WI: Julio-Claudian-Ptolemaic Dynasty

Kellan Sullivan

As it says on the tin. Cleopatra left children by both Caesar and Marc Antony. Antony's descent by Octavia the Younger married into the Imperial family (Marcellus, Antonia the Elder, Germanicus and Claudia Octavia), so what if, somehow, the Julio-Ptolemaic or the Antonine-Ptolemaic line were to enter into the lists? (probably more likely the latter unless you accept that Cleopatra had a daughter by Caesar: the Thea Musa Urania of record, and she marries into the Augustan line). It might not necessarily help with the incest in the Imperial family, since the Ptolemaic dynasty make the Habsburgs look like amateurs in that regard, but it makes for an interesting idea (at least IMHO).

Looking forward to opinions
 
Alcsentre Calanice

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
An Egyptian on the Roman throne? This could work 200 AD, but remember that in the times of Caesar and Augustus, people remembered the times of the res publica libera and every person attempting to do what you advoacate would end like Gaius Iulius Caesar.
 
Russian

Russian

Kellan Sullivan said:
As it says on the tin. Cleopatra left children by both Caesar and Marc Antony. Antony's descent by Octavia the Younger married into the Imperial family (Marcellus, Antonia the Elder, Germanicus and Claudia Octavia), so what if, somehow, the Julio-Ptolemaic or the Antonine-Ptolemaic line were to enter into the lists? (probably more likely the latter unless you accept that Cleopatra had a daughter by Caesar: the Thea Musa Urania of record, and she marries into the Augustan line). It might not necessarily help with the incest in the Imperial family, since the Ptolemaic dynasty make the Habsburgs look like amateurs in that regard, but it makes for an interesting idea (at least IMHO).

Looking forward to opinions
Click to expand...

Well, we have to realise that there was such thing as marriage customs in the Late Roman Republic and in the early Principate. They were not written down, there were no laws for that but that does not mean that the Roman Marrige Customs were not important and were not obeyed and followed.

And there was such thing as a 'proper Roman wife'. I remember that in the 1st century AD the Roman legionaries, settled after retiring somewhere in the provinces, took great pains to get a 'proper Roman wife' with a good Roman background - that was usually a girl from Italy. And that marriage was usually arranged by the legionary's relatives back home or by his friends and their relatives (usually 'proper Romans' as well).
The point here is that there were a lot of Roman citisens in the provinces - some Syrians, Greeks, Armenians, Numidians, Belgs, Germans you name it who received their Roman citizenship from the Roman state / emperor, but some of them did not even speak Latin and were culturally alien to the retired Roman legionary.

So marriagable girls/women from these provincial " new Roman" families did not quite fit, did not quite qualify. They could not make "proper Roman wives". It seems that the retired Roman legionaries wanted their children be 'true Romans' born by a true Roman man and a true Roman wife.

And here we are speaking about the common people, ordinary Romans, simple folks, plebs.

If we are speaking about Julio-Claudian dynasty here we are dealing with the Roman elite, aristocrasy, upper strata of society. And among them the acute sense of "True Romannes" was even more stronger and marriage customs were even more rigid.

The point here is the same as with the plebs - to be considered 'true Romans' your legal children better be borne from a 'proper Roman wife'. Of course if you are from senatorial class and you have financial problems you can marry a Roman girl from a rich plebean family, but it'd better be an ancient Roman/Italian plebean line. In the late Republic and Early Principate I don't remember any true Roman aristocrat (from an ancient Roman bloodline) having a legal wife from some royal foreign bloodline - that would mean kind of spoiling his own bloodline, even disgrace, I guess it was unthinkable.

Of course a Roman (male) aristocrat had a God given right to have sex with foreign kings or/and queens (IIRC Caesar had both) and he might even call it a marriage for a bigger excitment and fun and there might be even children from these alliances. But these kids would be bastards, illegal and (which is even more important) not exactly "true Roman".

And that's why the Julio-Claudians would have avoided marrying Julio-Ptolemaic or the Antonine-Ptolemaic line.
Well, Ptolemaic being the royal and foreign line made it even more unacceptible for the princeps taking great pains to avoid any hints at royal nature of the emperor's power and stressing the 'true traditional Roman' nature of their rule.
 
Last edited:

DominusNovus

I think the 'Female Ceasarion' option is probably the best. Have her raised in Rome and married to Augustus' heir. Or, hell, Augustus himself. Perhaps Livia dies around the time this girl comes of age.
 
