Antony and Cleopatra (Masters of Rome, #7) by Colleen McCullough

Antony and Cleopatra (Masters of Rome, #7) Reviews

• 
  Charlotte May

  So, this was a good book. Well researched, intricate, detailed and vivid...it was almost too much so. There was so much information and history to absorb that there wasn't an exciting story to capture or follow.
  I love Ancient Rome, and I love Augustus - so anything centered around this time period appeals to me, but at nearly 600 hundred pages, there was just so much excess information, that while relevant to the time, was just not fun to read. It ended up reading more like a text book than a novel, which I am sad to say, but there it is.
  If you've got a lot of time on your hands, and love in depth, detailed histories then this is for you. If you want a quick, snappy, exciting historical drama - you may, like me, have to skim quite a bit.
• 
  Ahmad Sharabiani

  Antony and Cleopatra (Masters of Rome, #7), Colleen McCullough (1937)
  Antony and Cleopatra is the seventh and purposely last novel in Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series, published in 2007. McCullough continues her Masters of Rome series with the seventh and final installment, Antony and Cleopatra. The novel spans the years 41 BC to 27 BC, from the aftermath of the Battle of Philippi and the suicide of Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus until the downfall of the second triumvirate, the final war of the Roman Republic and the renaming of Octavian to Augustus in 27 BC. The novel, which was McCullough's last in the series, focuses mainly on the famous love story between Mark Antony, victor at Philippi, and queen Cleopatra, earlier the lover of Julius Caesar.
  Notable historical figures: Octavian (Gaius Julius Caesar, later called Augustus), adoptive son of Julius Caesar; Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius), Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Cleopatra, Caesarion, son of Cleopatra, Octavia Minor, sister of Octavianus; Livia Drusilla, wife of Octavianus; Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa; Publius Ventidius Bassus; Sextus Pompeius Magnus Pius; Herod; Titus Pomponius Atticus; Quintus Dellius; Publius Canidius Crassus; Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus; Quintus Salvidienus Rufus; Tiberius Nero; and Maecenas.
  تاریخ نخستین خوانش: بیست و چهارم سپتامبر سال 2014 میلادی
  عنوان: کلئوپاترا و آنتونی؛ اثر: کالین مک کالو؛ ترجمه: هادی عادلپور؛ مشخصات نشر: تهران، سمیر، 1392، در 527 ص، شابک: 9789642201068؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان استرالیایی، قرن 20 م
  ا. شربیانی
• 
  Kandice

  January 2015 -
  McCullough's writing slays me because it's so smart. I feel smarter after devouring one of her novels. She researches EVERYTHING so every word and description feels spot on.
  
  I always fall deeply into McCullough's books. Her writing style is so accessible, that even when the story is mired in history, geography, Latin, unfamiliar words, hard to remember names...I still live it as I read!
  
  I love the story of A&C and have read many versions. The uber-romantic ones appealed to me when I was younger (of course), but now that I have "matured" McCullough's version seems so much more realistic. Antony was a boor. By all accounts, he was handsome, charming, and strong, but at the same time, he was a womanizer, drank to excess, and suffered feelings of inadequacy. These are the same faults that kept Gaius Julius Caesar from naming him his successor. This was a blow from which Antony never recovered.
  
  Cleopatra, except in the most romantic versions of her life, was not a great beauty. Her appeal lay in her intelligence, reality, and speaking voice. There is no doubt she was an effective ruler. Caesar helped her develop her leadership skills after securing her throne. I find it believable that they shared a true love. Yes, the relationship was mutually beneficial, but only love would account for the longevity of their time as a couple. Antony arrives on the scene when she is already firmly ensconced in her reign. Caesar not only paves the way for Cleopatra's life but, in essence, paved the way to her for Antony.
  
  Cleopatra's wealth was a great way for Antony to further his campaign. He didn't seek her out for an affair of the heart. She was a woman. He liked women. She needed a "godlike" man to father her children. They were infinitely useful to one another. I'm sure they developed real feelings, especially as their children were born, but theirs was a relationship of convenience. Out of sight, out of mind, seemed to be their approach to separations. It was perfectly acceptable and utterly realistic.
  
  As she always does, McCullough brought Egypt and Rome to life for me. Each place Antony or Octavian visited felt very tangible, real, right here, right now, not centuries past. Politics are always the most intriguing aspects of any book on ancient civilization. Here, although the title is Antony and Cleopatra, we learn as much about Octavian's politics and motivations as theirs. No author will make me hate him less, but McC lets me understand him at least.
  
  It's hard to read the end of any story about these doomed lovers, but here it's told in a tasteful, understandable way. We expect it, yes, but we can also understand it. Not just for the cruel deaths they suffer, but for the political maneuvering that made their deaths inevitable and unavoidable.
• 
  Elaine

  I have been waiting for this book since I finished McCullough's previous book from this august series (no pun intended)The October Horse. It has been years. So my expectations were high, but the actual experience was not.
  
  Have I changed in my reading tastes or was this book labored? I slogged through endless lists of names and details that were sometimes only tangential to the plot. I suppose that is part of the author's gift, but the actual historical events were so exciting I was impatient to see what happened next, even though I knew that these two lovers would die in defeat.
  
  I did love, however, the characters McCullough drew of the three main people of the story: Octavian, Marcus Antonius, and Cleopatra. Their egos,drive for power, and their devious strategies that caused them to be trapped or to triumph were fascinating. I found myself mentally screaming at Cleopatra that if she didn't back off her precious son would die. But did she listen to me? No more than she did to anybody else! So the fated Ceasarion met his inevitable death. And Caesar Augustus, who I've never liked, will remain on my shit list for all time.
• 
  Sud666

  At the conclusion of "The October Horse" (Book #6 in the Masters of Rome series), Colleen McCullough stated that it was the last book detailing the fall of the Roman Republic. She lied. Apparently, there is one more book.
  
  Starting in 41 B.C. it details the conflict that began brewing in the previous book- the conflict between Octavian and Antony. Antony had become Triumvir in the East and Octavian rules the West. Their political conflict continues as the Senate seems divided between the two factions. The rest of the story unfolds as Octavian begins to turn the Romans against Antony and his rule of the East. Antony has become far too intertwined with Cleopatra of Egypt, and worse for Octavian, her son Caesarion, natural son of Julius Caesar.
  
