Netflix's Cleopatra

[Roma_Victrix]

This article by Yasmin Moll, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, is pretty good and perhaps got lost in all the hubbub of the media circus around the Netflix series: Never mind Cleopatra – what about the forgotten queens of ancient Nubia? It is what Netflix should have done instead of throwing out what they knew was bait. In doing so, however, some good came out of it, as a lot of normies and people who don't know anything about history learned about Alexander and the Ptolemies for the first time, the Greek colonization of Egypt, and even arguments including Nubians of ancient Sudan. Most people living today don't form an immediate connection in their minds between Sudan and Egypt, despite the former being conquered and governed by the latter for much of the 19th and 20th centuries (in condominium joint rule with the UK after 1899, though).

And before the Han Dynasty took that region, the region was Gojoseon or Chaoxian (Chinese pronunciation), which is considered to be the first kingdom of Korea.

I guess some Chinese conveniently ignore that Emperor Wu of Han actually had to fight Gojoseon in order to establish commanderies there, but the Goguryeo debate is the thing that's actually obnoxious, considering the Chinese hadn't really Sinified Manchuria at that point. Like other Korean kingdoms, Goguryeo had adopted Chinese customs and writing, but that didn't make them ethnically Han Chinese.

Oda spoke of "ancient civilization". The nordics then (and also a thousand years later) were just part of the barbarian continuum, so no, the ancient world didn't spring from them in any way ^^
In fact the rise to prominence of anything reasonably "nordic" is a phenomenon which at best dates back to a couple of centuries (and a couple more, if you wish to also count England there, which is germanic but not nordic).

Nordics are Germanic, but not all Germanic people are Nordic, if that makes sense. The early medieval Christian Anglo-Saxons of Great Britain stood in rather stark contrast culturally from the repetitively invading Norsemen, but there was certainly a lot of crossbreeding among these groups and the native Celtic groups of the British Isles who had been previously Romanized to varying degrees. In either case, yes, the Germanic groups weren't terribly relevant to the Mediterranean until the Cimbrian War (113-101 BC). Later, in the mid-1st century BC they fought Celts and Romans in Gaul. After the Suebi king Ariovistus was bested by Julius Caesar, Germanic tribesmen became mercenaries and auxiliaries in the late Roman Republic in significant numbers, seeing service as far as Ptolemaic Egypt with the Gabiniani garrison there during the reigns of Ptolemy XII Auletes and our famous Cleopatra VII Philopator. That's probably the first time any Germanic people wound up in Egypt, though. Greeks didn't even exist in Egypt until the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC with the mercenaries and their families who were allowed to settle at Naukratis by the 26th dynasty. Persians weren't the first Indo-Europeans to live in Egypt, though, considering the Hittites. The first Celts in Egypt were probably the Galatians who served as Ptolemaic kleruchoi soldiers from the 3rd century BC onward.

For that matter, Germanic groups certainly didn't rule large sophisticated kingdoms in Europe and North Africa until late antiquity with the gradual collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

Barring civilizations like the Indus Valley Civilization who only had proto-writing or the Incas (who otherwise had impressive mathematics), use of the written word is often deemed a necessary marker for judging if a culture belongs to a civilization. Germanic peoples didn't even produce their own writing until the Elder Futhark alphabet of the late 1st/early 2nd century AD, based on the Latin model of the Romans, but used rather differently considering the religious function of runes. In the 2nd century BC Celtiberians in Spain were the first Celtic people to produce their own writing system, on either the Greek or Phoenician alphabetic models but was a semi-syllabary script like other Iberian ones from the 3rd and 4th centuries BC. Celts in Iberia and Gaul had also minted coins in Greek before Roman domination, and Balkan groups north of the Greeks such as Thracians, Illyrians, and Scythians simply used Greek whenever they produced writing. This is all pretty late to the game, though, considering Old Latin existed since roughly the 7th century BC (roughly contemporaneous with the Etruscan), after the Greek alphabet was fashioned from the Phoenician abjad in the 8th century BC. By the time the Mycenaean Greeks invented Linear B in the late Bronze Age circa 1400 BC, Egypt and Mesopotamia had already had writing systems for a couple thousand years. Hittites produced the first written Indo-European language a few centuries before the Mycenaeans.

