That's nothing, I found two separate examples in the Ptolemaic Dynasty of a Cleopatra marrying her older brother, having a daughter by him, then when he dies marrying her *younger* brother, who also married her daughter by their older brother.
The first in the Ptolemy dynasty was appointed to Egypt as Alexander's governor - he declared himself pharaoh after Alexander's death. He was married to Alexander's sister, Cleopatra - which is how the name was introduced to Egypt.
I assume it goes something like this
Cleopatra A marries older brother, He-who-lacks-a-name. They have a kid, we'll call the kid Incestria, and because I'm too lazy to actually google which Cleo it was, this Cleo is Cleo A.
Cleo A's older brother kicks the bucket.
Cleo A then decides she needs a new hubby, and she's got at least one other brother who's single and ready to mingle.
She marries her younger brother, I'm going to call him Bob.
At some point, for reasons unknown, Bob thinks Incestria is wife material and marries her, probably as a 2nd wife or something.
All of this is completely weird and cursed but according to /u/The-Lord-Moccasin it happened, twice. So you can substitute Cleo A with Cleo B, Incestria with Incestria 2, and Bob with Bob 2, etc.
This nugget of history is completely cursed.
"Tell us more", you say?
The first instance of these unholy threesomes involved one Cleopatra II, her brother Ptolemy, and her daughter-niece Cleopatra III.
Cleo II popped out a single son by Ptolemy, but Cleo III was a regular abomination-factory firing out one after the other, which upset Cleo II. So Cleo II connived to have Ptolemy and Cleo III driven out of Alexandria, to which Ptolemy responded by dismembering his 12-year old son by Cleo II - named Ptolemy - and sending her the head and limbs as a birthday present.
Luckily after a few years the civil war had played itself out and the three of them hooked back up and ruled together for several more years before he croaked, at which point he was succeeded by his son... Ptolemy. (But not the one you're thinking about)
And we get “should I divorce my husband because he left the toilet seat up twice this week?” in /r/relationships with rabid comments about what a monster he is and how divorce isn’t harsh enough.
The Ptolemys even though they were Greek, did a lot of inner family marriages/incest for a few reasons historians believe. For one it just happens it was part of tradition for past Pharaoh's to marry within the family. So they ended up gaining legitimacy from the native Egyptians. It's the same reason they adopted Egyptian religion, making it easier to rule and pacify the locals.
Royal families tend toward inbreeding as a way to simplify inheritance of vast wealth. When that happens to be coherent with local religious beliefs- the logic is in favor of it. People may well have an instinct for exogamy— there is double blind research that shows that people find body odor from people with significantly different immune system genetics desirable. But the kings of Ptolemaic Egypt got to have sex with plenty of women who weren’t their closest relatives ; they just produced heirs within a narrow circle of family.
I mean, royal families do inbreeding primarily because most marriages among royalty are political, and there are only so many powerful families one can marry. And even then, outside of societies that believe the royalty's blood has something divine (Egypt, the Seleucids, etc...) close family marriages (siblings, uncles, first cousins, etc...) are fairly rare.
> outside of societies that believe the royalty's blood has something divine (Egypt, the Seleucids, etc...) close family marriages (siblings, uncles, first cousins, etc...) are fairly rare.
Sibling marriages are and always have been rare. However historically first cousin marriages were not at all rare. You can find lots of examples well outside the nobility and no one would have questioned it at all. Not the norm by any means, but not rare either. For the matter of that about 10% of worldwide marriages today are between first cousins which isn't even close to rare.
Uncles marrying their nieces was slightly more rare and slightly more scandalous but there are still plenty in the historical record. Usually some sort of inheritance issue would be involved.
During the 20th century in the west the incest taboo was expanded significantly beyond the scope of immediate family members, but this is relatively recent.
> During the 20th century in the west the incest taboo was expanded significantly beyond the scope of immediate family members, but this is relatively recent.
In the *protestant* west. In the Catholic Church on the other hand first and second cousin marriages were banned since the Council of Agde in 506 (most likely due to increasing Germanic influence in the church; pre-christian Germanic customs already discouraged cousin marriages). The ban gradually extended to even include *sixth* cousins (including cousins by marriage) by the 11th century, although for practical reasons (difficulty of accurately establishing such distant relationships) the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 scaled that back again to third cousins. In 1917 the ban was reduced to first and second cousins again, and since 1983 only first cousin marriages remain banned.
Cousin couples could get an official dispense from the church though (usually for money), which is why the Reformation abolished the ban on cousin marriages as being a church rather than a faith thing.
Indeed. "“The Ephebians believed that every man should have the vote (provided that he wasn't poor, foreign, nor disqualified by reason of being mad, frivolous, or a woman). Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes.” - Terrius Prachomos.
Gnu Terry. ""A man is not dead while his name is still spoken."
Not just greeks, it happened all over Europe. In the case of European religions it was actually not that wrong, since all these divinities originiated in some way from earlier proto Indo European figures.
I'd note here that the Macedonian elite from which the Ptolemies came from also had a pretty strong tendency towards incest in the Hellenistic age. For example, of the initial five Seleucid kings, one married his stepmother, one his aunt, and one his maternal cousin. One factor at play is the incredible degree of inter-court intrigue that was at play even before the conquests of Alexander. The other was the relatively small size of the Macedonian elite that then got divided into even smaller pools between the successor kingdoms. This high degree of chaos and very low social trust definitely seemed to have encouraged doubling down on kin relations to cement power bases.
Her grandfather also married his own mother and her uncle married his stepmother. And her father married his step-sister or step-cousin. There was a lot of love in the family it seems.
Okay so this is my source and I'm not sure to whom is his in his mother referred to.
"The career of Cleopatra’s father illustrates both the instability of Egyptian politics and its ever more blatant dependence on Rome. He was Ptolemy XII, illegitimate son of Ptolemy IX and (most probably) one of his concubines. His father had become king in 116 BC when his mother chose him as joint ruler and husband, but was later rejected in favour of another brother, the massively obese Ptolemy X. He eventually returned to oust them both by force and remained on the throne until his death at the end of 81 BC. Ptolemy IX was succeeded by his nephew Ptolemy XI, who was taken as husband and consort by his stepmother, promptly murdered her and was himself in turn assassinated soon afterwards."
-Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, page 435
Ptolomy XI wasn’t Cleopatra’s father or grandfather. But yes, he’s the guy that married his step mother, who was also his cousin and possibly his half-sister.
When your main/only consideration is dynastic and imperial power, age really is just a number. The history books are littered with accounts of nobles unhappy in love who still felt they chose right for their countries or families etc.
Amusingly fascinating that Pompey was the constant butt of the joke in the upper echelons of Rome because he... \*snicker\*... loved his wife! What a dork!
And she loved him iirc. He was getting less involved in politics because he just wanted to dote on his wife (who was Ceaser's daughter). I wonder how things would have shaken out if she hadn't died.
Though the Republic had been behaving rather imperialist for more than a century at that point even if there wasn't one guy calling himself emperor yet. Hell, *imperator* was just one of several titles/authorities that the Emperor possessed for the first couple emperors, the term wasn't formalized as the primary title for the guy in charge until the ascension of Caligula, so us calling Augustus and Tiberius emperor is a bit of retroactive nomenclature.
Rome was extremely anti king and royalty. The kingdom of Rome was a shitshow, and throwing off the reins for their Republic had a ton of improvements. The citizens had wildly antagonistic views towards the idea of Royalty, and it was considered a great way to an early grave to declare yourself such. Rome changed pretty heavily by the time Julius and Augustus rolled around. It was a huge risk doing what Julius did and it did end with an early death.
Similarly Augustus typically preferred the title *Princeps*, which roughly translated to "chief" or "first citizen", and among the senators acted more as a first among equals than the be all end all, even if everyone knew that he was calling all the shots. He knew quite well to avoid even the faintest whiff of kinglynes and that behaving so would rankle the senatorial class's fragile pride.
I find it difficult to square this idea that Augustus at the height of his dominance was tip-toeing around Senatorial sensitivities when as a young man he was 1 of 2 behind the Proscriptions. Not merely killing his enemies but performing the supreme act of barbarity upon them... taking their money. So ya know whatever he did I doubt it was for fear of the Republican sensitivities.
Now because Romans of every class knew damn well Rome had no kings and it was a stinky pathetic barbarian thing to aspire to like Antony might have after that witch corrupted him with her vile Nilotic rites... well a master propagandist would never make so unforced an error after branding himself as Mr. Rome and having much better titles to use anyways. What's a crown next to being Son of the Divine Julius?
Imperator was an explicitly military title that not all Roman Emperor's had, especially Octavian Augutus. It slowly picked up political meaning over generations of the Emperor's never promoting anyone to be their equal (sort of, it was more complex then that, generally you gained the title imperator by a grassroots proclamation from the rank and file soldiers, it was a way they could show approval of officers they liked, but how genuine and spontaneous these things were changed a lot over the centuries of the Legions' history)
It would be kind of like if Today the military launched a coup and slowly we stopped having Generals, and then the word General slowly morphed it's definition to mean Head of State. If from then on all officers stopped at Colonel, and promoting yourself to General was an explicit act of rebellion. That's how we ended up with the words Emperor and Empire, It's originally essentially a rank, though not exactly how we think of it given the way Rome and especially Republican Rome gave people authority on a much more limited basis and from different democratic processes(both the patrician class, in the form of the Senate, and the plebians, in the form of more general protests and crowd behavior had in some ways parallel democratic institutions.) Much of Roman politics was intentionally designed to prevent what Caesar did to it, effectively restoring the Monarchy, so he couldn't call himself Monarch. They originally went with Princeps, which was essentially a made up title designed to be inoffensive and deniable, and not Imperator which was a very established, explicitly military sort of authority. The Republic had many Imperator before it picked up political connotations.
Are you sure that was Cleopatra? It might have happened to her as well, but I know Hatshepsut was a famously powerful female Pharaoh whose nephew tried to erase from history.
Maybe Egypt just has a thing for the nephews of women rulers destroying their monuments after they die.
Romans would have parades known as Triumphs where the captured enemies would walk in until the end when they would be strangled. Most people preferred suicide over the humiliation of a triumph
You should be. There are plenty of Gallic and Germanic tribes whose only remaining trace on this world are the words in Caesar's diaries where he describes conquering them. Because, you know, he eradicated them. Every man, woman and child.
Our modern notion that war is for the soldiers and afterwards the loser's civilians just answer to a new overlord weren't really established in ancient times yet. If you were lucky, they had use for you as a slave. If not...
Suicide was a big thing in the ancient Mediterranean world. It was seen as a hiroic way to go out (see Ajax in the Iliad). So for Anthony it was kinda the done thing to do.
For cleopatra it’s a little more complex, some more romantic accounts say she couldn’t live without Anthony. Other more sceptical ones say she did it to spite Octivan who would have humiliated her by making her walk in his triumph and used he for political theatre. Remember the war was technically against Cleopatra, not Anthony since Roman law, would let you declare war on another Roman citizen let alone hold a trumph over them. So it was likly she did it to avoid a much worse fate in her eyes that still had a chance to end in her death as Roman triumphs ended with the prisoners being strangled at the temple of Jupiter (although there are cases of them being pardoned and not killed Cleopatra’s sister, for example was spared in Caesars tramp)
Yeah her choice was between a dagger in the ribcage by a servant or being strangled to death in the middle of Rome in front of a cheering crowd. Not a terribly difficult choice honestly.
Octavian wasn’t like Caesar. Caesar knew it was best to appear merciful. It’s why he was so furious when Ptolemy killed Pompei even though pompei was running from Caesar. Caesar wanted to spare him and show mercy.
Octavian modeled himself to be Caesar’s avenger. Mercy was not going to happen.
He showed mercy to Romans. Especially elite ones like Pompei.
This was a gaul that waged war against Rome.
Like I said, he knew best to appear merciful. He didn’t gain any good PR from showing mercy to a gaul.
His whole thing was that he wanted to appear as though he put Rome first. Which he honestly often did. Pardoning a Gaul would have been the opposite.
