The Jewish War: Second half of Book 1

[cahn]

Last week: Some really interesting discussions on (among other things) Caesar Augustus, the temple in Egypt, and the destruction of the temple (in Jerusalem) as divine punishment and also free will.

This week: More Herod! Definitely went quite a bit faster than last week! Featuring lots and lots of family drama... the kind that includes a ton of bloodshed. I'll talk more about it in comments.

Next week: selenak can you give us a halfway point for Book 2? It looks a bit shorter but I'm also going to be crunched for time next week (and definitely won't be able to post until Sunday) so half a book is what it's going to have to be! ETA: Death of Emperor Claudius!

Comments

[cenozoicsynapsid]

One of the things here is that the Jewish monarchy seems always to have been hereditary--- the Roman principate is not, and it's not immediately clear that it "should" be since it is formally not meant to be a monarchy. So there's always a bit more tension about who the heir is supposed to be, leading to a wider swath of people in the killing zone.

Cleopatra is not the one into family serial killing, but I have to disagree with you on her overall strategic acumen: she's a terrible politician and ending up on the wrong end of a giant Roman propaganda campaign is something she should absolutely have expected. As a female ruler of a Hellenistic kingdom with an "Eastern-style" divine ruler cult, she should not have tried to involve herself in Roman politics on the scale she did. Imagine being a monocle-wearing gay German Satanist who represents the Communist Party, hooking up with an American political candidate, and deciding you should hit the campaign trail with him because it would "play well with his allies in Europe." That is the scale on which Cleopatra misreads the situation. Either she thinks that Anthony can shift Rome's power base eastward away from Italy, or she thinks that having her and her son visibly attached to a Roman leader in Italy is not going to be a big problem. Wrong on both counts, and the propaganda practically writes itself.

Cleopatra's choices

[selenak]

I don't think I ever said something about Cleopatra's overall strategic acumen? Just that her choices as a Middle-Eastern client monarch of the Romans were more limited than Herod's. I mean, I'm assuming Herod didn't become Antony's client to begin with because he liked Antony so much but because Antony was the Roman Triumvir in the East. He was the representative of Roman power you had to get along with and have good relationships with as a Hellenistic monarch. Now, obviously Cleopatra went a step further by having a sexual relationship with Antony and children by him. But that, too, made monarchical sense. She had one single son. That's not enough. As opposed to a male monarch (like Herod), she couldn't have sex with any variety of subjects hoping one of those liasons would produce the spares to the heirs, or marry multiple spouses. Marrying one of the few remaining other Hellenistic monarchs would have given their dynasty a claim to Egypt and just invited more war, civil and otherwise, later on. Producing a child with the most powerful Roman around had worked for her with Caesar; it gave her an heir, it gave her a further advantage over the Middle Eastern competition from who was closest to the Romans. I can see why it made sense for her at the time, even though it tied her to Antony to a degree none of the other client kings were tied to him, which in turn further limited her choices once the Antony/Octavian showdown was there.

BTW, yesterday I wrote a whole comment in the previous post as to why Caesarion would never, ever have been accepted IN ROME, which we agree on. But he was her nominal co-ruler and designed successor in Egypt, and like any monarch, she had a duty to ensure the succession. On that note, given how things went with the Ptolemies for centuries - getting territories outside of Egypt for the younger children with Antony can also be read as attempting to ensure said younger children, if they all survived their childhood, would end up as allies/clients of their brother, not competitors who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by going for the throne themselves.

Again, all those choices meant she couldn't just dump Antony the moment it became clear Octavian would win. But let's say she had the foresight to predict Octavian would win BEFORE starting her liason with Antony. Let's say she is only ever polite to Antony while writing fannish letters to Octavian, assuring him she sees herself as his client monarch, not Antony's, in order to win him over and assure long term benevolence by the eventual victor. How will this go over with Antony in the meantime? Because Antony, not Octavian, is the one with actual armies in her neighbourhood. Antony, not Octavian, is the one who has other client kings, and who has access to her at this point still alive and imprisoned sister Arsinoe as an alternate Ptolemaic King. And finally: can she trust Octavian to do something, anything for her if she commits herself this early to his side? Octavian who has just illustrated how he understands political gratitude by first using Cicero and then handing him over to Antony for revenge when Cicero's usefulness to him was over? Octavian whose whole deal is being the heir - the ONLY son and heir - to Gaius Julius Caesar?

Again, not saying she made the best choices. But I can see why she made the ones she did based on the position she was in ata the time.

Re: Cleopatra's choices

[cahn]

Well! What if Cleopatra is like, Caesar, remember what a, ahem, good friend I was to Antony? Well, I could be a good friend to you!

It worked for Herod, after all! No, just kidding, but ugh, it does seem to highlight how much harder it is to be a female monarch than a male one, especially with heirs in the mix. Thanks for this discussion, both of you, this is super interesting.

[cahn]

leading to a wider swath of people in the killing zone.

I'm sorry, I totally laughed at that, I am a bad person. That makes a lot of sense, though.

I'm enjoying this discussion of Cleopatra! I only know about her from reading Judith Tarr's novel ages ago, although I vaguely remember (could be wrong, will reread as soon as I finish with Alexander the Great novels) that she takes essentially the same tack as both you and selenak -- that she made some decisions that were poor in hindsight but that seemed logical at the time. With perhaps a side of catching feelings (I mean, obviously who knows historically, but it's a novel).