marcus Antonius and some calling him Mark Antony. Another reason to change the title is that the English corruption of his name is significantly different from his Latin name, and seems to be a sore thumb amongst the pages of other important Roman characters who have had their names Anglicized to a much smaller degree. Semmalnk (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ancient Egypt, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Rome, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This Google ngram indicates that Mark Antony remains by far the more common name. He is very much an enduring figure in English-speaking culture along with his boss Caesar and their mutual inamorata Cleopatra, a major figure in not one but two of Shakespeare's plays, Julius Caesar – getting great lines such as "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them ..." – and of course eponymously in Antony and Cleopatra. Such anglicisation of the names of outstanding Romans is common and we title Wikipedia articles accordingly. Off the top of my head, I can give you Virgil, Pompey, Livy, Sallust, Juvenal, Terence and Ovid, and I'm sure there are many more hiding in plain sight. NebY (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Beyond the common name arguments that NebY gives above, he's also called Mark Antony often in the high quality reliable sources. Eg Tatum's very recent biography, the first scholarly one in a decent while, is entitled A noble ruin: Mark Antony, civil war, and the collapse of the Roman republic (Oxford 2024) and uses "Antony" throughout. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Reliable sources use Antony more often of the two names. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I would support this if it had a serious chance of passing, but I think the consensus is clearly against it. However, you can certainly use "Marcus Antonius" in the text of articles you're writing, since it's technically correct and won't surprise anyone. P Aculeius (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons given by others. I studied history and classics in college and grad school and I can tell you that we all referred to him as "Mark Antony" when speaking in English with each other. It's not "logical" but it's very common and that's what the Wikipedia standard is. --Jfruh (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Of the secondary sources currently listed in the article's bibliography, by my count eight use an anglicised form of the name ("Antony", "Marc Antony", or "Mark Antony") and only one English-language source uses the Latin "Antonius". This agrees with my personal experience that in English Antony is one of those Romans whose name is still conventionally anglicised, and my quick Google Scholar search which shows more results for "Mark Antony" than "Marcus Antonius". Unless there's some pretty compelling evidence that in English his name is now most commonly given in the Latin form I would think this should be kept at Mark Antony. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose "Marcus Antonius" is not COMMONNAME in English.★Trekker (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Mark Antony is the common name per NebY. Векочел (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the English language Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with the above comments. Current name is the common name in English sources. That is the name that would be most searched for here as it was in the Google Scholar search noted above. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Mark Antony is actually his more popular name from what I've seen. I've seen sites like Britannica, World History Encyclopedia, History Channel, British Museum, and other, refer to him by his Anglicized name, and not his original Latin name. Quincy2293 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bust from Egypt

Hello, please elaborate on your revert. As far as I know, there are no reliably identified surviving sculptures of Mark Antony, so coin likeness is the most reliable evidence. If they referred to that Flavian-era bust, it is even more baseless, and it almost certainly does not depict him, yet it is still in the article. If the issue was merely with the phrasing, I think we could replace "perhaps" with "possibly" instead of reverting the entire edit. Askelladd (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

We really do need stronger grounds for adding that image than an old wishful identification that's now rejected, even with a description that said "a bust that was once claimed to be of Augustus and then of Antony but is no longer believed to be of either"; a Commons description taken from Flickr is not adequate. NebY (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Most Roman busts rely on tentative identifications, as definitive proof is rare. The citation says "now questioned", not "rejected". The quote actually acknowledges the likeness to coins (which are authentic), while dismissing it based on other sculptures (which are themselves just wishful identifications). That said, I won't insist on adding it. I agree there is a 50% chance at most that it actually depicts him. Askelladd (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. If you do wish to discuss it further, you could open a discussion on the article talk page (perhaps copying this discussion to introduce it). Other editors might agree or disagree with either of us. Obviously I think they'd agree with me, but it's always good to let other editors participate in a content discussion, and let later editors see how the page reached whatever state it might be in. NebY (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. I am curious now if there are actually any reliable sculptures of Mark Antony that I haven't heard of. Askelladd (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify for other editors: this relates to a basanite bust now in the Bankes collection at Kingston Lacy, a National Trust property.

The file description on Commons is from Flickr. The National Trust description reads well but is unsigned; it does cite several references from 1809 to 2018, but not as references for particular parts of the description. NebY (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)