alternatehistory.com

Twins have been present in human legend and literature for centuries. In Greco-Roman mythology there were Castor and Polydeuces. Plautus and Shakespeare both wrote comedies revolving around twins being mistaken for one another. In the twentieth century books, plays and films involving twins have reached plethoric proportions; from the Twins of Peter Pan to Fred and George Weasley.

Yet twins have apparently played practically no role in history. The most notable historical twins I could think of from history were Romulus and Remus, who are today considered more legendary than historical. Otherwise, nothing. From well over two millennia of history I can think of no famous twins who undeniably existed, despite nearly one in fifty people today being a twin, triplet, etc. Obviously there were some twins in ancient Rome, Elizabethan England and elsewhere. Yet not one philosopher, commander, senator, doctor, inventor, composer, playwright or monarch of fame had a twin.

So, is there any reason for twins being peculiarly averse to historical significance? Is there (speculating wildly) a psychological explanation, perhaps involving the development of exceptionally strong mutual dependence? Or am I missing something? Is 2% less than it seems? Is there a host of historical twins I have never heard of?

Also, just think what could have been. Two Napoleons! Two Shakespeares! Imagine royal successions: the Franks would have been fine, just dividing up the kingdom as usual, but what if, say, Henry VIII had a twin? Does the twins’ father split the kingdom even where there is no tradition? Could two brothers possibly rule jointly? Does the first-born inherit even if by the slimmest of margins? Or, ala The Man in the Iron Mask, does the unlucky one get locked up out of the way? And if they are identical, a whole new level of possibilities opens up: for scheming politicians The Prisoner of Zenda would be added to the required reading list just under The Prince.

Thoughts?
Top