Talk:Cleopatra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc Talk

The second and third paragraph of the section "Accession to the throne" should be rearranged; Tryphaena takes over and is assassinated without being identified (P2), then is identified and takes over the throne (P3). 131.211.191.107 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited:

"Centralization of power and corruption led to uprising in and loss of Cyprus and of Cyrenaica, making Ptolemy's reign one of the most calamitous of the dynasty. wes

In 58 BC Cleopatra's older sister, Berenice IV seized power from her father. With the assistance of the Roman governor of Syria, Aulus Gabinius, Ptolemy XII overturned his eldest daughter in 55 BC and had her executed. Cleopatra's other older sister Tryphaena seized the Crown of Egypt shortly after that, when Ptolemy made a journey to Rome with Cleopatra. Shortly after arrangements for Roman assistance in Egypt, Ptolemy's followers assassinated Tryphaena and killed her guard. Berenice's guards in turn killed those followers. This left Cleopatra with her husband and younger brother, Ptolemy XIII, joint heirs to the throne."

---

What about the thing about her bathing in asses milk? I've read elsewhere that it's true (I think Nero's wife did it too?). It's one of the most common things quoted about Cleopatra - and it's a scene frequently seen in the films noted in the article - so it would be nice to include that in the relevant section. Davidbod 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

cleopatra died of a venom posin of a snake Somebody put the scenes from the HBO series ROME into this entry. I don't know the history well enough to fix this. Can somebody help?

When Octavius invaded Egypt, where did he take the children captive? Were they all with Cleopatra and Mark Antony or were they all sent away and just ran into Octavius on the way? The children were Caesarion, Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene, Ptolemy Philadelphus and Mark Antony's two boys Antyllus and Iullus. Octavius killed Caesarion and Antyllus, but let the others go, sending them all to live with Octavia. Why did he let the others go? Selene I could understand, she a girl and couldn't cause too much trouble. The two boys Antony had with Cleopatra, were both quite young and may have been let off... But why Iullus? --80.193.19.191 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Augustus probably spared Iullus' life because he was a child still (IE had not put on his manly gown). At the time of the then Gaius Octavius (Augustus) capture of Egypt, the children were all of certain ages. Caesarion and Antyllus were both seventeen. They were grown-ups in the Roman world, as many boys started to take resonsiblity. However Octavius probably would have killed Caesarion no matter how old he was as he was too much of a threat for Rome.The other kids, Alexander, Selene and Ptolmey were still quite young and Romans didn't like killing children if they didn't have to. The twins were no older then Octavius' own daughter, who was just a little girl at the time, so I can understand why spared them.

Iullus, on the other hand, was fifteen. A few years older, he probably would have been killed too. Nonetheless, the two sons of Cleo and Antony died and no one knows why (It's unlikely Augustus killed them after sparing their lives). The only ones who really gained anything out of being spared were Iullus and Selene. Octavius treated them both very kindly, allowing Selene to marry Juba II of Numidia and Iullus was praetor in 13 BC, consul in 10 BC and Asian proconsul. His mistake was getting up to some ooh laa laa with Augustus daughter, Julia. C'est la vie, eh? --Camblunt100 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

"Do we have to have teh word Greek popping up everywhere all the time? I man have you actually read the number of instances it appears unnecssarily - under photo tags etc., Cleopatra's hair in a Greek bun? I mean...c'mon. Wikipedia is became a joke. 82.145.231.92 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra was not greek she was Macedonian. Macedonians and greeks have been in consistant battle even before Alexander the great of macedonia. Your right wikipedia has become a joke, a greek must have wrote cleopatra's article very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.160.116 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cleopatra VII (69 BC - 30 BC) was pharaoh of ancient Egypt."

Was she actually Pharoah?

No, this was her brother and husband Ptolemy, wasn't it?

Not exactly.The Queens of the Ptolemaic dynasty were usualy siblings (and the rare niece), to their husbands and since they had rights to the throne (and ambitions) they acted as co-rulers. The male members of the dynasty apparently prefeared that to having them conspire against them, organise assasinations or revolts or them marrying other rivals to the throne. (The Dynasty's historie has examples of all of that). Both the written sources and the coins present both King and Queens as ruling. Cleopatra was as much a pharaoh as her three male co-rulers Ptolemy XIII, XIV and Ptolemy XIV Caesarion (Greek for little Caesar).

User: Dimadick

---

the placement of these images is awful. Kingturtle 05:25 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

that looks a lot better. thanks. Kingturtle 06:30 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

Discussion of the movies should be merged with Cleopatra (movie), with just a link to that kept here. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

The article is still the target of unexplained and difficult to verify additions. I have changed her list of "three children" (which included four children) back to those verified by the online genealogy cited, and put a notice about the possible factual inaccuracy on the page. -- Someone else 22:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm removing the disputed notice because this dispute happened seven months ago, and the article seems fine, and if no one's going to voice further objections... Wally 00:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Why the hell is it that according to Wikipedia Cleopatra killed herself 3 days before the battle of Actium? Wikipedia is reporting that today September 2nd, the battle of Actium took place. It is also reporting that on August 30th Cleopatra killed herself. Apparently she was clairvoyant.

Somebody has mixed their milk and meat, in other words, this definetly ain’t kosher.

---

It says on http://www.world-sex-records.com/ that Cleopatra was, um, well, an accomplished fellatrice. Can this be verified and, if so, should it be noted? - Furrykef 17:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What happened to Alexander Helios ?

Article says : "The three sons of Cleopatra with Antony were spared and taken back to Rome where they were reared by Antony's wife, Octavia.".

Alexander Helios article says : "Alexander was probably killed when the Romans, led by Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, invaded Egypt in 30 BC and his parents both killed themselves. There is no further mention of him."

Ptolemy Philadelphus article says: "Augustus Caesar took him (Ptolemy Philadelphus) and his sister Cleopatra Selene back to Rome as captives after their parents killed themselves (and their two brothers died) in 30 BC"

There is some inconsistency which needs to be corrected in one or the other articles. Jay 11:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The correct version is the going to Rome and raised by Octavia one. I dont know what happened to him afterwards. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 12:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. This article was corrected. "three sons" changed to "three children". 2. Alexander Helios also was rewritten. 3. And I changed the Ptolemy Philadelphus article to conform to the above. Jay 09:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

They were crucified -- the three theives (who stole roman territory). Because of the cultural and political implications of their names and families, none of them could have lived -- the would forever remain rallying points for revolt. Since they were all crowned Kings, they all had perceived legitmacy within the minds of the people conquered by roma. --M.James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 12:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Marriage to Antony

I moved this from higher up in the page to make any discussion easier to follow:

I tried to tidy up a bit, based on what i know by heart. I'll try and investigate more. One thing I am sure: Cleopatra DID NOT marry either Caesar or Antony - they were Romans and like every other proud of it. In Ancient Rome, a poor Roman citizen was "better" than Cleopatra. Actually, they were a bunch of snobs. Besides, both men were already married at the time: to Calpurnia and Octavia. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 08:40, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2003 edition; Cleopatra article) states quite clearly that Antony and Cleopatra did indeed get married, even going so far as to cite the political problems such a union caused an already-married Antony. Does anyone have any sources that state they weren't married? And judging by both men's actions, neither one of thought a poor (or even a rich, for that matter) Roman citizen was "better" than Cleopatra--marrying her would have hardly been the only thing either one ever did on her account that risked the wrath of SPQR or put their political position back home in peril.Binabik80 17:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arguments have been very well summarized, with sources, by Chris Bennett, who is the online authority for the Ptolemies. (here) — Bill 20:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this, but I have a question. Why did Caesar Augustus (Octavian) kill Ceasarion but spare Cleopatra's children by Marc Antony? It seems to me that the children of Antony would be just as much of a threat to his power as another Caesar. Of course, none of Antony's kids succeeded at rising up against him later, but even so, if I had been Octavian, I think I would have been just as worried that one of them would seek vengeance for the death of their father. Just a thought. Raphael 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one JESSICA to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up Phil; makes perfect sense. I'm the guy who removed the Category from the page. Now I'm no Ptolemaic scholar (despite the resources on my site, the most germane of which is Bevan's authoritative book), but I'm as queer as the next guy and have never run across Cleo in that context.... — Bill 20:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Female Pharaoh