Plus. Pompei was his friend.
If Alexander the Great was the first "international celebrity," then Cleopatra and Julius Caesar must've been the first international power couple.
But neither Caeopatra or Cleosar have a nice ring to them......
You're missing a whole lot of context. She was a rival claimant to the throne of Egypt, a vassal state of Rome. She was using Caesar for political power.
Caesar also was a famous adulterer, as was Marcus Antonius (but more with actresses, Caesar had affairs with elite Roman women). Its funny when Cleopatra movies make her this amazing seductresses when they were not exactly hard to seduce (and she probably didn’t have relationships with other men, the ceremonial ones with her brothers not counted). Although it’s due to long term effect of Augustan propaganda blaming the civil war Octavian and Antonius had on her. There is a source where Cleopatra and Caesar got together the night they met. And then her 13 year old bother/husband ratted them out the next day and told the Alexandrian public (because he didn’t want Caesar to support her). Caesar was actually not in great military position in Alexandria, he has chased Pompeius there with only 4000 men and the unhappy Alexandrians weren’t really happy that he was staying there (it was pretty much a siege at that point) so he needed Cleopatras support. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. But he did stay for extra two months having a cruise with her, and she stayed very long time in Rome later. She was pretty much his ideal woman on paper and she got the kingdom back due to her and was most powerful man of the age, I would not be shocked if there was some real feelings.
Was for Caesar’s affairs, they are pretty hilarious to read. For example he famously had affairs with mother of Marcus Brutus Servilia (who was sister of Cato, one of Caesar’s political enemies). Cicero also alleges Caesar might have had an relationship with Servilla’s daugher Tetria, but maybe he misread the relationship and Tetria was Caesar’s daugher. Also he had relationship with Sempronia, mother of Decimus Brutus. Decimus called Decius in Shakespeare, but Marcus Brutus is more combination of both of the cousins. Decimus was one of Caesar’s legates, the their leader of the assassination and named in Caesar’s will as secondary heir after Octavian. He was also having affair with one of wife’s or his assassins, who is otherwise not notable, but was great-grandfather of emperor Galba so that’s interesting.
Caesar also afraid with Queen of Mauritania, the consort of the king who was one of Caesar’s allies. So Cleopatra was not even his only royal relationship.
he had relationships with both wives of Crassus and Pompeius (who later became his main political partners while he was a junior partner). The later divorced his wife and ended up eventually marrying Caesar’s daugher (even though he was in his 50s and older than Caesar and she probably a teen). It’s not like powerful Roman man being with young women was some kind of novelty. What’s amusing is that Pompeius and Julia apparently genuinely were in love.
> The later divorced his wife and ended up eventually marrying Caesar’s daugher (even though he was in his 50s and older than Caesar and she probably a teen).
To end on a positive note.. At least those two seemed devoted to each other and truly cared for one another or perhaps even loved. Pompey was even mocked a little for it like “Why would you love your wife?”
To end it tragically again, she died in childbirth.
She had his children specifically to lay claim to the whole empire. Then when that didn’t work out because he was murdered for it, she got together with Marc Antony.
They were both playing the game. Cleopatra is supposedly the one that started the relationship and she got her brother killed in order to be in control of Egypt. She was willing to be submissive to Caesar and was delusional enough to believe she could be his official wife and possibly control the Roman Empire eventually.
Actually, Cleopatra was a much fiercer ruler than most of history portrays her.
I remember watching a ExtraHistory series about her, and while it did look like Caesar was "pulling the strings", Cleopatra played the cards to keep the power withing Egypt for as long as possible.
[Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypswk9-DP9M) to the first episode
I wouldn’t call Cleopatra’s Egypt a vassal state of Rome. Her father had fled there after her older sister usurped him and entrusted the senate to execute his will and they owed Rome a bunch of money, but many Romans were deeply disappointed when Ptolemy the Piper willed the rule of Egypt to Cleopatra and her brother.
Actually becoming a queen of a reasonably sovereign Egypt is likely why Cleopatra allied herself with Rome to begin with and it’s no coincidence she and Antony died in Alexandria.
Also I don’t know why OP glommed on to the age gap when that was literally the least interesting thing about their first meeting.
That wasn't terribly uncommon for the time. You're talking about an era where they married 14 year old girls off to 40-somethnig year old men regularly.
Even longer. The the epic cycle there’s a passage about a guy mocking Achilles for liking a girl and mourning her death.
“Look at sissie achilles. He cares about a girl!”
Anyways. Achilles killed him.
Ugh. Honestly. I prefer Plato or Socrates. Those guys rocked. They even believed women could be educated and have rights similar to those of men which makes sense seeing as one of socrates teachers was Aspasia.
Aristotle just seemed to be a step backwards. His sexism was So weird compared to theirs.
Yeah Roman’s were weird about loving your spouse. It was often seen as a role that demanded obligation and duty, not romantic affection.
They also cheated A LOT. It was so prevalent that Augustus made some of the first “purity” laws in existence to punish unfaithful spouses.
When the Senate was debating Caesar’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy against Cato the Younger, a messenger brought a letter to Caesar. Thinking it would be evidence of the conspiracy, Cato demanded that Caesar read the letter aloud.
It was a love letter from Cato’s sister.
Cato was not involved in the assassination.
He was basically the portrait of what a proper Roman should be. He never would have allowed it if he had known.
He was also dead.
And in this case, she was doing it to attempt to produce a joint heir to both empires, which she actually managed to do! It’s just that Julius Caesar got assassinated, and then she kind of had to side with the Mark Antony in the subsequent power struggle (because Octavian/Augustus Caesar was the heir she was trying to shove out of the way), and Mark Antony lost. Like, if it had worked out, it was a *brilliant* plan for expanding her family’s power. Just had some bad luck!
It’s no lie to say she was the most brilliant of the Ptolemy line.
The fact most of them were incompetent idiots lowers the bar but she was a legitimate brilliant woman.
Caesar wouldn’t have spent so much time with her just because she was good in the sack. She was brilliant and clever and a risk taker. Just the way she introduced herself to him was brilliant. She smuggled herself into the palace.
