Cleopatra and Mark Antony

Happy to present my first duo Denarius between Cleopatra and Mark Antony, a Crawford 543/1 type. Do hope that many other specimen will follow:

Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra - AR Denarius

obverse; CLEOPATRAE REGINAE REGVM FILIORVM REGVM

reverse; ANTONI ARMENIA DEVICTA

A historically interesting and important piece, just a bit flat struck on the hair of M Antonius and Cleopatra as well. A pleasing patina and great portraits of both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great coin! Cleopatra was certainly not the looker that she was made out to be in the movies...

 

Mine:



Phil Davis

 

Wow what a beautiful and well centered exemplar!

 

My example shows quite a contrast between him and her.

 

I chose the budget bronze option for these lovebirds:

Marc Antony & Cleopatra VII
Chalkis (Syria) mint, struck 32/31 B.C.
Obv.: Cleopatra VII diademed, draped bust, right. (Legend 85% missing)
Rev.: Marc Antony bare head, right. ETOYC KA TOY KAI - QEAC NEWTEPAC
Diam.: 21x18.5 mm. Weight: 5.55 gr.
Attrib.: RPC I 4771; Svor. 1887; HGC 9, 1451; DCA 476.
(From a 2016 FSR auction.)

 

One of the best ones I've seen. Congrats!!

 

mine's a fouree

 

The 'Budget bronze' is becoming a bit of a Mythe, like the 'Budget Tetradrachm' of these famous Lovers. There is just a tremendous difference in price between the good fine or just fine and the extremely fine and above graded coins.

 

I find it hard to believe that Cleo was unattractive. I mean she did attract a couple of very powerful men in their prime. But, then again, what is considered attractive today may have totally different 2100 years ago (plus she was stinking rich)

 

I agree - beauty standards change decade over decade and have certainly moved over the last 2000+ years. It's also important to note that the portraits of women were also manipulated to look closer to their male counterparts (whether husbands or other key figures). Regardless of physical beauty, she was an incredibly influential and capable person.

Here's my Cleo & Antony, the outcome of a lengthy wait to find one with the full name of "CLEOPATRA" visible.

 

No one in antiquity said she was beautiful, they said she was captivating. She spoke multiple languages, could speak intelligently on almost any subject. Maybe back then they actually considered attractiveness based upon what was between her ears and not her legs. I find intelligence to be the most attractive trait myself.

 

Do like the Replies about the 'beauty' of Cleopatra, it's a bit like the 'beauty' of Domitia. Both ladies had some good compensation for their lack of natural beauty and being equipped with Hawk size noses as 'bonus', being extremely wealthy and powerful as well. Collect Imperal Roman as well, Domitia is a must to have.

 

Not to mention: She was the Queen of Egypt, sole ruler of the highly reputed Greek Ptolemaic Empire -- and a direct descendent of Ptolemy I himself.

So... at any party her date had the hand of tons of money, power, prestige, and intellect. Plus, beauty really is often just skin deep.

 

Making it simple: Romans came from Rome, in Rome there was no Grain, around Rome there was no Grain either, Citizens of Rome did live from Grain, all the Grain came from Alexandria.... The Queen of Alexandria was Cleopatra, anyone who would be able to control the Grain fleet towards the Romans would be of extremely importance and make the difference towards the existence of the entire Roman Empire....

 

The Romans had a choice to support her or her brother. Whichever they supported would have provided Rome with what she needed. Sex played a role in that decision as it has throughout history.

 

Based upon the information which I have (nearly 2000 years later, what is what we really know?) was the brother a volatile omnipotent 'child', yes he was a ruler but his ruling seemed to be based on his 'advisors', there I am losing the logic. Who was really in power? A little boy with issues or the boy's advisors instead?

 

Actually, I always read Sicily and North Africa around Carthage was the breadbasket of Rome at this time. Egypt was still a foreign land, and the Romans, being a practical people, preferred to be self sufficient in grain. Later, when Egypt was part of Rome, the cheap costs of grain there outcompeted Sicily and Carthage and it became the breadbasket of Rome then.

So you are right 100 years later, but I don't think in Cleopatra's time.

 

You might be right about this, for me it's a discussion without that we can come down to one single conclusion. Did read the great Jewish war by Josephus Flavius three times and still discovered new interesting fact's during the last reading session. In the Mediterranean Sea shipwreck's has been found which have been determined as Grain ships coming from Alexandria, but who can be sure of this? One thing is sure: Tomatoes and Grain don't have a Italian and neither Roman origin, in Alexandria they did exist for a long time before being 'Discovered' by the Romans.