I removed this:

Cleopatra is distinguishable as the last of three women ever to use the title Pharaoh. Her predecessors were Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty and Hapshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

This is incorrect on a couple of points. "Pharaoh" was not used as a title regularly until the Third Intermediate Period, and not during Dynasty 6 or 18. The claim that "Nitocris" was a female is an error on the part of Manetho and Herodotus; the real "Nitocris" of Dynasty 6 was a man. Sobekneferu of Dynasty 12 ruled as a female king. —Nefertum17 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Egyptologists vs Afrocentric

I can see how this section of the article represents an important debate in the literature over Cleopatra... But don't you think we're making these categories of Egyptologists and Afrocentric historians a little too black and white? Even if you could separate historians cleanly into these two groups (which you can't), they still probably wouldn't all have perfectly homogenous opinions about Cleopatra's racial background. I think we should revise the article to focus on the actual historical facts and different readings of those facts, without trying to make it into a battle between Egyptologists and Afrocentric historians.

My very thought. It does make both sides so extreme that they both look silly. Tho maybe the debate has really got so polarized?Dejvid 10:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say. We should not encourage the illusion that there is any serious debate. Afrocentrist considerations are certainly valid when it comes to classic Egyptian pharaohs, but there simply aren't any arguments to say that Cleopatra had any "black" ancestry. The debate goes no further than the shallow "She was an African queen and therefore she was black" or possibly the dogmatic "The Ptolemies MUST have had liasions with black people". This is but a parody of afrocentrism.

The article points out several reasons for disqualifying any serious afrocentric claims, and I have added a last: the Ptolemaic empire is often referred to as "Egypt": in fact it was an eastern Mediterranean state, with its centers in Alexandria, Libya and Cyprus. Cleopatra's father, grand-father and grand-grand- father all spent considerable time on the latter island. It would therefore be equally valid (or rather not valid) to have a Cyprocentric fraction which claim that Cleopatra was partly Cypriotic. Thankfully enough, there is no such fraction. The early Ptolemaic empire also comprised Libanon, Israel/Palestine and cities in Asia Minor, and the Ptolemaic kings spent as much time there as south of Alexandria. I find it much more probable that any unknown mistress would be a Greek-speaking woman from Alexandria or any of the dozens of Ptolemaic Mediterranean strongholds than a native Egypt woman.--Sponsianus 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

some of the Egyptologist views may state incorrect information about the demographics of modern day Egypt being mostly not-African, while really (quoting from wikipedia 'ancient egypt' modern day Egyptians "reflect a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African." research needed.

The only Egyptian-born people who are "non-African" are those born east of Sinai (because geographically that's Asia). The Caucasian and racially mixed peoples of North Africa are no less African than black sub-Saharan Africans.

personally, i thought the afrocentric view was misrepresented. i find it hard to believe that this dichotomy is the best wikipedia can do. and why is one "-centric" and the other "-ologist". the "ist" sounds like a legit ideology, while the other sounds like a subjective and wrong opinion. can we just say 'afrologist'?

Does the claim that Cleopatra had quote-African-unquote blood have any modicum of support? It's pure conjecture and I don't see any debate on the issue among serious scholars.Saltyseaweed 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I have always felt the Afrocentric AND Eurocentric views surrounding Cleopatra are all ludicrous. It seems evident that during Classical times, there was a lot of intermarriage (not even including the various couplings between concubines, prostitutes, and slaves) between virtually all Mediterranean nations. It is also not clear to me that people even identified with "races" with the same perspective and loaded connotations that people do today. It seems that people identified more with their nationality than the color of their skin. Speaking on these terms, it seems to me that the Ptolemys were indeed Greek, except for the last one (Cleopatra) -- because she felt she needed to prove her "Egyptianness" in order to gain credibility with her people.

I'm not a historian, and I'm sure someone will remind me of that (although I might as well be, since I have spent the last few years studying it extensively). However, I think it is wrong for any one race of people to try to "claim" Cleopatra as theirs. I think it is more accurate to simply remember her as an Egyptian of Greek (and possibly other) descent. Thinking in those terms, I think we can ALL be proud of her as a symbol of independence and revolutionary thought. Raphael 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With all respect Raphael, that view is about as wrong as it gets. The lineage of Cleopatra could be traced back to the generals of Alexander the Great with very few exceptions, those possibly being that her grand-mother may have been a concubine, very likely a Hellenistic woman in that case. The Ptolemies married incestously, which makes the genealogy far easier to trace, and every single one of her ancestors were thus Macedonian. There is an ounce of Persian blood coming in through the Seleucid dynasty.

So there is no need at all to introduce any vagueness. Cleopatra's lineage is the best known in the entire ancient world and almost all of her ancestors were Macedonians royalties.Sponsianus 10:48,

12 October 2007 (UTC)

it does not matter even if she had native egyptian mixture that dont mean shes black either falling into that arguement is falling into a common afrocentric trap and are basically concedeing that ancient egyptians were black folks,which of course when most scientist and egyptologist keep repeating that modern day egyptian represent the varying shades of the egyptians in the most ancient times we would conclude that only a small percentage of ancient egyptians would be considered black and would be from the fringes of southern upper ancient egypt,that is why there is even an arguement about the race of them because most do not pass as black and are called arabs by afrocentrics because most egyptians lack the phenotype of black people,also dont fall into the african origins afrocentric trap because we all have african origins that has been know for years im sure just as i do the ancient egyptians has african origins also but that dont mean they are black just as i am not black,so dont feed the afrocentric trolls--Mikmik2953 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient Egypt"

The article introduces Cleopatra as queen of ancient Egypt, which is true in the common meaning of ancient ("really old"), and (at least according to Wikipedia) in the scholarly meaning of ancient (see Ancient History). The problem is that if you go to Ancient Egypt, the cutoff is listed as Egypt's conquest by Alexander the Great. This seems like a problem to me, since the article is linking to one that considers itself unrelated. If you want to read about the history of Cleopatra's Egypt you have to go to History of Greek and Roman Egypt. I was thinking about just changing the link to the latter, but the whole think seems a little sticky to me. Anyone? Xastic 12:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You've hit on rather interesting point, which is that although Cleopatra lived in ancient Egypt, she didn't live in Ancient Egypt after Ceaser's intrusion. There's a similar problem with naming eras in ancient Greece. Our article Ancient Greece considers the period to end at Alexander, too, being followed by Hellenistic Greece (cause they weren't Hellenes before) and Roman Greece, all of which clearly fit into ancient Greece.

In this case I'd leave it be; while History of Ancient Egypt stops before Greek Egypt, Ancient Egypt provides a lot of general background information while linking to the later dynasties, including the Ptolemaic Dynasty. — Laura Scudder | Talk 14:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. I've added a link to History of Greek and Roman Egypt just for good measure. Xastic 07:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Message to Merovingian: I'll let your change stand (unless someone else wants the word "millions" added back), but FYI - Yes, millions of mummies. For centuries egyptian mummies were dug up en mass and used for FERTILIZER (yech), and in the late 19th early 20th (I think) it was done using powered earth moving equipment. Every Egyptian tried to be mummified. If he couldn't actually afford that, his family tried to bury them so the hot/dry sands would have the same effect.24.10.102.46 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

oral sex + the queen true?

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/Mlandimperial_itch.htm

The truth in this is neglible to the point of laughable.