Russian

Russian

There was an only child of Cleopatra about whom we know that she lived up to a marriageable age and got married - Cleopatra Selene II.
Augustus arranged for Cleopatra to marry King Juba II of Numidia / Mauretania, definitely an un-Roman guy.

So we have to realize that a girl being born from a noble Roman, but by an un-Roman mother did not have much of a chance to marry a "true Roman".
In this case the girl was given the best possible husband as she was the last representative of the ancient royal Ptolemaic bloodline and she was raised by Octavian's sister, so close to the emperor's immediate family.

I think people pay too much attention to the children of Cleopatra fathered by Caesar. They are overrated as that subject was exotic and romantic even in antiquity. But being born by an un-Roman and royal mother ruled them out from any hope to get married into the Octavian's family. This rule was quite strict at least in this period.

The Romans wanted to be ruled by a true Roman and not by some half-breed.
The decadent degenerate dissolute Ptolemaic bloodline did not quite fit here.
 
Last edited:

Zireael

I agree that Selene marrying a Julio-Claudian is improbable, it would require a different attitude towards non-Roman children (as in, having a non-Roman mother).
 

fi11222

Banned
While Octavian is alive, such a thing is probably unthinkable. Octavian was big on mos maiorum and therefore on having "proper Roman wives" for everyone in his clan.

But prominent members of the Caesarian were of a different opinion, Antony being the most obvious example. The Hellenistic royal model was hugely fascinating and therefore a big temptation for the top Roman families of the time. Maybe if Augustus dies younger than he did IOTL someone (Maecenas ?) can arrange something ... Not as rash as Antony maybe but with still a bit more of eastern spice than Octavian would have allowed.
 

isabella

Russia I think who at least legally Cleopatra and her children were Romans (aka they had the Roman citizienship). Usually the Roman Senate give to the allied kings (and likely their families) the roman citizienship with the title of "Friend and Ally of Rome". So is very likely who Cleopatra either had that citizienship either from birth or the time of her father restoration. And in any case Cleopatra bloodline was Greek and her education was much more Greek than Egyptian or oriental. Obviously Augustus and his propaganda accurately avoided to mentioning this kind of things but this not change the fact who were true. And Roman aristocracy before Augustus was not such formal in marriages... Cato Maior was a new man (who was not born in the aristocracy) and his second wife was the daughter of a libertus (one of his freed slave) but he was Consul and she was a free roman woman so their children were still member of the senatorial class and many senator in need of cash married daughters of new riches without any consequences for their status.
Cleopatra's children true biggest problem for marrying in the roman aristocracy will be likely the their illegittimacy (because their parents were not legally married at the time of their birth) and maybe their royal status.
 
Russian

Russian

fi11222 said:
While Octavian is alive, such a thing is probably unthinkable. Octavian was big on mos maiorum and therefore on having "proper Roman wives" for everyone in his clan.

But prominent members of the Caesarian were of a different opinion, Antony being the most obvious example. The Hellenistic royal model was hugely fascinating and therefore a big temptation for the top Roman families of the time. Maybe if Augustus dies younger than he did IOTL someone (Maecenas ?) can arrange something ... Not as rash as Antony maybe but with still a bit more of eastern spice than Octavian would have allowed.
Click to expand...

Well, Antony was definitely enjoying himself in the East, horsing around, I'd say. As I previously said - nothing wrong for a Roman aristocrat in the East to fuck some queens or even suck some royal dicks.

But if he had won and got to Rome...
You know the Roman mindset at that moment was quite conservative.

It is not that widely known as Cleopatra but there was another Eastern queen living almost like a wife with a Roman Emperor. That is Berenice of Cilicia who had a love affair with Titus. Titus was forced to send his love far away from Rome back home.
I somehow got the notion that he didn't want to end up getting stabbed a few dozen times like Julius Caesar.

I don't know, but for me Mark Antony seems stupid enough to get himself assassinated for keeping Cleopatra near him in Rome. But maybe I am unfair to the guy.
 
Last edited:
Russian

Russian

isabella said:
Russia I think who at least legally Cleopatra and her children were Romans (aka they had the Roman citizienship). Usually the Roman Senate give to the allied kings (and likely their families) the roman citizienship with the title of "Friend and Ally of Rome". So is very likely who Cleopatra either had that citizienship either from birth or the time of her father restoration. And in any case Cleopatra bloodline was Greek and her education was much more Greek than Egyptian or oriental. Obviously Augustus and his propaganda accurately avoided to mentioning this kind of things but this not change the fact who were true.
Click to expand...

