I've decided that, since this is a continuing series, I should put more in my titles than simple numbers. That way, it is easier to back reference. Anyway, moving on...
As you can probably all guess, today we discuss the Greeks. You may wonder why I chose this particular brand of dynasty to focus on when there are so many out there. Quite simply, it is because the Greeks are a great example of dynasties you are probably not descended from, per my previous post. What is the reason for this? you may ask yourself: incest. Dirty, rotten, Appalachian-style incest. And we aren't just talking the typical royal and noble "I married my aunt, you married my cousin, aren't you my niece" type of incest. No, the Greeks knew how to get it on with the closest of kin, including mother-son, father-daughter, and brother-sister action. HOT HOT HOT! This kind of stuff is definitely taboo today.
Before we delve into it, you probably all are asking: why on Earth would people do this sick, perverse inbreeding?! It's simple really. What better way to ensure the purity of royal blood than marrying your sister or brother. If you are 100% royal, there is little doubt that your full sibling is too. Was it wrong, then? No, not actually. It was in fact a fairly regular occurrence throughout Egyptian history and was not uncommon in Greek times. If you really think about it, the Greek gods were all siblings and aunts and uncles yet they married, so there was certainly no perceived sin in the act. The stories of Oedipus that record the mythical king's marriage to his mother were more lessons on fate than morality. There was no real sin in him wedding and bedding his mother; it was the fact that he killed his father and drove his mother to insanity that are the crimes. Incest was quite common in royal circles, then, in Greecian times and it is for that reason that they are the subject of this study.
Virtually everyone in the western world has heard of the great Greecian king Alexander III of Macedon who conquered Egypt, Persia, and the whole of Asia Minor and became known throughout all time as Alexander the Great. Surely, his short reign of conquest and destruction is as well known as Caesar's assassination by the hand of Brutus. Yet, what did Alexander really do for history? How about dynastology?
The Argeads, the dynastic line of Alexander, are rich with roguish-type individuals who slowly conquered Greece. Alexander was the son of the last of those conquers, Philip II, who bequeathed to his son and heir the plans for a great empire. Alexander fulfilled his role as conquerer, but, even more so than Charlemagne, failed his role as a dynast. Alexander died at the age of 32 in Babylon of uncertain causes, but certain problems. For, Alexander had no child, only a pregnant wife. Roxana bore posthumously to Alexander a son whom she named Alexander IV. As is custom still, baby Alexander was installed as de jure king of Macedon while a regency was installed. In addition, Alexander the Great had a brother, Philip III, who was granted the title of co-king. In the end, none of this mattered. Both baby Alexander and Philip III were murdered without ever taking formal control of their empire. Alexander's descent ceased to exist and that is the sole reason that no person to this day can possibly be descended from Alexander the Great.
This begs the question: so, why are we discussing the Greeks if the most important one of all died without leaving progeny? The answer to this question is much more complex. After the Argeads died out, the empire fought a civil war for nearly forty years. It never reunited and part of the reason Rome thrived in the 100s was because the Greeks couldn't reorganize. Dynastologically, the time of the Greeks was also grim. The civil war broke out between numerous satraps (generals) of Alexander who felt that they were owed a portion of the empire. The satraps and their descendants eventually split up the empire intro rival Greek factions. They adopted both local and Greek customs thereby "Hellenizing" (making Greek) the regions of the western Mediterranean.
Dynastologically, they fought continuous wars but often married into their rival's families. When they were not at war, they married into their own families, especially in Egypt. The major empires that formed from Alexander's empire were the Ptolemaic dynasty (in Egypt), the Seleucid dynasty (in Persia), the Attalid dynasty (in Asia Minor [Turkey]) and, the Antigonid dynasty (in Greece). Not one of these dynasties survived more than 300 years with the longest-living dying off with Cleopatra in 30 BCE. The sheer level of inbreeding within and between these four dynasties left very few descendants to survive after them. It is not impossible (in fact it is extremely likely) that some did indeed survive, but as the dynasties got smaller and smaller with the expansion of Rome in the 100s, the four dynasties became increasingly insular and careful in their marriages. One-by-one, Rome conquered and absorbed the dynasties and empires until only the Hellenistic traditions were left. The Antigonids fell in 168 BCE, the Attalids in 129 BCE, the Seleucids in 63 BCE, and the Ptolemaics in 30 BCE. Only the Seleucids really strove to maintain their dynasty by marrying into the Armenian and Parthian dynasties which would succeed them in Persia.
Jumping ahead to the end of the last dynasty, Cleopatra VII of cinematic and Shakespearean fame is one of the most interesting case examples of these incestuous marriage patterns. In Ptolemaic Egypt, women were crowned ruling queens with their husbands if they were siblings. Cleopatra was no exception, not only was she the daughter of an uncle and a niece, she married two of her siblings. Her first brother-husband was Ptolemy XIII. The marriage ended in disaster when Ptolemy rebelled against Cleopatra's authoritarian rule and allied with Julius Caesar. After his untimely death, she married her much younger brother who became Ptolemy XIV, although it is unlikely that they ever consummated the marriage. He was found dead soon after the death of Julius Caesar, probably to prepare the way for their son who became Ptolemy XV and the possible heir of Caesar. It is possible, though never proven, that Cleopatra married her son with Caesar in a titular manner.
Cleopatra did have one exceptional quality about her, at least dynastically: she was able to keep her dynasty alive, even if it lost all of its power. With Mark Antony, the famous triumvir of Rome, she birthed three children. Through her daughter, she was able to keep the blood of the Ptolemy's running for at least a few more generations. It is uncertain what the ultimate fate of her progeny was, but it is likely that all of us still circulate a little of Cleopatra's blood.
Thus, while we are all probably descend from at least one Greek ruler, thereby relating us to all the Greek dynasties, we do so only through luck, illegitimacy, and uncertainty. The descent from the ancient times is not proven in any line, but somewhat conveniently Cleopatra's heirs are one of those often considered. If we descend from Cleopatra, we descend from all of Greece, at least to a degree. But as with the unfortunate dynasts, no one today descends from Alexander the Great as he left no sons or daughters to perpetuate his bloodline. It is a conqueror's job not just to dominate, but to propagate. Without that, you're just a schoolyard bully.
Addendum: Stephanie brought up the point that Cleopatra probably did not leave progeny so I will qualify that with my reasons why I believe she did. Cleopatra left after her three children: two sons who were killed while still in Roman captivity, and a daughter who was spared and married off to the king of Numibia (who later became king of Mauretania). One known son of this marriage exists, but he is only noted in a single source. It is my strong belief that either Cleopatra's daughter or this son left behind daughters, since having a only a single child was not a very common occurrence. I could certainly be wrong on this, and Stephanie may also have a point that any other descent probably stayed within the Greco-Roman aristocracy. But experience has taught me that one random marriage can save a dynastic descent and I bet that Cleopatra's daughter left behind a surviving line. Where it went, what it became, no one will probably ever know, but I strongly believe it survives today in most of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment