There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Probably most young noblewomen were “beautiful” as they had decent nutrition and care growing up, as well as maids to do their hair and makeup and expensive clothes.
Does it really matter whether a 2000 year old dead lady was a 10 or just a 6 with a good stylist? Maybe we should give the poor girl the benefit of the doubt on this one?
There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
Plinny the Elder also probably holds the record for "most factually incorrect statements made by a human in one lifetime".
I’d guess that since this was prior to photography and she only visited Rome a couple of times very briefly very few of her Roman contemporaries had any clue what she looked like anyway.
I would also imagine if she were ugly the Roman commentators would make sure everyone knew it for all of time
Yeah. Even with the bias in place here, securing the province of Africa for yourself by marrying the local monarch is probably the major reason for these entanglements. Augustus made it the emeperors personal province following his consolidation of the empire, so Cleopatras beauty was not the driving reason why Caesar and Mark Antony took up with her so I am more inclined to take that description at face value.
There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
I thought she was most often described as "fascinating" or "captivating" as often as just good looking, as she spoke nine languages and was exceptionally well educated. Someone of great importance so a 'peer' of the other great rulers, without being the same kind of threat a male ruler would be, that is an interesting person to be around.
There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
I thought she was most often described as "fascinating" or "captivating" as often as just good looking, as she spoke nine languages and was exceptionally well educated. Someone of great importance so a 'peer' of the other great rulers, without being the same kind of threat a male ruler would be, that is an interesting person to be around.
The description of Cleopatra as fascinating or captivating tends to be from authors who are not her contemporaries. Like Plutarch, born some 80 years after Cleopatras death. Plutarch has the advantage of being close enough in time to have much better source material than we do, and far away enough to be divorced from the petty politics of the era. However, being divorced from the politics of that era doesn't mean that roman historians don't have an agenda of their own. Taking a look at Cassius Dio (born 180 years after cleopatras death) and you again find political motives colouring the chronicles.
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
From what we know of her, Cleopatra was a shrewd and savvy diplomat and politician, and was willing to use whatever was at her disposal, including her body, to advance her personal position and that of Egypt.
Patriarchal Rome did not like this, so it was flattened into her just being a seductress.
There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
Plinny the Elder also probably holds the record for "most factually incorrect statements made by a human in one lifetime".
Donald Trump says "hello".
Actually, he says "goodbye", and also "I'm not really here at all", and also "I'm here and not going anywhere with a golden spotlight showering me in light to make sure you can't miss me", all at the same time.
If we're really unlucky future archeologists will discover a historical media cache...and it will all be Murdoch media.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
From what we know of her, Cleopatra was a shrewd and savvy diplomat and politician, and was willing to use whatever was at her disposal, including her body, to advance her personal position and that of Egypt.
Patriarchal Rome did not like this, so it was flattened into her just being a seductress.
"Patriarchal" is an understatement. The ideal Roman woman was one completely deferential and subservient to her husband. The idea of a strong woman was offensive to them.
The idea of a strong woman who was also god-queen of the richest and most ancient empire around and with whom not one but two married Roman leaders were in love and making babies, and who was clearly more shrewd and better educated and more capable than any of them... well let's just say that did not sit well with them.
Calling Cleopatra "beautiful" because Romans called her that is like writing a Hilary Clinton biography based entirely on what MAGA Republicans say about her.
There were a number of things that bugged me about the exhibit. The explanation of BCE/CE as before and after Year 0, referring to the Pharaoh as Cheops without so much as a passing mention to his Egyptian name Khufu, the "beautiful" Queen Cleopatra, or the fact they showed a giant statue head of Hatshepsut without taking the time to point out the carved lines of the rope holding her fake Pharaoh beard that were right there in plain view. But that explanation took the cake.
I mean all contemporary sources identify Cleopatra as beautiful. I understand the aggrevation for any other pharaoh without attribution, but let's take her contemporaries at their word in this instance.
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
Plinny the Elder also probably holds the record for "most factually incorrect statements made by a human in one lifetime".
Donald Trump says "hello".
Actually, he says "goodbye", and also "I'm not really here at all", and also "I'm here and not going anywhere with a golden spotlight showering me in light to make sure you can't miss me", all at the same time.