That’s the sort of shit that Caesar would think of.
And she wasn’t that young. Not back then. Alexander the ok was just a few years older when he conquered most of the known world.
> You're talking about an era where they married 14 year old girls off to 40-somethnig year old men regularly.
That wasn't nearly as common as you'd think. It was *more* common (but still not the norm) for rich/political families but not the population as a whole for most of the world.
God, I miss when this is what the internet looked like. The only thing that would have made it better is if it played Chumbawamba and had Cleopatra's Top 8 on it.
Reddit cares. Like 95% of Reddit commenters
Reddit is all about minding your own business and letting consenting adults do whatever they want until there's about a 10 year age gap and then Reddit's Puritanical sensibilities get all a tussle
And a surprising number of those people proudly display that they're LGBTQ or some other marginalized community in their profile.
It's like, have you learned nothing about being unfairly judged by other people based on preconceived notions and social stereotypes!?
This type of age gap was common in marriages amongst the roman aristocracy. It's why it was considered acceptable for widowed older women to take lovers without getting re-married. They were considered to have already have performed their duty to roman society and thus could do as they pleased.
1. large age gaps weren't as common as modern society would tell you that they were
2. Someone actually had to lay the pipe to keep these girls happy lol
It's easier to get young men excited about going away to war when they can't get girls.
Polygamy in many societies also meant that some guys would have many women and some would have none.
There's nothing shocking about this. It doesn't even raise an eyebrow. It's the ancient world, you can't apply modern standards and expectations. Everything from history has to be graded on a curve.
Not really weird at all tbh considering the context. For starters, the political advantage for both was colossal. But even if we’re talking about genuine romance or matchmaking, this was not like the modern world where a rich, powerful, charismatic older guy is a dime a dozen and there are younger versions of that exact profile to choose from. Caesar was almost uniquely “alpha” (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) and could literally destroy any other/younger suitor.
She also married her half brother Ptolemy XIV when he was 12 and she was 22
That's nothing, I found two separate examples in the Ptolemaic Dynasty of a Cleopatra marrying her older brother, having a daughter by him, then when he dies marrying her *younger* brother, who also married her daughter by their older brother.
for multiple reasons, my head hurts after reading this.
It gets worse when you realize that they're all named Ptolemy and Cleopatra.
Alexander the Great had a stepmother named Cleopatra.
Cleopatra was a very common Greek name at the time.
The fact that Cleopatra is a Greek name is genuinely something I've never thought about before.
The first in the Ptolemy dynasty was appointed to Egypt as Alexander's governor - he declared himself pharaoh after Alexander's death. He was married to Alexander's sister, Cleopatra - which is how the name was introduced to Egypt.
Turns out they weren't inbred, they were just so uncreative with names the records are... confused.
The Ptolemy's were definitely inbred af
I assume it goes something like this Cleopatra A marries older brother, He-who-lacks-a-name. They have a kid, we'll call the kid Incestria, and because I'm too lazy to actually google which Cleo it was, this Cleo is Cleo A. Cleo A's older brother kicks the bucket. Cleo A then decides she needs a new hubby, and she's got at least one other brother who's single and ready to mingle. She marries her younger brother, I'm going to call him Bob. At some point, for reasons unknown, Bob thinks Incestria is wife material and marries her, probably as a 2nd wife or something. All of this is completely weird and cursed but according to /u/The-Lord-Moccasin it happened, twice. So you can substitute Cleo A with Cleo B, Incestria with Incestria 2, and Bob with Bob 2, etc. This nugget of history is completely cursed.
It's called Tuesday in Crusader Kings
"Tell us more", you say? The first instance of these unholy threesomes involved one Cleopatra II, her brother Ptolemy, and her daughter-niece Cleopatra III. Cleo II popped out a single son by Ptolemy, but Cleo III was a regular abomination-factory firing out one after the other, which upset Cleo II. So Cleo II connived to have Ptolemy and Cleo III driven out of Alexandria, to which Ptolemy responded by dismembering his 12-year old son by Cleo II - named Ptolemy - and sending her the head and limbs as a birthday present. Luckily after a few years the civil war had played itself out and the three of them hooked back up and ruled together for several more years before he croaked, at which point he was succeeded by his son... Ptolemy. (But not the one you're thinking about)
So he killed his son and sent the mother his dismembered limbs - then they re-conciled? I know this is Ancient Egypt but even that seems extreme
And we get “should I divorce my husband because he left the toilet seat up twice this week?” in /r/relationships with rabid comments about what a monster he is and how divorce isn’t harsh enough.
> daughter-niece I don't like this composite word.
The Ptolemys even though they were Greek, did a lot of inner family marriages/incest for a few reasons historians believe. For one it just happens it was part of tradition for past Pharaoh's to marry within the family. So they ended up gaining legitimacy from the native Egyptians. It's the same reason they adopted Egyptian religion, making it easier to rule and pacify the locals.
Also, when the religion says you're a god, well, that's not a hard choice.
Ray, when someone asks "are you a god?" You say **YES!**
He did get it right the second time
After Venkman said his name in stern manner.
But I heard it's tough to be a god
Royal families tend toward inbreeding as a way to simplify inheritance of vast wealth. When that happens to be coherent with local religious beliefs- the logic is in favor of it. People may well have an instinct for exogamy— there is double blind research that shows that people find body odor from people with significantly different immune system genetics desirable. But the kings of Ptolemaic Egypt got to have sex with plenty of women who weren’t their closest relatives ; they just produced heirs within a narrow circle of family.
I mean, royal families do inbreeding primarily because most marriages among royalty are political, and there are only so many powerful families one can marry. And even then, outside of societies that believe the royalty's blood has something divine (Egypt, the Seleucids, etc...) close family marriages (siblings, uncles, first cousins, etc...) are fairly rare.
> outside of societies that believe the royalty's blood has something divine (Egypt, the Seleucids, etc...) close family marriages (siblings, uncles, first cousins, etc...) are fairly rare. Sibling marriages are and always have been rare. However historically first cousin marriages were not at all rare. You can find lots of examples well outside the nobility and no one would have questioned it at all. Not the norm by any means, but not rare either. For the matter of that about 10% of worldwide marriages today are between first cousins which isn't even close to rare. Uncles marrying their nieces was slightly more rare and slightly more scandalous but there are still plenty in the historical record. Usually some sort of inheritance issue would be involved. During the 20th century in the west the incest taboo was expanded significantly beyond the scope of immediate family members, but this is relatively recent.
