|
|
This topic has been archived and locked - replies are not allowed.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:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(21 of 66)
Jun 26, 2009 1:23 AM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >"Absolutely not so. I am not going to
> write a book here (many have done so very well, but
> there is an abundance of material). In fact, a
> major historian and geographer of the period, Strabo,
> who wrote about her was in Alexandria at the time of
> the events of the end of her reign (he was traveling
> in Egypt and Ethiopia). He was her contemporary
> and we do have his Geographica although his Histories
> are lost except from small fragments. But he is
> quoted extensively by later historians. Thus, you do
> have a major ancient historian at the scene to record
> the events. Do you think that he made things up from
> whole cloth???".
>
> Who am I to argue with Strabo? He also
> commented that Berenice was the only
> legitimate offspring of Ptolemy XII.
As it usually happens in antiquity, one has to check a variety of sources to reach an informed conclusion. Strabo made the comment because of the theory that Arsinoe and Cleopatra were Ptolemy's XII issue with a second, not Ptolemaic, wife. However, other sources simply do not support it and since her father married both ladies, there were not really any reasons for Cleopatra to distort the truth. Also, logic dictates that this cannot be true. If she was illegitimate, then Berenice would have been married to Ptolemy XIII, not Cleopatra. This is a key point and is the main consideration of modern and ancient historians.
> Say I, "What the Hell?", quoting Jack Burton.
>
> For what it's worth, I never deal in
> "absolutes". That's just not my style.
You have given little evidence that you may not be right here.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(20 of 66)
Jun 25, 2009 3:17 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"Absolutely not so. I am not going to write a book here (many have done so very well, but there is an abundance of material). In fact, a major historian and geographer of the period, Strabo, who wrote about her was in Alexandria at the time of the events of the end of her reign (he was traveling in Egypt and Ethiopia). He was her contemporary and we do have his Geographica although his Histories are lost except from small fragments. But he is quoted extensively by later historians. Thus, you do have a major ancient historian at the scene to record the events. Do you think that he made things up from whole cloth???".
Who am I to argue with Strabo? He also commented that Berenice was the only legitimate offspring of Ptolemy XII.
Say I, "What the Hell?", quoting Jack Burton.
For what it's worth, I never deal in "absolutes". That's just not my style.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
--
Edited by Beagle914 at 06/25/2009 12:52 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(19 of 66)
Jun 25, 2009 12:02 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ... " Beagle, I do not understand your fixation about this. It is as if a capable woman in power undermines certain of your core beliefs. I am not a professional historian but a good amateur one. There are many books on Cleopatra, the latest one by Michael Grant got good reviews.
>I ask you to consider the following fact: According to Plutarch, Cleopatra was an excellent mathematician. She was good enough to understand what Sosigenes was talking about. As you well know, she was instrumental in getting Caesar to talk to Sosigenes who convinced him to change the calendar, one of the most important events in human history and one that still affects us."
(1) As to my "fixation", I can only respond by parry and thrust.
(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.
(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.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
--
Edited by Beagle914 at 06/25/2009 9:03 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(18 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 9:26 PM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >"Beagle, nice to see you posting here again." ...
>
> Thanks very much. Life goes on.
>
> However, ...
> >..." The fact that no contemporary sources survive
> from her reign means very little. The same is exactly
> true for Alexander the Great. The later historians
> had access to the contemporary accounts and journals
> and utilized them." ...
>
> I don't buy this line of reasoning and I draw no
> parallels between Cleopatra VII and
> Alexander. The ancients may very well have generated
> many stories out of whole cloth just as modern
> authors and scholars do.
This makes no sense whatsoever. We have lost contemporary histories and memoirs for both of them (in the case of Cleopatra, the Histories by Stabo, a major work in antiquity) but we have the works of later historians who drew on sources well known to the erudite public of the day. You are ready to accept the statements by Plutarch on Alexander but not on Cleopatra????? Does this make any sense to you???