  As much as the book is about the main conflict between Octavian and Antony, it is also the story of two powerful, but very different women- Cleopatra of Egypt and Livia Drusilla, wife of Octavian. It is an interesting look at the differences between an Egyptian autocrat and a Roman arch-manipulator. Both were very intriguing to read about.
  
  I think this, rightfully, should be the last book. Since it is the fall of the Republic. With the ascension of Octavian into Caesar Augustus, the fall is complete. A wonderful historical fiction series that is a welcome read for anyone looking for a great story set during the dying days of the Roman Republic.
• 
  Campbell

  And done. What a series! What a ride! Entertaining and educational in equal measure, the depth of scholarship it took to write these seven, massive, books frankly boggles the mind. A quite astonishing piece of work and one that I will revisit again and again in years to come. An incredible achievement.
  
  Now what?
  
  Edit to answer: Les Miserables!
• 
  Brian

  By itself it is a very good book, but because to is in the Masters of Rome series, it can only recive 4 stars. It would have been five stars, except the Mrs. McCullough did not put an explanation at the conclusion of the novel like she normally has in the rest of the series. It may seem trival but I thought it was very important to these books.
• 
  Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer

  Effectively the sequel to the “Masters of Rome” series – following on immediately after the series ends and written in an almost identical style (although with few maps, very few drawings of characters and a very short glossary).
  
  The story concentrates on Antony/Cleopatra and Caesarion (Cleopatra’s son by Caesar and his spitting image) and equally on Octavian. As usual with McCullough heavy emphasis is given to the role of women – not just Cleopatra (who is portrayed as desperately ambitious to use the stumbling and increasingly confused Antony make Caesarion King of Rome in excess of his own wishes), but Octavian’s sister and Antony’s wife Octavia and Octavian’s third wife Livia Drussila – and on the sheer force of personality of Caesar (as seen is his chosen and true heirs Octavian and Caesarion).
  
  Another excellent book in this extended series, particularly as always insightful as to the motivations, fears and plans of the main characters.
  
• 
  Jim

  This is actually a bit of a letdown from the previous six books. My understanding is that McCullough intended the series to end with The October Horse, and it shows. Although "Antony and Cleopatra" is sprawling with history and is quite entertaining, it does feel more obligatory and less passionate than its predecessors, which felt more like a single, massive tale.
  
  Brief recap: The October Horse ends with Julius Caesar assassinated and many of the conspirators dead, including Brutus and Cassius. Marcus Antonius (Caesar's cousin) and Octavian (Caesar's grand-nephew and adopted heir) form two-thirds of Rome's Second Trimverate, along with the largely irrelevant Lepidus. Antony and Octavian have essentially carved up the Mediterranean world, with Antony ruling the East like an Alexander, and the still-too-young-for-the-Senate Octavian left to deal with the mess that is Rome proper. Antony seems to have the better of the deal, but his oversized passions and appetites catch up with him as he ages. Octavian, meanwhile, is the underdog with youth, patience, subtlety, and a core of supremely able allies to guide him toward the final confrontation.
  
  Each has his setbacks and triumphs, and the Triumvirs cooperate and undermine each other as they see fit. Antony's tendency to live in the present puts him at the disadvantage to Octavian, who plans years ahead. The real challenge in this book is that McCullough seems to have little affection for Antony, magnifying his flaws to create a deeply unsympathetic portrait of the man. Granted, Antony didn't fare much better in CAESAR and The October horse, where his earlier antics were at least somewhat tempered by the lower body count and youthful, er, charm of the outlandish younger man. The bitterness and self-doubt of the co-ruler of the world, after Caesar's near-complete snubbing in his will in favor of the too-young, asthmatic Octavian, results in a horrific death toll in battlegrounds throughout the East.
  
  Octavian, likewise, isn't a deeply sympathetic character, but at least the qualities that lead him to become the architect of Imperial Rome are showcased believably, and however insidious some of Octavian's manipulations are, one is left at the end of the book with the sense that Rome is far safer in his hands than in Antony's, which was certainly true. Even before Caesar ditched the presumed heir, Antony had committed massacres, insurrections, and instabilities inside Rome, disqualifying him in Caesar's eyes from the right to rule.
  
  Cleopatra, meanwhile, who was fairly sympathetic when connected with Julius Caesar, becomes in many ways everything Octavian's propagandists paint her to be: a deadly threat to Rome. Far from the epic love stories elsewhere, this Cleopatra discovers her love for Antony only near the end of her life; prior to that she is a calculating politician, using Antony to her ends. Though one gets the sense that the two richly deserve each other, even if the rest of the world doesn't deserve them.
  
  As in the other books, McCullough makes the ancient world her canvas, including further Spain and Gaul in the West and the farthest reaches of the East. You feel the scope and the limits of Roman influence. The challenges of ruling Rome are also depicted from a variety of angles: piracy and grain prices, ambitions of those who see the vulnerabilities of the still-young, still unproven Octavian, jealousies and intrigues of the Noble Families, and living up to the Divine image and practical expectations of Caesar when others can carry it off with so much less effort. For centuries Romans had a cursus honorum, the course of honor, which decreed at what age a proper Roman politician rose to prominence. The last decades of the Republic saw many breaches of this - from the seven consulships of Marius to the Dictatorship of Sulla, Pompey's early-twenties generalships, the too-young consulship of Young Marius and Pompey, the first Triumverate, and on and on. By the time Octavian grabbed the brass ring at age 18, the Usual was no longer so common. Even so, Octavian revolutionized Roman politics, and this book gives a good feel for how he went about it - and it's often anything but pretty.
  
  That's the irony of this book. The man who ushered in the decades of Pax Romana had to change his name to begin the new era for a changed Rome. The events in this book walk us through the last nails in the coffin of the Roman Republic.
• 
  Olethros

  -Remate a la serie y a la República de Roma, de paso.-
  
  Género. Novela Histórica.
  
