Topic: Was Cleopatra black?
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #110,568
Was Cleopatra black?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,230,292
She was Greek
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,293
@previous (B)
She was born in Egypt. Her father was Macedonian, but her mother is unknown. She was Egyptian, not Greek.
She was born in Egypt. Her father was Macedonian, but her mother is unknown. She was Egyptian, not Greek.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,294
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,295
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,296
@1,230,294 (C)
Her mother is unknown. She very well could have been a black African. Also, Cleopatra was Egyptian of some Greek heritage.
Her mother is unknown. She very well could have been a black African. Also, Cleopatra was Egyptian of some Greek heritage.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 48 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,297
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,299
Probably not. She was from the Greek dynasty that was ruling over Egypt at the time.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,300
Do you think she enjoyed anal?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,301
@1,230,299 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
She was born in Egypt, and her mother's ethnicity is unknown.
She was born in Egypt, and her mother's ethnicity is unknown.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,302
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,303
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,304
@previous (B)
Again, her ethnicity is unknown. Her father was Macedonian-Greek, but her mother is unknown. Also, many Greeks have very dark skin.
Again, her ethnicity is unknown. Her father was Macedonian-Greek, but her mother is unknown. Also, many Greeks have very dark skin.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,306
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,308
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,313
@1,230,299 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
No she wasn't. Her father was literally a part of the Greek dynasty.
No she wasn't. Her father was literally a part of the Greek dynasty.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,317
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,318
¡Que puey Órale !faggot joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,328
Erik !AltRitexT6 joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,390
She was from the Congo and was as black as night.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,403
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,411
ytFake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,441
Yes, and Julius Ceasar was a Chinese woman. The movie Mulan is actually his biography.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,442
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,443
Sea Sea Sea replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,572
Oh ye of little faith.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,573
Cleopatra was greek, which is a type of black.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,715
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,717
Much is made of Cleopatra's mother not being known. But I think the meaningfulness of this is unknown until you do some research on the attitudes of the Ptolmey dynasty to marriage and breeding.
I've done a little myself recently, as this issue got me thinking. As I sort of expected, the Ptolmey dynasty was pretty snobbish about its bloodline and who it associated with, and generally looked down on outsiders. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible the mother was of a darker complexion, but again, I think what we know of the dynasty attitudes back then renders it unlikely.
I've done a little myself recently, as this issue got me thinking. As I sort of expected, the Ptolmey dynasty was pretty snobbish about its bloodline and who it associated with, and generally looked down on outsiders. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible the mother was of a darker complexion, but again, I think what we know of the dynasty attitudes back then renders it unlikely.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,718
I think the recent Netflix thing with the black Cleopatra is just an example of the modern affection for diversity being projected onto history. A similar thing happened with another Netflix show, Barbarians, in which an African character was inserted into a story taking place in ancient Germany. Not impossible, no, I can just about accept it, but it was not very likely.
Ordinarily I quite like representation and so on, but I have reservations about modern writers projecting modern ideas onto history. I think the Cleopatra thing is particularly egregious because, it claims to be a "docudrama" and thus largrly historically accurate. Cleopatra was a real person, who probably looked nothing like the very dark-skinned actor they've cast, which betrays a lack of concern about the documentary aspect.
Ordinarily I quite like representation and so on, but I have reservations about modern writers projecting modern ideas onto history. I think the Cleopatra thing is particularly egregious because, it claims to be a "docudrama" and thus largrly historically accurate. Cleopatra was a real person, who probably looked nothing like the very dark-skinned actor they've cast, which betrays a lack of concern about the documentary aspect.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE triple-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,719
It's a terrible shame, IMO. The ancient world could be very diverse! Look at this painting. It shows a North African Roman Emperor, his Syrian wife, and their two half-African half-Syrian sons. This guy, Septimius Severus, ruled over the Roman Empire at possibly its greatest extent! This is just one major example, but there's load of stories about non-Europeans doing stuff in ancient Europe.There really was diversity in the ancient world in many places. I think that is worthier to be celebrated, rather than ahistorical examples like this
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,720
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> It's a terrible shame, IMO. The ancient world could be very diverse!
No it isn't. No it could not.
> It's a terrible shame, IMO. The ancient world could be very diverse!
No it isn't. No it could not.
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,721
@1,230,718 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> Ordinarily I quite like representation and so on, but I have reservations about modern writers projecting modern ideas onto history.
Tell us about views of sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome. That's something that's both more interesting and also does not align as clearly with our modern views.
> Cleopatra was a real person, who probably looked nothing like the very dark-skinned actor they've cast, which betrays a lack of concern about the documentary aspect.
No she wasn't.
> Ordinarily I quite like representation and so on, but I have reservations about modern writers projecting modern ideas onto history.
Tell us about views of sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome. That's something that's both more interesting and also does not align as clearly with our modern views.
> Cleopatra was a real person, who probably looked nothing like the very dark-skinned actor they've cast, which betrays a lack of concern about the documentary aspect.
No she wasn't.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,723
Who cares how woke idiots choose to portray historical figures. Let them play at making their idiot movies with race & gender swaps purely in order to pander to their idiot audiences. There are plenty of other far better things to watch, made by directors with actual talent.
@1,230,720 (F)
> > It's a terrible shame, IMO. The ancient world could be very diverse!
> No it isn't. No it could not.
Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
@1,230,720 (F)
> > It's a terrible shame, IMO. The ancient world could be very diverse!
> No it isn't. No it could not.
Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,727
@previous (N)
> There are plenty of other far better things to watch, made by directors with actual talent.
Name them.
> Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
No it wasn't.
> There are plenty of other far better things to watch, made by directors with actual talent.
Name them.
> Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
No it wasn't.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,730
@1,230,723 (N)
> Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
No it was not. The Roman Empire, and even the Republic before it, ruled over an extremely diverse and widespread population for a very long time. If ruling over a multiethnic population was fatal for the Roman Empire, it would have lasted for a very short time.
What changed was how Rome treated its citizens, and the economic situation it found itself in. The Edict of Caracalla giving everyone Roman citizenship disincentivesed people from serving in the Legions as a way to get citizenship. Then, the upheaval of the Crisis of the Third Century (economic ruin, constant civil war, plagues) created a situation where manpower was low and Rome was forced to get manpower from barbarians, using either payments or land grants.
So, the marauding, dubiously loyal barbarian foederati you see in the 4th and 5th centuries came about because of much deeper problems. Rome could and did maintain power over a diverse population for a long time, but administrative change and economic ruin eroded this.
> Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
No it was not. The Roman Empire, and even the Republic before it, ruled over an extremely diverse and widespread population for a very long time. If ruling over a multiethnic population was fatal for the Roman Empire, it would have lasted for a very short time.
What changed was how Rome treated its citizens, and the economic situation it found itself in. The Edict of Caracalla giving everyone Roman citizenship disincentivesed people from serving in the Legions as a way to get citizenship. Then, the upheaval of the Crisis of the Third Century (economic ruin, constant civil war, plagues) created a situation where manpower was low and Rome was forced to get manpower from barbarians, using either payments or land grants.
So, the marauding, dubiously loyal barbarian foederati you see in the 4th and 5th centuries came about because of much deeper problems. Rome could and did maintain power over a diverse population for a long time, but administrative change and economic ruin eroded this.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,732
I took this picture in Bath, here in the UK. It shows the remains of a Syrian man, who travelled over to the Roman settlement of Aquae Sulis. For me, this really underlines the vastness of the Roman Empire, and how it connected very distant peoples together. Their powerful trade network is also a great example of this. Just today, I was reading about how Roman Devon, which was a backwater in Roman times, had trade goods from as far away as the Eastern Mediterranean.To be honest, I think that people who think Rome collapsed because of foreigners are also projecting modern biases onto an ancient civilization. Or at least not fully understanding it.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,733
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,734
Anonymous N replied with this 2 years ago, 18 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,810
@1,230,730 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> > Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
> No it was not. The Roman Empire, and even the Republic before it, ruled over an extremely diverse and widespread population for a very long time.