> Zenobia's relationship to Cleopatra VII is
> about as tenuous as Obama's relationship to the
> troops that liberated Berchtesgaden (or wherever).
Of course it was mostly fictional. But Zenobia would not have put the story forward unless it had a cache. And it would not have had a cache if the ancient world thought of Cleopatra VII as a doped up, nymphomaniac non-entity.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(17 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 9:19 PM
|
> Snigam wrote:
> > ... "So what motivation did the writers have to
> depict Cleopatra as they did? Even comic books have
> more logic than this story!"
>
> As you will have read from my previous posts by now,
> there are very few historical bases for any realistic
> portrayal of Cleopatra VII.
Absolutely not so. I am not going to write a book here (many have done so very well, but there is an abundance of material). In fact, a major historian and geographer of the period, Strabo, who wrote about her was in Alexandria at the time of the events of the end of her reign (he was traveling in Egypt and Ethiopia). He was her contemporary and we do have his Geographica although his Histories are lost except from small fragments. But he is quoted extensively by later historians. Thus, you do have a major ancient historian at the scene to record the events. Do you think that he made things up from whole cloth???
> A few historical points we can be reasonably sure
> of:
We can be sure of many others.
> (1) She wasn't an indigenous "Egyptian" in any
> normal sense of the word. She was of Macedonian
> lineage (Greek, more-or-less, as her mother tongue).
Of course. How is this relevant to her character? All the Ptolemies were Greek. In any case, from about 1100 BCE, there were very few native rulers of Egypt (and this continued to be so until the last king of Egypt was deposed in the mid 1950's!!!)
> (2) Her parentage was doubtful. Her mother was
> unknown and her paternity is only inferential. The
> best face that can be put on her legitimacy is as the
> result of generations of incest.
Her parentage is not unknown even to us. Her mother was Cleopatra V. Her mother;s familial connections are unknown (again, to us) It was certainly known to her father and to her contemporaries. She would not have sustained a campaign to unseat her brother and gained allies without a good claim to the throne.
> (3) She was a murderess several times over -- all
> parricides, fratricides, sororicides or worse.
I am astounded. Who did Cleopatra murder? As far as I can deduce from the historical record there is no strong support of having murdered anybody. Certainly she did not murder her father. If anything, she did not profit from his death. As for Ptolemy XIII, he was killed (or drowned) in action against Julius Caesar (or killed by his troops). The fate of Ptolemy XIV is unknown. We know that he visited Rome at 46 BCE with her. She can be possibly indicted for the killing of Arsinoe, but this execution was ordered by Mark Antony and it was possibly done to "please her" and win points at the time when she may have tipped the balance. Compare this record with that the Claudio-Julians!!
> (4) Her offspring were all illegitimate and of
> suspect lineage. Cleopatra VII never married under
> any law extant. Perhaps, Ptolemy Philadelphus was a
> possible exception. The paternity of Caesarion and
> the twins has never been authenticated and were
> doubtful even in antiquity.
The paternity of Caesarion would have never been authenticated by Caesar, unless he wanted to cause a major rift in Roman politics. All the ancient historians (and the modern ones) remarked that Caesar did not "correct" her when she made her assertions as to the paternity of Caesarion while visiting Rome (for a long time, may I add). This silence by Caesar on repeated claims must a be a clue for you...I hope.
As for her children with Mark Antony, the latter was certain enough to grant them a number of kingdoms and Octavian was certain enough to have them grown up in the imperial court.
> You "Snigam" can dispute my points if you
> wish. Many have done so.
>
> Yet, here I stand.
On very precarious ground my friend, very precarious.
Beagle, I do not understand your fixation about this. It is as if a capable woman in power undermines certain of your core beliefs. I am not a professional historian but a good amateur one. There are many books on Cleopatra, the latest one by Michael Grant got good reviews.