  Lo que nos cuenta. Con la peculiar victoria en la batalla de Filipos se ha derrotado a los asesinos de César, junto a buena parte de sus simpatizantes, y tras casi sesenta años de guerra civil en Roma, en distintos formatos y fases, se busca la paz dividiendo el control de sus territorios entre Octavio y Marco Antonio, más otra zona para Lépido. Pero tampoco así se logrará que la guerra no siga castigando las arcas y la sociedad de Roma. Séptimo y último libro de la saga Señores de Roma.
  
  ¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
  
  
  http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com....
• 
  Fonch

  Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if you'll give me time to write this review for the haste of time, and for my usual vagrancy. This novel I'm going to comment on is very special for a number of reasons. Among them that from here my criticisms were interrupted, and I found it very difficult to resume them again, even though some of the books read deserved them very much. I'll try to alleviate this defect. This novel is also hugely interesting because it puts an end to the so-called Amos saga of Rome. The successful heptalogy, ranging from the civil wars of Mario and Sila, and which count the end of the Roman Republic, and the advent of the empire. It wasn't easy to finish such an ambitious project in an airy way. Colleen McCullough he hem (who rests in peace) seemed to want to end the battle of Philippi from 42 a.c. which actually means the death of the Roman Republic itself from 42 a.c. to 30 a.c. only one question must be decided who will rule the Empire Mark Antony, or Octavian? Depending on who won the empire it would be one way, or another depending on the winner's personality.
  In my opinion I believe that Colleen McCullough has written quite possibly, and that I am forgiven by fans of fiction of the ancient world, or compulsive consumers like me of peplums, and Sword and Sandals,I may not have written the best novel set in the ancient world, but certainly if the best saga dedicated to Rome. So complete, that if you want to know the end of the Republic, and you don't want to read historians (it does wrong, but many of them a humble servant we begin to know history thanks to the historical novel), or you are lazy what you have to do is read your mythical heptalogy of the gods of Rome
  https://www.goodreads.com/series/4371... Certainly that this saga is not without flaws, as the best book is the first
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., that some novels are more interesting than others, Colleen McCullough's adheretion to Ayn Rand's philosophical theories
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... that so much damage has done to gender, and that lead us to a presentist, deterministic view of history and that has been as negative to me as the Marxist School, and other historiographical currents that have tried to ideologue history, and use it for, or for the benefit of the ideological theory we support. Ciertyo, unlike Marxism, Ayn Rand's philosophical theories objectivism has not been based on millions of corpses, nor have they been based on a polycysque, criminal state that destroys souls and bodies, but as I have always said much eye. That my enemy's enemy is not always my friend. This is very hard to say, because many Catholic writers are a fan of Ayn Rand's objectivism, and are admirers of his theories. But these in my view are incompatible with Catholicism, and I see many similarities to the Fabian socialism of H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Progressive view of history with undeniable faith in progress, and rejection of previous periods each subsequent period is better than the previous one, and previous times are eras of darkness and persecution. Undeniable faith in science and progress something that is shared with science fiction writer Isaac Asimov
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Promoting nihilistic individualism. Selling selfishness as a virtue the same as atheist scientist Richard Dawkins
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... There is no difference with Jean Paul Sartre's thesis that "Hell arethe others"
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Apart we must also note Ayn Rand's hatred for Christian writers such as C.S. Lewis
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... There is also a kind of secular predestination in which an elite, or group of elelected, or geniuses are blessed with all the gifts given by God, and it is the Cretan masses, and ignorant who question them, and those who seek to destroy them, and that we must let them enlighten us, govern us, and do what they want. It's a kind of snobism and has brought dire consequences because almost every secret order from Freemasonry to the Rosacruces is based on this. In that there are better people than the commons of mortals, and they are entitled to everything. Then we see how their adherents describe their promen, or models, and we realize they're psychopaths. They are not normal people who have no empathy, nor do they be moved by a generous sense of service from the rules. The rules are made for the crackling masses not for Ayn Rand's promen. Other than that I don't think this ideology is compatible with conservatism, or traditionalism. Ayn Rand is a devisable model. It's not like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Hilaire Belloc or Russell Kirk
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Consider religion we see that it is an atheical philosophy. We have seen it in the writings of James Clavell
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... author who in his novels has a great hatred for Catholicism, and also has heroes of the most amoral, and believes what we have said an indefinite and infinite progress. In other cases he tries to appropriate Christianity to his advantage as Taylor Caldwell tries in his novels
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Not to mention that it is a politically correct, deterministic ideology, which is always with the winning party. They always base everything not on justice, but on fashions, what's in vogue, and what's practical. The ideology that succeeds is always the best, they have never possessed any kind of Spirit, nor of magnanimity for a cause that was per maybe better, but was defeated. This is unfortunately a sin that greatly queers the guild of historians. Someone wins because he was meant to, and he could see it coming. Regardless of the lucky factor, not even the human factor. Reading an objectivist bias novel is like reading Tolstoy the forces of history will end up giving me victory, like Kutuzov in"War and Peace." Something that goes against the Council of Trent and free will. Not to mention the multitude of anachronisms and historical mistakes of his novels. Something that doesn't happen with Collen McCullough, everything is said in her favor. But many times, as in Shogun
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... are used fictitious names for existing historical characters. In some cases historical characters are made to act under the collusion of these ideologists, and if we do not like the story as happened we manipulate it, or invent it. That's why I would recommend AynRand's followers not to write historical novels dedicated to fantasy, allegories, or science fiction novels. Not to mention that they use presentisms and discuss topics, and issues that do not appear in the context of the time in which they write. This can lead to several things, that audiences who do not communite with these theories end up finding historical characters promen of objectivism repulsive and secretly side with their adversaries. In Collen McCullough's novel"Dr. Christian's Passion" "A Creed for the Third Millennium", the idea is to create a new Messiah to give hope to a demoralized humanity at the beginning of a calamitous 21st century. It fails, but the protagonist Dr. Christian having succeeded the crazy casting that they proposed in this novel would have resulted in the advent of the antichrist, if I write on this subject I will take into account this that I have written. Not only does it happen with an objectivist Christ, it also happens with the Apostles Paul, and with the evangelist Luke in Taylor Caldwell's novels. I in the book"Cesar"
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... a bit like the U.S. Olympic basketball without hesitation of the jersey. Not that he was a gifted kid like Orson Scott Card's novels, though there's also some of that. Many of the protagonists are gifted and become the pinnacle of perfection, which surely may have been, possibly, but I doubt that all the characters in the story who have triumphed are like this. Disgustingly perfect without weaknesses, and geniuses 24 hours a day. I suppose my judgments would make me the prototype of the villains of Ayn Rand's objectivistic novels (I think of the envious art critic who is a toothache for Roark who was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright in the"Spring",
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... and would surely enlist a political creed that I don't have. Returning to Collen McCullough's Caesar (it is curious that the novel I like the least of his heptalogy of Rome is the seemingly most interesting, where the conquest of gauls and victory in the civil war against Pompey is told). One thinks seriously and continues to agree with what G.K. Chesterton says, when his rival George Bernard Shaw published his play about Caesar. G.K. Chesterton associated Caesar with the antichrist. Unlike the interesting novelist and philosopher José Ramón Ayllón
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Who in his magnificent novel"Dear Brutus"
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... epistolar in which Caesar writes affectionate epistles to his adopted son Brutus, who will end up murdering him and consider Caesar to be an enemy of atheism embodied by Titus Caro Lucretio, Democritus and Carneaces. However, the beauty of this work is superior to Marguerite Yourcenar's"Memories of Hadrian"
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
  For my admired Juan Manuel de Prada
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Catilina was a victim of Cicero, who eager for prominence decided to invent a conspiracy, so that his gray consulate would go unnoticed. In his precious trilogy Cicero Robert Harris presents Cicero, as a hero and Crassus and above all Caesar as the villains of fiction (one thing must be admitted and Caesar's companies left much to be desired, and quite possibly encouraged by attacks on the Roman Republic)
  https://www.goodreads.com/series/5134...
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... It is very interesting in my opinion to compare this trilogy with the heptalogy of Colleen McCullough and to see the events from the point of view of Caesar's enemies. In that same line is Morgan Llywelyn's novel which I will soon comment on"Druids" where Caesar's figure is viewed in a negative way, and you can see from the point of view of the Gauls
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... god god wants this could be my next criticism, and in a similar vein we find the novels of C.S. Lewis' friend Naomi Mitchison
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (his writings near eugenics do not receive my approval, but my most resounding rejection). A novel I didn't like at all, but who am I to judge? "TheDruid of Caesar"by Claude Cueni
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
  To take on the losers' side too, and more bearing in mind that I did not expect anyone to write as well as Colleen McCullough, and more taking into account, without the objecttivist opinions of the author, that thank God in the last novels have less strength, and unlike other objectivists only affects the characters does not contaminate the plot or the plot of Colleen McCullough's heptalogy. In fact, Colleen McCullough in my opinion would deserve to move on to the history of literature, or have an altar on Mount Parnassus, only for this heptalogy, which to me is infinitely superior to her very priced novel"The Hawthorn Bird" (rather spins)
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3.... I am a great lover of the romantic genre, and although it is n guilty pleasure and I ask forgiveness of the erotic novel, perhaps because I sought to find a woman I loves. Unfortunately my true love has neither appeared, nor do I think I will expect it. Yes, certainly these last words do not leave me in a good place, but as the divine Oscar Wilde
  https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... the Catholic Church would say is for sinners that is, 'for worldly people, and sinners like me. St. Peter told Jesu Christ very clearly,"What were they going to go? he has words of eternal life"when my beloved Chesty converted to Catholicism he said that one of the reasons for his conversion was for them to absolve of their sins, and few have sinned more than who writes this review. But let's stop talking about me we were talking about the"Hawthorn Bird" to me seems to have little interest (it will certainly be magnificently well written), but seeing a priest who betrays the vow of celibacy is unacceptable to me. I want my priests to be the best, and purest possible, to take care of their sheep, and on the day of judgment they may be proud before God that they may have brought their mission to fruition. That's why I want my priests to be as pure as possible. No one forces you to be a priest, but if you are with all the consequences, if chastity is exhorted some good reason there will be for it. That's why Father Ralph doesn't represent me.
  (continues)
• 
  Pedro

