Caesar followed up his success at Pharsalus with his usual vigorous pursuit and arrived in Alexandria just three days after Pompey’s murder. It was important to complete the victory by preventing the enemy from regrouping. Pompey’s skill, reputation and huge array of clients made him still the most dangerous opponent even after his defeat, and Caesar had focused his main attention on hunting down his former father-in-law. He travelled quickly, taking with him only a small force. At one point he came across a far larger squadron of enemy warships, but such was his confidence that he simply demanded – and promptly received – their surrender. Caesar paused for a few days on the coast of Asia, settling the province and arranging for the communities, especially those that had strongly supported the Pompeians, to supply him with the money and food he needed to support his ever-growing armies. At this point news arrived that Pompey was on his way to Egypt and Caesar immediately resumed the hunt, taking with him some 4,000 troops and reaching Alexandria at the beginning of October. Almost immediately he learned of Pompey’s death, and soon afterwards the latter’s signet ring and head were presented to him by envoys of the young king. Caesar wept when he saw the first and would not look at the second. His disgust and sorrow may well have been genuine, for from the beginning he had taken great pride in his clemency and willingness to pardon his enemies. Whether Pompey would have accepted this is another matter, having earlier in the year declared that he had no intention of living on indebted to ‘Caesar’s generosity’. A cynical observer might say that it was very convenient for Caesar to be able to transfer to foreign assassins the guilt for killing one of the greatest heroes in the history of the Republic. Yet in the past there does seem to have been some genuine affection between the two men as well as political association. Even when they came to see each other as rivals, it is extremely unlikely that Caesar ever wanted to kill Pompey. His aim was to be acknowledged by everyone, including Pompey himself, as Pompey’s equal – and perhaps in time as his superior. A dead Pompey was far less satisfying.3
Nevertheless, the murder made it clear that the local authorities were keen to please the newcomers, and Caesar decided to land with his troops. With him were the Sixth Legion, reduced by constant campaigning to under 1,000 men, and one of Pompey’s old formations that had now been renumbered the Twenty – Seventh and mustered some 2,200 legionaries. Supporting these were some 800 auxiliary cavalry, at least some of whom were Gauls and others Germans. It is possible that this was the bodyguard unit that had accompanied Caesar in the recent campaigns. It was not an especially strong force, but Caesar did not expect to face serious opposition. He disembarked and marched to take up residence in one of the palaces in the royal quarter of the city. As consul, he was preceded by twelve lictors carrying the fasces which symbolised his imperium as a Roman magistrate. The sight provoked a hostile reaction from the royal troops in the city and from many of the Alexandrians. The Romans were jeered and over the next few days a number of legionaries caught alone in the streets were attacked and killed by mobs. Caesar had stumbled into the middle of Egypt’s own civil war and would soon be besieged and fighting for his life, completely out of touch with events in the rest of the Mediterranean. Before describing what became known as the Alexandrian War, it is worth pausing to consider Egypt in the fading years of the Ptolemaic dynasty.4
PTOLEMAIC EGYPT AND ITS QUEEN
Alexander the Great had taken Egypt from the Persians in 331 BC, founding Alexandria that same year-one of a number of cities bearing his name, although in time it outstripped all the others. When he died his massive empire was torn apart by his generals as they struggled to carve out kingdoms of their own. One of the most successful was Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who became Ptolemy I Soter, or ‘saviour’, and took Alexandria in Egypt as his capital, even managing to divert Alexander’s funeral cortege so that the body of the great conqueror was interred in the city. The dynasty Ptolemy founded would rule for almost three centuries, controlling an empire that at times included not just Egypt, but also Cyrenaica, Palestine, Cyprus, and parts of Asia Minor. Its extent varied, outlying territories being lost to rebellion or the renewed vigour of the other great successor kingdoms of Antigonid Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. The balance of power between the three rivals fluctuated over the years, but by 48 BC both of the others had gone. Macedonia had become a Roman province in 146 BC, while Pompey had deposed the last Seleucid king in 64 BC and taken Syria under Roman rule. The Macedonians and Seleucids had chosen to fight Rome and had lost. In contrast the Ptolemies formed an alliance with the Roman Republic even before it began to extend its power into the region. The kingdom survived, but it gained few benefits from Roman expansion and during the second century BC this was a contributory factor in its steady decline. As important were the almost unending dynastic struggles within the royal family. Ptolemy II had married his sister, inaugurating a tradition of incestuous marriages-brother to sister, nephew to aunt and uncle to niece-which persisted to the end of the dynasty. Such unions, broken only by occasional marriages to foreign, usually Seleucid princesses, prevented the aristocratic families from gaining claims to the throne. The price was to make the pattern of succession very unclear. Factions grew up surrounding different members of the royal family, all eager to advance them to become king or queen and so gain influence as their advisor. Civil wars were frequent, and over time it became more and more common for Rome to act as arbiter, formal recognition by the Romans helping greatly to legitimise a monarch’s rule. The kingdom’s independence was gradually eroded.