I ask you to consider the following fact: According to Plutarch, Cleopatra was an excellent mathematician. She was good enough to understand what Sosigenes was talking about. As you well know, she was instrumental in getting Caesar to talk to Sosigenes who convinced him to change the calendar, one of the most important events in human history and one that still affects us.
--
Edited by aretzios at 06/23/2009 6:29 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(16 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 4:39 PM
|
snigam wrote:
>"Beagle,
>Thanks for posting your opinion. I am new to the board, so allow me to ask: are you one of the writers of the show?"
No! I haven't written; I have lived.
I post only my own opinions based on what I view is a critical analysis of historical facts. My writings are heavily leavened by personal experience.
I make no apologies but am always open to differences of opinion.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(15 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 3:20 PM
|
Beagle,
Thanks for posting your opinion. I am new to the board, so allow me to ask: are you one of the writers of the show?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(14 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 2:51 PM
|
Snigam wrote:
> ... "So what motivation did the writers have to depict Cleopatra as they did? Even comic books have more logic than this story!"
As you will have read from my previous posts by now, there are very few historical bases for any realistic portrayal of Cleopatra VII.
A few historical points we can be reasonably sure of:
(1) She wasn't an indigenous "Egyptian" in any normal sense of the word. She was of Macedonian lineage (Greek, more-or-less, as her mother tongue).
(2) Her parentage was doubtful. Her mother was unknown and her paternity is only inferential. The best face that can be put on her legitimacy is as the result of generations of incest.
(3) She was a murderess several times over -- all parricides, fratricides, sororicides or worse.
(4) Her offspring were all illegitimate and of suspect lineage. Cleopatra VII never married under any law extant. Perhaps, Ptolemy Philadelphus was a possible exception. The paternity of Caesarion and the twins has never been authenticated and were doubtful even in antiquity.
You "Snigam" can dispute my points if you wish. Many have done so.
Yet, here I stand.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(13 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 1:14 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"Beagle, nice to see you posting here again." ...
Thanks very much. Life goes on.
However, ...
>..." The fact that no contemporary sources survive from her reign means very little. The same is exactly true for Alexander the Great. The later historians had access to the contemporary accounts and journals and utilized them." ...
I don't buy this line of reasoning and I draw no parallels between Cleopatra VII and Alexander. The ancients may very well have generated many stories out of whole cloth just as modern authors and scholars do.
Zenobia's relationship to Cleopatra VII is about as tenuous as Obama's relationship to the troops that liberated Berchtesgaden (or wherever).
That's enough for now. Promises to keep.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(12 of 66)
Jun 23, 2009 11:02 AM
|
> Very informative posts and lively discussion. While
> watching the special features at the end of season 1,
> I remember the writer or director making the claim
> that show is as close to history as possible. Nobody
> mentioned they wanted to present some "alternative
> interpretation of history".
>
> If you choose to assassinate the character of one of
> the most charismatic figures of ancient history, you
> better have some positive proof. I see none. The
> writers should have left her alone in peace.
Snigam
Thanks for posting this and for highlighting again why I have decided to post in this forum. The HBO assertions regarding authenticity and "faithful to history" disturbed me no end. I can understand structuring a show mostly as entertainment with some basis on Roman history, but I do not understand a show with virtually no connection to historical accounts claiming to be history.
In any case, "Rome" retained just some broad outlines and certain names from the historical period and nothing much else. Neither the events nor the characters are anywhere close to have been faithful to the historical information that we have. Neither is the depiction of life in Rome (or what passes as life in Rome). One can write a dissertation on the inaccuracies of each given episode and the distortion of characters.
I thought that it was just shameful to distort history and then present it as "a historically true account". Dreadful.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(11 of 66)
Jun 22, 2009 9:29 PM
|
Very informative posts and lively discussion. While watching the special features at the end of season 1, I remember the writer or director making the claim that show is as close to history as possible. Nobody mentioned they wanted to present some "alternative interpretation of history".