• Yep, that page seems pretty rubbish, certainly as source material. However, some claims are mirrored in a more scholarly book: Johnathan Margolis' "O: The intimate history of the orgasm", 2003. p136. Here, he mentions that the greeks called Cleopatra the 'gaper', 'the ten-thousand-mouthed woman' and the 'thick-lipped' due to having serviced a 100 roman soldiers orally in one evening, and a thousand men in all. Hence, there is something here scholarly and of note - if only that she was unusually highly sexed and that others (enemies?) used this against her.Malick78 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the suicide-vs.-homicide debate

While this debate goes on I saw something on tv. A woman mudder investigater found evcidence that may prove that Cleopatra did not attempt suicide. But was murdered by her guard under the orders of Alexander Ceaser himself. Although the investigatter herself believed at one point that Cleopatra did commit suicide. She proved that not to be true.

While this debate has only been fairly popular for about a year now, it is a significant matter that must be better addressed in this article. It was even used as a primary reason on why it should not become a featured article, and still the problem has not been covered in the many months since then. A single, off-handed remark about an alternate theory does not give it much credit, especially considering that there is more evidence to support it than the African-heritage argument that is addressed in more depth in this article.

If it were my work to do, I would certainly make an entire section devoted to the events surrounding her death. It should include at least one paragraph on the many questionable aspects of her "suicide" (in addition to an edited version of what already exists about her death in this article), to include especially that the primary accepted account of her death comes from Plutarch, having written it an entire century after her death, and that there are no known contemporary accounts of her death. Along with this should also be qualifiers appended to any other statement in the article relating to her death denoting that the "suicide" tale is only what is most commonly accepted.

Since I have no history with this article, having never been one of its contributors, perhaps one of you more familiar with it would prefer to make these edits - it's your choice, but something certainly needs to be done. -- Faenor Mornedhel 09:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Augustus murdered Cleopatra. Cleopatra had power, power Augustus wanted. He had the motive, he had the ability. He did it. --66.218.17.115 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Caesarion or Ptolemy XIV?

"Cleopatra and Caesarion visited Rome between 46 BC and 44 BC and were present when Caesar was assassinated." Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was Ptolemy XIV that accompanied her to Rome, not Caesarion. Anyone have some pages to back up either Little Caesarion or Ptolemy VIV?

THE ARTICLE DOES NOT ASCRIBE HIM HIS PROPER TITLE, HE WAS KING OF KINGS!!! If he had to die for it, the least we can do is recognize it. Also the article says he was "ruler only in title" -- At Dendera in the releif of Cleopatra and Caesarion she stands BEHIND HIM. BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY evidence of the nature of their relationship it must be of greater weight than speculation. Justy saying, she has written in stone her support of him, how can we conjecture otherwise? When he was a child he sat on her lap -- she depicted that too,why is the one acceptable and the other not?-M.James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 13:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The race debate

this section should not exist even the proper section states that it is a delusional theory.~Just keep to the facts not Afro-American theories. ---Pedro 13:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this section exists for the same reason that articles on crazy pseudoscience theories exist: to present the facts on well-known theories. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• i would agree on a popular culture section, but not like this. Black Africa is below the Sahara desert. Bringing American culture to the article and putting it like this is not a good thing to do and missleades the reader. She is, above all, an historical figure. ---Pedro 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do agree for removong the section. We had a similar question, concerning Alexander the Great and his people's ethnicity, is Greek or a specific Mac. identity. It was concluded this article was on the life of Alexander, not on the language the Macedonians spoke, and so the question was ignored; after all there are articles that treat the problem in a more ample view. Doing the say, we should ignore the problem, since general articles on the rival views already exist. Aldux 23:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-debate and a wound to historical truth due to politics. Either this section should be removed, or a section for intelligent design be added immediately to the evolution article. Double standards are hypocritical and do not forward scholarship.

I find this horrendously insulting. This is NOT a "non-debate." In history, there is NO SUCH THING as a non-debate. Just like there is no real proof that Cleopatra was Black, there is no debate-ending, oh-you-people-are-so-stupid proof that she wasn't. Due to having a concubine for a grandmother, no one will ever know whether she was a White European or a woman of color. We'll never know. When dealing with a historic figure, where there are few and/or scattered records of ancestory, you give as many sides of as many arguments as possible, because more than likely there is no one truth. What are the arguments that would lead one to believe she was without a doubt White? What are the arguments that would lead one to believe otherwise? Gather the information, present both sides of the argument, step off of your holier-than-thou platform and shut the hell up. To say that the argument, which has been the primary reason anyone outside of scholarly circles has given a damn about the woman, is unimportant...is...REVISIONISM. It's one of the more contraversial, debate rousing arguments over a historic figure in the 19th Century, HOW CAN IT NOT BE HERE? And to just brush off it's importance like, "meh...we're into real facts...not Afro-American theory hardy hardy har." Is insulting, trivializing, demeaning and the primary reason Blacks go over the depictions of historic figures with a fine toothed comb, because Western historians like to pull this type of crap. "Oh, we know we're right. So there is no need to even mention that there was at some point a discussion on the subject...gafaw gafaw..." Jesus Christ...

Speaking of Jesus Christ, let me check that damn article to see if anyone's gotten snip happy about the debate over his ethniticity. Richard Corey 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Romans were not at all fond of her and instituted a progaganda campaign against her during the Octavian/Marcus Antonius final split. If she had been black then they would surely have mentioned it. Darkmind1970 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... Why? The Romans enslaved and demeaned people of all races and non-Roman ethnicities.--71.37.5.106 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

^ Romans incorporated many ethnicities and cultures into their empire. Including Greek, Egyptian, Etruscans, etc. Btw, Egyptians are Semitic related people, while Cleopatra was a Ptolemaic Greek. Intranetusa 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO the issue is not whether Cleopatra was herself light skinned or dark skinned, but whether we can present the historical debate in an historically rigorous, consistent and informative way in the body of this article. To be blunt, I've never seen the "pro-African" side of the debate even presented in such a fashion in the first place, so I have my doubts. We should also recognize that it will become a lightning rod for revert wars and vandalism pretty quickly.... Geeman 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

HELLO

hello i am doing my project on cleo patra sooo who whats to do it for me?

You might find you learn more doing it yourself. Usually helpful come exam time. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Why don't you learn to speak English, and then do the project yourself. Do you honestly think that some random person is going to do it for you because you typed in a run-on sentence with terrible spelling that asks them to?

First of all. i belive that cleopatra was a mixed race. ok theres no way in hell that she could not have one ouch of african blodd in her. her grand mother was african and her grandfather was greek. her mother and father were he broter. so there its it. it just goes to show you, yes eurpoen people made her look like them. hell look what they did to pochonist. she was white. but they mad her look that way. cleo was mixed ok. and she represtented her african part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.204.238 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please correct your spelling, as I am uncertain about what you are referring to. The Macedonian ruling class in Egypt made a point of marrying within it a great deal, to the point where incest became the norm. There is admittedly no evidence of what race one of her grandparents was, but her parents were Macedonian in appearance so there's a very good chance that she was too. Secondly Egyptians of that era were semitic in origin and appearance. And thirdly if she was African in appearance then the Romans for one certainly never mentioned it. Cite your sources and prove your claims please. Darkmind1970 11:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the math

"She was the third daughter of the king Ptolemy XII Auletes"

"as Auletes' oldest child (one older sisters having died)"

So was she the second daughter, or did two older sisters die?

She had two old sisters, the eldest being another Cleopatra, and the other one being named Berenice. They both died.

No, the eldest was Tryphaena, she was beheaded. --DancexwithxmexXx 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

cleopatra

i would like to know more about cleopatras children where do i look?