In East Asia, there's no evidence of a writing system in China until the late Shang dynasty, with the Oracle bones dated to circa 1300-1200 BC, and shortly after that a more systematic and formulaic bronzeware script of the late Shang and early Zhou (11th century BC). The Chinese were thus a bit late to the game compared to the Hittites and Mycenaean Greeks, but were using writing on a widespread basis throughout the Greek Dark Ages. In South Asia, India is a really weird case, because it is clear they had some form of writing beforehand for passing down Vedic tales, but archaeologically there's not much evidence for written Brahmi scripts in Sanskrit until the 3rd century BC during the Mauryan period (for instance the edicts of Ashoka). Then there's suddenly a bunch of poetry and treatises on mathematics, astronomy, engineering, etc. It is clear enough, though, that Indians had used and adopted the Aramaic script beforehand under Persian influence.

You just went on Roma_Victrix's wild ride and tangent tour. Hope you enjoyed.

[NorthernXY]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Roma_Victrix again.

If it weren't for a certain poster *cough* *cough*, I'd feel like the stupidest person in this forum, and I have a degree in biochemistry.

[Kyriakos]

Damn it, Roma, one can't even implicitly put down deluge-era Sweden and artificially present Prussia as bone thrown to "reasonably nordic" to appease Hitler

[Roma_Victrix]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Roma_Victrix again.

If it weren't for a certain poster *cough* *cough*, I'd feel like the stupidest person in this forum, and I have a degree in biochemistry.

Thanks for the attempted repping, but I'm afraid that makes you an attempted reppist, so you are now under arrest.

Seriously, though, thanks. Glad you enjoyed my obnoxious tangent about the history of writing to make a point about civilization and how Germanic peoples fit into that. Like most other peoples in Europe, though, they adopted the Latin alphabet wholesale due to the triumph of Roman civilization, and then medieval Christendom after that. I suppose their runic writing has at least left its mark on modern civilization, though, considering Bluetooth wireless technology (Younger Futhark combined runes of the initials H [ᚼ] and B [ᛒ] for the king Harold Bluetooth).

Damn it, Roma, one can't even implicitly put down deluge-era Sweden and artificially present Prussia as bone thrown to "reasonably nordic" to appease Hitler

Did someone say appeasement?
Churchill dropping people's elbow onto Neville Chamberlain intensifies.

The Nazis, specifically the SS under Himmler, were indeed big promoters of kooky occultism, Ariosophy and Aryanism, Germanic pagan style Theosophy, etc. and even the idea that Atlantis was real and was led by Aryan supermen. It's a bunch of hilarious nonsense, of course, but the promotion of such occultism had real world implications and continues to stain discourse in some cultural and historical discussions to this very day. Present day Neo-Nazis still widely embrace it, for instance. Afrocentrism isn't neatly analogous to it and perhaps not as caustic, but it has led to a small yet disturbing amount of black people present in online social media openly subscribing to the grotesque idea that modern Egyptians are squatters who don't deserve to live in Egypt (that it was somehow stolen from its rightful inhabitants who were in their silly theory nothing but black Africans). Nazi ideology isn't exactly the same, though, since it actively promotes Lebensraum and targets Jews specifically as mythical saboteurs of the Aryan race. As far as I know, there is no political movement among Afrocentric blacks with the explicit goal of genocidal mass murder and displacement of Egyptians. It's mostly a bunch of guys larping as pharaohs in their photoshopped avi pics.

It does, however, manifest itself in passive aggressive ways within popular culture, like the Netflix series in question.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hitler did argue that the germanics included the spartans, which is already past insane ^^

I have never heard that and I question if that statement was ever made. It could be a mistranslation or a misinterpretation of statements recorded in Table Talk though.

Although it is pretty much proven that earliest versions of Table Talk have major translation errors and outright insertions in the text by translators.

[Kyriakos]

Well, maybe it was in the sense of spiritual ancestor, though that encompassed all the ancient greek world afaik. For example: “While our German tribes were huddling in caves the Greeks had built the Parthenon. When asked about our ancestors we must always point to the Greeks.”
Google also gives a hit about Sparta and "first volkish state"

That said, the nazi art and aesthetic had imo no tie at all to the elegant ancient Greek art. Besides, Hitler was also enamored with genocide, eg mentions the one of the armenians often as an example to emulate.

