onedreamer
Dragon
The Last Conformist said:Simplistic or not, it's true. The ruling stratum of the Ptolemaean kingdom was separated from the Egyptian majority of their subjects by differences of culture, language, and ethnic identity.
Incidenally, that's a quite unremarkable situation from an historical perspective.
That's not true, there have been loads of cases like this throughout history. Especially in ancient history with all migration and invasions from nomadic people and not. We all know that from such migrations originated many cultures, and many others were even destroyed. Still, the cultures that originated from these migrations are not considered to be originary of the distant and far lands where the nomads came from in the first place. It's true that Cleo didn't have ancestors in the first dynasties of Egypt rules, but this doesn't make her greek. People, cultures, nations are not still, they evolve. Take the english language, it has originated from the influences of several other languages, still it's considered to be born in England (or G.B.). Cleopatra's dinasty ruled in Egypt for 300 years, for this reason we can very well consider her egyptian, even if in a distinct dinasty with its own language, culture, etc. Was she a great leader ? Is she worthy to be representative of the whole Egyptian history ? These are other considerations. According to such considerations that have arised, Ramesses II would also not be an appropriate leader for Egypt, because the modern egyptian culture is completely different from that of the time he lived in. It would be almost impossible to find a leader that can represent well 5.000 years or more of History, because like I said above, culture is not something still.