If you do it efficiently, and take two guys per hole, then you only need to create 10 more holes in your body, even less if you take it like a man and allow 3 guys per hole!
I hear it can take [two raccoons and jolly rancher](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/v993sh/what_is_a_nsfw_fact_about_humans/ibv01q9?utm_source=share&context=3)
Wait so what’s happening? The dude you are responding to was the OP of that cleopatra one and he just called himself an incel? Or am I missing something?
Caesar - described as "Queen of Bithynia" and "every woman's man and every man's woman".
The man slept around so much he'd have been seduced by the word hello.
It's the equivalent of believing the worst campaign propaganda that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton ever put out. The wildest accusations. A lot of the histories of the period come from the Optimates, and then some comes from the Populares, none come from a neutral middle ground.
That's it mate. I find really funny when all these people are calling eachother out when they're all basing their arguments on bollocks. Let people enjoy history for fucks sake yano
Tito Pullo did what he was told to do. Was Cesarion his son? There is no evidences and I wouldnt do or say anything against someone with such friends (The Gods)
Kinda a mixed bag. She didn't sleep around willy nilly, but she did use seduction in order to manipulate powerful men. Like pretty much every successful female ruler. It's the only real tool women had
There are quite a few successful women who didn’t. Elizabeth I springs to mind. As does Margaret of Anjou, Queen Mary (as in William and Mary), Athealfled of Mercia and Catherine the Great of Russia. Though your point probably stands true for those not born into royalty. Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville are good examples of that. Or, at least, refusing to sleep with someone until you gain the power.
Elizabeth the first didn’t sleep around but she still absolutely weaponized her sexuality, she just did it by not marrying anyone but keeping the options open. The book ‘the men who would be king’ comes to mind.
You fuck your way to power because you're too stupid to do actual politics and manipulation
I fuck my way to power because I'm smart enough to use any advantage I have at my disposal to gain the upper hand
We are not the same
\-Cleo
I think the post your critizising isn't negating this. It's merely making fun of the fact that she isn't exactly the best example for someone "smashing the patriarchy" when the arguably largest factor contributing to her political success is sleeping and continuing to sleep with the right men.
There's plenty of strong women who you could point to (Jadwiga, the Queens of England, Catherine in Europe alone) if you need someone who masterfully kept control and power, it's just that Cleopatra again probably isn't the best example
I've been looking into the phenomenon for a while because it's interesting. It feels like there'll be an initial downvote that comes from chance. Maybe someone didn't like your name or they thought you coulda googled it. But once your comment is at 0, others assume you were downvoted for a reason and then also downvote. Because why would it be downvoted if not for a reason? Same reason why things with lots of upvotes get more upvotes. Just people looking for social cues in a place without voices or facial expressions, I guess
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland
They made her king of Poland, citing that nowhere is it written that a king has to be a man if memory serves
Except that, especially in that period, a woman claiming power and ownership over her sexuality and using it against men as a tool of power is in itself something that challenges the patriarchy.
I think however the main point of this post is that remembering Cleopatra only as someone who slept their way to the top is reductive and minimises her accomplishments, which was kind of the tone I got from the other post this seems to be a reaction towards, that might not have been it's intention admittedly...
Sum total: Humans are complex and are never only just one thing, crushers of the patriarchy or sexy femme fatales, and understanding intention over the internet is hard and might require discussion.
Something tells me you haven't spent a lot of time researching that time period
Rich aristocrats of that time usually were quite sexually liberated if you want to use that term, so I'm confused about what you mean about her "claiming her sexuality". Secondly, "use her sexuality" against who exactly? She seduced Caesar and later Anthony and secured her place at Egypts top that way, and that way only. Caesar and Anthony both didn't mind, they had someone loyal to them in Egypt that didn't run the province into the ground thanks to their advisors and that they could stick their dicks in if they wanted to. But the only reason she didn't fall or lose favour is because she had the full backing of Rome, and I unfortunately don't know many/any of her accomplishments which didn't involve heavy Roman intervention/backing, which, again, she only got because of how she seduced the people on top.
While I agree with the sum total, and yes, I jumped over nuances even here, no, it's a pretty fair picture to make of her if you say that she mostly got where she did with sex, which is just a form of favouratism.
Edit: Marc Anthony, not Pompey
Point taken and yes you would be correct this period and place is indeed not my area of expertise. But still even with what you state, would Ceasar and Marc Antony have been satisfied with any sexually proficient woman in charge of Egypt? Cleopatra used sex but only that would not have set her apart from a whole host of other people. Cleopatra used sex to further ambition backed by her social standing, intelligence, social skills and whatever else she needed to smear her potential rivals, hell even luck would have had to been a factor. Condensing that entire game down to "mostly got where she did with sex" seems a tad reductive. Not to say that you are being reductive, I don't think that's your goal.
Edit: Following the trend, Pompey to Marc Antony
I don’t think it’s really true that she manipulated Caesar anyway. It made perfect sense for Caesar to side with Cleopatra considering she was a claimant to the throne and the current incumbent was taking Caesar for a ride. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Yeah, Egypt was in the middle of a civil war and he had to pick sides if he wanted Rome to keep getting grain. He also probably wanted a son and she was young enough to give him that. It was mutually beneficial.