[Laser101]

Well, maybe it was in the sense of spiritual ancestor, though that encompassed all the ancient greek world afaik. For example: “While our German tribes were huddling in caves the Greeks had built the Parthenon. When asked about our ancestors we must always point to the Greeks.”
Google also gives a hit about Sparta and "first volkish state"

That said, the nazi art and aesthetic had imo no tie at all to the elegant ancient Greek art. Besides, Hitler was also enamored with genocide, eg mentions the one of the armenians often as an example to emulate.

I'm not sure why Sparta specifically; most of the Greek poleis had rather restrictive conceptions of the citizenry (Athens for example limited citizenship to those with two citizen parents IIRC).

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm not sure why Sparta specifically; most of the Greek poleis had rather restrictive conceptions of the citizenry (Athens for example limited citizenship to those with two citizen parents IIRC).

Sparta not just because it was restrictive but because it was basically a state with a eugenics policy. The ideal of the SS were basically genetic super human Spartan body builders.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well, maybe it was in the sense of spiritual ancestor, though that encompassed all the ancient greek world afaik. For example: “While our German tribes were huddling in caves the Greeks had built the Parthenon. When asked about our ancestors we must always point to the Greeks.”
Google also gives a hit about Sparta and "first volkish state"

That said, the nazi art and aesthetic had imo no tie at all to the elegant ancient Greek art. Besides, Hitler was also enamored with genocide, eg mentions the one of the armenians often as an example to emulate.

Quick look through the Houghton Mifflin Translation of Mein Kampf, the Ford Translation, the Mannheim Translation, and the Dalton Translation shows no mentions of Armenia. With regards to Turkey it calls the Ottoman Empire "a decaying corpse" and says that it was "a dangerous alliance". I also checked Table Talk and found no references to Armenia.

[Laser101]

Sparta not just because it was restrictive but because it was basically a state with a eugenics policy. The ideal of the SS were basically genetic super human Spartan body builders.

Was Sparta particularly unique in this regard though?

[conon394]

I'm not sure why Sparta specifically; most of the Greek poleis had rather restrictive conceptions of the citizenry (Athens for example limited citizenship to those with two citizen parents IIRC).

Athens had exceptions. Also interesting corollary to the law the were the only state to formally recognize female citizens as such.

------

Was Sparta particularly unique in this regard though?

In terms of its policy for equals yes. Infanticide is likely in any place in history were birth control is not particularly good and abortion rather un safe. That said it not something you find burned into the the law. Plato wanted it for his Republic but had to resort to euphemisms because it just was not something people talked about certainly did of desperation.

[Laser101]

Barring civilizations like the Indus Valley Civilization who only had proto-writing or the Incas (who otherwise had impressive mathematics), use of the written word is often deemed a necessary marker for judging if a culture belongs to a civilization. Germanic peoples didn't even produce their own writing until the Elder Futhark alphabet of the late 1st/early 2nd century AD, based on the Latin model of the Romans, but used rather differently considering the religious function of runes. In the 2nd century BC Celtiberians in Spain were the first Celtic people to produce their own writing system, on either the Greek or Phoenician alphabetic models but was a semi-syllabary script like other Iberian ones from the 3rd and 4th centuries BC. Celts in Iberia and Gaul had also minted coins in Greek before Roman domination, and Balkan groups north of the Greeks such as Thracians, Illyrians, and Scythians simply used Greek whenever they produced writing. This is all pretty late to the game, though, considering Old Latin existed since roughly the 7th century BC (roughly contemporaneous with the Etruscan), after the Greek alphabet was fashioned from the Phoenician abjad in the 8th century BC. By the time the Mycenaean Greeks invented Linear B in the late Bronze Age circa 1400 BC, Egypt and Mesopotamia had already had writing systems for a couple thousand years. Hittites produced the first written Indo-European language a few centuries before the Mycenaeans.

