Comments on: Cleopatra Was Actually One Ugly Queen.

By: ted

ted — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:33:44 +0000

Actually, ancient minting methods made for some rather excellent and accurate portraiture.

Cleopatra’s lack of beauty is not news – we’ve known her face from coins for years.

Now, this portrait may not be accurate. Many times, provincial Roman coins were struck by makers who didn’t even know what the current Emperor looked like. The accuracy of this coin can be gauged by how closely it fits in with other coins showing her face. Keep in mind that Antony and Cleopatra had to mint a lot of coins in a short period of time, to keep up with the pay requirements of his armies. This could have an effect on the quality of her portrait, as well.

It didn’t really matter how beautiful she was, though. Power goes a long way to make up for prettiness.

By: J. Tithonus Pednaud

J. Tithonus Pednaud — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:42:09 +0000

It is likely that Cleopatra (Cleopatra VII, actually) was rather plain by western standards. Her reputation of being a beautiful women, as well as the bulk of her temptress ways, are pretty much all the creations of romantic writers. She was likely desirable due to her great power, her influence, and the wealth of the territory she possessed.

More facts about Cleo: She wasn’t Egyptian, but Greek by language and birth, descendant of Alexander’s general Ptolemy I. Her very name is Greek – Cleo (glory) and Patra (father) = Father’s Glory. She was the first ruler of Egypt in 300 years to actually bother to lean Egyptian.

Also, she was the last Pharaoh of Egypt.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:15:56 +0000

Have they considered that ancient minting methods probably didn’t make for the most accurate portraits?

By: artschild

artschild — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:02:59 +0000

Yep. Standards of beauty are, in many ways, socially defined and frequently change. I’ll bet she was very symmetrical, though.