Going back to a previous discussion about https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-cleopatra-allied-differently.491386/ and those stating that Octavian wouldn't consider genuinely allying with Cleopatra in the first place. If I remember correctly according to Genevieve Foster in her history book
what if Cleopatra hadn't snubbed 10 years old Octavius and his biological mother when Julius Caesar first introduce Cleopatra to them?
- Thread starter kjConlon94
- Start date
I tend to think this was a post-facto "justification". The reason being that someone has their dates wrong: Octavius was 10yo in 53BC, Caesarion wasn't born until 47BC (six years later). Now...it stands to reason that a pregnant Cleo being rude to a 16yo boy is probably far more because she sees him as a rival to her unborn child (whose legitimacy Octavian always questioned). But I defer to those far more knowledgeable about Roman history
On the other hand, having Cleopatra and Octavian form some sort of friendship around this time (and nothing beyond that) would be pretty interesting in itself. Same age, similarly shrew, I don't see a particular reason why the two should hate each other. I don't think anyone ever seriously entertained the idea of Caesarion inheriting anything outside Egypt, while Octavian was far from knowing he was to be Caesar's heir at this point. How would the next round of civil war play out? Assuming Octavian still wins, does he keep Ptolemaic Egypt (first ruled by a friend, later by his "brother") around, as a personally ally of his? Assuming the republic doesn't turn into the empire, having a foreign kingdom personally loyal to you (rather than Rome) could be quite a nice bonus.
besides the heir presumptive and the mother of the heir apparent? this is essentially dad coming home with the new stepmom and stepmom's pregnant
Only Gaius Octavius was far from being anyone in Rome and was absolutely NOT Caesar’s presumed heir. He was just a grandson of one of Caesar’s sisters from a decent but pretty obscure family…
You just described why I got the two together
True
And pretty much
Pretty much what Isabella said: Octavian was not Caesar's heir until the moment he realized he was (by reading Caesar's will). Not sure when Caesar made this decision, but by the time Octavian met Cleopatra they probably did not have any reason to see each other as a direct threat. Plus I am sure Caesarion was only meant to be Caesar's heir in Egypt alone. Caesar would have realized that, and Cleopatra was smart enough (and knowledgeable enough about the working of the Roman political world since she spent some time there and in close contact with lots of roman officers/politicians) to know that as well.
Lots of interesting implication from there: two branches of the Julian dynasty? A surviving independent Ptolemaic kingdom? A different conclusion to the last round of civil wars? Mark Anthony not going full Hellenistic monarch mode?You just described why I got the two together
All great possibilities
I went with Octavian marrying Cleo forming one Julian Dynasty(No Caesarion) and Antony trying to act as Octavian's regent in Caesar's name till he got his ass kicked in the Parthian Campaign allowing the couple to reassert control and exile him
The Ptolemaic Kingdom remained independent de facto with Cleo playing the role of hellenistic pharaoh while de jure it remained part of the Roman Empire with Octavian playing the role of roman imperator
Cleopatra did accompany her Dad to Rome when Octavian was 10. Maybe they start a friendship then?