  Vá, estou a ser generoso, não são bem cinco estrelas, mas takvez quatro. E meia. Não importa, até o pior livro desta série é excelente e só demorei meses a terminá-lo porque o tempo de leitura era zero, cada vez que pegava no livro até o coração me batia mais depressa!
  
  Este é o livro mais pequeno de toda a série, e percebe-se porquê: não é por se passar durante menos anos, nem sequer porque há menos para contar, mas sobretudo porque se concentra em apenas três personagens: Cleópatra, Marco António e Octaviano. Ao contrário dos outros livros, que são imensamente completos e detalham a vida de Roma envolvendo todos os restantes políticos da época, este apenas em uma ou duas ocasiões foge destas três personagens principais.
  Mas que personagens! Implacáveis, sedentos de poder, não sei como é possível ficar indiferente às suas batalhas. São os três quase vilões, com motivações pouco altruístas, ao contrário do herói Júlio César que aqui foi pintado, portanto é difícil torcer por quem quer que seja. Mas a luta pelo poder faz-nos vibrar, ansiando pelo vencedor (que nós sabemos quem é, apenas não sabemos como o será).
  
  O detalhe histórico parece continuar perfeito, apesar de parecer que a escritora se deu a algumas liberdades, sem no entanto desvirtuar a história real (a batalha de Actium, por exemplo). Infelizmente, não existe uma nota final a explicar as suas escolhas, e isso é talvez o ponto mais negativo deste livro.
  