If you choose to assassinate the character of one of the most charismatic figures of ancient history, you better have some positive proof. I see none. The writers should have left her alone in peace.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(10 of 66)
Jun 22, 2009 6:49 PM
|
> to Followers of this Thread:
Beagle, nice to see you posting here again.
> In point of fact, practically nothing is known of
> Cleopatra VII based on contemporary sources.
Not true. Not true at all. In fact, there is a lot of archaeological information that dates from her period and doves very well with the literary sources. She coined hundreds of coins depicting main events of her reign (and Mark Antony did the same). As these coins were the usual means of state propaganda at that time, all of them depict scenes of make claims that we are aware of later sources.
The fact that no contemporary sources survive from her reign means very little. The same is exactly true for Alexander the Great. The later historians had access to the contemporary accounts and journals and utilized them. We know some of these sources but we do not have them anymore. However, when Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch and Dio wrote their histories, the earlier historical accounts were in evidence and many had access to them. Thus, they could just not make facts out of full cloth. In fact, Suetonius had full access to the imperial archives. Plutarch had access to many original sources.
Cleopatra VII became a legend in the Hellenistic world. She was so much of a legend that Zenobia of Palmyra claimed to have been her descendant. She would not have made this claim had Cleopatra developed a reputation as a doped up, nymphomaniac, empty headed moron. She was anything but.
As I said, there is no evidence whatsoever that she had any affairs with anybody else apart from Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. And Beagle, you must simply add the dots here. Her ambition was to get into a very high position in the Greco-Roman world (thus her insistence to have Caesarion legitimized). She was not about to embark on any lifestyle that would have undermined her case. She got involved with Mark Antony because the latter was willing to support the case of Caesarion against Octavian (for his own ends, of course). Her long stay in Rome was very uneventful.
So, you are wrong on all points (and you know it)
> Virtually everything written about her personally
> y and her place in history stems from writings
> recorded about a century or more after the events.
> Only brief mentions by Caesar, Josephus, and Cicero
> o can be considered contemporary and these aren't
> very flattering.
As I said, this is not true. There was abundant material from her lifetime. That we have no access to it today is sad, but this is true for most of ancient history. Are you going to make the same case for Alexander???
> Precious few of these sources, exist too, I might
> add. Without the authorship of Plutarch,
> Suetonius, and Dio she would be a
> historical non-person, more-or-less.
Well, I could say that without the authorship of Curtius, Diodorus of Sicily, Arrian and Plutarch (who all wrote at least 200 years after his death) how much would you have known about the history of Alexander the Great?? But we do know that these historians compiled their work from journals of the expedition and memoirs by many of Alexander's generals (including Nearchos and Ptolemy). None of the original sources are with us today. Does this invalidate their work????
> I know that my views are considered heretical by
> aretzios, (my friend) and others.
Heretical is not a problem, if the heresy is true. Heresy is needed some time to stir up things. But in this case, this opinion is ill-considered and does not fit the facts in evidence.
> Nevertheless, I adhere to them. Moreover, I've read
> d nearly all recent writings on the subject and
> corresponded with several authors. None have
> disagreed with my views, albeit nor endorsing them.
>
> Pfui! , I say to anonymous scholars whose
> writing are both obscure and of suspect accuracy.
> HBO's portrayal of Cleopatra VII is both
> h plausible and entertaining.
Entertaining???? Not for me, but some, I guess. Plausible??? Not at all.
Too many people have been too kind to you, Beagle!!!
> If anyone wants to get picky, concentrate on the
> Ptolemaic reign in Aegyptus. As illegitimate and
> depraved a dynasty as could reasonably be imagined.