Very long time = about 100 years - about from the peace brokerage with the Goths (late 4th C) to the late 5th C when Rome eventually fell. And the reason it took that long was because the empire was so massive. Rome was not built in a day and it wasn't destroyed in a day either.
Diversification of the population basically meant a loss of identity and patriotism, and thus incentive for the army (now comprising mostly peasants and foreigners), as you mentioned, to protect Rome against the barbarian invaders.
> > Diversity was one of the main reasons for the ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.
> No it was not. The Roman Empire, and even the Republic before it, ruled over an extremely diverse and widespread population for a very long time.
Very long time = about 100 years - about from the peace brokerage with the Goths (late 4th C) to the late 5th C when Rome eventually fell. And the reason it took that long was because the empire was so massive. Rome was not built in a day and it wasn't destroyed in a day either.
Diversification of the population basically meant a loss of identity and patriotism, and thus incentive for the army (now comprising mostly peasants and foreigners), as you mentioned, to protect Rome against the barbarian invaders.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Phatthew Phosteet Philler (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,865
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 12 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,230,959
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,001
@1,230,810 (N)> Very long time = about 100 years - about from the peace brokerage with the Goths (late 4th C) to the late 5th C when Rome eventually fell. And the reason it took that long was because the empire was so massive.
Apologies, anon, but I'm having some trouble with this part. The empire was very big and very diverse long before this period of time. Just look at this map, showing the Roman Republic in 100BC. They were already ruling over parts of Africa and Asia at this point. This is the reason I mentioned the Syrian guy in England, I was trying to get across how huge it was. For the most part, its overwhelming military and economic force kept their subjects and external enemies in check just fine. A diverse population was not a problem.
In regards to the German borders, Rome had pretty much securely held them from Augustus until the Crisis of the Third Century. Until that point, they'd kept the Germans in line with military force and the occasional bribes. I don't think there's any reason to think they couldn't have carried on doing that, if not for the economic ruin and instability of the Crisis. It's only after that that they're forced to try to make nice with the Goths. In their prime, they could have simply crushed them and moved on.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,226
@1,230,293 (A)
> She was born in Egypt. Her father was Macedonian, but her mother is unknown.
Her mother was almost certainly Cleopatra V or Cleopatra VI. It is extremely unlikely to have been a native Egyptian or at least anybody who was not Greek royalty.
> She was Egyptian, not Greek.
Balls. Cleopatra's father was Ptolemy XII - direct descendant of Ptolemy I Soter (Father: Lagus of Eordaia, Mother: Arsinoe of Macedon) - 100% Macedonian Greek. Cleopatra V's father was also a Ptolemy and her mother was Cleopatra IV or Berenice III - doesn't matter which - in both cases their parents were Greek royals. And their parents were Greek royals, and so on all the way back to Ptolemy I. Cleopatra's name, Κλεοπάτρα Φιλοπάτωρ, is Greek, her blood was Greek (with a tiny bit of Syrian from Apama II - her great x4 grandmother), her religion was the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander the Great - Greek as fuck... In fact, Cleopatra was even more Greek than Jennifer Aniston (Anastassakis) who, since she's actually half Greek, would probably have been a better fit than Adele James in terms of casting.
> She was born in Egypt. Her father was Macedonian, but her mother is unknown.
Her mother was almost certainly Cleopatra V or Cleopatra VI. It is extremely unlikely to have been a native Egyptian or at least anybody who was not Greek royalty.
> She was Egyptian, not Greek.