I know Cleopatra had a child by the name of Caesarian, he was the son of Julius Caesar. Anyway, the whole reason I came to this article and talk page was because of the suicide versus homicide debate mentioned earlier on this talk page. One thing I knwo was that the debate was sparked off by the profiler Pat Brown. If anyone else is unwilling to take up the challenge, then I'll do it. Dessydes

She had three sons and one daughter, I believe. Caesarion, Julius Caesar's son; the twins Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios; and then her youngest, Ptolemy Philadelphus, the latter three being fathered by Marc Antony. Caesarion was murdered by Octavian, I believe the other three were raised by Octavia, Marc Antony's Roman wife. Cleopatra Selene, I think, married a King, I'm not sure about Cleopatra's two other sons.

Cleopatra Selene, was wed to Juba II, they had a son Ptolemais that was later murdered by Caligula.

Some historians say that Helios and Philadelphus were taken back to rome, but after that it gets murky, some historians say in the first year they 'died from the cold', others say they went to live with Selene and Juba II. I think all of this is false, because there is never a mention of them in rome, they are never wed, never have any kids -- the history becomes too silent. Helios was engaged to Iotape; after octavian conquers Caesar(ion), she is given to one of Herod's sons -- that is one of the reasons I don't think he lived, another historian in the Jourrnal of Roman Studies ww.Tarn also notes that Helios was murdered and gives the political reasons for the necessity.

The most reference to Cleopatra's children that will be found, are text asserting that Caesar(ion) was not the son of Caesar -- and that is as far into that as ANY sources I've found will go (and I look everywhere). THe reason is this was the ruling IMPERIAL FAMILY, Caesar(ion) was the crowned King of Kings, and Son of God according to Kemetic, Hellenist, and Roman traditions -- the information we seek -- destroyed a long time ago. I say this not in jest but literally -- the Birth house of Cleopatra, "Mammsi of Cleopatra" was a structure at Armant that was decorated with reliefes and inscriptions forwarding the concept of Caesar(ion) as the Son of God -- that temple was destroyed in the mid 1860s, (right after men began to decipher heiroglyphs). It was used as fill to build a sugar factory. From this structure we would be able to learn volumes about Cleopatra, Caesar(ion) and their perspective -- but it is gone (and it's painful that the lost is so 'recent'--we just missed it). In 13 bc Octavian "destroyed over 2000 prophecies". The issue of Caesar(ion) litterally split the roman people, Vergil's Ecologue, and the Sybelene leaves weighed heavily on the minds of the populous. When Mark Anthony pledged loyalty to Caesar(ion) he destroyed the foundation of octavian's support. Octavian claims to be the adopted son of Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony's actions essentially made octavian illegitamate. THe issue even split the senate, fully 200 senators supported Mark Anthony, about 1/3. This issue rose to the level of the American Civil War -- it is amazing history is now this silent! Suetonius does record that Caesar(ion) "looked and walked just like his father" -- this may seem a minor detail -- BUT octavian has these coins with HIS image and the words "caesar augustus" and "divi filius". My point is if JR looks just like POPs, then the coin is purely propoganda -- a tribute penny. Upon his acension to the Earthly Throne, Caesar(ion) initiated a new dating system, beginning with his coronation (the year was set to "0"). Evidence of the use of this dating system is present on the Black Sea, a city Chronossus(sp) -- THe entire Mediterranean region was aware of this Caesar, King of Kings. That is why we are limited in what we will know about Cleopatra's Children. History is recorded by the "victor". "octavian" is supposed to be this great enlightened person who brought the transition from the pagan heathenish days of antiquity (bc) to our modern culture (ad). In all honesty, the way we in modern times view Mary and Jesus. That is the way people in the mediterranean viewd Cleopatra and Caesar(ion). --M.James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 12:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Refused/Unable

"However, Caesar refused to make the boy his heir, naming his grand-nephew Octavian instead."

Actually, by Roman law, Ptolemy Caesar (Caesarion) couldn't have been Caesar's heir. Not only was he a bastard, but foreign-born. I think we should replace the said sentence with:

"Because of Roman law, Ptolemy Caesar could not have been made Julius Caesar's heir, even if Julius Caesar had wished it so."

HERE IS THE KICKER -- ROMAN LAW DOES NOT DEFINE LIFE ON EARTH!!! Historian tend to make their assesments of Caesar's proposed action based on roman legal norms. Even if Romans did not accept him, the rest of the world did, he looked just like his father, how can you say he isn't his? Caesar did not ascribe to typical roman norms. He introduced "barbarians" to the senate -- that was not part of roman tradition. He made a golden statue of Cleopatra as Venus Genetrix, and set it in a public place(very much roman tradition)! There is a Historian that records the name of the scribe who took down an order from Caesar that in effect would make it possible for him to marry wives, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURRING AN HEIR. That guy was murdered the same day Caesar was! J. Caesar traces his own descent in the Gens Julii back to Venus. Venus was the mother of the first king of Alba Longa in roman tradition. In his sister Julia's eulogy J. Caesar said:

"...Descended by her mother from Kings, and immortal gods, for the Marcii Rege go back to Ancus Marcius, and the Julii…to Venus. Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of Kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which belongs to the Gods who hold sway over Kings themselves. "

Can a man feel this about his sister, and not feel at least the same (if not more) toward his own son? Julius Caesar did wish to make his son his heir, he demonstrated that when he made the statue of Cleopatra as Venus (it's implication is overt). Julius Caesar gave Caesar(ion) religious authority that surpassed the senate. He was actively changing politic when he was assasinated.

That will is False -- M.James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 12:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Why are there no pictures of what she actually looked like, according to the coins with her image? Even if the coin images are not perfectly accurate, they're much more so than the romanticized depictions that came later. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 17:10

A good article (and a very interesting picture of Cleopatra) based on new information from Roman and 19th century sources gives an idea of her ethnic background and appearance: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a picture, but I've just uploaded a picture of a statue of Cleopatra to the WIkimedia site. I'm new to all this, so I don't yet know how to point folks to it. The statue is at the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum in San Jose and the placarding seemed to indicate it was a real "period" piece. (Some of their stuff is reproductions, this looked to be "real"). My Username on the media site is "chiefio" (I'm working on getting the same thing here...) and the picture is PD-self and named "DSC_092420.MOD.JPG". (I'm also working on a better naming convention for pictures I upload ;-) The statue is in a very dark (black) stone. Perhaps that's part of the "Black Cleopatra" genisis... At any rate, if someone can find the picture of the statue and if it is found of merit, it might go well in the article. -E. M. Smith (chiefio) 2007-05-12 4.246.3.195 11:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Antony's behaviour

I appreciate this article is primarily about Cleopatra but this line:

Antony's behavior was considered outrageous by the Romans, and Octavian convinced the Senate to levy war against Egypt.

IMHO needs further explaination. What part of his behaviour? His marrying Cleoptra? The wars he was waging? What? I guess maybe it's explained better in the Antony article and perhaps eslewhere but IMHO it does need brief explaination here. Nil Einne 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Augustus/Octavian

For consisency, IMHO we should refer to Augustus as Octavian throughout the whole article. For starters, he was known as Octavian throughout the period discussed in the article I believe. More importantly, suddenly changing just confuses people who don't know the history that well. If you really need to change (AFAIK you don't), then this should be explained the first time it's done. E.g. Octavian, by now known as Augustus... Nil Einne 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra was the daughter of the King and his own sister that he married to

Help,

I want to thank you for being there and want to know if you people can helpme with my project that im doing on about Cleopatra.....what i need help is that i'm doinh an essay. But if you want to help can you give me some information.... Thank You, Larry Jackson

Other theories of her death

This section currently sounds like original research because it does not attribute these hypotheses to any person (thus making them sound like the author's alone). They need to be attributed and then cited in order to remain in the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's she Beautiful?

A good article (and a very interesting picture of Cleopatra) based on new information from Roman and 19th century sources gives an idea of her ethnic background and appearance: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think she is truly beautiful,an article said in one of her coins it showed that she had a hook nose! and how could she kill her own brothers like wht sh e did! She's acting s bit like a wild animal!

