|
|
This topic has been archived and locked - replies are not allowed.
Watched Rome for the first time on dvd and still in shock! What historical/logical reasons could the writers have to depict the Cleopatra as they did.
The most famous woman of her time gets pregnant from an unknown Roman soldier, even though we know Egyptian royalties were so conservative as to marry within family. Not only she keeps her first born (next pharaoh), she fooled Caesar and fought all her life for his birth right as next Caesar. After the defeat, she lets the next pharaoh go safely to Rome with another Roman soldier. Out of all possible places, the best place would be Rome for a child who responds in Egyptian to the address of "his majesty". If Cleopatra was really so stupid, how could she hold the interest of Caesar and Antony for such a long time.
On the contrary, I think Cleopatra was extremely astute woman. She used marriage as an alliance to ward off Roman invasion as long as possible, even though Roman needed the grain and wealth of Egypt. Even persuaded Antony to fight his own people.
So what motivation did the writers have to depict Cleopatra as they did? Even comic books have more logic than this story!
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(36 of 66)
Jul 1, 2009 8:00 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ..."I do not know if you read science fiction at all. One of the great science fiction writers of all time was Isaac Asimov. He wrote a novel called "Foundation" (there are two more books in this trilogy) in which the main driver was the discovery that quantum physics can be associated with history to provide a very good prediction of historical development. Thus, by applying a number of formulas, all history can be predicted."
In fact, I devoured SF paperbacks for many years in the 1950's, throughout the 60's and beyond. I still read some and re-watch the classic films (e.g., "Blade Runner, Alien, Who Goes There?, and so on). I probably read "Foundation", et seq at some time or another. I don't remember it specifically well, however.
> ... "Believe it or not, some of the elements of the book have proven prophetic as prediction of history via complex mathematical equations (mostly based on game theory) is what hedge funds do! Obviously, the technique has not been perfected, but many mathematicians struggle on! I think that human societies have just too many variables to be easily shoehorned into a theory, but this would not stop people from trying." ...
As a nuclear engineer, I was (at one time) pretty accomplished in applied mathematics, physics and operations research (including game theory and a host of other arcane offshoots.) The more I studied, however, the clearer it became to me that there are limitations as to what can be understood and achieved following mathematical paths.
In short, I agree that human society (and the universe overall) are much too complex to be formulated.
I have more than I can handle remembering which Ptolemy was which. That's why I scrupulously insist on identifying Cleopatra VII to distinguish her from the many others of similar name.
I never gave it much thought but the Ptolemaic dynasty never identified themselves by succession numbers (e.g., I, II, III, etc). That's not too surprising since they didn't use Roman numerals or (apparently) numerical symbols of any kind.
--
I am, Beagle CMXIV: always the author of this post; opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
448
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(35 of 66)
Jun 30, 2009 10:58 AM
|
|
Who can tell, but she was looking pretty hot.....How did LV hold out?
--
Need a deal? Dealsniffer
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(34 of 66)
Jun 30, 2009 10:52 AM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> > ..."To me, history is a way of living a thousand
> lives. As you reconstruct more and more of the
> details of the ancient world, you get to be part of
> that world, you get to be there. Is there anything
> that we can do that can enhance our lives to that
> extent??"
>
> Excellent! (Your thoughts and viewpoints --
> well expressed, I mean.)
>
> For my part, I mostly agree with your approach to
> history. It's not necessarily mine, however. I see
> history as being in an improbable past and as a
> prelude to an uncertain future.
History is the best way to define this "uncertain future". In fact, human societies have been replicating patterns for many centuries as both Plato and Cicero have observed.
I do not know if you read science fiction at all. One of the great science fiction writers of all time was Isaac Asimov. He wrote a novel called "Foundation" (there are two more books in this trilogy) in which the main driver was the discovery that quantum physics can be associated with history to provide a very good prediction of historical development. Thus, by applying a number of formulas, all history can be predicted.