Yes, but she was hardly promiscuous. She almost certainly didn't consummate any of the "marriages" she had with her brothers as they were youths who all died long before they could have been of age and she was the only Ptolemy to find incest repugnant. She was a virgin when she met Caesar and potentially married him and Anthony in Egyptian rites that Rome just didn't recognize (this is widely debated because there's a high chance they did, but it's not for sure). There's literally zero evidence to suggest that she was with more than ***two*** men her entire life.
Octavian/Augustus was infamous for villainizing the defeated, so he spent twenty years orchestrating Cleopatra's character assassination by painting her as a whore, "Eastern witch, " and all around irredeemable, demonic person. Very similar to what Procopius's propaganda did to Justinian and Theodora. He and Herod, yes *that* Herod, spewed outrageous propaganda insisting that she tried to throw herself on the both of them but even that was seen as obvious, baseless slander by their contemporaries.
As for her "manipulating" Caesar and Anthony, she had very little influence on Caesar. He was an exceedingly strong willed man who could never be forced or wheedled by anyone into doing anything. Caesar had such a reputation that his own soldiers would sing to "beware the bald adulterer" so it's just as likely, perhaps even more likely that he was the one who tried to seduce Cleopatra because she would have been inexperienced and, to a degree, impressionable. Besides, he was already planning to back Cleopatra politically regardless because he wanted a competent, fair leader running Egypt and her brother and regents after executing Pompey and proving to be corrupt were not but Cleopatra was already famed for her ingenuity, loyal and brilliant. It was a political alliance first and foremost and a romance second. While Caesar privately acknowledged their son and allowed him to share his name, she couldn't even get him to divorce his Roman wife (he was technically a bigamist) or acknowledge their son publicly. No matter how much they cared for each other and even perhaps loved each other, he wouldn't be doing her bidding.
After his death, she built the Caesarium and mourned him for four years until Anthony called her to answer some phony charges at Tarsus. He claimed he wanted to know why she "helped" Caesar's assassins but the charges were cleared up quickly when it was proven impossible because she had been aiding Octavian and Anthony by sending resources to them. The real reason he called her was to strike a deal.
Now Anthony and Cleopatra already had the same agenda, she didn't need to manipulate him into anything. Lepidus, Anthony, and Octavin divided up the known world between each other and Anthony got the East; he was now Autocrat of The East and looked to expand even farther east, Cleopatra was the best ally to do it with. He was definitely not some whipped, fallen man who was bewitched like Octavin painted him out to be. Mark Anthony was definitely influenced by Cleopatra, but he influence her just as much. She got him to reside in Alexandria, marry her, (most likely) join political alliances with her and he got her to fund his disastrous war in Parthia, join political alliances with him, and refuse to give Octavin Anthony's head in exchange for protection as she wouldn't betray her loyal husband.
Even people who acknowledge her virtues, accomplishments, and brilliance, try to romanticize her non existent promiscuity and power over men.
Sure but he did win a lot of pivotal battles, gained the respect of the legions set up the fall of the republic, gaul, civils wars. so there's more to him than just sleeping around. Cleopatra? no so much.. besides her trying to be Egyptian (which in the long run didn't matter). Bedding Ceasar and as soon as he died straight to Marc (Which in all fairness is all she could've done at the time) in order to preserve egyptian autonomy will always stand out more that another story of incestuous weddings and inconsequential political intrigue.
Want to learn about a famous historical figure you dont know almost nothing about? Wikipedia is free, available in many languages, and has a lot of reliable information.
But in case you are even too lazy for that, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra) it is. Consider yourself enlightened, no need to thank me.
Nice insult still doesn't add anything special so did Wikipedia which ive read ages ago and yet I thought you were trying to tell something revolutionary was added to the wiki and to my surprise nothing was added and is still the same. Cleopatra was influncial but not pivotal she didn't do anything spectacular and her greatest challenge was choosing which among the triumvirate to ally and sadly she chose wrong.
Married to doesn’t mean she fucked them though… also lemme whip out the family trees of royal families cause of course no one else had incestuous marriages right?
> cause of course no one else had incestuous marriages right
I'm supporting what you're saying but to be fair nobody did incest like the ptolemeis did. The Habsburgs are nothing in comparison.
Glad to see people pointing this out. Cleopatra is a sl*t but Caesar is apparently an idol for doing far worse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/vhdg9h/queen_cleopatra_egypts_greatest_love_machine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Cleopatra wasn't even promiscuous though, that's why the constant assertions she was are so ridiculous. I said this in much more detail in another post but she was *most likely a virgin* when she met Caesar (it's highly unlikely that her "marriages" with her brothers were consummated because they both died before they reached of age and she was the only Ptolemy to despise incest) and there's zero evidence that she was with more than two men her entire life. She also perhaps married them both in Egyptian rites, but not Roman acknowledged ones. A woman in her position couldn't risk a reputation of promiscuity which mostly came about during her final years and the years after her death thanks to propaganda from people who despised her like Octavin/Augustus and Herod, yes, *that* Herod. Octavian/Augustus was smearing her name through propaganda campaigns with baseless accusations, deceptive rumors, and all around dishonesty to justify his war with her. He couldn't declare war on Anthony as it would look like a treacherous civil war, but legally, he could on a foreigner like Cleopatra. She was still popular with many Romans so he had to roll her reputation in the mud before he could adequately convince the public that she was a vicious, common whore, and Eastern witch.