Yes, somebody should stop that Cleopatra before she starts wreckin' the place!

LOL! And teach that poor guy how to spell!

I'm removing the following passage: "From a recently found coin we may also conclude that Cleopatra was not beautiful at all, unlike the Cleopatra we see in films and pictures." I do so for these reasons: 1. "Beautiful" is a matter of opinion. 2. A profile on a coin is not an accurate depiction. 3. It's under the "Caesar and Caesarion" section and bears no relevance to that topic. --63.25.254.122 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze, how could ol' Cleo be so inconsiderate? For info on why the image on a coin is not accurate, see COMPUTER RECONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CLEOPATRA LOOKED LIKE. -Pandora958

1.coins were produced in her own reign, how could she had allowed her to be depicted as not beautiful

2.the two greatest men of that time, who could get any women, selected non other than Cleopatra

obviously she was beatiful

The coins in question were most likely clumsily re-worked images of Cleopatra's Father Ptolemy XI. Cleopatra was ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit

Nose

How is it possible that the word "nose" isn't even once in the article? Shinobu 09:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I came here wondering why Jonathan Richman wrote a song called "Abdul And Cleopatra", and I didn't learn anything, either. Man, this Wikipedia jazz is for the birds! --63.25.254.122 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism not reverted

I found several instances of vandalism in this article tonight that were not reverted. I fixed those. I'm very tired now and am not able to proofread well so I may have missed others. Perhaps someone else can eyeball the article and see if any vandalism remains. The problem appears to be that some reverts were made, which brought back old vandalism. Otherwise, it's a very nice article. Very informative. --207.69.139.12 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Coins

I would agree that illustrating the article with coins of Cleopatra would be the most accurate way of presenting an accurate visage.

ok rock on dude. whatever you say. be proud of who you are.

Page location

Would anyone object to moving this to plain old Cleopatra? It's clearly a primary use, and Cleopatra redirects here. The current title is kind of silly. john k 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering Cleopatra VII of Egypt was her actual name and title, is there any compelling reason why we should move it? Also considering just how many different articles Cleopatra can refer to, as well as that the article title is consistent with the line of rulers she was descended from, it seems best to keep it as is. Sxeptomaniac 16:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal naming conventions only apply to modern countries. Cleopatra redirects here. Any reference to plain old "Cleopatra" is bound to refer to this Cleopatra. There are no Cleopatras who were monarchs of other countries than Egypt. This Cleopatra was more or less the only one to be fully ruler in her own right. And, um, it's stupid to not have our article on Cleopatra be at Cleopatra. If you attempted to make Cleopatra redirect to Cleopatra (disambiguation), you'd have a revolt on your hands. I shouldn't have to provide any particular "compelling reason" to move the article beyond the fact that this is in line with "common naming" procedure. At the very least, it should be at Cleopatra VII. Note, though, that she was never called that at the time - it is a retrospective ordinal given by later historians (possibly incorrectly - as far as I can tell, there was no Cleopatra VI), and was not used by she herself. john k 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should just be Cleopatra. I doubt even specialists would use 'Cleopatra VII', other than in highly refined debate. Or, to be more correct, should we start refering to Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra VII in future?

What I would really like to know is by what process of assesment is her life considered to be a 'core' biography? Her role in history seems more akin to that of the fictitious Helen of Troy, and she hardly merits top consideration in her own right. If it had not been for Ceasar, Anthony and Octavian I suspect she would have remained as obscure as her predecessors and namesakes.' White Guard 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

She was the last independent ruler of ancient Egypt. I would add that sometimes legend is as important as actual importance to history. Personally, I think the number of core biographies is overly limited, and that we would be better off if we had a much larger number, but what can you do? At least Cleopatra is genuinely world famous, and unlike Helen of Troy, she actually existed. john k 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all very true, but she was a foreign ruler of a foreign dynasty of an Egypt in decay. Who springs to mind when you think of the high noon of ancient Egypt? Surely Rameses the Great or even Akhenaten, not poor old Cleo, no matter how notorious! White Guard 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what can you do? My basic feeling is that "core biographies" should be of people that readers would expect to find biographies of in an encyclopedia, an issue which is generally easier to determine than who the "most important" people are, which is subjective. john k 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

H..mm, yes; I've had a look at the 'core' list and have to confess that there are some people even I have never heard of! All very eclectic. But we are getting too far from the point. Surely 'most people' have heard of Rameses? Perhaps I have not yet understood the logic behind 'core' biographies, but Cleopatra seems a figure of little real significance-an historical epiphenomenon, if you like. What biographies most people would expect to find would, I suspect, be a list with very little weight indeed. White Guard 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of people that the most people have heard of is not the same as the list of the people that most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Whether or not, say, Dan Brown is more widely read than Charles Dickens, I think most people, in general, would more expect to find an encyclopedia article on Dickens. But this is all irrelevant. The core biographies is project is a project, as far as I'm concerned, to identify fairly important people and improve articles on them. Given that the basic goal is to improve articles, I don't particularly see why it matters. Beyond that, what about moving the article? Cleopatra VII of Egypt is deeply unnecessary. Cleopatra VII or Cleopatra would either one of them do. john k 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course: go for it. White Guard 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I will move it to Cleopatra VII for the moment, as I think that should be wholly uncontroversial. Then I might do an RM to move it to Cleopatra, depending on how I feel. But this will probably happen tomorrow. john k 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a stupid question but I am confused... why do historians refer to her as Cleopatra VII? Wasn't she the only Cleopatra to ever actually hold the throne alone? I know other Cleopatras were wives of kings, but consorts aren't usually given a number (right?). I think I am missing something.

BBC.co.uk History states that her name was Cleopatra, Thea Philopator, Philadelphus, Thea Neotera, Regina Regum Filiorum Regum. -- Pichote (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I beleive the BBC source is relating a modern invention. Especially considering how half of it is LATIN.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"What did Cleopatra really look like?"

Sorry, newbie here. I don't really find the "what did Cleopatra look like?" section very useful, and I would suggest deletion - its source material doesn't back up the claim that Cleopatra was more manipulative and intelligent than she was beautiful, as if these two qualities can be compared in the first place, and while it may be fitting to mention her reputation for beauty, making an assertion one way or another seems unprovable. Also, this whole seems to have been intended to dodge the moribund debate between egyptologists and afrologists. Seastreet 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was silly when I saw it, too. Thanks for giving me a push to get rid of it; we don't really need to cover internet speculation. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what they had there was silly, but I would like to know if she dressed like a Greek or like an ancient Egyptian (which is how she is usually portrayed). I think that whole Pharaoh look with the sphynx like headdress is anachronistic. (Bjorn Tipling 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

but there should be some records about about "how the lady look like?"..... how is this possible that nobody has found ant ancient document about how she looked like??

Not necessarily, the Romans wanted to remove her from history once she was dead, so may well have wrecked all the statues. Paintings, if made and hidden in a protected place, would have faded by now anyway. There are no court photographs, obviously, like we have for modern monarchs. As said above, even the coin, may have been a slightly reworked die of her father's visage. As you read in the story Egypt was a dying dynasty, already over-run by Rome culturally and economically, if not yet militarily. They went through kings rapidly, Cleopatra killed her own sister, so it would have been a waste to build monuments to each person. They didn't care what she looked like, Julius and Mark Antony were more interested in her power, money and maybe her style. We only care about her looks because of the Afrocentric/Hellenic debate. 64.252.24.184 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleopatra was indeed ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit Graffixguy (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A good article (and a very interesting picture of Cleopatra) based on new information from Roman and 19th century sources gives an idea of her ethnic background and appearance:

Cleopatra was a Macedonian princess

Does the article mention this?

Also, why is there the greek spelling and not the macedonian spelling?

