Thanks for correcting me. I had forgotten my History lesson. But isn't it interesting that human nature hasn't changed? Would it be plausible that Cleo's wealth and connections to wealth was the greater attraction for such ambitious men?
Suddenly I find myself thanking God that I don't have so much ambition. I mean, I honestly find Paris Hilton to be on the fair side of attraction, but I keep waiting for her to develop into a woman (like I'd really have a chance with her anyway LOL).
And some say history lacks relevance or is boring. There is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9.
She was a ROYAL...so ANYONE having a relationship with her including C.I. Caesar or Marcus Antonius would have to understand that that would mean POLITICAL implications which would be beyond matters of mere 'wealth'...but why could it not be simply that strong men recognized an extraordinary woman and found the idea of a 'relationship of true equals' with her highly appealing?
The thought of what two strong minds might accomplish together in such a relationship would also have to be attractive would it not?
Especially in the case of Caesar and Cleopatra...if they could have begun a strong Julian/Ptolemaic dynasty ruling over a united Empire of Rome and Egypt for centuries...what marvels might have been...perhaps enough to cleanse Caesar's karma of the Greatest Crime?
...alas the Ides of March...-sigh-...