This leads to a somewhat interesting question. Generally, the Gauls are treated as being a 'non-state' group in historiography. But, at least by Caesar's time, the Gauls had an established tradition of kingship (which in some cases had been replaced by oligarchic governments possibly influenced by Rome or Carthage) and a well-established system of coinage. Further, at the time of Caesar's siege, Avaricum had an alleged population of ~40000, which would have been a fair-sized city by Greek standards, so there was at least some level of urbanization. Gaul was definitely politically fragmented, but you could say the same about Classical Greece. Given this, does it make sense that the Greek poleis are considered 'states' while the Gaulic confederations generally are not? Where should you draw the line between a 'tribe' and a 'state'?

In terms of its policy for equals yes. Infanticide is likely in any place in history were birth control is not particularly good and abortion rather un safe. That said it not something you find burned into the the law. Plato wanted it for his Republic but had to resort to euphemisms because it just was not something people talked about certainly did of desperation.

What made this different from other Greek cities though? At least in theory the notion of the free citizens of a polis being only landowners and soldiers rather than artisans or laborers was one shared by Greek aristocratic culture generally, and given that most of what we know about Sparta comes from Athenian or later Roman sources it is a bit questionable how much was idealization rather than reality.

[Roma_Victrix]

This leads to a somewhat interesting question. Generally, the Gauls are treated as being a 'non-state' group in historiography. But, at least by Caesar's time, the Gauls had an established tradition of kingship (which in some cases had been replaced by oligarchic governments possibly influenced by Rome or Carthage) and a well-established system of coinage. Further, at the time of Caesar's siege, Avaricum had an alleged population of ~40000, which would have been a fair-sized city by Greek standards, so there was at least some level of urbanization. Gaul was definitely politically fragmented, but you could say the same about Classical Greece. Given this, does it make sense that the Greek poleis are considered 'states' while the Gaulic confederations generally are not? Where should you draw the line between a 'tribe' and a 'state'?

For that matter, the largest colonial Greek polis in Gaul, Massalia (Marseille), wasn't part of some bigger empire; it was just an autonomous city-state with an important navy that had allied with the Roman Republic since the Second Punic War (until it sided with Pompey in his civil war against Caesar and lost its independence). Celtillus, the father of Arverni chieftain Vercingetorix, had previously tried to unite the tribes of Gaul politically, something his son would achieve before being crushed at Alesia (although they previously won at Gergovia). That's certainly comparable to Greek koina league alliances like the Delian League or better yet the League of Corinth under Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great that united all of Greece politically with the exception of Sparta. The aristocratic noblemen of Gergovia also collectively decided to exile Vercingetorix before he returned with an army to take the city, so the Gauls certainly gathered together for political decision making like in any other state. It's probably also worth noting the same Indo-European root for the Latin rex and Celtic rix, their words for king, and a king is a leader of a state (city-state or kingdom), not a tribe led by a simple chieftain. By written accounts and archaeology, the major Gallic oppida were also definitely as large as many Greek and Roman towns, albeit not as populous as their largest cities and obviously not as complex in terms of civic institutions or engineering.

To form a similar comparison, Boudica is rightfully described as a queen of the Iceni for uniting not just her tribe but many other Celtic tribes of early Roman Britain to oppose the Roman colonization started by emperor Claudius. The Britons were also able to muster huge armies against Julius Caesar when he invaded the British Isles a century earlier in support of an allied tribe against another (classic divide-and-conquer Caesar move there). However, the Britons lived in much smaller, simpler Iron Age villages and hilltop forts than the largest walled oppidum settlements of nearby ancient France and Spain (near metropolises in comparison).

Quick look through the Houghton Mifflin Translation of Mein Kampf, the Ford Translation, the Mannheim Translation, and the Dalton Translation shows no mentions of Armenia. With regards to Turkey it calls the Ottoman Empire "a decaying corpse" and says that it was "a dangerous alliance". I also checked Table Talk and found no references to Armenia.

There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to this topic and the debated veracity of it as an alleged line of Hitler's at the conclusion of his 1939 Obersalzberg Speech.

Also, LOL at the Spartan bodybuilders comment, I chuckled at that.

Bringing things back to Cleopatra, this Reddit meme about Caesar, Antony, Octavian, and Cleopatra is hilarious, the Greco-Roman and artistic embodiment of the , marry, kill thought game.

[alhoon]

Just a note: That's why controversy is a kind of win. We're still discussing this show, or having discussions that evolved from this show months after it aired. If it was a bonna-fidde Cleo documentary most of us wouldn't even notice, let alone talk about it for months.