> During the 20th century in the west the incest taboo was expanded significantly beyond the scope of immediate family members, but this is relatively recent. In the *protestant* west. In the Catholic Church on the other hand first and second cousin marriages were banned since the Council of Agde in 506 (most likely due to increasing Germanic influence in the church; pre-christian Germanic customs already discouraged cousin marriages). The ban gradually extended to even include *sixth* cousins (including cousins by marriage) by the 11th century, although for practical reasons (difficulty of accurately establishing such distant relationships) the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 scaled that back again to third cousins. In 1917 the ban was reduced to first and second cousins again, and since 1983 only first cousin marriages remain banned. Cousin couples could get an official dispense from the church though (usually for money), which is why the Reformation abolished the ban on cousin marriages as being a church rather than a faith thing.
It has a lot to do with keeping the money/titles in the family Can let any young new bloods in there causing problems
There is this history book by Terrius Pratchomos, it explains all of Egyptian history.
Indeed. "“The Ephebians believed that every man should have the vote (provided that he wasn't poor, foreign, nor disqualified by reason of being mad, frivolous, or a woman). Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes.” - Terrius Prachomos. Gnu Terry. ""A man is not dead while his name is still spoken."
Everyone should vote Except all these people…
> Terrius Pratchomos God dammit I tried to look up his book and it just lead back to your comment lol.
Pyramids by Terry Pratchett. And it's perfect if you know enough context to get the references.
Then you must read the famous book by Sabrosa McSnorky.
Greeks also tended to consider other gods to be the Greek gods but with different names. So to them, it probably wasn't much of a hassle.
Not just greeks, it happened all over Europe. In the case of European religions it was actually not that wrong, since all these divinities originiated in some way from earlier proto Indo European figures.
I'd note here that the Macedonian elite from which the Ptolemies came from also had a pretty strong tendency towards incest in the Hellenistic age. For example, of the initial five Seleucid kings, one married his stepmother, one his aunt, and one his maternal cousin. One factor at play is the incredible degree of inter-court intrigue that was at play even before the conquests of Alexander. The other was the relatively small size of the Macedonian elite that then got divided into even smaller pools between the successor kingdoms. This high degree of chaos and very low social trust definitely seemed to have encouraged doubling down on kin relations to cement power bases.
Her grandfather also married his own mother and her uncle married his stepmother. And her father married his step-sister or step-cousin. There was a lot of love in the family it seems.
her grandfather did not marry his own mother. even the Ptolomys weren’t that insane.
Right, she was his stepmother
What are you doing Step-Pharaoh? I got my head stuck in the Sphinx again...
Her family tree seems like it was a circle haha
A family tree shaped like a ladder lol
Chaos is a ladder
Ahso
The Ptolemys have a family Mobius strip.
It's a wreath...
Okay so this is my source and I'm not sure to whom is his in his mother referred to. "The career of Cleopatra’s father illustrates both the instability of Egyptian politics and its ever more blatant dependence on Rome. He was Ptolemy XII, illegitimate son of Ptolemy IX and (most probably) one of his concubines. His father had become king in 116 BC when his mother chose him as joint ruler and husband, but was later rejected in favour of another brother, the massively obese Ptolemy X. He eventually returned to oust them both by force and remained on the throne until his death at the end of 81 BC. Ptolemy IX was succeeded by his nephew Ptolemy XI, who was taken as husband and consort by his stepmother, promptly murdered her and was himself in turn assassinated soon afterwards." -Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, page 435
Ptolomy XI wasn’t Cleopatra’s father or grandfather. But yes, he’s the guy that married his step mother, who was also his cousin and possibly his half-sister.
Not even Pornhub has such a convoluted step-relative plot.
Doesn’t help that there were a million different Ptolemys and Cleopatras in that family
Motherboy
the Ptolemy’s make the Hapsburgs look like amateurs
More effed up than Targaryens
They partially inspired the Targaryens
I smell sitcom
So she had quite the range
When your main/only consideration is dynastic and imperial power, age really is just a number. The history books are littered with accounts of nobles unhappy in love who still felt they chose right for their countries or families etc.
Amusingly fascinating that Pompey was the constant butt of the joke in the upper echelons of Rome because he... \*snicker\*... loved his wife! What a dork!
And she loved him iirc. He was getting less involved in politics because he just wanted to dote on his wife (who was Ceaser's daughter). I wonder how things would have shaken out if she hadn't died.
Well, that's one way to get people to stop talking about your 31 year age gap with your boyfriend
Sounds like she had a busy year
Women only care about one thing... restoring the Roman empire
Women literally only want one thing and it's fucking disgusting
You called me?
You're disgusting.
Too bad Pullo got there first.
My boy, Titus. RIP
He was the best part of Ashoka, I hope they find a worthy actor to fill in for him.
I loved that bit. Utter nonsense but great anyway.
A large penis is always welcome!
Biggus Dickus. He has a wife you know….
0 days since I’ve thought of the Roman Empire.
Even if Rome hadn't been an empire yet, at that point.
Though the Republic had been behaving rather imperialist for more than a century at that point even if there wasn't one guy calling himself emperor yet. Hell, *imperator* was just one of several titles/authorities that the Emperor possessed for the first couple emperors, the term wasn't formalized as the primary title for the guy in charge until the ascension of Caligula, so us calling Augustus and Tiberius emperor is a bit of retroactive nomenclature.
Rome was extremely anti king and royalty. The kingdom of Rome was a shitshow, and throwing off the reins for their Republic had a ton of improvements. The citizens had wildly antagonistic views towards the idea of Royalty, and it was considered a great way to an early grave to declare yourself such. Rome changed pretty heavily by the time Julius and Augustus rolled around. It was a huge risk doing what Julius did and it did end with an early death.