  Chego assim ao fim daquela que é talvez a minha série de livros preferida. Foram anos de leitura, e anos à procura dos livros (hoje completamente extintos das livrarias portuguesas, desprezados pelas editoras após o fecho da Difel). O detalhe histórico impossível de encontrar em qualquer outro livro histórico, a emoção da leitura, a genialidade com que McCullough deu vida a estas personagens intemporais, fizeram desta grande grande leitura uma das maiores experiências literárias da minha vida. Que pena, que pena mesmo, que esta grande senhora não tenha escrito centenas de romances históricos sobre todas as épocas!
• 
  Tom Landry

  This was actually a pretty good book I almost never finished. The problem I had with it was that when she was describing the overview of what was going on at the time there were so many locations and people I could not keep track of what was going on and became a bit frustrated. I needed a map and a character log or something. She also tended to use words I have never heard of (they call them $100 words or something like that) but I was able to figure out what she was talking about. After about 20 pages I put the book down and decided not to read it. But then my desire to learn the story got the better of me so I started over and I'm glad I did. Once I got into the story and it focused on the key characters I really started to enjoy the book. at times she would give broad descriptions of what was happening and I still had trouble keeping everything straight but that didn't hurt the core story. Once I got into the book I had a hard time putting it down. I really started to care about the characters and wanted to find out what happened next. In the end I was left very satisfied with this book and I think anyone interested in this subject would enjoy reading it.
• 
  Whitney

  Let me start by saying that I am normally not a fan of historical fiction; but this book may have just changed my mind. It was fantastic. Intelligently written and precise; I continuously marvelled how McCullough was able to keep all of the names and places of Ancient Greece, Italy and Egypt straight. I mean, as the reader, I found it difficult so I can only imagine what trying to write it must have been like. I would have liked an epilogue describing her research; I’m curious how much of the story is fiction versus fact. Obviously, the major events would be facts, but I wonder at the individual personalities of all the characters. Was this the true depiction of Antony and Cleopatra?
  
  One of the things I love about this story is that there are no inherently good or inherently evil characters; they all act the way real people act. Sometimes they do good things and act generously, while other times they act greedy and selfish. The characters are very conflicted and complex. Tentatively, you could cast Cleopatra and Antony in the shadow of the villain. It’s not often that stories allow the perception of the “villain” (I am using the word loosely in this case), but it definitely adds depth. This is because, we can see that from their perspective, their actions are not “evil.”
  
  I had bipolar feelings towards the characters as the story progressed. At times, I liked and respected them and at others I wanted nothing short of their humiliation and murder. Initially, I preferred Antony over Octavinus, but eventually it switched and I was better able to understand Octavinus’ plight over Antony’s. For me, I think that critical moment occurred when he took Dellius’ word (without proof) that he had been betrayed by someone close to him. In my mind, that was the turning point of the odds. Initially, the entire power struggle favoured Antony over Octavinus. When this event occurred, I think the odds shifted and he started crashing down from his high. He did have one chance to recover, but ultimately, he blew it. After his victory, when he has option of donating his winnings to Rome and going on a victory tour of sorts which would make the people of Rome rejoice in him. Unfortunately, thanks to Cleopatra, he misses his opportunity and his Roman reputation suffers.
  
  One of my two favourite characters is Caesarian. He seemed to have honour in a way the others did not. He longed for justice, fairness, and equality. In this way, him and Octavinus are alike. Similar to Octavinus, but there is one key difference. Octavinus is a prude, rigid, and unforgiving. Look at what he did to his own mother just for simply having an affair? Deep down, he’s a snob. I think it’s his lack of forgiveness that irks me most. He expects everyone else to perfect and act perfectly while at the same time, he wants everyone else to accept his own imperfections like his asthma and weak build and whatnot. I didn’t realize it at first, but I think he has a very hypocritical attitude. I prefer Ceasarian because he bases his action off the facts. He doesn’t care about his own reputation or about expanding an empire. He just wants to govern Ancient Egypt to the best of his ability and solve problems that his predecessors struggled with. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by tunnel-visioned people. His mother, Cleopatra for one, cannot see anything other than her opinion that Ceasarian should rule the world. She is so oblivious that she cannot even see that it is not something that he even wants for himself. As a result, Ceasarian has many great ideas, but there is no one there to listen to them. One especially important detail about Ceasarian is how he treated Cleopatra when she returned to Alexandra with a Roman army in pursuit. Even though he was opposed to her battle in the first place, he stood by her side even though he had opportunity to turn them away or flee himself. His final actions even, were committed in attempt to protect his mother who could not care about anything beyond her own desire. Ultimately, she is the one who caused Ceasarian’s demise even though she thought her whole mission in life was to protect him. By shielding him from the ways of the world and acting without him, she essentially condemned everyone around her. I wanted to like her character, I really did; but I could not respect her inability to be rational and concede that sometimes others know better than you.
  
  My other favourite character is Marcus Agrippa. I love his selflessness. He is completely and utterly loyal to Octavinus. He cannot be bought or bribed. His loyal, bravery, and determination is unwavering. He does not care what others think of him, being lowly born with no noble blood, he is content with just being Cesar’s friend. He is the ace that Octavinus always has in his back pocket when he can count on no one else (save for Livia Drusilla). Without Agrippa, I think the story would have turned out much differently. Throughout the story, many people would say that Octavinus has the mind of Julius Cesar, but I disagree. Not to say that he isn’t intelligent, for he definitely is. In my opinion, he is a top-notch politician, but no more than that. It is Agrippa’s patience, planning, military genius and council that makes up for everything he lacks. Together, they are the mind of Cesar, but alone they are not but ordinarily talented men in their own fields.
  I do, however, think that Ceasarian could have possibly had the mind of his father. We catch glimpses of how truly brilliant he is, but unfortunately, we do not for sure by the end of the story. Everything he accomplishes, he does so alone. There is no one he can rely on; especially not his mother. The only things that hinder Ceasarian is his inexperience and naivety. However, had he been given a full life, I think that he would be a genius.
  
  And I suppose that I should make some sort of comment on Cleopatra. The Queen of Beasts, as Rome refers to her. For her time, she is extraordinary. Back then, women were not considered men’s equal and were certainly not treated with respect. Cleopatra proves that she can do everything a man can do; and has ruthless ambitions that make surrounding men look like prancing little princesses. She will stop at nothing to get what she wants. She is very intelligent, but I think her flaw is her inability to see things the way they truly are. It is not a woman’s world, and while she considers herself their equal, they most certainly do not. By flaunting her power in their face she only serves to antagonize and fracture alliances and friendships. Had she been more subtle in her manipulations, she have had more success. She was also blinded by the love she had for Julius Cesar. He may have loved her, but even in the end he loved Rome more. I think it says a lot that he did not even name is own biological son (whom he loved) to be his heir. And how he also betrayed the secret location of all of Egypt’s treasure to Rome. Yet, Cleopatra deifies him like any other common woman. In her eyes, he is a god and can do no wrong. She failed to recognize that his ambitions were very different from hers; and he hardly even confided in her. In this, Julius Cesar and Ceasarian are very much alike. They do their own scheming in their heads because Cleopatra is a bully.
  
  Fantastic novel, I think that I will be looking into what other novels McCoullough has to offer, as this one did not disappoint. I would love to read an equally thrilling tale about another hero like Spartacus or Achilles written by her.
• 
  Deborah Pickstone

  I am left with the impression that CMc didn't much like Cleopatra. Octavian/Caesar Divis/Augustus comes across more positively than I have seen him written before and a close look at Agrippa was most interesting.
  
  Was Marcus Antonius a hero or an anti-hero? Maybe both. Poor Antonius, certainly he was flawed in his lack of self-discipline at inconvenient moments and his impulsiveness. In this story of super-human characters he functions as Everyman.
  
  The unknown fate of Caesarion continues to fascinate modern fiction writers who usually opt for his survival even though he disappeared from the record. It's a bit like the sons of Edward IV of England - did he or didn't he escape? Not only is the mystery a fascinator but, I suspect, Caesarion's reputed close similarity in face and nature to Julius Divus, his father, leads us to want him to have survived; making Caesar, a charismatic character even at this historical distance, live 'forever'. Plus, he was so young.
  
  I really missed the usual Author's Note from Ms McCullough. I have to say the last 2 of this series were.....less, somehow than the first five. And this last more so than the penultimate - as if her heart wasn't in it, maybe? The sixth volume picked up beautifully after a shaky start but there was an air of disengagement through much (not all) of this last book.
  
  Well, I have so enjoyed this series that I dismissed as unreadable when the first 2 books were published! I would say more fool me but it simply meant that I saved myself up a treat for now. That I went back to them is thanks to the reviews on GR that encouraged me to try again. One of the reasons I write reviews - apart from my own opinionated nature!
• 
  Alicia Huxtable

  Colleen McCullough is a genius. She has definately done the research that a book like this needs. The only thing that tripped me up, were the names. But I really did enjoy this story
• 
  Manu

  The seventh book of the Masters of Rome series. Unfortunately, I skipped the three before this (just couldn't find them at my regular places!) but the book thankfully works stand alone too.
  
  This book marks the transition of Rome from a republic to an empire with the principal character, despite the book title, being Octavian, heir to Caesar's name and fortune, over the other hopeful Mark Antony.
  
  The book spans the period from 41-27 BC, beginning with the aftermath of the Battle of Philippi and the formation of the second triumvirate with Antony, Octavian and Lepidus. The uneasy alliance between Mark Antony and Octavian is short-lived as both long to be the sole power in Rome.
  
  Antony soon falls in love with Cleopatra, perhaps more because of the power and wealth she commands than her beauty, which is practically non existent in this version. Her dreams for her son fathered by Caesar - Caesarion override everything else and most of the book has Antony as a mere means to Cleopatra's desire of Caesarion becoming the ruler of the world. Ceasarion not just bears a striking resemblance to his father, but is also shown as his father's equal in mental prowess, but is a far more easily contented soul.
  
  Standing against her is Octavian, portrayed as an astute, calculating individual supported in battle by his best friend Marcus Agrippa and off the field by his devoted wife Livia Drusilla. Ruthless as a description wouldn't be off the mark.
  
  The book follows the intrigue between these characters though the author has populated the book with a host of strong and reasonably well established secondary characters.
  
  The pace ensures that you don't lose interest despite a few meandering interludes. Though the characterisation of Cleopatra, Antony and Octavian might seem biased and polarised, they appear to be well researched. The attention to detail is worth a mention too. In essence, quite a good read, especially if you're a history buff.
• 
  Carolyne

  First let me say, I own all the books in this series and excluding "The October Horse" have read the first five several times. And enjoyed them all immensely. I am sure this might be a good book if it might be a stand alone. But unfortunately, it is the last book in a series which, over the course of several books, developed characters I cared deeply. We grow up with Caesar, and with Sulla, Marius, Servillia, Marcus Brutus, Aurelia; We get to know them, even though we first meet them as adults. And we do this over several books.
  
  However, in those books, Anthony is an unlikeable buffoon. No redeeming qualities. We spend half a book with Cleopatra and sorta get to know Octavian. Now, I am supposed to read a whole book about a brat, a buffoon, and a cold fish. It was just too hard to do. I understand that Collen McCullough had to end this somewhere. But, I think she set herself up to fail in letting us see only faults in characters we will have to care about, regardless of what we know through history, in the last book and a half of her series. But, it is a hard endevour. She brought one of the most amazing humans to walk the earth alive. Caesar took on a living personality in her books. And then he was killed. How can I care about these people when the one I have been reading about for almost 3000 pages is now dead?! Lol, it was a challenge. What would make an interesting book is seeing the conflict, politics, and scheming of Octavian, Cleopatra, and Anthony through the eyes of Agrippa and Caesarion. However, this in just one book. The series itself, regardless of these thoughts, is still a five star series.
• 
  Louise

  There are clues early on that this will be a new twist of an old story. Antony suspected in Caesar's murder? Caesarion, not a brat but a precocious co-regnant with his own ideas on government? Has this been speculated before?
  
  As the book progresses McCullough develops her theme, the reader comes to believe that this is IT: The true interpretation of this variously interpreted story.
  
  Like all McCullough books, this one is an achievement. Because she is always meticulous, I expect every the fact of battle, geography and genealogy is correct. She has grafted a new interpretation onto the record.
  
  One thing, interesting to me, is that both Antony and Octavian, as well as a few other men in this book, cry with tears. Perhaps men cry in the earlier McCullough novels, but it must not have been as prominent or I think I'd have remembered it. While the tears fit well into the characters she creates in this novel, it is interesting that it is the male characters who cry. If this is indeed new, perhaps this is a sign of our times, more than Rome's.
  