Donald Trump is a good argument for the veracity of ancient historians. We tend to dismiss more “colorful” anecdotes like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned, as historians smearing leaders they didn’t like. But Trump would constantly do the weirdest shit. Suggesting that people consume bleach to cure COVID is the kind of bizarre action that later historians might have dismissed as hyperbole from his opponents: but we all saw it live on TV. Likewise, we can believe that Trump has a bizarre haircut because we’ve seen it: it’s not just hostile journalists mocking his looks for political reasons.
So I can quite believe that Cleopatra was stunning because it’s really not all that out there.
What actual archeological evidence we have though points to Cleopatra being fairly average looking.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
What actual archeological evidence we have though points to Cleopatra being fairly average looking.
According to who though? Beauty is subjective and will vary from culture to culture and across time.
Well. She has some features which romans obviously felt were kind of hot but we don't these days (like a prominent hawknose), but given statues and art we have a fairly good idea of what romans and ptolemaic era egyptians considered hot or not.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Considering her family tree was more of a family tumbleweed, with the inbreeding and all, Cleopatra seems to have hit the genetic lottery, even if she looked ‘average’
Well she is mainly notable for having relationships with two of the first triumverate, and killing herself rather than be used as a spectacle. The last Greek ruler of Egypt. She essentially put all of her eggs in the baskets of Caesar & Antony, only Ocatvian/Agustus was triumphant. It wasn't overall a bad strategy, it's basically a Crusader Kings move, marry yourself into the ruling lines of the most powerful state and then try to get your children granted all their lands, it just didn't end up working out. But for those two things though she'd be a mostly unknown name in a list of rulers (see all the other regnal Cleopatras)
Rome more or less didn't care who ruled Egypt (see Roman Egypt being ruled by a lower ranked governor than the other provinces and allowing local religion to continue freely) as long as the grain flowed and the ruler had no real ambitions but once that changed the Ptolemys were done
Well she is mainly notable for having relationships with two of the first triumverate, and killing herself rather than be used as a spectacle. The last Greek ruler of Egypt. She essentially put all of her eggs in the baskets of Caesar & Antony, only Ocatvian/Agustus was triumphant. It wasn't overall a bad strategy, it's basically a Crusader Kings move, marry yourself into the ruling lines of the most powerful state and then try to get your children granted all their lands, it just didn't end up working out. But for those two things though she'd be a mostly unknown name in a list of rulers (see all the other regnal Cleopatras)
Rome more or less didn't care who ruled Egypt (see Roman Egypt being ruled by a lower ranked governor than the other provinces and allowing local religion to continue freely) as long as the grain flowed and the ruler had no real ambitions but once that changed the Ptolemys were done
Antony was part of the Second Triumvirate, with Octavian and Lepidus.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+4
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Well she is mainly notable for having relationships with two of the first triumverate, and killing herself rather than be used as a spectacle. The last Greek ruler of Egypt. She essentially put all of her eggs in the baskets of Caesar & Antony, only Ocatvian/Agustus was triumphant. It wasn't overall a bad strategy, it's basically a Crusader Kings move, marry yourself into the ruling lines of the most powerful state and then try to get your children granted all their lands, it just didn't end up working out. But for those two things though she'd be a mostly unknown name in a list of rulers (see all the other regnal Cleopatras)
Rome more or less didn't care who ruled Egypt (see Roman Egypt being ruled by a lower ranked governor than the other provinces and allowing local religion to continue freely) as long as the grain flowed and the ruler had no real ambitions but once that changed the Ptolemys were done
As rulers of Egypt yeah, but the Dynasty continued in other places for awhile, and didn't really die out so much as meld into the general lines of Roman nobility particularly in North Africa.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
Not often, but you do have some inverses, like "the Fat" or "the Bald".
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+5
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
Not often, but you do have some inverses, like "the Fat" or "the Bald".
We need to anti-hagiography some contemporary notables for posterity.
For a first attempt I propose that we begin by espousing the deeds of Elon the Dumbass
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Honestly variations of "pretty boy" are not that uncommon for ancient and medieval rulers
We have Harald Hårfagr (Harald Pretty hair), king of norway. Charles le Bel (the handsome/beautiful), king of France. Geoffrey le Bel, Count of Anjou. Louis le Débonnaire (charming/beautiful), king of france. Fernando o Formoso (well-shaped/handsome), king of portugal. Felipe el Hermoso (same as Fernando, but spanish), king of spain. Radu cel Frumos (also well-shaped/handsome, but in Romanian), prince of Wallachia.