Believe it or not, some of the elements of the book have proven prophetic as prediction of history via complex mathematical equations (mostly based on game theory) is what hedge funds do! Obviously, the technique has not been perfected, but many mathematicians struggle on! I think that human societies have just too many variables to be easily shoehorned into a theory, but this would not stop people from trying.
In any case, you can also start watching "Star Trek" and imagine a glorious future.
> "Strike Up The Band!" as the Gershwins put it.
>
> --
> I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post;
> opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(33 of 66)
Jun 30, 2009 12:49 AM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ..."To me, history is a way of living a thousand lives. As you reconstruct more and more of the details of the ancient world, you get to be part of that world, you get to be there. Is there anything that we can do that can enhance our lives to that extent??"
Excellent! (Your thoughts and viewpoints -- well expressed, I mean.)
For my part, I mostly agree with your approach to history. It's not necessarily mine, however. I see history as being in an improbable past and as a prelude to an uncertain future.
"Strike Up The Band!" as the Gershwins put it.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(32 of 66)
Jun 30, 2009 12:14 AM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >"Well, the paddling would have been done by
> others, the food would have been excellent, the sites
> incredible (can you imagine seeing most the great
> monuments of Egypt mostly intact?) and the discussion
> would have been about a number of philosophical
> subjects. I am sure that the matter of Rome's
> expansion to the East and Ceasar's plan to capture
> the whole of Alexander's empire (his campaign against
> Parthia) must have been seriously debated. Plus, the
> sex probably would have been good too!!"
>
> The worst sexual experience I've ever had was still
> pretty damn good.
See?? You are already warming up to the possibilities!!
>
> > ... "but it is not really that hard to keep up
> with the Ptolemies. There are certainly lots of them
> but their history is not as complex as that of the
> Seleukids. The Hellenistic world was certainly one
> full of personalities."
>
> I can barely keep pace with any small part of today's
> leadership -- let alone those of ancient history.
>
> To me, the "Hellenistic world" is a curiosity -- not
> unlike those of most ancient history.
To me, history is a way of living a thousand lives. As you reconstruct more and more of the details of the ancient world, you get to be part of that world, you get to be there. Is there anything that we can do that can enhance our lives to that extent??
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(31 of 66)
Jun 29, 2009 2:43 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"Well, the paddling would have been done by others, the food would have been excellent, the sites incredible (can you imagine seeing most the great monuments of Egypt mostly intact?) and the discussion would have been about a number of philosophical subjects. I am sure that the matter of Rome's expansion to the East and Ceasar's plan to capture the whole of Alexander's empire (his campaign against Parthia) must have been seriously debated. Plus, the sex probably would have been good too!!"
The worst sexual experience I've ever had was still pretty damn good.
And... Re the Ptolemies...
>"Yes, you are right
Touché, I claim.
> ... "but it is not really that hard to keep up with the Ptolemies. There are certainly lots of them but their history is not as complex as that of the Seleukids. The Hellenistic world was certainly one full of personalities."
I can barely keep pace with any small part of today's leadership -- let alone those of ancient history.
To me, the "Hellenistic world" is a curiosity -- not unlike those of most ancient history.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
298
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(30 of 66)
Jun 29, 2009 2:10 PM
|
Aretzios: "Plus, the sex probably would have been good too!!" 
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(29 of 66)
Jun 28, 2009 11:46 PM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> > ... "I think that you would have found the real
> Cleopatra a far more delightful companion than the
> one portrayed in "Rome".
>
> I doubt it. The thought of paddling up the Nile in
> the company of a 21 year old, pregnant mathematician
> chattering about morning sickness, baby names, corn
> production, philosophy and Ptolemaic politics isn't a
> pleasant one.
Well, the paddling would have been done by others, the food would have been excellent, the sites incredible (can you imagine seeing most the great monuments of Egypt mostly intact?) and the discussion would have been about a number of philosophical subjects. I am sure that the matter of Rome's expansion to the East and Ceasar's plan to capture the whole of Alexander's empire (his campaign against Parthia) must have been seriously debated. Plus, the sex probably would have been good too!!