Balls. Cleopatra's father was Ptolemy XII - direct descendant of Ptolemy I Soter (Father: Lagus of Eordaia, Mother: Arsinoe of Macedon) - 100% Macedonian Greek. Cleopatra V's father was also a Ptolemy and her mother was Cleopatra IV or Berenice III - doesn't matter which - in both cases their parents were Greek royals. And their parents were Greek royals, and so on all the way back to Ptolemy I. Cleopatra's name, Κλεοπάτρα Φιλοπάτωρ, is Greek, her blood was Greek (with a tiny bit of Syrian from Apama II - her great x4 grandmother), her religion was the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander the Great - Greek as fuck... In fact, Cleopatra was even more Greek than Jennifer Aniston (Anastassakis) who, since she's actually half Greek, would probably have been a better fit than Adele James in terms of casting.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,228
@1,231,001 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Instead of talking to (at) us about the many interesting sociological, sociosexual, and philosophical differences between that era and now, you decide to front-load us with a bunch of facts no more insightful than copy/pasting from wikipedia, just to refute a straw-man/troll argument. Just like all your posts on the subject. You ought to teach high school history. You'd fit right in turning off entire generations from the subject one fact dump at a time. Thanks.
Instead of talking to (at) us about the many interesting sociological, sociosexual, and philosophical differences between that era and now, you decide to front-load us with a bunch of facts no more insightful than copy/pasting from wikipedia, just to refute a straw-man/troll argument. Just like all your posts on the subject. You ought to teach high school history. You'd fit right in turning off entire generations from the subject one fact dump at a time. Thanks.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,232
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,233
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
When you inform us about things, I never see it as boring or as a lecture
When you inform us about things, I never see it as boring or as a lecture
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 57 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,242
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 12 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,243
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 48 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,246
Anonymous N replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,249
@1,231,001 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Let me be clear, when I talk about diversification of the population, I am referring specifically to the culture, laws and customs, and in particular the ruling class. You either don't know or are deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that as Rome conquered that vast territory, it imposed on all its citizens the same laws and the same way of life (hence the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do") and basically genocided or enslaved all who opposed it. So yes, the ethnicity of the population was very diverse for a long time, but the culture was not, and I maintain that its dilution was a huge contributing factor to the empire's eventual downfall.
@1,231,228 (F)
> Instead of talking to (at) us about... blah blah
^ Ignore this cretin.
> In their prime, they could have simply crushed them and moved on.
Yes, precisely.
Let me be clear, when I talk about diversification of the population, I am referring specifically to the culture, laws and customs, and in particular the ruling class. You either don't know or are deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that as Rome conquered that vast territory, it imposed on all its citizens the same laws and the same way of life (hence the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do") and basically genocided or enslaved all who opposed it. So yes, the ethnicity of the population was very diverse for a long time, but the culture was not, and I maintain that its dilution was a huge contributing factor to the empire's eventual downfall.
@1,231,228 (F)
> Instead of talking to (at) us about... blah blah
^ Ignore this cretin.
> In their prime, they could have simply crushed them and moved on.
Yes, precisely.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,250
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,251
@1,231,249 (N)
> > Instead of talking to (at) us about... blah blah
> ^ Ignore this cretin.
You know what I'm saying is true. If it were so simple to just brush off what I was saying, you wouldn't have felt the need to comment on it at all. You and Anon B, both.
> > Instead of talking to (at) us about... blah blah
> ^ Ignore this cretin.
You know what I'm saying is true. If it were so simple to just brush off what I was saying, you wouldn't have felt the need to comment on it at all. You and Anon B, both.
Anonymous N replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,231,258
@previous (F)
> You know what I'm saying is true.
No I don't.
> If it were so simple to just brush off what I was saying
It is simple to just brush off what you say.
> you wouldn't have felt the need to comment on it at all.
I felt the need to remind KL not to get distracted by you. Note that I did not comment on what you said.
Now shush and go play with your blocks.
> You know what I'm saying is true.
No I don't.
> If it were so simple to just brush off what I was saying
It is simple to just brush off what you say.
> you wouldn't have felt the need to comment on it at all.
I felt the need to remind KL not to get distracted by you. Note that I did not comment on what you said.
Now shush and go play with your blocks.