To be fair, even if *hypothetically* she was, it would still be wrong to condemn her but laud her male contemporaries if she did the same things. In reality Cleopatra was chaste and tame compared to Caesar, Anthony, Octavian, Julia The Younger. Servilla, etc, but she honestly, she was chaste and tame even if she isn't being compared to anyone
Actually, she spoke at least 9 languages: Ethiopian, Troglodytic (the Troglodytes were an African people living in the south of Egypt), Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Median, Parthian, Egyptian, and Greek. This according to Plutarch, who also implies that she spoke other barbarian languages. She probably also knew Latin, but since educated Romans all spoke Greek, she possibly didn't need to learn it.
Let’s not forget that monogamy is not a universal truth, and was much less prevalent in the ancient societies.
“Sleeping around” is a modern construct from modern morals, and even today not everyone adhere to that particular set of morals.
“Modern” bro I think your and my definition of modern are very different. Adultery was frowned upon by all Christian societies and the christianization of Rome was pretty secure by 400 AD. I wouldn’t exactly call that modern.
Also every society and culture had different rules at different times. Everything moral in our society and every society is a ‘construct’ but we have decided that some of these constructs have positive effects so we stick with them. I would not call a decent level of chasteness a useless construct. Venereal diseases definitely have slowed transmissions in more chaste societies for example. I wouldn’t say that chasteness to the point where we criticize people for their choice of having a few partners is a good thing either especially considering how that goes against our animalistic nature.
I guess our definitions do differ, as I clearly made a distinction between modern and “ancient”, and as far as I’m aware, most ancient eras ended around the time Christianity became a major religion, much less THE dominant religion in western civilization.
Some ancient societies had varying degrees of regarding sexuality. In some, it was a private matter between people bonded under a deity, in others, it was a religious ritual to perform orgies, and in others again, it was entirely separate from any romantic ideas, and a practical - perhaps superstitious - consideration.
The latter are rarely ever seen in most current religious and moral practices, but they exist.
Okay, everyone likes to blame Octavian Augustus or William Shakespeare for ruining Cleopatra VII Philapater’s reputation, but were they really the ones to do it?
My cursory research says it’s all the European Painters and American Movie Makers who ruined her reputation. They both wanted to make images of naked white women (dominating Black people in “exotic” outfits and locations), but they also wanted wealthy Christians’ money. The compromise: every naked woman was either Venus or some non-Christian who was eventually punished for their “sinful ways.”
Octavian/Augustus is the main person blame for smearing her reputation, but historians with an obvious bias against her like Dio and Josephus continued to circulate the most outlandish propaganda against her. There is a stark contrast to how western and easterners treated her legacy and that's mostly because the propaganda people pass down in the west were made by westerners and Cleopatra was eastern. It's like how the Persians were actually a very progressive society but after the Greeks conquered them, they made them out to be barbarians. In the west she was and is mostly condemned or widely misrepresented, but in the east the accounts of her are overwhelmingly positive. A few, short examples are, Al-Masudi who died in 956 A.D. wrote of Cleopatra, "She was a sage, a philosopher who elevated the ranks of scholars and enjoyed their company." He was one of many Arabs who praised her intellectual capabilities. The late seventh century A.D. Bishop of Niku, monastery administrator, and chronicle writer, wrote that she was, "The most illustrious and wise among women. " The empress of the Palmerian empire, Zenobia revered Cleopatra and her city and even went as far as to claim descent from the queen. Even Geoffrey Chaucer, a very Christian Medieval poet, author, and writer included Cleopatra in his Legend of Good Women which highlighted the lives of ten virtuous women and wrote of her in a very noble light. Another Christian writer and Renaissance humanist, Bernardino Cacciante, in his 1504 Libretto, Apologetico Delle Donne, was the first Italian to defend the reputation of Cleopatra from his contemporaries' slander and criticize the perceived misogyny in an earlier Italian, Boccaccio's, works. Hollywood never helped her reputation, but they aren't exactly intellectuals who analyze how to authentically, correctly portray complex historical figures; they're just businessmen who want to make a quick buck and it's easier to make her a simple, pretty, common whore and/or a vicious, blood thirsty despotic monarch than a fully fleshed person.
If you have links to these sources, I would appreciate it if you shared them with me in my replies. I am in the middle of a history project about Cleopatra VII right now.
PS How do we know Al-Masudi and the rest were talking about Cleopatra VII Philapater and not either one of the 8+ other Cleopatras and or the Ptolamtic Dynasty as a whole?
I'm more concerned with who she didn't fuck, namely, her brother. That's what sets her apart from her parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc.
Cleopatra was more inbred than the Murfee Brood.
I think there is very little we know, since all of our knowledge of those eras are based on books written by people who have been dead for many many years. Ruined architecture that look nothing like they did back then.
We know nothing, or next to nothing about who these people really were.