Pece Kocovski 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless even to comment on this, but anyway... Cleopatra was speaking Greek, her name is Greek, the historians of that time mention her as Greek (and, i guess, she considered herself as well), the Slavs of modern FYROM were some thousands of miles away and the Cyrillic alphabet was not yet invented... Hectorian 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; and though what you have written is-or should be-blindingly obvious, the challenge to ignorance is never pointless. White Guard 05:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra was indeed ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit Graffixguy (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'WAKE UP''''

---

Enough with this ethnic Macedonian and Macedonian-Greek thing. We are talking about the ancient times and not 20th century politics and whether there is a "Macedonian ethnicity" today, which has nothing to do with the ancient Macedon. Now, nobody says "ETHNIC SPARTAN" or "ETHNIC THESSALIAN" or "ETHINC THESPROTIAN" (the last two in case somebody says that Macedonia was not a city-state like Sparta, or some silly comment like that). Ancient Macedonia was greek at the Hellenistic times, even if by a miracle it is proven at some point that there was a Macedonian language that would have been extincted centuries ago at the time of Cleopatra. This cannot be disputed by anyone. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.231.253 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be disputed by anyone. Thank you. I think I'll start signing all my posts the same way! :D Inspiring Brando130 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Waxwork

Do we really want a fuzzy photo of a waxwork? Paul B 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the cheap, fuzzy waxwork picture of a naked woman (omg bewbs!) is not in very good taste, and I think it rather cheapens up the entire page. I vote that it be removed or replaced. --Promus Kaa 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Cleopatra VII of Egypt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New Evidence

Recentally in the Month of september, on discovery the channel or history channel. A show premeired that put new light on the life of cleopatra.

New evidence shows that she was not the suicidal type, and that it is believed the snake thing comes from the fact that cleopatra is often though as the incarnation of the god Isis. Isis was depictied with a cobra, which is one of the snakes thought to have been used. in alternative to a asp. Also a Asp is to painful of a death, and she was not likely to use it as a choice. Snakes also only inject venom 50% of the time, thus making it not reliable. Yami 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article to best fit other cases. The article is not neutrual and shows only one side of a complex story

This is off a Discovery Channel Site

http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/ontv_egyptweek/death_cleopatra/index.shtml

The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra tackles a cold case of regal proportions. Cleopatra inherited the throne of Egypt at age 17, before dodging assassination to rule for more than 20 years. Her life is filled with the enigmatic and the unexplained… as is her untimely death. For two millennia, only one cause has been recorded – suicide by snakebite. Now, cold case criminal profiler Pat Brown and a team of experts that includes an underwater archaeologist and a toxicologist, are re-examining the circumstances of her alleged suicide. Using techniques of 21st century criminal investigations, they reconstruct the 2,000-year-old death scene (which is now submerged beneath Alexandria harbor) and reveal the sinister power games that led to her death. Yami 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yami, I've reverted your additions for now, since they are unsourced. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've again reverted your additions concerning speculation about Cleopatra's suicide. Your edits failed to provide any sources for their claims. Note that a teleivision show is not normally considered a particularly reliable source. Also please note the warning: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted, that occurs on every edit screen. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

COMPUTER RECONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CLEOPATRA LOOKED LIKE

I have heard that the Discovery Channel aired an image of Cleopatra that was a computer reconstruction. It was made from reconstructing the likeness from the various images of her on ancient coins and statues. I also read that Goddio's divers retrieved ancient coins which were used in a computer generated image of Cleopatra. I have tried in vain to locate a pictures of this images. Does any one know where it can be found? GWr —Preceding

The coins in question were most likely clumsily re-worked images of Cleopatra's Father Ptolemy XI. Cleopatra was indeed ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit Graffixguy (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A good article (and a very interesting picture of Cleopatra) based on new information from Roman and 19th century sources gives an idea of her ethnic background and appearance: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 71.79.98.90 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2006

How about you all just stick your foot in your mouth! Cleopatra was beautiful! (on the inside) I mean how are you supposed to know what she REALLY looked like... You can never be sure gosh! *sticks tongue out* Go scratch your cats butt for me!

Cleopatra and Caesar were a better couple than Cleopatra and Mark Antony... I mean psh i would have died for Caesar not Mark antony... But Cleopatra is a big fat beeeeeeep! sonvm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.200.53 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2006

Traditional Egyptian sculptural style was to depict idealized faces of leaders with almost no relation to how they actually looked (with the notable exception of Akhenaten). Greek sculpture was more realistic, but still weren't meant to be true-to-life portraits. So basically there's no way to know how Cleopatra really looked; we can only reconstruct the image presented to the public. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was customary for the image of a female ruler on a coin to be made to look ugly; this signified that she was a powerful ruler. For some reason, if the woman was portrayed as being beautiful it seemed to have detracted from her competency. Talk about sexist... kings were supposed to be physically handsome. An ugly king was looked down upon. Anyway, also considering the fact that egyptian art used cookie-cutter images of queens, any computer reconstructions would not be accurate, and probably very ugly. I doubt egyptologists have enough data to even attempt, and it would be foolish to try. -Pandora958

A good point. I've seen the coins, they don't even look like real human faces. That should have been these researcher's first clue that this was a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.72.80 (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The coins in question were most likely clumsily re-worked images of Cleopatra's Father Ptolemy XII. Cleopatra was indeed ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit Graffixguy (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving Rome

"Cleopatra and Caesarion visited Rome between 47 BC and 44 BC and were present when Caesar was assassinated on 15 March, 44 BC. Before or just after the assassination she returned to Egypt."

If they were present when Caesar was murdered, they can't have returned to Egypt before it happened...

Requested semi-protection

There is quite a lot of vandalism on this article lately. I've requested semi-protection. ArthurWeasley 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

the royal diaries daghter of the nile by kristiana gregory

3 januarius, morning

a fast spelling error

At literature: other The Royal Diaries: Cleopatra: Daughter of the Nile, Egypt, 57 B.C. by Kristiana Gregory (ficitionlized story of Cleopatra's childhood and _adolecense_) (adolescense is the correct spelling, I don't have an account)

good catch. This is now fixed. ArthurWeasley 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

conflicitng information

In the article it says, "It is said that Cleopatra took her own life on August 12, 30 BC, allegedly by means of an asp."

in the Biographipcal summary on the side of the page under her photograph it says the date of death is November 30 BC. This is either incorrect or written in a confusing manner...

Jemusser 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)jemusser

Relevance?

Some historians were relieved that it confirmed Caesar's interest in women, despite tales of his adventures in Bythinia and elsewhere

I don't believe that this needs to be in the Cleopatra article, whether or not historians were "relieved" about Caesar's sexuality does not seem to belong in an encylopedic entry on Cleopatra. It also doesn't feel very NPOV to me. Nautafoeda 05:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

vague wording

In the sentence, "Her unions with her brothers produced no children: it is possible that they were never consummated; in any case, they were not close", the phrase "they were not close" is not clear. Since the word "close" has several meanings that could be applied in this particular sentence, it leaves confusion. One needs to know if they lived close to each other, had good relationships with each other, were genetically clse (??), etc. 24.238.230.216 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Date Conflict

Okay. This page says:

A few days later, on November 30, Cleopatra also died by snakebite.

Now if we actually go to Caesarion's page we see this date instead:

Cleopatra followed his example by committing suicide on August 12, 30 BC.