No, no, Augustus and his propaganda did not give a flying fuck if Cleopatra had had a Roman citizenship since her birth or Mark Antony (as a top Roman Official) gave her a Roman citizenship as a token of his love.

Because it did not matter for the purpose of propaganda.

For you being Roman equals having Roman citizenship.
But for the Romans it did not.
Even nowadays there are a lot of Muslim guys in France having full French citizenship but they are not considered to be true French by some "traditionally minded true real French".
There were a lot of xenophobic Romans in Rome and in Italy. Actually it was full to the brim with them and they ruled the day.

As you said Roman citizenship was sometimes given away by shitloads to Germanic chieftains, Hellenistic eunuchs, Mauritian whores, whatever. IIRC Arminius had the Roman citizenship. Why not?

Let's imagine such situation:
There goes in the street of Rome some hairy wild-looking Scythian guy in trousers, speaking hardly a word or two in Latin, but having a Roman citizenship (may be even since his birth as he was a son of a chieftain, a Roman ally).
Do you think that some aged true real Romans instantly think - "Oh, he'd make a perfect husband for our only daughter Julia! Such a nice fella! Let's invite him to dinner!"

Call it xenophobia, racism, whatever for the lack of a better word, but 'true Romans' wanted a 'true Roman' to marry their daughter.
And which is more important in the context of our discussion the Romans wanted a true Roman with true Roman family values ruling their Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:

fi11222

Banned
Russian said:
I don't know, but for me Mark Antony seems stupid enough to get himself assassinated for keeping Cleopatra near him in Rome. But maybe I am unfair to the guy.
Click to expand...
Many historians say that Mark Antony was not so much stupid as in fact ahead of his time (which may be another way to be stupid, of course).

According to this theory, what he did in the East was not particularly about a love affair but about attempting to create a Hellenistic-Roman hybrid polity. In other words, he was trying to become a god-king on the oriental model and Cleopatra was merely a prop and a tool in his hands. The fact that we now perceive him as a besotted lover is merely a testament to the success of Octavian's propaganda machine, the theory goes. So successful indeed that it is still working after 2000 years.

Eventually, Roman Emperors did indeed become "god-Emperors" on the oriental model in late antiquity (the so-called "Dominate"). At the time of Diocletian, Emperors had become surrounded with a complicated protocol, were shielded by Eunuchs from the outside world, made their courtiers perform proskynesis (kowtow) before them, wore bejewelled robes, and so on. This is basically what Mark Antony would have tried to do, but with the means at his disposal : an alliance with the heiress of a prestigious dynasty of god-kings.
 

isabella

I have not said that. Augustus age was the period in which you had more often than others this concept of true roman but we are not talking about some barbaric people. Cleopatra's children (by Antony) were half-roman and half-greek, had the culture of both people (like all the roman elite) and their roman blood (barring the fact their father was a traitor and their illegittimacy) was good: their father was a member of a very prominent aristocratic plebeian family and had a patrician mother (from a minor branch of the Julii) and they were the stepchildren and proteges of Augustus' sister...

And in any case also Juba was a roman citizien and Augustus protege and he had the girl and the kingdom as reward from Augustus for his loyalty to him.
Without Juba (who Augustus was sure he can trust) is unlikely who any of the children of Cleopatra (legitimate heirs to the throne of Egypt) will marry in some foreign dinasties. A change of names for making them more Romans and a wedding in the middle of the roman upper class are a much better system to neutralize their claim to the throne of Egypt. And if any of them marry in the roman aristocracy a match in the julio claudian family for the next generation is not impossible at all.
 
Russian

Russian

fi11222 said:
Many historians say that Mark Antony was not so much stupid as in fact ahead of his time (which may be another way to be stupid, of course).
Click to expand...
You got it, in my book being ahead of time and having 100% probability to be killed for that is being stupid.

fi11222 said:
In other words, he was trying to become a god-king on the oriental model ... Eventually, Roman Emperors did indeed become "god-Emperors" on the oriental model in late antiquity (the so-called "Dominate"). At the time of Diocletian, Emperors had become surrounded with a complicated protocol, were shielded by Eunuchs from the outside world, made their courtiers perform proskynesis (kowtow) before them, wore bejewelled robes, and so on. This is basically what Mark Antony
Click to expand...
Well, it is not that simple.
For his Eastern subjects he did try to look like a Hellenistic monarch, a god, whatever.
But all our sources tell us that for the Romans he stayed quite traditional. I mean he spoke to common legionaries in the usual way without any protocol. What the hell we know, that once in the East going somewhere he saw a wrestling competition of his Roman legionaries - he instantly stopped, put all his clothes off and being naked took part in this wrestling competition of rank and file Roman legionaries. That's not what you'd expect from a high and mighty monarch, that's actually what Roman aristocrats usually did to be closer to common (Roman) people.