  The first book of the series
  The First Man in Rome deserves 6 stars. While this, the last book of this series, is another highly readable achievement it does not reach those heights. Despite this comparison, McCullough's Antony and Cleopatra is still a 5 star book.
• 
  Shawn

  I have now completed all of the Master's of Rome series! That is quite an accomplishment for anyone who is aware of the size of each volume. McCullough consistently portrays Julius Caesar as too brilliant, too farsighted, too modern for my tastes although I have stuck with reading the series because of the portrayal of Rome and the epic nature of her works. She is a amazing writer and while I was truly annoyed by many of her characterizations of Caesar, Cicero, et al. I stuck with the series because I felt I was transported in time. Her view of Cleopatra was interesting and, at times, it seemed as if she was arguing that the battle of Actium could have been won had Antony's marshals not been such sexist boneheads. Really? It wasn't because Antony was a wine-sotted slug? If you put up with her unique perceptions of historical figures the chronology of the events are spot on and this book is worth a read.
• 
  Valeria Josan

  It was perfect for my taste. I love this book and în the end it brought me to tears.
  I loved how the story was presented and the author's attempt to figure out what was really going on behind the curtains. The characters were fine, but I have some little objections, which I shall not discuss about, cuz this comment would get a lot longer. Some would say that there is too much historical information and they could not follow up the story line, but for me , a history nerd , it worked.
• 
  Zorka Zamfirova

  Pročitao sam ceo serijal za manje od 50 dana. Prelepo. Izuzetno. To je drugo čitanje. Prvo je trajalo 12 godina koliko su knjige objavljivane. Retko šta postoji na našem jeziku a da ovoliko vredi,bar meni. Ako neko želi da čita onda savetujem da ih čita odjednom za što kraće vreme.
• 
  Fernando Delfim

  “Os Romanos chamam-lhe harpia [Cleópatra], mas eu acho-a mais uma sereia: fala com uma belíssima voz. Encanta os sentidos, faz com que acreditemos em tudo o que diz.”
  
  “uma autêntica rainha Midas [Cleópatra] num trono de ouro que não compreendeu, até ser demasiado tarde, que as pessoas não podem comer ouro”
  
  “- O meu encanto nunca esteve na minha beleza – disse ela imperturbável”
  
  “Gosto das mulheres, mas também tenho pena delas. Levam vidas tão monótonas e a sua única importância política está nos casamentos…”
  
  “já escapei tantas vezes à justa que quase não tenho pele”
  
  “As mulheres que sabem demais sobre as formas de dar prazer a um homem tornam-se suspeitas”
  
  “Nem mesmo os filhos dos deuses conseguem conter eficazmente a enxurrada da opinião pública”
  
  “O poder atraía as mulheres como a chama atraía as borboletas”
  
  “- Eu não gostava dos meus filhos porque não gostava do pai deles [mulher de Octaviano]
  - Tu não gostavas de uma criança?
  - Porque haveria de gostar? Eles crescem e tornam-se nos adultos de que não gostamos.”
  
  “- E eu, pobre idiota, farei o que tu quiseres. É essa a sina de qualquer homem apaixonado por uma mulher mandona”
  (Marco António para Cleópatra)
  
  “As mulheres que lêem, pensou, são tão vulneráveis como as mulheres que fazem compras”
  
  “Por muitos parentes que conseguíssemos matar, reflectiu Cleópatra, havia sempre aqueles que passavam tão despercebidos que não dávamos por eles até ser demasiado tarde”
  
  “Aos olhos da lei, os homens romanos são iguais. Primus inter pares, Cleópatra… Tudo o que posso ser é o primeiro entre iguais.”
  (Marco António para Cleópatra)
  
  “A escuridão descera; António levara onze horas para morrer, mas no fim fora o velho António, o grande António. Na morte encontrara-se finalmente a si próprio.”
  
  “Se as mulheres querem reinar como soberanas – disse Octaviano aos seus quatro companheiros durante um jantar tardio – nunca deveriam casar e ter filhos.
  É na verdade muito raro uma mulher conseguir ultrapassar o amor maternal. Mesmo Cleópatra, que deve ter assassinado centenas de pessoas, incluindo uma irmã e um irmão, pode ser controlada através de uma simples ameaça contra seus filhos.
  Um rei dos reis é capaz de matar seus filhos, mas uma rainha dos reis não.”
  
  “Eu sou César, mas não sou como César”
  (Octaviano)
  
• 
  Timons Esaias

  I put off reading this last volume of the First Man in Rome series (which later became known as the Masters of Rome series, once it outran the original purpose) for a long time, as I took years to get around to The October Horse before it (back when we were assured that it was to be the last one), because I didn't want the series to end. Despite a few quibbles, this is a worthy finish to the series, which was originally supposed to end after the death of Gaius Marius, and was again supposed to finish with the Battle of Philippi.
  
  This covers the period starting after the Battle of Philippi, when each of the triumvirs was setting up his part of the Roman world: Lepidus in Africa, Octavian in Italy and Spain, Antony in Gaul (except he didn't go there) and the East. It ends in the aftermath of the deaths of the title characters.
  
  McCullough plays with the facts in interesting ways, which I don't see as historical fudging. She simply allows that some of what the winners wrote in the histories wasn't exactly true. She has a famous battle prove to be a minor affair with a quick surrender, turned into a Huge Deal for propaganda purposes. She has a bribe given a Roman general turn out to be a surrender tribute, misremembered in history. I found these moves clever and amusing. They support a theme of the later books of the series, that autocrats increasingly falsify history.
  
  There are a few weaknesses, in addition to the seven grimaces I detected. I suspect that she was already not in the best of health at the writing of this book, because it has some editing and polishing flaws that previous volumes notably lacked. [Which is an opportunity to explain that a key reason I read all 4,966 pages of its 7 volumes is that the research was detailed and marvelous, that I found very few errors, and that she especially had the military elements correct, clear, and insightfully presented.] For instance, she portrays some mental decline in Antony, and I won't give away the details, but she intends us to discover that it has more than one cause. This can be a tricky thing to pull off, especially when using Antony POV to portray parts of it, and she would have had to go back through each scene that involved his mental lapses and make sure they added up to the right answer. Alas, it doesn't. The text ends up contradicting itself (at least in this reader's reading of the text). There are some summary paragraphs of passing events that are confusing, and a couple of which I could make no sense. There are some paragraphs of Cleopatra thinking that are repeated somewhat verbatim, and which I suspect are multiple uses of the same 3"x5" card, not edited out at the end.
  