The list goes on, and I haven't even included the ones where it was used ironically or with a double meaning (like Ioannes, Byzantine emperor, who was called John the Beautiful because he was both exceptionally ugly but also exceptionally good).
Although speaking of Cognomens. My favorite cognomen is probably that of Joao II of Portugal, aka Juan el Hombre (John the Man). Although for modern viewers it should probably be translated as John "The Man". Posthumously known as Joao o Principe perfeito (John the perfect prince).
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Also with the most fragile of egos. He's a guy that murders lifelong companions and razes cities because of minor or even imagined slights.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Alexander's generally more well-known for the whole "33-year-old conquers the world" thing, yeah.
Here's a fun anecdote: when Julius Caesar was a quaestor (lowest-ranking public official, basically a treasurer and audior I think?) in Spain at age 31, he read the history of Alexander in his free time -
In like manner we are told again that, in Spain, when he was at leisure and was reading from the history of Alexander, he was lost in thought for a long time, and then burst into tears. His friends were astonished, and asked the reason for his tears. "Do you not think," said he, "it is matter for sorrow that while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet achieved no brilliant success?"
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
Not often, but you do have some inverses, like "the Fat" or "the Bald".
Alcibiades comes to mind! The main things he was known for were a) being super hot, and b) being kind of a fucking chad as a result
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
Not often, but you do have some inverses, like "the Fat" or "the Bald".
Alcibiades comes to mind! The main things he was known for were a) being super hot, and b) being kind of a fucking chad as a result
A woman of great power prestige and accomplisment and all we are doing is arguing over how bonkable she was.
Her darwinan fitness was not that high for her status and access to nutrition. I don't think this is about bonkability, more what should be said about a historical figure when that descriptor is taken from possible propaganda and whether or not it's appropriate to reiterate in today's modern context as perpetuation of classic misonginst through lines.
We are missing the an elemental truth here, no matter how accomplished you are its always better to he accomplished and super bonkable than accomplished and not bonkable.
Cyrus the Great was also said to be pretty damn good looking.
A lot of rulers are said to be good looking, because even if they're no longer in power it usually doesn't pay to piss off their descendents but no one is going to care if you say they were hot
Posts
Let's not. Her contemporaries are all roman writers firmly opposed to both Ceasar and later Mark Anthony, trying to depict them as men ruled by their dicks rather than intellect and rome's best interest. Pliny the elder also calls her a harlot queen.
Overall classic roman smear tactics.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
Plinny the Elder also probably holds the record for "most factually incorrect statements made by a human in one lifetime".
Yeah. Even with the bias in place here, securing the province of Africa for yourself by marrying the local monarch is probably the major reason for these entanglements. Augustus made it the emeperors personal province following his consolidation of the empire, so Cleopatras beauty was not the driving reason why Caesar and Mark Antony took up with her so I am more inclined to take that description at face value.
I thought she was most often described as "fascinating" or "captivating" as often as just good looking, as she spoke nine languages and was exceptionally well educated. Someone of great importance so a 'peer' of the other great rulers, without being the same kind of threat a male ruler would be, that is an interesting person to be around.
The description of Cleopatra as fascinating or captivating tends to be from authors who are not her contemporaries. Like Plutarch, born some 80 years after Cleopatras death. Plutarch has the advantage of being close enough in time to have much better source material than we do, and far away enough to be divorced from the petty politics of the era. However, being divorced from the politics of that era doesn't mean that roman historians don't have an agenda of their own. Taking a look at Cassius Dio (born 180 years after cleopatras death) and you again find political motives colouring the chronicles.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Patriarchal Rome did not like this, so it was flattened into her just being a seductress.
Donald Trump says "hello".
Actually, he says "goodbye", and also "I'm not really here at all", and also "I'm here and not going anywhere with a golden spotlight showering me in light to make sure you can't miss me", all at the same time.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
"Patriarchal" is an understatement. The ideal Roman woman was one completely deferential and subservient to her husband. The idea of a strong woman was offensive to them.
The idea of a strong woman who was also god-queen of the richest and most ancient empire around and with whom not one but two married Roman leaders were in love and making babies, and who was clearly more shrewd and better educated and more capable than any of them... well let's just say that did not sit well with them.
Calling Cleopatra "beautiful" because Romans called her that is like writing a Hilary Clinton biography based entirely on what MAGA Republicans say about her.