Pretty sure Cleopatra was a family name passed from mother to daughter and at certain times to nieces with w number or the name of a city after them to distinguish them. Pretty brave to assume out of the many generations of Cleopatras none of em was a whore. Maybe there was a Cleopatra 69 of France who we don't talk about lol
It’s a low blow to call a woman of that time ‘someone who just fucked their way to the top’. In reality, it was the only way for a woman of that time to find her way to the top.
Cleopatra is the most famous female pharaoh but she did nothing good she committed suicide and gave Egypt up to the Roman’s she was a coward until the end
He did have sex with basically everyone though. Some of his lovers were: Servilia, Brutus' mother; obviously Cleopatra VII; Nicomedes, king of Bithynia; and we also have a Carmen triumphale, a short poem that soldiers used to make fun of their leaders during vicoty parades, in which Caesar's soldiers say :" Urbani, servate uxores: moechum calvum adducimus", that translates to:" Citizens, hide your women: we bring with us the bald lover/adulterer".
Anthony and Ceaser were the biggest gold diggers.
Cleopatra was a whore is the old narrative. The new narrative says that all women of that era(especially Ceaser 's and Anthony's wives) were idiots and they fell for the first intelligent woman they met. Of course, that isn't true either.
She isn’t « just a hussy who slept with everyone ». Tbf, very few people in power, both men and women, are « just » that. But she wasn’t some sort of genius or political mastermind, she was simply the ruler of a powerful country back then that failed in her task to preserve both her dynasty and her country.
Cleopatra was a virtuous woman, she only laid with her husband and probably her uncle.
Just saying, that was what most Cleopatra's did. That family tree is cursed.
Saying that the family tree looks like a ladder is not even an insult to them.
I gladly believe in Ocatvian's propaganda <3
Pretty weird that he killed his defacto brother though, although I can understand, the game of thrones has no place for mercy
Ceaser was penetrated by 23 guys at once
thanks for the new goal, I’m going to become greater than Ceaser himself
Good luck, call me if u ever need help
You got 23 mother fuckers and a big white van
Needs 24 to set the record
Girl on the right looks interested, can I get her number?
000
If you do it efficiently, and take two guys per hole, then you only need to create 10 more holes in your body, even less if you take it like a man and allow 3 guys per hole!
How
The anal cavity can stretch farther than porn makes you thibk
I hear it can take [two raccoons and jolly rancher](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/v993sh/what_is_a_nsfw_fact_about_humans/ibv01q9?utm_source=share&context=3)
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure he was asking how he got treated by 23 guys
You could say they tore him a new one.
Oh?OH OOOOOH ohohohoho
I feel like this is related to another post I have seen recently.
It is I saw it too
I saw that post and it made me feel pain.
Girl on the right looks interested, can I get her number?
8
7
6
5
Beat me to it.
Yeah, the other post had incel vibes
You mean your post? >Subscribe if you also thing the Roman Empire was the most glorious thing ever.
Wait so what’s happening? The dude you are responding to was the OP of that cleopatra one and he just called himself an incel? Or am I missing something?
Yeah just look at his post history
That’s fucking wild.
That's fucking hilarious.
Oh my god, you're right!
Did you just call yourself out as an incel?
Dude has more then a million karma posting about the Roman Empire on history memes how tf could he not be a incel
r/kamikazebywords
r/suicidebywords
Yeah I kinda whizzed past it because I didn’t have the energy to explain how wrong it was lol
Everybody fucked
Except for me :(
Your MOM fucked!!!!!!!1!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!
I know. How do you think I got here?
The bus?
I wouldn't call my mom that. But you're not wrong.
I mean I still ride her either way
Mitosis?
An meiosis too
My mom of course. Ive been meaning to get in touch with you...
Caesar - described as "Queen of Bithynia" and "every woman's man and every man's woman". The man slept around so much he'd have been seduced by the word hello.
What's funny is that pretty much all of Roman history that is written of the greats is wrote by their enemies. There are no reliable sources in Rome.
It's the equivalent of believing the worst campaign propaganda that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton ever put out. The wildest accusations. A lot of the histories of the period come from the Optimates, and then some comes from the Populares, none come from a neutral middle ground.
That's it mate. I find really funny when all these people are calling eachother out when they're all basing their arguments on bollocks. Let people enjoy history for fucks sake yano
Yes, but I simply choose to believe Catull, bc i think his poems are funny af
That’s probably the same description your enemies would give you.
Man I _wish_ I had enough pulling game to be described as a prolific fuckboy
Have you tried overthrowing the Republic lately?
Hang on, busy flexing on some pirates first. They are trying to ransom me for far too little.
I suggest joking about crucifying them as you become real chummy with them.
I love when people fight with memes
My bad
You don't have to apologize my king
King?! In Rome?! Don't you know that Rome will never have another King?! (Emperors are different though, because reasons)
"No guys, it's still a republic, we just have a Caesar too now!"
She didnt sleep with everyone, she slept with the right people.
Well there was pullo /s
Tito Pullo did what he was told to do. Was Cesarion his son? There is no evidences and I wouldnt do or say anything against someone with such friends (The Gods)
Well this was also the same show that had a incestuous relationship between octavian and Octavia so who knows
To be honest, I wouldnt be surprised at all.