Egypt remained very wealthy. In part this was through trade, Alexandria being one of the greatest ports in the ancient world, but more than anything else it rested on agriculture. Every year the Nile flooded – as it still did until the construction of the Aswan dam. When the water receded the farmers were able to sow their seeds in fields rendered very fertile by the moisture. The scale of the annual inundation varied and, as in the Book of Genesis, there could be years of famine as well as years of plenty, but in general the harvest produced a substantial surplus. Many centuries before the unrivalled fertility of the Nile valley had allowed the civilisation of ancient Egypt to flourish and create its awesome monuments. More recently it had made the region an attractive conquest for the Persians and after them the Macedonians. The power of the Ptolemies was always based firmly on Egypt. Through a sophisticated bureaucratic machine, much of it inherited from the earlier periods, they were able to exploit this productivity. An important component within the system was the temples-many of which preserved the worship and rites of the old Egyptian religion and were little influenced by imported Hellenic ideas. The temples were major landowners, but also centres for industry and craft, and had privileged status, exempting them from most taxation. Roman visitors to Egypt were amazed by the fertility and wealth of the country, as much as they claimed to have been shocked by the intrigue and opulence of the royal court. By the first century BC Egypt seemed to offer the prospect of massive wealth to a number of ambitious Romans.5
The career of Cleopatra’s father illustrates both the instability of Egyptian politics and its ever more blatant dependence on Rome. He was Ptolemy XII, illegitimate son of Ptolemy IX and (most probably) one of his concubines. His father had become king in 116 BC when his mother chose him as joint ruler and husband, but was later rejected in favour of another brother, the massively obese Ptolemy X. He eventually returned to oust them both by force and remained on the throne until his death at the end of 81 BC.Ptolemy IX was succeeded by his nephew Ptolemy XI, who was taken as husband and consort by his stepmother, promptly murdered her and was himself in turn assassinated soon afterwards. Ptolemy XII was then recognised as King of Egypt by Sulla. He styled himself the ‘New Dionysus’ (Neos Dionysus), but was often known less flatteringly as Auletes or the ‘flute player’-some would argue that oboe player would probably be a better translation, but the other version is more commonly used. In 75 BC rival claimants to the throne had gone to Rome to lobby the S
enate, but eventually left without achieving anything.
