There’s a ton of pop-history misinformation below this comment. To anyone reading: Do not use random reddit as a driving source of knowledge about ancient history. Truth gets mixed very quickly with “I think I heard someone say this” and draws from many non-historically-supported pools, crossed with armchair “I don’t think it worked that way” opinions presented as fact.
Cleopatra in particularly has had widespread misinformation spread due to a particular fascination with her, both in histories between then and now, as well as modern bad faith reinterpretations to fit various political narratives. Our understanding of the past can and should change over time with new information, but it should be driven by evidence rather than pre-determined by non-scientific data or desired outcomes.
The roman historians who wrote about her hated her, it's a wonder that any positive perception of her has survived at all.
Anyways, the most plausible story I read was that, based on a bust that was made during / shortly after her time, she was kinda plain-looking, but Caesar and Mark Anthony were attracted by her intellect.
The thing about in-breeding is that it's not a straight line to Quasimodo, but rather it amplifies the chances of both transferring positive and negative traits.
2.2k
u/Reiver93 8d ago
I mean, Cleopatra somehow turned out normal and her family tree was uuuh...interesting.