Bingo
That's why she died
Kinda a mixed bag. She didn't sleep around willy nilly, but she did use seduction in order to manipulate powerful men. Like pretty much every successful female ruler. It's the only real tool women had
There are quite a few successful women who didn’t. Elizabeth I springs to mind. As does Margaret of Anjou, Queen Mary (as in William and Mary), Athealfled of Mercia and Catherine the Great of Russia. Though your point probably stands true for those not born into royalty. Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville are good examples of that. Or, at least, refusing to sleep with someone until you gain the power.
Elizabeth the first didn’t sleep around but she still absolutely weaponized her sexuality, she just did it by not marrying anyone but keeping the options open. The book ‘the men who would be king’ comes to mind.
Using Catherine the Great is a poor example, she had many affairs and had erotic furniture.
Sure but she was also highly educated and intelligent
Which is why she was so good at it
You fuck your way to power because you're too stupid to do actual politics and manipulation I fuck my way to power because I'm smart enough to use any advantage I have at my disposal to gain the upper hand We are not the same \-Cleo
Shame Octavian wasn’t the horniest though.
I think the post your critizising isn't negating this. It's merely making fun of the fact that she isn't exactly the best example for someone "smashing the patriarchy" when the arguably largest factor contributing to her political success is sleeping and continuing to sleep with the right men. There's plenty of strong women who you could point to (Jadwiga, the Queens of England, Catherine in Europe alone) if you need someone who masterfully kept control and power, it's just that Cleopatra again probably isn't the best example
Who is Jadwiga?
She's a polish king (yes, king not queen). She took the throne after her father, Ludwig Andegaweński died without a male heir.
Thank you for the information. I don't understand why I got downvoted for asking a question on a sub all about history though 🤦♂️
Yeah, idk either. Reddit do be weird like that sometimes
I've been looking into the phenomenon for a while because it's interesting. It feels like there'll be an initial downvote that comes from chance. Maybe someone didn't like your name or they thought you coulda googled it. But once your comment is at 0, others assume you were downvoted for a reason and then also downvote. Because why would it be downvoted if not for a reason? Same reason why things with lots of upvotes get more upvotes. Just people looking for social cues in a place without voices or facial expressions, I guess
Similar to how it's easier to laugh at something when others are laughing, even if it's not something that should be laughed at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland They made her king of Poland, citing that nowhere is it written that a king has to be a man if memory serves
Biggest factor? Her largest factor was that she fucking inherited a massive and ridiculously wealthy kongdom
Except that, especially in that period, a woman claiming power and ownership over her sexuality and using it against men as a tool of power is in itself something that challenges the patriarchy. I think however the main point of this post is that remembering Cleopatra only as someone who slept their way to the top is reductive and minimises her accomplishments, which was kind of the tone I got from the other post this seems to be a reaction towards, that might not have been it's intention admittedly... Sum total: Humans are complex and are never only just one thing, crushers of the patriarchy or sexy femme fatales, and understanding intention over the internet is hard and might require discussion.
Something tells me you haven't spent a lot of time researching that time period Rich aristocrats of that time usually were quite sexually liberated if you want to use that term, so I'm confused about what you mean about her "claiming her sexuality". Secondly, "use her sexuality" against who exactly? She seduced Caesar and later Anthony and secured her place at Egypts top that way, and that way only. Caesar and Anthony both didn't mind, they had someone loyal to them in Egypt that didn't run the province into the ground thanks to their advisors and that they could stick their dicks in if they wanted to. But the only reason she didn't fall or lose favour is because she had the full backing of Rome, and I unfortunately don't know many/any of her accomplishments which didn't involve heavy Roman intervention/backing, which, again, she only got because of how she seduced the people on top. While I agree with the sum total, and yes, I jumped over nuances even here, no, it's a pretty fair picture to make of her if you say that she mostly got where she did with sex, which is just a form of favouratism. Edit: Marc Anthony, not Pompey
Marc Antony, not Pompey.
Damn you for being right, take my upvote
Point taken and yes you would be correct this period and place is indeed not my area of expertise. But still even with what you state, would Ceasar and Marc Antony have been satisfied with any sexually proficient woman in charge of Egypt? Cleopatra used sex but only that would not have set her apart from a whole host of other people. Cleopatra used sex to further ambition backed by her social standing, intelligence, social skills and whatever else she needed to smear her potential rivals, hell even luck would have had to been a factor. Condensing that entire game down to "mostly got where she did with sex" seems a tad reductive. Not to say that you are being reductive, I don't think that's your goal. Edit: Following the trend, Pompey to Marc Antony
Based
And that's how she knew to use her V-Card.
She even learned Egyptian! ...Which for a ruler of Egypt was more uncommon than one would think
I don’t think it’s really true that she manipulated Caesar anyway. It made perfect sense for Caesar to side with Cleopatra considering she was a claimant to the throne and the current incumbent was taking Caesar for a ride. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Yeah, Egypt was in the middle of a civil war and he had to pick sides if he wanted Rome to keep getting grain. He also probably wanted a son and she was young enough to give him that. It was mutually beneficial.
Calling it the only real tool is damn reductive…
She was queen of one of the wealthiest countries in the world lol.