Yet the wealth of Egypt remained a great temptation to ambitious Romans. A decade later Crassus hoped to use his censorship to annex Egypt as a province, probably on the basis that Ptolemy X had bequeathed it to Rome in his will, a copy of which had been sent to the city. As noted earlier, Caesar was credited with similar plans (see p.114 – 5). Neither man succeeded, but as consul in 59 BC Caesar did share with Pompey the staggering 6,000 talent bribe that Ptolemy XII promised as payment for having him formally acknowledged as ‘friend and ally’ of the Roman people. Collecting this sum proved difficult and probably contributed to the uprising that forced him to flee from Egypt in the following year. He went to Rome in the hope of winning the support that would restore him to power, and it is just possible that he took his eleven-year-old daughter Cleopatra with him. The issue became a fiercely contested one, since many craved the chance of a campaign in Egypt and the rewards likely from a grateful king. In 57 BC the consul Publius Lentulus Spinther-the same man who later surrendered to Caesar at Corfinium – was given the task of restoring Ptolemy to the throne, but political opponents managed to ‘discover’ an oracle that was interpreted as meaning that he would not be allowed an army for this task. Eventually, in 55 BC, Gabinius took it upon himself to do this, inspired by Auletes’ promise of 10,000 talents. In the event the bulk of the money could not be found, and Gabinius returned to trial and condemnation at Rome, before reviving his fortunes by joining Caesar in 49 BC.6
Alexandria
After his expulsion in 58 BC, Ptolemy’s daughter Berenice IV had been made ruler, at first with her sister the elder Cleopatra VI as co-ruler, but following the latter’s death she married a son of Mithridates of Pontus, a connection that only increased the pressure on Rome to act. On his return Auletes had Berenice killed, but his efforts to raise the money owed to Gabinius and other Roman creditors were generally unsuccessful. He remained deeply unpopular, but even greater hatred grew up for the Romans who had backed him and who now wished to exploit the country so shamelessly. Alexandria in particular witnessed frequent rioting and attacks on Romans. In 51 BC Auletes finally died, leaving the throne jointly to his third daughter, the seventeen-year-old Cleopatra VII, and his elder son, the ten-year-old Ptolemy XIII. He had already sent a copy of his will to be kept at Rome, a measure that made clear his acknowledgement of the Republic’s power. Brother and sister were promptly married in the usual way. In spite of her youth, Cleopatra was evidently already a forceful character, and decrees issued at the beginning of her reign make no mention of Ptolemy. The boy was not old enough to assert himself, but his ministers and advisors, led by the eunuch Pothinus and the army commander Achillas, soon began to oppose his older sister. Alexandria had been turbulent for some time. A series of poor harvests added to the discontent of the wider population-the Nile was at its lowest recorded level in 48 BC. In 49 BC Pompey sent his son Cnaeus to Egypt to secure support for the forces he was gathering in Macedonia. Cleopatra welcomed him-much later there were rumours of an affair, but this may well be no more than gossip or propaganda – and sent a contingent of the soldiers left behind by Gabinius along with fifty ships. This compliance with the Romans was sensible, given their power and the debt of her father to Pompey, but it may well have been unpopular. Controlling much of the army, and with a good deal of support from the Alexandrians, the regents were able to drive Cleopatra from the country. The queen took refuge in Arabia and Palestine, and was supported by the city of Ascalon-one of the former Philistine cities from the Old Testament period, which in recent centuries had usually been under Ptolemaic control. By the summer of 48 BC she had gathered an army and had returned to reclaim the throne. This force and those loyal to her brother were warily shadowing each other from opposite sides of the Nile Delta when Pompey, and then Caesar, arrived in Egypt.7
Cleopatra is one of a handful of figures from the ancient world whose name still commands instant recognition, but it must be emphasised that we know far less about her early life and her liaison with Caesar than might be supposed. More is known of her later life and subsequent affair with Mark Antony, although even then most of our sources were written long after her death and are tainted by the propaganda inspired by Augustus, against whom the couple had fought and lost. Yet the queen has fascinated generation after generation, and over the centuries she has been often portrayed in art, literature, drama and, more recently, cinema and television, all of which have freely embellished the ancient sources. It is difficult for anyone looking at the period to step back entirely from these popular images of Cleopatra, but it is useful to begin with what can more confidently be said. When Caesar arrived in Egypt Cleopatra was nearly twenty-one years old and had been queen for almost four years. She was highly intelligent and extremely well educated in the Greek tradition. Later, she would