So which one is right? Obviously someone has not checked their facts. I'm tempted to remove both until a date is actually known. If it is questionable, that is to say, if there is still an ongoing debate of the date, then it should state so clearly in both articles. Thoughts? If no one responds, then I'll remove them in a few days. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Augustus seems to agree with Caesarion that Alexandria fell in August. Seems unlikely that Cleopatra would wait more than two months. The source cited in the suicide section here does not mention any date at all. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sisters conflict

The description of the intrigues of Cleopatra's sisters is contradictory.--DocGov 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? -Pandora958

donations of alexandria is a link in this article that refers back to same

i am not knowledgeable in this subject but i don't see a reason to have a link here (in the anthony and cleopatra section) to the donations of alexandria article that just redirects back here. i am removing said link. if this is wrong, please reverse -- and explain why. my best guess is that at one point these were two separate articles. uri budnik 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Antony and Cleopatra?

I noticed a strangeness in the Mark Antony and Cleopatra section of the article. It begins:

In 42 BC, Four years later, in 37 BC, Antony visited Alexandria again en route to make war with the Parthians. He renewed his relationship with Cleopatra, and from this point on Alexandria would be his home.

This was, however, the first time Mark Antony is mentioned in the article, so if his relationship is being "renewed" when and how did it begin? Also, the article begins "In 42 BC," then abruptly stops, as if this section originally began discussing 42 BC when the relastionship first began but that section was cut. I couldn't find the old information in revisions, does anyone know what was removed? As it is now the article is confusing in this section. --Atamasama 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsinoe

I am confused by this article's account of Arsinoe's involvement in the civil war, when Cleopatra was briefly ousted by Pothinus & Co. According to what I've read, Arsinoe was helping Pothinus, and after Caesar and Cleopatra crushed the rebellion, she was exiled. This may be wrong, but I definately read this in Margaret George's Memoirs of Cleopatra, and I would trust her extensive research. Furthermore, this is not the only place I have seen this, though I can't think of where else off the top of my head. Somebody should look into this. It is very different than this article's account. -Pandora958

Deletion of unnecessary paragraph

I am deleting the paragraph as it has unnecessary and strange information. Cleopatra was not an “ancient Macedonian name” as it was not “ancient Athenian”, or “ancient Corinthian name”! It is a Greek name. Further more the article already states that she was daughter of Ptolemy XII (Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos Philopator Philadelphos1 also known as Ptolemy Nothus and Ptolemy Auletes, ). Cleopatra certainly did not have a nickname (philopator) but it was her formal name (to be more precise it was a title). Therefore I am removing that information. If the etymology of her name and title in Greek is needed then a new paragraph should be added which already exist in the page Cleopatra (Seleukosa 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

If anyone disagrees with the deletion should explain me why. Revert with out the use of the talk page will cause another revert! Regards (Seleukosa 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Seleukosa,

Are you disputing that "Philopator" means "Loving her Father?" That sounds right to me, even if it is a title, not a nickname. Also, are you an Ancient Greek language specialist and Ancient Greece history specialist to dispute the statement that "Cleopatra is an Ancient Macedonian name, frequently used in Macedonia in the time of Philip II of Macedon."? Or to state so categorically that this is a Greek name, not Macedonian at all? [Macedonia was a part of Greece and of Greek culture, after all.] What about the information that she was the third daughter of Ptolemy XII Auletes? Where else do you see this piece of information in the article? Thanks for any clarifications you can offer on your very categorical statements, totally dismissing the information that was there. Regards,

- warshy 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Warshy. The name Cleopatra is a Greek name. In every dictionary you will find it listed as a typical Greek name. It is NOT a unique Greek name from the kingdom of Macedon , or unique Athenian, or unique Spartan name. Although "ancient Macedonian" entails that it was from a Greek region it is stated in such a way that it implies that it wasn’t Greek. Further more the name Cleopatra was used especially in the Greek and Hellenistic Royalty and not only in the Greek kingdom of Macedon. Read The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Bianchi, Robert Steven, et al. Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn, 1988. At the beginning of the article it is clearly stated that she was the daughter of Ptolemy XII (Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos Philopator Philadelphos1 also known as Ptolemy Nothus and Ptolemy Auletes, ) and I considered it a repeated information. If you want you can add his father name as Ptolemy XII Auletes but as you can see his title is really big. Her title was "philopator" which means "Loves her father" but she also had several other titles such as "θεά Φιλοπατώρ" (Goddess Philopator) after 51BC. After 48BC, associated as senior ruler with her brother Ptolemy XIV her title became “the Father-loving and Sibling-loving Gods”, “Θεοί Φιλοπάτορες και Φιλάδελφοι” In late 37 BC her title became “the younger father-loving and country-loving goddess” : “Θεά Νεωτέρα Φιλοπατόρ και Φιλόπατρις”, proclaimed "queen of kings" at the Donations of Alexandria autumn 34BC. It is not necessary to add all this information about her titles unless a short description is given in the beginning of the article! But the bottom line remains that Cleopatra is a known Greek name, not unique in Macedon and of course the title “Philopator” is also Greek which I also don’t see everywhere mentioned. Furthermore the information about the meaning of the name Cleopatra exists in the Cleopatra (disambiguation) page. A small expalnation can be added in this page also but certanly then Title “Philopator” was not a nickname. Thank you for your time (Seleukosa 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I also thought that the little piece of knowledge (if it is correct, of course) that "is an Ancient Macedonian name, frequently used in Macedonia in the time of Philip II of Macedon" was pretty interesting: Philip II of Macedon, of course, is Alexander the Great's father, and the time span it is referring to is some 3 centuries before Cleopatra the queen herself. It would be very interesting, indeed, if her name had such old Greek/Macedonian cultural roots. In any case, I was unconvinced about your entire argument to begin with, and, in spite of all the Greek quoting [very impressive to me in and of itself] I am still unconvinced. Especially about your very categorical distinction between Greek and Macedonian, and the dismissing of 'Macedonian' as being of a lesser category. Again, remember that Philip and Alexander were first of all Macedonian in their origins, and they were the real creators of Hellenistic culture and of the Hellenistic world. But, I am no specialist myself either in the language or in the region/period, and you seem quite adamant. So I guess there is no point in continuing quibbling with you. I'll have to let it be as you wish. Regards,

- warshy 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Warshy you did not understand my arguments. I did not categorical distinct Greek and ancient Macedonia. On the contrary. The ancient kingdom of macedon was a Greek kingdom! I only said that Cleopatra is a known Greek name and not a unique Macedonian Greek name. (Seleukosa 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

~Warshy, I think you're missing Seleukosa's point. "Cleopatra" and even "Ptolemy" were Greek names regardless of which city states of ancient Greece used them. So, whether Macedonian or Athenian or Corinthian - the names are still Greek, just like Philipos - hence the language used in all city states. ApplesnPeaches~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.195.135.34 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of death

In the article it says she died on 30 November 30 BC. Is this right? I always thought she died on 12 August 30 BC. That's what's it says on the 12 August and 30 BC pages. --Philip Stevens 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Red hair?

I know we've probably all heard that Cleopatra might have had red hair, but does anyone know of a credible source to give merit or denounce this popular thought? Satiravelvet 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was told that she didn't have red hair, but that Egyptians often dyed their hair red using the Henna. ~ApplesnPeaches ~

Cleopatra was ethnically Macedonian. And there are references that give us a good idea of what she really looked like. For a scholarly article (with references) about Caesar Augustus' Portrait of Cleopatra, visit Graffixguy (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A good article (and a very interesting picture of Cleopatra) based on new information from Roman and 19th century sources gives an idea of her ethnic background and appearance: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graffixguy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Seeing as how Cleopatra Selene II has her own page, I decided to add her link in Cleopatra VII's info box. Satiravelvet 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Snakebite inconsistency

I thought I'd point out that the article talks about Cleopatra dying from snakes in a fig basket, while popular art and media has her applying the snake to her bosom. This should be explained somehow as it makes the article inconsistent. -Rolypolyman 19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In my reply please read the following

Cleopatra's death

The snakebite death story is only a legend, it should be menetion is unlikly she died by snake bite at all, Cleopatra's Death it believe to caused by Octivan, by some experts.