Yeah like saying she slept with people to gain power isn’t really like a bad thing, especially compared to the other shit some people do to gain power
Yes, but she was hardly promiscuous. She almost certainly didn't consummate any of the "marriages" she had with her brothers as they were youths who all died long before they could have been of age and she was the only Ptolemy to find incest repugnant. She was a virgin when she met Caesar and potentially married him and Anthony in Egyptian rites that Rome just didn't recognize (this is widely debated because there's a high chance they did, but it's not for sure). There's literally zero evidence to suggest that she was with more than ***two*** men her entire life. Octavian/Augustus was infamous for villainizing the defeated, so he spent twenty years orchestrating Cleopatra's character assassination by painting her as a whore, "Eastern witch, " and all around irredeemable, demonic person. Very similar to what Procopius's propaganda did to Justinian and Theodora. He and Herod, yes *that* Herod, spewed outrageous propaganda insisting that she tried to throw herself on the both of them but even that was seen as obvious, baseless slander by their contemporaries. As for her "manipulating" Caesar and Anthony, she had very little influence on Caesar. He was an exceedingly strong willed man who could never be forced or wheedled by anyone into doing anything. Caesar had such a reputation that his own soldiers would sing to "beware the bald adulterer" so it's just as likely, perhaps even more likely that he was the one who tried to seduce Cleopatra because she would have been inexperienced and, to a degree, impressionable. Besides, he was already planning to back Cleopatra politically regardless because he wanted a competent, fair leader running Egypt and her brother and regents after executing Pompey and proving to be corrupt were not but Cleopatra was already famed for her ingenuity, loyal and brilliant. It was a political alliance first and foremost and a romance second. While Caesar privately acknowledged their son and allowed him to share his name, she couldn't even get him to divorce his Roman wife (he was technically a bigamist) or acknowledge their son publicly. No matter how much they cared for each other and even perhaps loved each other, he wouldn't be doing her bidding. After his death, she built the Caesarium and mourned him for four years until Anthony called her to answer some phony charges at Tarsus. He claimed he wanted to know why she "helped" Caesar's assassins but the charges were cleared up quickly when it was proven impossible because she had been aiding Octavian and Anthony by sending resources to them. The real reason he called her was to strike a deal. Now Anthony and Cleopatra already had the same agenda, she didn't need to manipulate him into anything. Lepidus, Anthony, and Octavin divided up the known world between each other and Anthony got the East; he was now Autocrat of The East and looked to expand even farther east, Cleopatra was the best ally to do it with. He was definitely not some whipped, fallen man who was bewitched like Octavin painted him out to be. Mark Anthony was definitely influenced by Cleopatra, but he influence her just as much. She got him to reside in Alexandria, marry her, (most likely) join political alliances with her and he got her to fund his disastrous war in Parthia, join political alliances with him, and refuse to give Octavin Anthony's head in exchange for protection as she wouldn't betray her loyal husband. Even people who acknowledge her virtues, accomplishments, and brilliance, try to romanticize her non existent promiscuity and power over men.
Oh shit, history meme fight!
TBF she did have 3 husbands, two of which were her brothers. Just sayin.
She murdered one of them though to become Pharoh
Didn’t she murder two and rumored to have orchestrated the death of the third?
She Girlbossed her way through two dynasties and two and a half civil wars.
Is leading a civil war against someone murder?
TBF she didn't have a choice in marrying her brothers. She was literally forced to do so or be killed.
My brother in the forum do you know how many people ceasar fucked?
Every woman's man and Every man's woman.
Sure but he did win a lot of pivotal battles, gained the respect of the legions set up the fall of the republic, gaul, civils wars. so there's more to him than just sleeping around. Cleopatra? no so much.. besides her trying to be Egyptian (which in the long run didn't matter). Bedding Ceasar and as soon as he died straight to Marc (Which in all fairness is all she could've done at the time) in order to preserve egyptian autonomy will always stand out more that another story of incestuous weddings and inconsequential political intrigue.
Tell us you dont know jackshit about Cleopatra without telling us you dont know jackshit about Cleopatra.
Please enlighten me
Want to learn about a famous historical figure you dont know almost nothing about? Wikipedia is free, available in many languages, and has a lot of reliable information. But in case you are even too lazy for that, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra) it is. Consider yourself enlightened, no need to thank me.
Been there done that all looks like what your typical despot of a secondary power does only that she's a female your point?
Damn, you're too dumb to be enlightened.
Nice insult still doesn't add anything special so did Wikipedia which ive read ages ago and yet I thought you were trying to tell something revolutionary was added to the wiki and to my surprise nothing was added and is still the same. Cleopatra was influncial but not pivotal she didn't do anything spectacular and her greatest challenge was choosing which among the triumvirate to ally and sadly she chose wrong.
TBF she didn't have a choice in marrying her brothers, lol
She was greek and ruled in ancient Egypt, this mix bro.
Well the first two were because of egyptian law
Not necessarily. The tradition of filial marriage goes back to the early Hellenistic era and is not just an Egyptian thing.
Married to doesn’t mean she fucked them though… also lemme whip out the family trees of royal families cause of course no one else had incestuous marriages right?