be credited with writing books on a very broad range of subjects, from cosmetics and hairdressing to scientific and philosophical subjects. Cleopatra was a noted linguist, who it was claimed rarely needed an interpreter when conversing with the leaders of the neighbouring countries. The Ptolemies were a Macedonian dynasty who had imposed themselves by force on Egypt, but they had found it expedient in the past to present themselves to their native subjects as true successors to the pharaohs. Cleopatra was not the first to support the traditional cults of the land, but she does seem to have taken an especially close interest in the details of ceremonies. Later in her life she would style herself as the New Isis, choosing an Egyptian goddess-though admittedly one whose cult had spread to much of the Mediterranean world-rather than a Greek deity after her father’s example. Plutarch tells us that she was the first of the Ptolemies who was able to speak the Egyptian language. All of this made sound political sense, for a monarch aware that challenges to her rule were likely needed as broad a base of support as possible, and the temples played a vital economic as well as spiritual role in the country’s life. Ptolemaic Egypt was internally divided and was faced with the overwhelming power of Rome. This could not be ignored, but might be placated. No ruler could ever be secure, and it is in this context that we must place Cleopatra’s undoubted ruthlessness. By this stage, it was unlikely that any of the Ptolemies could be anything else.8
Some of the most frequently asked questions about Cleopatra are what did she look like, and was she really beautiful? It is unlikely that we will ever be able to answer either of these with any real certainty. On coins her image is rather severe, probably because it was intended to project an image of power and authority, rather than a flattering portrait of her features. In some cases corrosion has rather emphasised the long, curved nose and pointed chin. Some coins minted at Ascalon show a more youthful and slightly softer featured woman. Over the centuries many portrait busts have been identified as Cleopatra, but few of these are now generally accepted as such. Depictions of her in the traditional Egyptian style, for instance in temple reliefs, followed a different set of conventions, but are equally unhelpful for showing us Cleopatra’s true appearance. The coins and busts invariably show her hair tied back in a bun – a style that academic convention rather unflatteringly describes as melon shaped – and wearing the diadem of a Hellenistic monarch. She does appear to have had high cheekbones, but her most powerful feature was her nose, high at the bridge, rather long and probably somewhat hooked-hawk-like would doubtless be the term used by a romantic novelist. Dio tells us that she was exceptionally beautiful. A passage from Plutarch is sometimes mistakenly understood to contradict this, for he says that it was not so much her beauty that first struck an onlooker but her charm, personality and the gently musical tones of her voice. Thus he did not deny her beauty, but rather said there were other reasons for the powerful impact she had on men. Beauty proverbially is in the eye of the beholder, and different generations have had very different ideals of its perfection. It is not difficult to think of famous film stars who have captivated audiences and clearly possessed huge sex appeal without being unusually pretty
. A person’s liveliness and animation have always been very difficult for a sculptor to capture, while such things are extremely unlikely to be conveyed by a coin portrait.
On balance it seems reasonable to say that Cleopatra was an extremely attractive woman, and would probably have been seen as such had she lived in any generation. To her good looks she added intelligence, sophistication, wit, vivacity and enormous charm. Add in the glamour of being a queen, along with her real political importance, and it is not difficult to understand how she captivated two of the greatest Romans of the age. The colour of her hair and her complexion are unknown. There is a tradition popular in some circles that she was black, but there is not a shred of evidence to support this. The Ptolemies were Macedonians, although there was some Greek and, through marriages to Seleucids, also a little Persian blood in their recorded family line. We do not know the identity of Cleopatra’s grandmother. There is also a little doubt over her mother, although most accept that it was Auletes’s full sister, which would then increase the significance of the grandmother even further. The accepted conjecture is that the latter was a concubine, which makes it possible that she was not of Macedonian stock, but perhaps an Egyptian or from even further afield. Therefore it is not absolutely impossible that there was some more specifically African blood in Cleopatra, but there is no actual evidence to support this. Equally, it is not absolutely impossible that she was a blonde, since some Macedonians had fair hair (which is again a rather subjective term), but equally none of our sources claim this. This uncertainty will continue to allow different people to imagine very different Cleopatras.9
Caesar Page 59