> And ...
> > ... " If Cleopatra was just a doped-up
> nymphomaniac, Caesar would have enjoyed her company
> for just about a few days and would have installed in
> power Ptolemy XIV and Berenice, not an undependable
> oversexed non-entity. He really needed somebody he
> could trust running Egypt."
>
> I also doubt that Caesar would've installed Berenice
> IV in power (48/47 BCE) since she had been beheaded
> about seven years earlier (55 BCE) on the orders of
> Ptolemy XII, her father. Probably, you meant Arsinoë
> IV, the younger sister of Cleopatra VII.
>
> It's hard to keep track of all those Ptolemies.
Yes, you are right but it is not really that hard to keep up with the Ptolemies. There are certainly lots of them but their history is not as complex as that of the Seleukids. The Hellenistic world was certainly one full of personalities.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(28 of 66)
Jun 28, 2009 5:03 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ... "I think that you would have found the real Cleopatra a far more delightful companion than the one portrayed in "Rome".
I doubt it. The thought of paddling up the Nile in the company of a 21 year old, pregnant mathematician chattering about morning sickness, baby names, corn production, philosophy and Ptolemaic politics isn't a pleasant one.
And ...
> ... " If Cleopatra was just a doped-up nymphomaniac, Caesar would have enjoyed her company for just about a few days and would have installed in power Ptolemy XIV and Berenice, not an undependable oversexed non-entity. He really needed somebody he could trust running Egypt."
I also doubt that Caesar would've installed Berenice IV in power (48/47 BCE) since she had been beheaded about seven years earlier (55 BCE) on the orders of Ptolemy XII, her father. Probably, you meant Arsinoë IV, the younger sister of Cleopatra VII.
It's hard to keep track of all those Ptolemies.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(27 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 8:20 PM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >.. You do dislike her intensely, don't you??? Well,
> she was not a military commander, this is for sure.
> Neither was she a true mathematician but my guess is
> that she understood several mathematical concepts;
> linguist?? Well, we know that she spoke Greek and
> Latin and she probably OK with colloquial Egyptian.
> The picture we have of her is of a very lively mind;
> she was actually quite bored with Mark Antony but he
> was essential in her plans. Had she been successful
> -and she came close- the face of antiquity would have
> changed.
>
> >It is amazing that today you are heaping more scorn
> on her than Octavian!!! How come??? "
>
> Au contraire, mon frère:
>
> Cleopatra VII (as portrayed in HBO's
> "Rome") was a woman I could understand
> and deal with on mutual terms. Had I been "Julius
> Caesar" or "Mark Antony", history might've run a
> different course.
So, you would have preferred to deal with a doped up nymphomaniac??? Probably every man's dream, I guess. Now, I just do not believe this. I think that you can deal with much more accomplished women than that. I think that you would have found the real Cleopatra a far more delightful companion than the one portrayed in "Rome".
Everything in "Rome" was wrong. For example, Julius Caesar had lots of nervous energy and he was always ready for a verbal duel. This is why the sharp-witted Cleopatra was such a great companion for him. He was quite taken with her. In fact, the episode in "Rome" in which he forgets all about the war in order to pursue an affair with Servillia actually happened with Cleopatra. Whereas in all other campaigns he never let his opponents consolidate any gains and pressed the advantage, he actually went with Cleopatra to a tour of the Nile while Cato and others were marshalling their troops in North Africa and Spain. It took some rather alarmist communications to get him out of Egypt and the middle East. Despite being successful in both North Africa and Spain, the battle of Munda in which he faced his ex-lieutenant, Labienus, was a very close-run affair and the bloodiest battle of his career. Had he been there earlier, this would not have happened. If Cleopatra was just a doped-up nymphomaniac, Caesar would have enjoyed her company for just about a few days and would have installed in power Ptolemy XIV and Berenice, not an undependable oversexed non-entity. He really needed somebody he could trust running Egypt.