Donald Trump is a good argument for the veracity of ancient historians. We tend to dismiss more “colorful” anecdotes like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned, as historians smearing leaders they didn’t like. But Trump would constantly do the weirdest shit. Suggesting that people consume bleach to cure COVID is the kind of bizarre action that later historians might have dismissed as hyperbole from his opponents: but we all saw it live on TV. Likewise, we can believe that Trump has a bizarre haircut because we’ve seen it: it’s not just hostile journalists mocking his looks for political reasons.
So I can quite believe that Cleopatra was stunning because it’s really not all that out there.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
According to who though? Beauty is subjective and will vary from culture to culture and across time.
Well. She has some features which romans obviously felt were kind of hot but we don't these days (like a prominent hawknose), but given statues and art we have a fairly good idea of what romans and ptolemaic era egyptians considered hot or not.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Rome more or less didn't care who ruled Egypt (see Roman Egypt being ruled by a lower ranked governor than the other provinces and allowing local religion to continue freely) as long as the grain flowed and the ruler had no real ambitions but once that changed the Ptolemys were done
Those first two things don't seem to be under dispute.
Antony was part of the Second Triumvirate, with Octavian and Lepidus.
- John Stuart Mill
As rulers of Egypt yeah, but the Dynasty continued in other places for awhile, and didn't really die out so much as meld into the general lines of Roman nobility particularly in North Africa.
Sure, but it's just like.... how many times do you hear "the shrewd Cleopatra" or "the great Cleopatra" or "the accomplished Cleopatra" or whatever, vs "the beautiful Cleopatra"? Pretty sure for most people the latter outnumbers any other descriptor.
That compounds itself when you think of how few ancient female rulers we really talk about. So "beautiful" turns out to be one of the top descriptors for ancient female rulers in general. And then, when talking about male ancient historical figures, how often do you hear about "the handsome <x>"?
Something doesn't have to be false for it to still be indicative of a problem. Like many of these things, it's not a specific individual situation that makes the problem, but the combination of everything else to weave a tapestry that, as a whole, has problems.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Not often, but you do have some inverses, like "the Fat" or "the Bald".
We need to anti-hagiography some contemporary notables for posterity.
For a first attempt I propose that we begin by espousing the deeds of Elon the Dumbass
~ Buckaroo Banzai
We have Harald Hårfagr (Harald Pretty hair), king of norway. Charles le Bel (the handsome/beautiful), king of France. Geoffrey le Bel, Count of Anjou. Louis le Débonnaire (charming/beautiful), king of france. Fernando o Formoso (well-shaped/handsome), king of portugal. Felipe el Hermoso (same as Fernando, but spanish), king of spain. Radu cel Frumos (also well-shaped/handsome, but in Romanian), prince of Wallachia.
The list goes on, and I haven't even included the ones where it was used ironically or with a double meaning (like Ioannes, Byzantine emperor, who was called John the Beautiful because he was both exceptionally ugly but also exceptionally good).
Although speaking of Cognomens. My favorite cognomen is probably that of Joao II of Portugal, aka Juan el Hombre (John the Man). Although for modern viewers it should probably be translated as John "The Man". Posthumously known as Joao o Principe perfeito (John the perfect prince).
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Handsome, Cried, Bug-Nuts Crazy, Died Young.
He had a lot going on.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Here's a fun anecdote: when Julius Caesar was a quaestor (lowest-ranking public official, basically a treasurer and audior I think?) in Spain at age 31, he read the history of Alexander in his free time - (- Life of Caesar, Plutarch)
"Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Let's not let anything - like historical accuracy - get in the way of a solid English pun.
Long term severe alcohol abuse is a hell of a drug.
The original fragile masculinity.
Alcibiades comes to mind! The main things he was known for were a) being super hot, and b) being kind of a fucking chad as a result
(Depicting Alcibiades as uwu Henry Cavill will never stop being funny to me.)
Her darwinan fitness was not that high for her status and access to nutrition. I don't think this is about bonkability, more what should be said about a historical figure when that descriptor is taken from possible propaganda and whether or not it's appropriate to reiterate in today's modern context as perpetuation of classic misonginst through lines.
We are missing the an elemental truth here, no matter how accomplished you are its always better to he accomplished and super bonkable than accomplished and not bonkable.
e: also, the Emperor Commodus was famously very handsome, among other things.
A lot of rulers are said to be good looking, because even if they're no longer in power it usually doesn't pay to piss off their descendents but no one is going to care if you say they were hot
Sort of a Pascal's Wager situation