  There were repeated errors regarding the oared warships of the era, and part of that will be that she was poorly served by her reference books; but she also seems to have simply misunderstood elements of it. [There was a long stretch of time when modern naval historians had given themselves permission to ignore the very specific information given by classic authors about how things worked; and also ignoring what archeologists could tell them. We know a lot about Athenian naval vessels, for example, because we still have the shipyards and drydocks, with the measurements marked out. But naval historians ignored it all, and started generating theories about how the ships must REALLY have looked, and how the bigger ships must have been stupidly slow, and on and on. Then the Greek Navy commissioned a trireme in 1985, built in 1987, and took it out for a spin. Lo and behold, it did what Thucydides said it would do, and that turned a lot of the existing reference books back into the bullshit they really were. But if you get your hands on those old books...] McCullough doesn't understand the basic truth of polyremes: more rowers means more speed; the bigger the faster. She also doesn't seem to understand that the "number" in the ship's name has to do only with the number of rowers per position on one side. (And that's something old references screwed up, as well.) Thus a bireme can have two banks of oars per side, with one guy per oar; or it can have one bank of oars with two guys on each oar. The monster ships, say a forty, would have two or three banks of very long oars, with forty guys per position. (Like two banks of oars with 20 guys on each oar.) You can immediately see that the "bigger" ships would have to be wider, rather than taller. She also appears to suggest that Octavian burned a bunch of galley rams at the end, but they were mostly bronze, so I suspect that was a detail that was forgotten and not caught. So, yes, I found myself having to ignore parts of the naval descriptions.
  
  The strengths of the series, and this volume, are the multiple points of view used to describe the characters and the story. Yes, we know what Antony is thinking much of the time. But we also learn, from inside, how Octavian sees him, how Cleopatra sees him, how each of his generals sees him, how Herod sees him, how Caesarion sees him, and so forth. She makes these views different, so the reader will see him in their own way, based on lots of input. (A lot of the issues have to do with being in the inner circle of a leader who is malfunctioning, and what you do about that. Which echoes the evening news, these days.) Ditto for Cleopatra, ditto for Caesar Divi Filius Augustus. The whole series is about what it takes to be a citizen, especially a citizen who intends to lead, or even rule, others. That, for those of us living in republics, is a darned important theme and subject.
  
  My one caveat about reading this series is that you shouldn't start with any book but the first. Though divided into volumes, this is about characters and is essentially a 5,000-page novel. If you start in the middle you won't have half the information you really need, and there's no way she can fill you in. And, knowing that, she didn't try.
• 
  Leo

  4.5 stars maybe I'll change to five..
  I loved this, she writes in such detail and its beautiful written. I feelt fully emersed in the story and didn't want it to end.
• 
  Roman Clodia

  McCullough's Masters of Rome series is, in my view, the most successful evocation of ancient Rome in fiction - far better than the light Lindsey Davis books or the Robert Harris volumes which are far more concerned with throwing a light on contemporary politics than recreating an ancient, and sometimes alien, culture. McCullough admittedly has a tendency to descend at times into something close to soap opera but she balances that with a detailed political narrative that takes us into the senate, the private meetings and the public meetings where Roman politics actually happened.
  
  Sadly this book, the last of the series, is less successful than the other books. Partly I think this is due to the familiarity of the story: while McCullough, as always, is faithful to the sources (Plutarch, Cicero's anti-Antony Philippics etc.) this is still a story very familiar to people interested in ancient history through the works of people like Ronald Symes, Karl Galinsky et al. as well as more popular historians. Plus, of course, we cannot ignore the re-telling of Shakespeare (who himself lifted great chunks from North's translation of Plutarch e.g. `the barge she sat in' speech) and other fiction-writers.
  
  The other reason why I found this less satisfying than the earlier books is that McCullough seems so in love with Julius Caesar that the books after his death tend to flag a little. Here she tries to build up Augustus as a replacement and spends a lot of time telling us how beautiful he is with his silvery-gilt hair etc which I found very off-putting and unnecessarily chick-lit-ish. I have to confess I'm not a fan of Augustus anyway and think he was a far astuter (and more vicious) politician than she allows for.
  
  But if you've read the rest of this marvellous series then it is worth continuing to the end. But if you haven't tried these books yet, this isn't the place to start. The first book is First Man in Rome about Marius and Sulla, but I think the series really comes to life in Fortune's Favourites where the young Julius Caesar makes his appearance.
• 
  A. L.

  This last book, a kind of postscript to the series, was definitely the weakest of the bunch. Primarily because without Caesar, none of the main characters were especially likable. Agrippa seemed like a decent fellow, as did Octavia, but they were second string players, there to be used and cast aside by Caesar Augustus (Octavianus), or Antony. Even Cleopatra became wholly unlikable, even as McCullough has Octavianus admitting he will twist her story to make her seem a monster, so he can go to war against her.
  
  Despite being eager to finish this book by the end, I feel a bit of melancholy, like I’m missing Ancient Rome. I’ve “been” there for so many months now through McCullough’s books that it’s bittersweet to move on. Until I can go to the library to see what they have in the biography section.
• 
  Vicki Cline

  This final book in McCullough's Masters of Rome series was disappointing, considering how good the previous books were. Part of the problem is that there's not really anyone to root for. Antony in particular seems totally incompetent, either being drunk or feeling sorry for himself, not planning ahead for his battles, choosing bad advisors. Cleopatra is more focused, her sole purpose being to get Caesarion to rule the world from Rome and/or Alexandria. Octavian is the winner, of course, but he's a rather cold fish, except with regard to Livia, whom he adores. I do love the series and am glad to have read this one, but it was a let-down.
• 
  Rebecca Huston

  The seventh and (so-far) last book in the Masters of Rome series. Some great new twists on this story, with an Antony and Cleopatra that many have not seen before. I enjoyed this one very much, even though I knew quite well how the story was going to turn out. And the Livia that you meet in here is very different than the one in I, Claudius.
  
  For the complete review, please go here:
  
  http://www.epinions.com/review/Book_A...
• 
  Judith Geary

  Like all McCullough's incredibly researched books on ancient Rome, the strength of this one like in the exquisite attention to detail. It covers the period from 41 BCE to 27 BCE, and we do get the story of Anthony and Cleopatra, but the stars are Octavianus, Octavia and Livia Drusilla.