Ancient History Questions

When at all possible, I like to answer comments with a post if the response is going to be long and drawn out. From Peach comes the following question/comment, from this post:

I'm not qualified to comment knowledgeably on what probably equated to what in Ancient Egypt, so I'm curious as to your reasoning.

(The topic of conversation is the political and fellatial prowess of Cleopatra.)

And my response?

Women were not widely powerful, at least not directly, in politics in the ancient world, or really at any time until the modern world. Sure, the Egyptians had Hatshepsut at one point (who actually dressed as a man most of the time, even wearing a fake beard), but for the most part even the representative governments (namely the various Greek city states and the Roman Republic) represented by family, with the father voting for his household in the Greek assembly, or the Roman Assembly or Senate.

Cleopatra is generally accepted to have been less than perfect as a physical specimen. Her reputation came from her personality, not from her looks. In the same way that urban legends claim that "big girls perform better", my estimation is that Cleopatra was probably an excellent "performer", and that's where her political power came from: she influenced the men in power (Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, et cetera).

The reference escapes me, but in my studies of classical civilizations, I remember either a proverb or an anecdote from the Greek world, most likely Athens. The gist of it was that if anyone wanted to influence politics, they should speak to the sons of powerful men; the sons had the ear of their mothers, and the mothers had the ear of their powerful husbands.

So, essentially, women didn't have direct political power in the ancient world, and though she was nominally the co-ruler of Egypt, Cleopatra probably wasn't that much of an exception. Her power came not from direct political control, but from her "diplomatic prowess", so to speak.

While I'm at it, I think it's worth noting that based on my extensive historical knowledge of the ancient world, this idea of "progress" and specifically "feminism" in the modern world is essentially a bunch of nonsense. That's not a popular statement, but I think it's the truth. If you read Plutarch or Tacitus, you'll find numerous references to a high cultural esteem for freedom, liberty, and many of the other precepts that we Americans (and other westerners, like Canadians and Brits, but not the French) value above all else. With regard to feminism, I'd like to quote a single line from Agricola by Tacitus:

From Britain he went to Rome, to go through the regular course of office, and there allied himself with Domitia Decidiana, a lady of illustrious birth. The marriage was one which gave a man ambitious of advancement distinction and support. They lived in singular harmony, through their mutual affection and preference of each other to self. However, the good wife deserves the greater praise, just as the bad incurs a heavier censure.

The language may seem a bit "patriarchal" from the perspective of damn dirty hippies, but essentially Tacitus is saying that it's a wife that makes a marriage successful or unsuccessful. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, and as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that women have always held power, and always had influence; they just did it differently than they do now. If anything, I'd say the feminist movement has forced women to work harder for what they already had.

So, that's a long and somewhat rambling answer to a short question. Sarge, any comments?