1. Pr. El-Abbadi., said all the sources on her death at best are 2nd hand sources. The 2 most prominent, written a century after her death, are from Plutarch (wrote about it more then a 100 years later, Plutarch was not born until 75 years after Cleopatra's death.) & Cassius Dio. Bothsay she was imprisoned in her mausoleum on the day of her death, & that she met her end at the hands of a cobra. . .they do differ on how the snake was smuggled in.

- Plutarch: Basket of figs - Cassius: A pitcher.

2. Plutarch also said that he didn't know how she really died. “Nobody knows".

3. Plutarch proposed an alternate suicide method, poison hidden in a hollow comb that she carried in her hair.

4. Cleopatra would have had to feign an unusual appetite for figs in order to justify to Octavian's guards a basket big enough to conceal it. Or pitcher then a big snake.

5. When the guards returned Queen Cleopatra was dead and there was no snake (mysterious). With any suicide there is always the body & the implement of death which in this case was not there, because the died person can removed the implement of death.

6. The snake story story might be borrowed from a myth surrounding Isis. Another, more poetic, is the symbolic power of the cobra as an emblem of pharaonic divinity — an apt metaphor for her death in the coils of international politics. Either way, the snake would have been well up to the job.

7. It's not that a single cobra would not have had enough. "There's a misconception," says Professor Warrell, "that snakes can exhaust the supply of venom with one strike.

Pr. Warrell: a poison expert. The Egyptian Cobra releases venom causing toxins to block transmition of nerve impulses. A progressive paralysis results. beginning with the eyes then the chest, & stomach. The person dies of suffocation. Dr. Warrell confirmed that 3 people could die of a snakebite, but that is highly unlikely because not every bite from the snake carries venom in it. The venom takes a good 2 hours to kill its victim. This would mean that from the time she sent the suicide note to Ocatvian & the time it took for the soldiers to get back to her she should have been found alive, not died.

The three essentials of crime are motive, means and opportunity. In imperial abundance, Octavian had the lot.

- Motive: Mary Anthony, & Cleopatra's children through Mary Anthony, plus maybe most important Cleopatra’s son with Caesar. She was the treat to 'his' empire, she wanted control, she was a masterful controller too meaning: treat to his rule. Ptolemy expert Nicole Douek says, “The child is the biggest threat of all because he’s the direct descendant of Julius Caesar, who had no other children.” Cleopatra & Caesar’s son was later murdered by Octavian [this is a point that we all tend to brush over, but perhaps needs to be examined more thoroughly.]

- The cover up motive: Prevented a bigger chance of rebellion.

- Ability: The men at his disposal it’s very likely that both Plutarch and Cassius Dio got their accounts from Octavian’s memoirs. Therefore he had the ability to influence written accounts. - Opportunity: He had control of the crime scene. The Queen was said by Romans to a only as a seductress, & diva.

Just thought to add to this discussion in case someone else comes along and tries to alter the article based on that theory. This is based on a discovery channel (as far as I can tell, saw it on German TV) 'documentary' by Pat Brown a Criminal Profiler. At no point does she present anything resembling proof. She just tries to push her own theory that Cleopatra was indeed murdered by Octavian. About the strongest point she manages to make is that the probability of three victims to die of three snake bites is low. But that alone does not constitute proof of murder. She also totally disregards that the snake expert in her 'documentary' gives an estimate of from 15 minutes to several hours for the cobra poison to lead to death. She does not even take into consideration that the message Cleopatra had delivered to Octavian could have been delayed (I don't think we even know the time of day this should have happened at) or that for whatever reasons Octavian might not have read it right away, therefore delaying the discovery of the three poisonned women. The mention of Isis could be seen as supporting both the suicide and murder case, obviously Cleopatra knew she was a goddess in the Egyptian pantheon and how powerful a symbol the cobra was in the Egyptian culture, so it could have seemed like a powerful symbol to use a cobra to commit suicide. Then comes the missing snake argument, unlike a dagger, a cobra is mobile and has a mind of its own, obviously I'm no expert on snakes, but even I know it could have left that particular room or the entire mausoleum on its own.

In the end, that entire 'documentary' is so full of speculation and unprofessional that it should not be considered a reliable source. At best one could add a single line saying something like: 'US Criminal Profiler Pat Brown (who is not even notorious enough to have her own wikipedia article) believes Cleopatra may have been murdered by Octavian for political reasons'. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, no serious scholar seems to have attempted to debunk that supposed 'documentary'.--Caranorn85.93.201.34 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC) P.S.: Don't recall my password right now, so just signing as annon

Nine children?!

It looks like this article was vandalized by a practical joker, as internal inconsistencies alerted me that Cleopatra (said early in the article to have had "four children, one by Caesar (Caesarion) and three by Antony (Cleopatra Selene II, Alexander Helios, and Ptolemy Philadelphus)") was rather unlikely to have had TEN surviving children. And even more unlikely to have had nine of them with Antony -- all of whom "were spared and taken back to Rome" -- in the limited time Cleopatra and Antony had together!

I spent a couple of hours trolling through reputable sources, and not one of them mentions the "nine children" business; they all stick to the known offspring with Antony -- the twins, and Philadelphus. I also note that of the links given in the "Issue" sidebar -- to Caesarion, Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene II, Ptolemy Philadelphus, Tryphanea, Berenice, Ptolemy Philometor, Ptolemy Philopater, Antiochus, and Mithridates -- only the first four go to pages on children of Cleopatra. I'm removing the other children as spurious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.72.201 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so. Good spotting.Sponsianus 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I don't think Cleopatra and Mark Anthony would had christened one of their children "Mithridates" because this was the name of one of the enemies of Rome in Asia. Of course it's spurious data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.71.26 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Films

Hi.

The article is closed, but if you find it important, you could incude this data on the sub-title "Films":

The first Portuguese-spoken movie about Cleopatra was Cleópatra Sétima (Cleopatra the Seventh), directed and produced by Julio Bressane. Although the movie was presented, out of competition, in the 64th Venice International Film Festival, it will be only released commercially in 2008. In this version, filmed and produced in Brazil, Cleopatra is played by the Brazilian actress Alessandra Negrini.

Sources:

Portuguese Wikipedia -----> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cle%C3%B3patra_%28filme%29
Internet movie database --> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488515/

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.71.26 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Still inconsistent information on children

The article still contains inconsistent information on the number of Cleopatra's children. The introduction says "In all, Cleopatra had four children", which according to the "Nine children?!" section above appears to be correct. However, the section on Cleopatra and Marc Antony says "He and Cleopatra had four more children, including Ptolemy Philadelphus". Joriki (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joriki! Cleopatra had all in all four known children: Caesarion with Julius Caesar; the twins Alexander (Helios) and Cleopatra (Selene), and finally Ptolemy Philadelphus with Marcus Aurelius. The following page (look under Cleopatra VII) is probably the best online resource for the Ptolemies. This fact is by no means contested, it is well known. Best regards Sponsianus (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

cleopatra's beauty

what kind of water did cleopatra use to take her bath? did she ever use magnets in her water.... i reallly wonder.... 172.141.198.186 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ancient sources like Plutarch mention that she was not actually physically attractive as we tend to think today, but she had a very charming personallity, she was a capturing speaker, very pleasant as a person and a character. I believe all debates on whether she used this or that beauty tip have no ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.133.97 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Burial?

I was looking at the article and noticed that it completely avoids the subject of what happened to her body after she died.--Marhawkman (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Octavian supposedly allowed Cleopatra a traditional burial to appease the Alexandrians. She was said to be interred with Antony, but the location of the tomb (and likely that of many other Ptolemaic monarchs) was lost over time. A popular theory is that the tomb sunk to the bottom of the Alexandrian harbor with the majority of the royal quarters during a series of earthquakes centuries ago, but no one truly knows for certain. Tathunen (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Refrences

How do you do a refrence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.169.179 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)