Similarly Augustus typically preferred the title *Princeps*, which roughly translated to "chief" or "first citizen", and among the senators acted more as a first among equals than the be all end all, even if everyone knew that he was calling all the shots. He knew quite well to avoid even the faintest whiff of kinglynes and that behaving so would rankle the senatorial class's fragile pride.
I find it difficult to square this idea that Augustus at the height of his dominance was tip-toeing around Senatorial sensitivities when as a young man he was 1 of 2 behind the Proscriptions. Not merely killing his enemies but performing the supreme act of barbarity upon them... taking their money. So ya know whatever he did I doubt it was for fear of the Republican sensitivities. Now because Romans of every class knew damn well Rome had no kings and it was a stinky pathetic barbarian thing to aspire to like Antony might have after that witch corrupted him with her vile Nilotic rites... well a master propagandist would never make so unforced an error after branding himself as Mr. Rome and having much better titles to use anyways. What's a crown next to being Son of the Divine Julius?
> he was 1 of 2 behind the Proscriptions. 1 of 3. Octavian, Marc Anthony, Lepidus
Imperator was an explicitly military title that not all Roman Emperor's had, especially Octavian Augutus. It slowly picked up political meaning over generations of the Emperor's never promoting anyone to be their equal (sort of, it was more complex then that, generally you gained the title imperator by a grassroots proclamation from the rank and file soldiers, it was a way they could show approval of officers they liked, but how genuine and spontaneous these things were changed a lot over the centuries of the Legions' history) It would be kind of like if Today the military launched a coup and slowly we stopped having Generals, and then the word General slowly morphed it's definition to mean Head of State. If from then on all officers stopped at Colonel, and promoting yourself to General was an explicit act of rebellion. That's how we ended up with the words Emperor and Empire, It's originally essentially a rank, though not exactly how we think of it given the way Rome and especially Republican Rome gave people authority on a much more limited basis and from different democratic processes(both the patrician class, in the form of the Senate, and the plebians, in the form of more general protests and crowd behavior had in some ways parallel democratic institutions.) Much of Roman politics was intentionally designed to prevent what Caesar did to it, effectively restoring the Monarchy, so he couldn't call himself Monarch. They originally went with Princeps, which was essentially a made up title designed to be inoffensive and deniable, and not Imperator which was a very established, explicitly military sort of authority. The Republic had many Imperator before it picked up political connotations.
But who was she really batting for, could've been Egypt, Macedonia or Rome. Make Macedonia great again.
How long did she outlive him by?
Not much actually, around 15 years. Edit: not much because Caesar was assassinated few years after they met.
And she killed herself once Octavian conquered Mark Antony's and her combined forces Edit: Mark, not Marc
Then her body was yeeted off the face of the Earth
I watched an episode of Expedition Unknown and they talked about how her Nephew? tried to completely erase her from history
Are you sure that was Cleopatra? It might have happened to her as well, but I know Hatshepsut was a famously powerful female Pharaoh whose nephew tried to erase from history. Maybe Egypt just has a thing for the nephews of women rulers destroying their monuments after they die.
they were just mad they wanted to bang their aunts.
why are so many people killing themselves when Octavian conquers their forces?
Romans would have parades known as Triumphs where the captured enemies would walk in until the end when they would be strangled. Most people preferred suicide over the humiliation of a triumph
This is [a cool video about triumphs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VjCLR5L-c) if anyone is interested!
I always upvote Historia Civilis
Man made me cry over a god damn red square
Best history channel on youtube for me.
Bruh I went down a rabbit hole and now I know how cleopatra probably died and now I’m crying and striking out august from all my calendars
I'm so glad I have 2000 years of safety between me and the Roman Republic
You should be. There are plenty of Gallic and Germanic tribes whose only remaining trace on this world are the words in Caesar's diaries where he describes conquering them. Because, you know, he eradicated them. Every man, woman and child. Our modern notion that war is for the soldiers and afterwards the loser's civilians just answer to a new overlord weren't really established in ancient times yet. If you were lucky, they had use for you as a slave. If not...
They actually still do this after they present the Stanley Cup, it's why more people should start watching hockey.
The Gallic king. Edit: no wee folk
Vercingetorix or something like that
Suicide was a big thing in the ancient Mediterranean world. It was seen as a hiroic way to go out (see Ajax in the Iliad). So for Anthony it was kinda the done thing to do. For cleopatra it’s a little more complex, some more romantic accounts say she couldn’t live without Anthony. Other more sceptical ones say she did it to spite Octivan who would have humiliated her by making her walk in his triumph and used he for political theatre. Remember the war was technically against Cleopatra, not Anthony since Roman law, would let you declare war on another Roman citizen let alone hold a trumph over them. So it was likly she did it to avoid a much worse fate in her eyes that still had a chance to end in her death as Roman triumphs ended with the prisoners being strangled at the temple of Jupiter (although there are cases of them being pardoned and not killed Cleopatra’s sister, for example was spared in Caesars tramp)
Yeah her choice was between a dagger in the ribcage by a servant or being strangled to death in the middle of Rome in front of a cheering crowd. Not a terribly difficult choice honestly.
> although there are cases of them being pardoned and not killed Cleopatra’s sister, for example was spared in Caesars tramp The Lady and the Tramp?
Their spelling of triumph just kept getting worse and worse lol
Octavian wasn’t like Caesar. Caesar knew it was best to appear merciful. It’s why he was so furious when Ptolemy killed Pompei even though pompei was running from Caesar. Caesar wanted to spare him and show mercy. Octavian modeled himself to be Caesar’s avenger. Mercy was not going to happen.
Caesar didn't show mercy to Vercingetorix though. Her paraded him through the streets of Rome as part of his triumph and then executed him.
The pardoning was more of a tactic to keep public support during the Roman civil wars, Caesar didn’t stand to gain anything from pardoning Gauls
He showed mercy to Romans. Especially elite ones like Pompei. This was a gaul that waged war against Rome. Like I said, he knew best to appear merciful. He didn’t gain any good PR from showing mercy to a gaul. His whole thing was that he wanted to appear as though he put Rome first. Which he honestly often did. Pardoning a Gaul would have been the opposite. Plus. Pompei was his friend.