When I said that 'I might be unfair to Mark Antony' I meant that being flesh of flesh and blood of blood a true 100% Roman - he after (supposedly) winning the Civil war and getting to Rome he would have seen how truly he had pissed off his Romans by keeping Cleopatra with him in Rome. And he might have send her home, like the Roman emperor Titus did.

fi11222 said:
Eventually, Roman Emperors did indeed become "god-Emperors" on the oriental model in late antiquity (the so-called "Dominate").
... This is basically what Mark Antony would have tried to do, but with the means at his disposal : an alliance with the heiress of a prestigious dynasty of god-kings.
Click to expand...
Well, in a hundred years or so after Mark Antony the Roman mindset did change.

But some traditions stayed: for example I do not remember any "god-Emperor" (dominus, whatever you call Roman emperors of that time) marrying a foreign queen, or a daughter of a foreign queen. And that was not for the lack of foreign princesses around. The Roman emperors even after hundreds years after Mark Antony tried to get a proper Roman wife, a girl/woman from a real Roman family (though the idea of "being a true Roman' somehow changed, deteriorated since Mark Antony's time).

IIRC the first Roman (Byzantine) emperor to marry a daughter/sister of a foreign monarch (Khazar Khagan) was good 600-700 years after Mark Antony. And that was because of an instinct of self-preservation, being in distress.
 

frustrated progressive

Russian said:
Well, we have to realise that there was such thing as marriage customs in the Late Roman Republic and in the early Principate. They were not written down, there were no laws for that but that does not mean that the Roman Marrige Customs were not important and were not obeyed and followed.

And there was such thing as a 'proper Roman wife'. I remember that in the 1st century AD the Roman legionaries, settled after retiring somewhere in the provinces, took great pains to get a 'proper Roman wife' with a good Roman background - that was usually a girl from Italy. And that marriage was usually arranged by the legionary's relatives back home or by his friends and their relatives (usually 'proper Romans' as well).
The point here is that there were a lot of Roman citisens in the provinces - some Syrians, Greeks, Armenians, Numidians, Belgs, Germans you name it who received their Roman citizenship from the Roman state / emperor, but some of them did not even speak Latin and were culturally alien to the retired Roman legionary.

So marriagable girls/women from these provincial " new Roman" families did not quite fit, did not quite qualify. They could not make "proper Roman wives". It seems that the retired Roman legionaries wanted their children be 'true Romans' born by a true Roman man and a true Roman wife.

And here we are speaking about the common people, ordinary Romans, simple folks, plebs.

If we are speaking about Julio-Claudian dynasty here we are dealing with the Roman elite, aristocrasy, upper strata of society. And among them the acute sense of "True Romannes" was even more stronger and marriage customs were even more rigid.

The point here is the same as with the plebs - to be considered 'true Romans' your legal children better be borne from a 'proper Roman wife'. Of course if you are from senatorial class and you have financial problems you can marry a Roman girl from a rich plebean family, but it'd better be an ancient Roman/Italian plebean line. In the late Republic and Early Principate I don't remember any true Roman aristocrat (from an ancient Roman bloodline) having a legal wife from some royal foreign bloodline - that would mean kind of spoiling his own bloodline, even disgrace, I guess it was unthinkable.

Of course a Roman (male) aristocrat had a God given right to have sex with foreign kings or/and queens (IIRC Caesar had both) and he might even call it a marriage for a bigger excitment and fun and there might be even children from these alliances. But these kids would be bastards, illegal and (which is even more important) not exactly "true Roman".

And that's why the Julio-Claudians would have avoided marrying Julio-Ptolemaic or the Antonine-Ptolemaic line.
Well, Ptolemaic being the royal and foreign line made it even more unacceptible for the princeps taking great pains to avoid any hints at royal nature of the emperor's power and stressing the 'true traditional Roman' nature of their rule.
Click to expand...

I concur with Russian.
 

fi11222

Banned
@Russian : I agree with all of what you just said above.

All I am saying is, this being AH.com, I believe it is not a stupid question to ask: "What if he had succeeded in becoming a more eastern-like dominus/god-Emperor at the time he did try, despite the fact that Romans had misgivings about foreign marriages?" Misgivings can sometimes be overcome ...

In particular, we can ask ourselves what it would have taken to overcome those misgivings? A military victory against the Parthians perhaps? A triumphal conquest down to the Indus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top