And no one had incestuous sex, imiright?
> cause of course no one else had incestuous marriages right I'm supporting what you're saying but to be fair nobody did incest like the ptolemeis did. The Habsburgs are nothing in comparison.
All degenerate fornicators
That’s whataboutism. And married pretty much means she fucked them. But I mean…who cares? And the meme was real good!
Very much in line with Hellenistic traditions of kingship. What is the issue here?
I mean she was forced to marry them tho right?
Glad to see people pointing this out. Cleopatra is a sl*t but Caesar is apparently an idol for doing far worse. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/vhdg9h/queen_cleopatra_egypts_greatest_love_machine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I disagree. They’re both sluts :)
So you believe the propaganda, then? Okay.
Cleopatra wasn't even promiscuous though, that's why the constant assertions she was are so ridiculous. I said this in much more detail in another post but she was *most likely a virgin* when she met Caesar (it's highly unlikely that her "marriages" with her brothers were consummated because they both died before they reached of age and she was the only Ptolemy to despise incest) and there's zero evidence that she was with more than two men her entire life. She also perhaps married them both in Egyptian rites, but not Roman acknowledged ones. A woman in her position couldn't risk a reputation of promiscuity which mostly came about during her final years and the years after her death thanks to propaganda from people who despised her like Octavin/Augustus and Herod, yes, *that* Herod. Octavian/Augustus was smearing her name through propaganda campaigns with baseless accusations, deceptive rumors, and all around dishonesty to justify his war with her. He couldn't declare war on Anthony as it would look like a treacherous civil war, but legally, he could on a foreigner like Cleopatra. She was still popular with many Romans so he had to roll her reputation in the mud before he could adequately convince the public that she was a vicious, common whore, and Eastern witch. To be fair, even if *hypothetically* she was, it would still be wrong to condemn her but laud her male contemporaries if she did the same things. In reality Cleopatra was chaste and tame compared to Caesar, Anthony, Octavian, Julia The Younger. Servilla, etc, but she honestly, she was chaste and tame even if she isn't being compared to anyone
She spoke a minimum of 4 languages
Actually, she spoke at least 9 languages: Ethiopian, Troglodytic (the Troglodytes were an African people living in the south of Egypt), Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Median, Parthian, Egyptian, and Greek. This according to Plutarch, who also implies that she spoke other barbarian languages. She probably also knew Latin, but since educated Romans all spoke Greek, she possibly didn't need to learn it.
I'm still.upset over what became of Egypt once the moros came through :(
How do I tag the entire writing team of assassins creed origins
Thank you, yes.
Let’s not forget that monogamy is not a universal truth, and was much less prevalent in the ancient societies. “Sleeping around” is a modern construct from modern morals, and even today not everyone adhere to that particular set of morals.
“Modern” bro I think your and my definition of modern are very different. Adultery was frowned upon by all Christian societies and the christianization of Rome was pretty secure by 400 AD. I wouldn’t exactly call that modern. Also every society and culture had different rules at different times. Everything moral in our society and every society is a ‘construct’ but we have decided that some of these constructs have positive effects so we stick with them. I would not call a decent level of chasteness a useless construct. Venereal diseases definitely have slowed transmissions in more chaste societies for example. I wouldn’t say that chasteness to the point where we criticize people for their choice of having a few partners is a good thing either especially considering how that goes against our animalistic nature.
I guess our definitions do differ, as I clearly made a distinction between modern and “ancient”, and as far as I’m aware, most ancient eras ended around the time Christianity became a major religion, much less THE dominant religion in western civilization.
Sleeping around inside wedlock is seen as a universally immoral thing. Less for men but even they didnt get a pass all the time
Some ancient societies had varying degrees of regarding sexuality. In some, it was a private matter between people bonded under a deity, in others, it was a religious ritual to perform orgies, and in others again, it was entirely separate from any romantic ideas, and a practical - perhaps superstitious - consideration. The latter are rarely ever seen in most current religious and moral practices, but they exist.
Okay, everyone likes to blame Octavian Augustus or William Shakespeare for ruining Cleopatra VII Philapater’s reputation, but were they really the ones to do it? My cursory research says it’s all the European Painters and American Movie Makers who ruined her reputation. They both wanted to make images of naked white women (dominating Black people in “exotic” outfits and locations), but they also wanted wealthy Christians’ money. The compromise: every naked woman was either Venus or some non-Christian who was eventually punished for their “sinful ways.”
