I don't see anything about bodyguards in that comment chain, are you sure you didn't mean to link my chain here?

I don't remember any text referring specifically to Antony having some kind of armed, private retinue, but admittedly I'm not thinking too hard here. Plutarch mentions that on campaign Antony had freedmen acting as some kinds of attendants, apparently separate from his strictly military guards. Antony was certainly, like every other man of his stature, accompanied by a crowd of clients and dependents at any given time. This was hardly unusual, and we should not expect Antony to be unique either in maintaining or rejecting such a group. It should be made clear, however, that these retinues in and of themselves were not bodyguards. A small group of them might be armed or prepared for violence, but as a whole these crowds of hangers-on did not at all exist for the protection of the individual to whom they were attached. They were representations of political power, social status, and political loyalty--the visible manifestations of auctoritas and dignitas. Indeed, our texts specifically make a point of distinguishing these people from actual bodyguards--they, for example, pointedly refer to Caesar as surrounding himself with a civil retinue and not bodyguards.