This is well over the top and wildly inaccurate. In fact, the Ptolemies were a superb dynasty that achieved miraculous achievements. Not only was Ptolemy I a great general and tactician, his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus was one of the most enlightened rulers who ever lived. The successors of these rulers, Ptolemy III to Ptolemy IX were all competent (some were better than others) who managed to retain Egypt as a substantial power by utilizing its resources. The state was bedeviled by the lack of manpower, especially after it lost its base of support in the Greek mainland and islands. The Greek settlers of Egypt were able to provide only small armies (the locals were never recruited and when they were, in a single occassion, revolt ensued) and mercenaries were undependable. Even rulers who one can call "weird" by today's standards such as Ptolemy IV were by no means depraved. In any case, this was a rather competent "colonial" dynasty.
I cannot understand on what you base your opinion about the "depraved nature" of the Ptolemies!!! In fact, surveying the Greco-Roman world of 330 BCE to 330 CE, they are certainly above par!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(9 of 66)
Jun 22, 2009 1:26 PM
|
to Followers of this Thread:
In point of fact, practically nothing is known of Cleopatra VII based on contemporary sources. Virtually everything written about her personally and her place in history stems from writings recorded about a century or more after the events. Only brief mentions by Caesar, Josephus, and Cicero can be considered contemporary and these aren't very flattering.
Precious few of these sources, exist too, I might add. Without the authorship of Plutarch, Suetonius, and Dio she would be a historical non-person, more-or-less.
I know that my views are considered heretical by aretzios, (my friend) and others. Nevertheless, I adhere to them. Moreover, I've read nearly all recent writings on the subject and corresponded with several authors. None have disagreed with my views, albeit nor endorsing them.
Pfui! , I say to anonymous scholars whose writing are both obscure and of suspect accuracy. HBO's portrayal of Cleopatra VII is both plausible and entertaining.
If anyone wants to get picky, concentrate on the Ptolemaic reign in Aegyptus. As illegitimate and depraved a dynasty as could reasonably be imagined.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(8 of 66)
Jun 22, 2009 11:28 AM
|
> > So what motivation did the writers have to
> depict
> > Cleopatra as they did? Even comic books have
> more
> > logic than this story!
>
> Aretzios is gonna love you!
Any voice of logic is welcomed here. There is no doubt that the depiction of Cleopatra was abysmal in this show (but so many other things were)
> The only excuse I can give for the writers is that
> they had planned a full three seasons, with a whole
> season of Antony in Egypt. When they were told they
> had to cut it down they did a botched job of it.
I do not think that this is true. "Rome" was a single season show (I am not aware that three year contracts were offered to anybody). A 2nd season was "bolted on" for some unknown reason...just too many gullible viewers.
The portrayal of Cleopatra as a perpetually stoned, stupid nymphomaniac was in line with the rest of the show that played much of Roman history as a broad farce (Pullo starting the civil war in a game of checkers, Pullo stealing the state's money, Vorenus and Pullo swimming about 800 miles on corpses and rescuing Pompey, Pullo being the real father of Caesarion, Caesar being an amorous moron sprang into action by Mark Antony's schemes, etc,etc.). The whole series was supposed to have been a broad comedy in togas. However, between the writing the direction, somebody thought that this boondoggle was a drama and authentic one to boot!!!
--
Edited by aretzios at 06/22/2009 8:29 AM PDT
--
Edited by aretzios at 06/22/2009 8:30 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
658
Registered:
9/6/05
|
|
(7 of 66)
Jun 22, 2009 8:52 AM
|
In regards to Cleo's running away or escape shortly prior to her meeting Caesar, I don't think she was scared. She was preserving her own life. Little Bro was a lot younger than she, and it was his ministers/power-mongers, like Pothinos who were really in control.
I do agree that Caesar probably "taught" her the ruling game to a certain degree. Even more likely is that she watched him at work. She was never as "subtle" as Caesar. Nor was she as "forgiving" as he. (Caesar pardoned so many of his enemies.) She knew that to survive, she HAD to be ruthless.
--
Fortune favors the bold.
|
|
|
|
|
