This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Marrying a Roman consul to their queen and putting Mark Antony's children on the thrones of all the neighbouring kingdoms would have solidified Roman rule over Egypt. If Egypt had become the lynchpin of Roman rule over the East as Antony intended, that would have meant that Rome would have controlled the East by controlling Egypt - note the part where Egypt gets to be controlled by Rome, not rise to become a co-equal partner. I don't think cementing your overlord's control over your kingdom is normally characterized as "[becoming] the eastern dominant kingdom." The dominant power was Rome. There are no points for being best-in-your-category.
Cleopatra's brother Ptolemy ('s scheming advisors) tried to pull away from Rome and exercise more independence - or at least more obstinance. Cleopatra smuggled herself into the palace and presented herself to Caesar as a more pliable alternative ruler, if he would just put her on the throne. Caesar had Ptolemy put to death and installed Cleopatra as queen. After Caesar died she picked up where she left off with Mark Antony, but that ended in disaster and she was deposed and committed suicide, after which Rome not only annexed Egypt but took it as the personal possession of the Emperor.
Every step she took led to less power for Egypt and more for Rome. Her path ended in the annexation of her kingdom and the end of her dynasty. Again, not seeing it.
It was probably inevitable.
Dynastic conflict may have accelerated it but that was already happening: as you say she was already in the middle of a struggle for Egypt and Caesar had already showed up. One she probably would have lost. Getting out of that jam alone was a success.
Cleopatra lost in the end but it's hard to imagine predicting the deaths and losses of both Antony and Caesar. Especially since Caesar appeared to have tamed all opposition.
There's a very different but equally conceivable timeline where she stays the favored vassal/paramour of the leader of Rome or at least a Triumvir.
In a sense, marking her as particularly foolish would be reinforcing the Augustan propaganda that she was more of a protagonist than she probably was. She was probably savvy. It's more her fate wasn't in her hands.
More options
Context Copy link
I didn’t say she was an egyptian patriot who worked tirelessly for the good of the country. It’s her interests she advanced, and egypt's with it.
You can always find a reason why supporting her against her brother, giving away cyprus, subordinating the other client kingdoms to egypt etc makes sense for them somehow, but you’ve got to admit that caesar and anthony’s behaviour is unusual. The last time caesar went to a client kingdom, the king bequeated it to rome and it was incorporated as a province. I guess Cleopatra gave better head than Caesar.
The romans already controlled the east. A wily ruler would present himself as pliable, amass power and then do as he pleases once his greater power made him capable of challenging his overlord. Getting egypt from a client kingdom among many (slowly absorbed) to the junior partner in a dominating roman alliance is an upgrade. And the consequences of her and antony’s defeat can hardly be called a ‘step she took’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link