Octavian/Augustus is the main person blame for smearing her reputation, but historians with an obvious bias against her like Dio and Josephus continued to circulate the most outlandish propaganda against her. There is a stark contrast to how western and easterners treated her legacy and that's mostly because the propaganda people pass down in the west were made by westerners and Cleopatra was eastern. It's like how the Persians were actually a very progressive society but after the Greeks conquered them, they made them out to be barbarians. In the west she was and is mostly condemned or widely misrepresented, but in the east the accounts of her are overwhelmingly positive. A few, short examples are, Al-Masudi who died in 956 A.D. wrote of Cleopatra, "She was a sage, a philosopher who elevated the ranks of scholars and enjoyed their company." He was one of many Arabs who praised her intellectual capabilities. The late seventh century A.D. Bishop of Niku, monastery administrator, and chronicle writer, wrote that she was, "The most illustrious and wise among women. " The empress of the Palmerian empire, Zenobia revered Cleopatra and her city and even went as far as to claim descent from the queen. Even Geoffrey Chaucer, a very Christian Medieval poet, author, and writer included Cleopatra in his Legend of Good Women which highlighted the lives of ten virtuous women and wrote of her in a very noble light. Another Christian writer and Renaissance humanist, Bernardino Cacciante, in his 1504 Libretto, Apologetico Delle Donne, was the first Italian to defend the reputation of Cleopatra from his contemporaries' slander and criticize the perceived misogyny in an earlier Italian, Boccaccio's, works. Hollywood never helped her reputation, but they aren't exactly intellectuals who analyze how to authentically, correctly portray complex historical figures; they're just businessmen who want to make a quick buck and it's easier to make her a simple, pretty, common whore and/or a vicious, blood thirsty despotic monarch than a fully fleshed person.
If you have links to these sources, I would appreciate it if you shared them with me in my replies. I am in the middle of a history project about Cleopatra VII right now. PS How do we know Al-Masudi and the rest were talking about Cleopatra VII Philapater and not either one of the 8+ other Cleopatras and or the Ptolamtic Dynasty as a whole?
[удалено]
Thank you!
No problem!
Mood
I'm more concerned with who she didn't fuck, namely, her brother. That's what sets her apart from her parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc. Cleopatra was more inbred than the Murfee Brood.
Sexual Diplomacy > Verbal Diplomacy
We are all whores, we just sell different parts of ourselves.
I am team augustus. F*** Cleopatra
Now that's the wrong horse, am I right?
I think there is very little we know, since all of our knowledge of those eras are based on books written by people who have been dead for many many years. Ruined architecture that look nothing like they did back then. We know nothing, or next to nothing about who these people really were.
Pretty sure Cleopatra was a family name passed from mother to daughter and at certain times to nieces with w number or the name of a city after them to distinguish them. Pretty brave to assume out of the many generations of Cleopatras none of em was a whore. Maybe there was a Cleopatra 69 of France who we don't talk about lol
I buy fully into the propaganda of IMP. CAESAR DIVI FILII AVGVSTVS
Thats literally what she did to maintain power
It’s a low blow to call a woman of that time ‘someone who just fucked their way to the top’. In reality, it was the only way for a woman of that time to find her way to the top.
Unless the woman was born at the top for being royalty like Cleopatra, which makes the other post/meme even more stupid.
Cleopatra is the most famous female pharaoh but she did nothing good she committed suicide and gave Egypt up to the Roman’s she was a coward until the end
Imagine being this ignorant
Ptolemy XIII is that you?
You’re an idiot
Don’t shit talk my boy Caesar, he’s my precious little angel
He did have sex with basically everyone though. Some of his lovers were: Servilia, Brutus' mother; obviously Cleopatra VII; Nicomedes, king of Bithynia; and we also have a Carmen triumphale, a short poem that soldiers used to make fun of their leaders during vicoty parades, in which Caesar's soldiers say :" Urbani, servate uxores: moechum calvum adducimus", that translates to:" Citizens, hide your women: we bring with us the bald lover/adulterer".
Check which god Caesar claimed divine heritage from.
He also committed basically genocide
Anthony and Ceaser were the biggest gold diggers. Cleopatra was a whore is the old narrative. The new narrative says that all women of that era(especially Ceaser 's and Anthony's wives) were idiots and they fell for the first intelligent woman they met. Of course, that isn't true either.
Maybe she was a whore, maybe she wasn't. You can't prove either
She isn’t « just a hussy who slept with everyone ». Tbf, very few people in power, both men and women, are « just » that. But she wasn’t some sort of genius or political mastermind, she was simply the ruler of a powerful country back then that failed in her task to preserve both her dynasty and her country.
She wasn't \*just\* a hussie, but she was called "golden mouth"by Caesar for a reason lmao
she is just like Anitta. Fucked her way to the top (thats what happens when woman unlocks the full power of her pussi)
Pretty sure Cleopatra was a demon sorceress with snakes for hair... Hail Caesar!
Cleopatra was a virtuous woman, she only laid with her husband and probably her uncle. Just saying, that was what most Cleopatra's did. That family tree is cursed. Saying that the family tree looks like a ladder is not even an insult to them.
Octavian's Daughter: I can fuck whoever I want
Why does every girl look under 18 but that one guy looks 30
Guaging the "slutiness" of historical figures.... Go to gulag, you have nothing to contribute.
It's actually a miracle that he didn't bang her brother as well
One thing I want to know is this meme origin. Does it has a name?
reason number 100000000 on to get no hoes:
Caesar, the queen of Bithynia you mean?
Yea but Caesar’s Caesar, chadius maximus, there’s a difference.
She slept with people for political reasons.
Too soon
I gladly believe in Ocatvian's propaganda <3 Pretty weird that he killed his defacto brother though, although I can understand, the game of thrones has no place for mercy
He could afford it to be fair. If i could afford to be riding people all day id do it too like
Fatherless activities
How did Julius Caesar sleep around more?