> Dislike Cleopatra VII? Not in a million
> years. In that respect, I'm the ultimate
> anti-misogynist. I can always find a reason to
> excuse the inexcusable with respect to female
> behavior. Probably, that explains why my
> relationships with women have always remained so
> cordial. Lucky me ...
But, despite all that, you simply could not have gotten along with the real Cleopatra??
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(26 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 1:58 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>.. You do dislike her intensely, don't you??? Well, she was not a military commander, this is for sure. Neither was she a true mathematician but my guess is that she understood several mathematical concepts; linguist?? Well, we know that she spoke Greek and Latin and she probably OK with colloquial Egyptian. The picture we have of her is of a very lively mind; she was actually quite bored with Mark Antony but he was essential in her plans. Had she been successful -and she came close- the face of antiquity would have changed.
>It is amazing that today you are heaping more scorn on her than Octavian!!! How come??? "
Au contraire, mon frère:
Cleopatra VII (as portrayed in HBO's "Rome") was a woman I could understand and deal with on mutual terms. Had I been "Julius Caesar" or "Mark Antony", history might've run a different course.
Dislike Cleopatra VII? Not in a million years. In that respect, I'm the ultimate anti-misogynist. I can always find a reason to excuse the inexcusable with respect to female behavior. Probably, that explains why my relationships with women have always remained so cordial. Lucky me ...
Even Plutarch never credited her with "Latin" as a language that she'd grasped.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(25 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 1:14 PM
|
> snigam wrote:
> >"Egyptians had built the great pyramid two thousand
> years before Aristotle (2500 BC). Even greek language
> was not in existence at that time, not to mention
> greek civilization. I would think by the time of
> Cleopatra the science/maths of Egyptians was as
> advanced as any other civilization. Also there was
> probably a middle class of architects, craftsmen,
> artists who made those wonderful buildings." ...
>
> aretzios wrote:
> >..."Beagle, you are not really serious, are you??
> First of all, there were many excellent
> Mathematicians in Alexandria. Have you a good idea of
> the complex mathematics required to predict the
> location of planets even in the wrong Ptolemaic
> model???
>
> >As to solar calendars, these were, of course, in use
> in the hellenistic world. But adopting one was not
> the main problem. The problem was how to arrange the
> transition into it, which is what Sosigenes did."
> ...
>
> You're both missing my points altogether.
No, actually we do not miss your point. Your belief is that the mathematics was not beyond the basics in Alexandria and in this you are definitively wrong. Let's take one of my favorite mathematicians, Aristrarchos of Samos. And he is my favorite because he is the most wronged person because he was the main (albeit not the first) proponents of the heliocentric model of the solar system and his work was known to later astronomers. Not much of his work has survived but the few samples that we have include the earliest evidence of continuous fractions (and Aristarchus was hardly the first to work with these). Let's move on to Euclid (or Eucledes, as his actual name was) who not wrote the "Elements" (on Geometry) but also wrote the "Theory of Numbers" in which prime and perfect numbers are examined. And not to forget Archimedes who discovered integral calculus with his infinitisimals; reduction ad absurdum; the method of exhaustion and other mathematical constructs still with us along with the value of the Pi. I would not bother continuing to many other top mathematicians (there are just too many to mention) but these people did not get engaged in simple additions and subtractions. OK??
> (1) You needn't be a mathematician or a scientist to
> build pyramids, track the planets, erect monuments or
> discover metallurgy. These are artisan talents,
> empirical but effective. I could do the same while
> in high school.
Possibly true, but this has not any particular bearing on our discussion on mathematics.
> (2) Cleopatra VII could not plausibly
> have been a true mathematician, linguist, seductress,
> adulteress, military commander and mother of four
> illegitimate children within her brief adult life
> span of (perhaps) eighteen years.
