I've been thinking about Cimon's (tongue-in-cheek?) post about Caesar, had he lived, presenting Caesarion as a king of Rome and his heir (with which I strongly disagree). But it is interesting to think that I don't believe for a sec (thanks, Calputnia!) that Caesar ever lost his Roman-ness or his Roman instincts, or for one nano-second let Cleopatra put one over on him in terms of her ambitions and his ambitions.

But Antony is a different case, what?

Interesting that Antony apparently fell so hard for Cleopatra, and was frustrated in his own Roman ambitions, to the point of the Donations of Alexandria, which is a political blunder of catastrophic proportions and gave Octavian all the ammunition he needed to go to war against Cleopatra. And it's impossible for me to consider this without considering that Antony had, indeed, lost that Roman male thread of identity that Caesar never lost for an instant.

Interesting to compare the two, in terms of their reactions to Cleopatra - whereas Antony DID try to make his sons by her kings. Perhaps this is one of the best places to compare, not only Caesar and Antony, but Caesar's long-term values vs. Antony's.