Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Did 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' present a fair argument?

• Message 1. 

  Posted by patiand (U13884866) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009

  I watched 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' last night and was struck by the biased nature of the programme. Quite apart from the argument that Cleopatra was black, the programme painted her as an unpopular tyrant, who had her innocent brothers and sister murdered. The evidence read like something written by Dan Brown; ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory.
  
  Julius Caesar arrived in Alexandria in pursuit of Pompey and was incensed when he was presented with Pompey's head. Caesar always had one eye on posterity and liked to magnanimously dispense clemency to his defeated enemies. Pompey had also been his son-in-law. At this point Egypt became embroiled in Roman affairs; Ptolemy trying to ingratiate himself with Caesar. The programme totally ignored this point in order to paint Cleopatra as selling Egypt out to the Romans.
  
  The battle in Alexandria against Caesar was presented in the programme as an Egyptian popular uprising against the traitor Cleopatra. Again this ignores the facts. Cleopatra was the first member of the Ptolemaic dynasty to bother to learn the Egyptian language and she was extremely popular among the Egyptians. Alexandria was a predominantly Greek city and depended on the Ptolemies for its continued prosperity. The Alexandrians were fighting out of pure self-interest and not as aggrieved Egyptians against a traitor. Equally there was no uprising in Egypt when Caesar returned to Rome, leaving Cleopatra installed as queen; nor when Cleopatra left Egypt to visit Caesar in Rome.
  
  When Mark Antony supposedly had Arsinoe mudered in Ephesus, why would he have a huge monument built to her? If not him, who had it built? Cleopatra? Augustus? The Ephesians? This question was not addressed in the programme and the great leap of logic was made that since her monument looked like the lighthouse of Pharos, then the tomb must contain Arsinoe. It could have been anyone in that tomb, a rich and famous courtesan for example.
  
  I found the programme really quite biased and hate the fact that people will automatically believe it all because it was on the Ö÷²¥´óÐã. I am sure there were more discrepancies that this; these are the only ones that I can remember. I look forward to hearing what others thought of the programme.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' present a fair argument?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009

  Of course! Some nice points! I would add also the fact that Cleopatra's father and successor younger brother (governing aided by councellors) were not very successful administrators and the economy of Egypt had dwindled to very low levels. When Cleopatra took, she gave a new dynamic and in a decade or so Egypt did not only regain its financial health but was again the most rich kingdom in that part of the world, I am not mistaken considerably richer than the Roman Empire despite the latter having 8 to 10 times more land than Egypt!

  Link to this forum: Did 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' present a fair argument?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009

  Patiand,
  
  see my message 11 to lol beeble in the Shakazulu thread.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Did 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' present a fair argument?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009

  I wonder if historains will ever let go of the idea Cleopatra was a seductress. Maybe she thought she was.
  
  Juius Caesars only real mistress was his desire for power, ok maybe he rolled in the hay with Cleopatra but bottom line was he and Rome could have done whatever it liked with Egypt Cleopatra was a pawn Queen for Rome Caesars real down fall, was thinking he could be as big as Alexander The Great and more lethal to him bigger than the Roman Senate he found out he wasnt.
  
  Mark Anthony was a stupid bafoon who Octavian Played like a fiddle, Mark Anthony fell into every little trick Octavian set for him. Octavians brain and cunning was one of the main reasons why Rome had one of its greatest periods.
  
  Cleopatras game was up when she and Anthony Were crushed at Actium. Suicide was her only way out.The Alternative was been dragged through Rome as a war trophy and in her case with the hatred Octavian had created for her Im pretty sure she would have been garroted.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did 'Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer' present a fair argument?

  Report message4

Back to top