You do dislike her intensely, don't you??? Well, she was not a military commander, this is for sure. Neither was she a true mathematician but my guess is that she understood several mathematical concepts; linguist?? Well, we know that she spoke Greek and Latin and she probably OK with colloquial Egyptian. The picture we have of her is of a very lively mind; she was actually quite bored with Mark Antony but he was essential in her plans. Had she been successful -and she came close- the face of antiquity would have changed.
It is amazing that today you are heaping more scorn on her than Octavian!!! How come???
> I know there's an underlying need among apologists
> and feminists to portray Cleopatra VII as a
> divinity. I'm not sure why that should be so.
Beagle, the only "apologia" here is for history, not Cleopatra. And history does not care if one is a feminist or not. I do not think that Cleopatra cared about that either. But in an age when the thought of a woman holding power was absolutely unheard of, even you must concede that her quest for the throne of Egypt and then the leadership of the Roman Empire would have required an exceptional individual.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(24 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 12:13 PM
|
snigam wrote:
>"Egyptians had built the great pyramid two thousand years before Aristotle (2500 BC). Even greek language was not in existence at that time, not to mention greek civilization. I would think by the time of Cleopatra the science/maths of Egyptians was as advanced as any other civilization. Also there was probably a middle class of architects, craftsmen, artists who made those wonderful buildings." ...
aretzios wrote:
>..."Beagle, you are not really serious, are you?? First of all, there were many excellent Mathematicians in Alexandria. Have you a good idea of the complex mathematics required to predict the location of planets even in the wrong Ptolemaic model???
>As to solar calendars, these were, of course, in use in the hellenistic world. But adopting one was not the main problem. The problem was how to arrange the transition into it, which is what Sosigenes did." ...
You're both missing my points altogether.
(1) You needn't be a mathematician or a scientist to build pyramids, track the planets, erect monuments or discover metallurgy. These are artisan talents, empirical but effective. I could do the same while in high school.
(2) Cleopatra VII could not plausibly have been a true mathematician, linguist, seductress, adulteress, military commander and mother of four illegitimate children within her brief adult life span of (perhaps) eighteen years.
I know there's an underlying need among apologists and feminists to portray Cleopatra VII as a divinity. I'm not sure why that should be so.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(23 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 2:03 AM
|
> (3) Was Cleopatra VII an "excellent
> mathematician"? I suppose so by the standards or her
> times. Elementary arithmetic (plus, minus, multiply
> and divide) wasn't a very high mark to achieve.
Egyptians had built the great pyramid two thousand years before Aristotle (2500 BC). Even greek language was not in existence at that time, not to mention greek civilization. I would think by the time of Cleopatra the science/maths of Egyptians was as advanced as any other civilization. Also there was probably a middle class of architects, craftsmen, artists who made those wonderful buildings.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(22 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 1:31 AM
|
>
> (1) As to my "fixation", I can only respond
> by parry and thrust.
But many of my thrusts have not been parried.
> (2) Plutarch; his Greek peers and
> predecessors had no concept of mathematics in the
> abstract sense. Even the most primitive cultures
> (e.g., Mayans, Egyptians and others) had developed
> solar calendars that were far more reliable. The
> real mystery is why the Romans never did so prior to
> the imperium.
Beagle, you are not really serious, are you?? First of all, there were many excellent Mathematicians in Alexandria. Have you a good idea of the complex mathematics required to predict the location of planets even in the wrong Ptolemaic model???
As to solar calendars, these were, of course, in use in the hellenistic world. But adopting one was not the main problem. The problem was how to arrange the transition into it, which is what Sosigenes did.
> (3) Was Cleopatra VII an "excellent
> mathematician"? I suppose so by the standards or her
> times. Elementary arithmetic (plus, minus, multiply
> and divide) wasn't a very high mark to achieve.
>
> Every fool knows that: I know it.
Good for you, good for you!!!
|
|
|
|
|