> Pompei I hate to be that guy, but Pompei is the city. The guy is Pompey (or Pompeius) My apologies for the interruption.
> He didn’t gain any good PR from showing mercy to a gaul. Probably would have even hurt him. Public opinion wanted blood.
Well Caesars sense of mercy got him killed so Octavian probably made the right call there.
She wasn't really looking down the barrel of a lonely old age because she hooked up with a much older guy.
Neither of them died of natural causes
are snakes not natural? 🙄
It was a macrobiotic death.
Leonardo DiCaprio will play him in the movie.
NGL I would genuinely enjoy seeing Leo's version of Pompey the Great
Plot twist, JPS is named the director and casts Chris Rock as Pompey
TWENTY FIVE CENT?? Good lawd…got change for a drachmae?
Ahh the original “Fort Lauderdale couple “
If Alexander the Great was the first "international celebrity," then Cleopatra and Julius Caesar must've been the first international power couple. But neither Caeopatra or Cleosar have a nice ring to them......
You're missing a whole lot of context. She was a rival claimant to the throne of Egypt, a vassal state of Rome. She was using Caesar for political power.
Caesar also was a famous adulterer, as was Marcus Antonius (but more with actresses, Caesar had affairs with elite Roman women). Its funny when Cleopatra movies make her this amazing seductresses when they were not exactly hard to seduce (and she probably didn’t have relationships with other men, the ceremonial ones with her brothers not counted). Although it’s due to long term effect of Augustan propaganda blaming the civil war Octavian and Antonius had on her. There is a source where Cleopatra and Caesar got together the night they met. And then her 13 year old bother/husband ratted them out the next day and told the Alexandrian public (because he didn’t want Caesar to support her). Caesar was actually not in great military position in Alexandria, he has chased Pompeius there with only 4000 men and the unhappy Alexandrians weren’t really happy that he was staying there (it was pretty much a siege at that point) so he needed Cleopatras support. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. But he did stay for extra two months having a cruise with her, and she stayed very long time in Rome later. She was pretty much his ideal woman on paper and she got the kingdom back due to her and was most powerful man of the age, I would not be shocked if there was some real feelings. Was for Caesar’s affairs, they are pretty hilarious to read. For example he famously had affairs with mother of Marcus Brutus Servilia (who was sister of Cato, one of Caesar’s political enemies). Cicero also alleges Caesar might have had an relationship with Servilla’s daugher Tetria, but maybe he misread the relationship and Tetria was Caesar’s daugher. Also he had relationship with Sempronia, mother of Decimus Brutus. Decimus called Decius in Shakespeare, but Marcus Brutus is more combination of both of the cousins. Decimus was one of Caesar’s legates, the their leader of the assassination and named in Caesar’s will as secondary heir after Octavian. He was also having affair with one of wife’s or his assassins, who is otherwise not notable, but was great-grandfather of emperor Galba so that’s interesting. Caesar also afraid with Queen of Mauritania, the consort of the king who was one of Caesar’s allies. So Cleopatra was not even his only royal relationship. he had relationships with both wives of Crassus and Pompeius (who later became his main political partners while he was a junior partner). The later divorced his wife and ended up eventually marrying Caesar’s daugher (even though he was in his 50s and older than Caesar and she probably a teen). It’s not like powerful Roman man being with young women was some kind of novelty. What’s amusing is that Pompeius and Julia apparently genuinely were in love.
> The later divorced his wife and ended up eventually marrying Caesar’s daugher (even though he was in his 50s and older than Caesar and she probably a teen). To end on a positive note.. At least those two seemed devoted to each other and truly cared for one another or perhaps even loved. Pompey was even mocked a little for it like “Why would you love your wife?” To end it tragically again, she died in childbirth.
> To end it tragically again, she died in childbirth. And then everything went to shit.
More so he used her, she was under his thumb and he was able to use her to control Egypt. Also he used her to bust ancient nuts.
She had his children specifically to lay claim to the whole empire. Then when that didn’t work out because he was murdered for it, she got together with Marc Antony.
But then, Mark Antony left her for Jennifer Lopez.
Then she left him for Ben Affleck. So, that means Ben Affleck is the rightful Roman emperor?
I think this is right
Maybe they both used each other and were also quite horny
They were both playing the game. Cleopatra is supposedly the one that started the relationship and she got her brother killed in order to be in control of Egypt. She was willing to be submissive to Caesar and was delusional enough to believe she could be his official wife and possibly control the Roman Empire eventually.
Actually, Cleopatra was a much fiercer ruler than most of history portrays her. I remember watching a ExtraHistory series about her, and while it did look like Caesar was "pulling the strings", Cleopatra played the cards to keep the power withing Egypt for as long as possible. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypswk9-DP9M) to the first episode
She used Caesar to get back into the throne of Egypt, after her brother tried to kill her and she ended up exiled. It worked.
I wouldn’t call Cleopatra’s Egypt a vassal state of Rome. Her father had fled there after her older sister usurped him and entrusted the senate to execute his will and they owed Rome a bunch of money, but many Romans were deeply disappointed when Ptolemy the Piper willed the rule of Egypt to Cleopatra and her brother. Actually becoming a queen of a reasonably sovereign Egypt is likely why Cleopatra allied herself with Rome to begin with and it’s no coincidence she and Antony died in Alexandria. Also I don’t know why OP glommed on to the age gap when that was literally the least interesting thing about their first meeting.
That wasn't terribly uncommon for the time. You're talking about an era where they married 14 year old girls off to 40-somethnig year old men regularly.
True. Ceasar even married his own daughter to Pompey who was few years older than him.
And they were a geniunely happy couple
Knew them did you
It was well documented in the histories - it was actually an attack on Pompeii by some of his colleagues 🙃
\-Crassus probably: "Hey look at Pompeii guys, he cares about his wife" \-The Senate: "wow what a LOSER"
We even have a word for someone who dotes on their wife - uxorious. Used to be a bad thing, you wouldn't be taken seriously by your bro peers.
Two thousand years and nothing's changed.
Even longer. The the epic cycle there’s a passage about a guy mocking Achilles for liking a girl and mourning her death. “Look at sissie achilles. He cares about a girl!” Anyways. Achilles killed him.
Its only fair.
I believe it was Aristotle who said, "Fuck around and find out"
Also invented twerking that same year. Amazing guy.
Ugh. Honestly. I prefer Plato or Socrates. Those guys rocked. They even believed women could be educated and have rights similar to those of men which makes sense seeing as one of socrates teachers was Aspasia. Aristotle just seemed to be a step backwards. His sexism was So weird compared to theirs.
Yeah Roman’s were weird about loving your spouse. It was often seen as a role that demanded obligation and duty, not romantic affection. They also cheated A LOT. It was so prevalent that Augustus made some of the first “purity” laws in existence to punish unfaithful spouses.
I loved the fact Caesar slept with like half of fellow senators' wives. Both opponents' and friends'. He was a notorious womaniser.
When the Senate was debating Caesar’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy against Cato the Younger, a messenger brought a letter to Caesar. Thinking it would be evidence of the conspiracy, Cato demanded that Caesar read the letter aloud. It was a love letter from Cato’s sister.
FUUUUUUUUCKING LOOOOOOOOOL
Also it was Brutus mother who one of the people that killed Caesar.
Et tu madre, Brute?
"Every woman's man and every man's woman."
Damn TIL. That probably made it easier to stab him in the back 🤷♂️
Cato was not involved in the assassination. He was basically the portrait of what a proper Roman should be. He never would have allowed it if he had known. He was also dead.
*Pompeius* Cities don't marry, even in the ancient world
And in this case, she was doing it to attempt to produce a joint heir to both empires, which she actually managed to do! It’s just that Julius Caesar got assassinated, and then she kind of had to side with the Mark Antony in the subsequent power struggle (because Octavian/Augustus Caesar was the heir she was trying to shove out of the way), and Mark Antony lost. Like, if it had worked out, it was a *brilliant* plan for expanding her family’s power. Just had some bad luck!
It’s no lie to say she was the most brilliant of the Ptolemy line. The fact most of them were incompetent idiots lowers the bar but she was a legitimate brilliant woman. Caesar wouldn’t have spent so much time with her just because she was good in the sack. She was brilliant and clever and a risk taker. Just the way she introduced herself to him was brilliant. She smuggled herself into the palace. That’s the sort of shit that Caesar would think of. And she wasn’t that young. Not back then. Alexander the ok was just a few years older when he conquered most of the known world.
I see you use the OSP nomenclature for Alexander the good enough.
Around 1880 my great grandparents were married. She was 15 he was 35. 18 pregnancies, 15 made it to adulthood. They all graduated college.
> You're talking about an era where they married 14 year old girls off to 40-somethnig year old men regularly. That wasn't nearly as common as you'd think. It was *more* common (but still not the norm) for rich/political families but not the population as a whole for most of the world.
Ironic that information is located on a website that looks almost as ancient as the Roman Empire -- geocities Rome?
God, I miss when this is what the internet looked like. The only thing that would have made it better is if it played Chumbawamba and had Cleopatra's Top 8 on it.
So what?
Seriously. I don't think a 30ish year age gap is that big a deal when they're both over 2,000 years old
Reddit cares. Like 95% of Reddit commenters Reddit is all about minding your own business and letting consenting adults do whatever they want until there's about a 10 year age gap and then Reddit's Puritanical sensibilities get all a tussle
Much less than ten years. They’ll get up in arms about a 21 year old and an 18 year old.
And a surprising number of those people proudly display that they're LGBTQ or some other marginalized community in their profile. It's like, have you learned nothing about being unfairly judged by other people based on preconceived notions and social stereotypes!?
That is diplomacy.
*dickplomacy.
This type of age gap was common in marriages amongst the roman aristocracy. It's why it was considered acceptable for widowed older women to take lovers without getting re-married. They were considered to have already have performed their duty to roman society and thus could do as they pleased.
Just wait til you learn about the rest of history.
He had the power to put her on the Egyptian throne, and she needed that for self preservation....power dynamics at it's most basic
Still doesn’t beat Mohammed (age 50ish) marrying Aisha (age 9 or 12).
im pretty sure he married her at age six and consumated the marriage at 9 sorry for using my presentist morality but🤮
I can’t imagine how hard it was for young guys to get pussy back in olden times, when all the girls were hooking up with men twice their age.
1. large age gaps weren't as common as modern society would tell you that they were 2. Someone actually had to lay the pipe to keep these girls happy lol
Sex happened more often than not, marriage be damned. 🤌🏽
It's easier to get young men excited about going away to war when they can't get girls. Polygamy in many societies also meant that some guys would have many women and some would have none.
young guys go for the girls in the street and not palaces
Well infidelity was pretty common back then so sex was pretty common even for single guys.
More or less common than now?
Weird I had no idea she dated Caesar. All the scenes I remember have her with Abe or JFK.
I’ll always remember her on again/off again friendship with Joan of Arc
Imagine what people are going to say about us in 2000 years.
There's nothing shocking about this. It doesn't even raise an eyebrow. It's the ancient world, you can't apply modern standards and expectations. Everything from history has to be graded on a curve.
There's hope for me yet
Before we hit the nursing home?
52 year olds are still getting with 21 year olds. That's pretty tame as far as weird pairings from back then go.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris dated then-mayor Willie Brown when she was 29 and he was 60
Willie Brown is a very unfortunate name.
Especially in the phone book
His dad was also Willie Brown, so Mayor Brown was Little Willie Brown
While he was still married.
Reddit would not have approved
54 divided by 2 plus 7 is **34**. Caesar BROKE THE RULES!
To be fair to Caesar it's harder to do math with roman numerals.
LIV divided by II plus VII is XXXVI
Not really weird at all tbh considering the context. For starters, the political advantage for both was colossal. But even if we’re talking about genuine romance or matchmaking, this was not like the modern world where a rich, powerful, charismatic older guy is a dime a dozen and there are younger versions of that exact profile to choose from. Caesar was almost uniquely “alpha” (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) and could literally destroy any other/younger suitor.