Cleopatra did not commit suicide

I have discovered a possible glitch in the storyline of Cleopatra. This does involve a bit of biblical history but it mostly stems from events surrounding Cleopatra and ancient Rome and Egypt. So without further ado:

i have been working on a theory that jesus was enki, and that he was the first pharaoh of egypt, pre-dating nimrod's dynasties, and that he was also the last pharaoh of egypt and son of cleopatra. this came about as a result of researching that time period and various theories others had about who jesus was. i theorized that what the researchers were missing was the possibility that cleopatra didn't kill herself but instead, staged /faked her own death, then fled to israel, where she had already sent her son, via the silk route.

a bit of back history would probably be helpful at this point: the roman empire was spreading and was on the verge of taking over egypt. cleo was involved with julius caesar, who was the earthly father of cleo's son, esu. julius was killed by his own men (supposedly). as soon as he was killed, his successor knew that esu was the next in line for the throne when the father died, and immediately set about hunting him down.

technically, esu was the rightful heir to 3 major powers, simultaneously. he was heir to the throne of egypt and the actual pharaoh, however he was still too young so cleo continued on the throne as the pharaoh of egypt, till he came of age. when julius died, all that changed. as the son of julius,he was heir to the throne of the roman empire, and because of his lineage from king david, via cleopatra's ptolemy line, was heir to the throne of israel, as well. he had a huge target painted on him. so cleo sent him off on the silk route which eventually deposited him in israel with his relatives.

this is where most researchers of this particular theory stop. they assume cleo died. i do not. i think she faked her own death and went to israel as well, to be with esu there. in effect, cleopatra was the virgin mary. now before anybody freaks out, realize that in ancient texts a virgin of the magnitude of mary or cleopatra, was a woman who gave birth to a demi god or divine offspring via artificial insemination of some kind. although i do not believe esu was a nephil (not fully human in his flesh).

so imagine my surprise when i found this video where a scholar and researcher of egypt, also began to question the story of cleopatra's death. her approach however, was to say that HOW cleo died was suspect, not IF cleo died. she was trying to prove that cleo didn't commit suicide but was murdered, because the story was suspect. whereas my theory is that she faked her own death and that's probably why the lady in the video, is picking up oddities.

( is it my imagination or does the woman in the video look a bit like sam from stargate sg1. )



esu=caesarian. esu was his egyptian name. will ya look at that etymology!
cleo was not a seductress or adultress, as caesar was already dead when she started having a relationship with marc antony. even her relationship with marc antony becomes suspect since the story teller is octavian himself.

octavian may not have killed her, in my theory, she faked the whole thing. if she was as much of a survivor as pat brown suggests in the video, and as use to political intrigue inside her own ruling class, she would've been just as likely to have planned out an escape route for not only esu but for herself as well, as octavian's armies advanced on egypt.

the cover up may not have been related to octavian trying to pretend he wasn't there, but that he never got the real mccoy, as he would later discover the dead woman wasn't actually cleopatra herself. a variant of this same thing would repeat in octavian's version of the death of esu. if esu had been smuggled out to israel via the silk route, how then did octavian kill him?

according to the histories of rome, octavian had him hunted down and eventually found him and strangled him to death. this is unlikely, as esu would've no longer been wearing the customary garb of an egyptian royal, nor would his deposition inside israel itself, correlated with octavian's version of where he found him. this would, however, explain why there was a manhunt on for esu in israel, in the biblical account, as herod would not want a royal heir to replace him either.

theoretically, of course.

a reply to: undo

Although it makes a good story, Cleopatra was survived by her and Julius Caesars son, Caesarian.

There was no need to hide any offspring of the union as both Caesar and Cleopatra were quite open about their relationship.

Caesarian assumed the throne of Egypt after the death of his mother and was killed not long after that by Octavian, who took Egypt to be a province of the Roman Empire.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: undo

Although it makes a good story, Cleopatra was survived by her and Julius Caesars son, Caesarian.

There was no need to hide any offspring of the union as both Caesar and Cleopatra were quite open about their relationship.

Caesarian assumed the throne of Egypt after the death of his mother and was killed not long after that by Octavian, who took Egypt to be a province of the Roman Empire.

watch the video. i'm serious. watch it. the whole thing. that's the point of this entire thread.

originally posted by: undo
I have discovered a possible glitch in the storyline of Cleopatra. This does involve a bit of biblical history but it mostly stems from events surrounding Cleopatra and ancient Rome and Egypt. So without further ado:

i have been working on a theory that jesus was enki, and that he was the first pharaoh of egypt, pre-dating nimrod's dynasties, and that he was also the last pharaoh of egypt and son of cleopatra. this came about as a result of researching that time period and various theories others had about who jesus was. i theorized that what the researchers were missing was the possibility that cleopatra didn't kill herself but instead, staged /faked her own death, then fled to israel, where she had already sent her son, via the silk route.

I'm trying to follow where you're going with this but it doesn't seem to be working out for me. Could you possibly explain the 3000 year chasm between the first Pharaoh's and the fall of the Roman Republic and Beginning of the Empire? I'm just not seeing how one individual can be associated with separate instances spanning 3 millennia.

a bit of back history would probably be helpful at this point: the roman empire was spreading and was on the verge of taking over egypt. cleo was involved with julius caesar, who was the earthly father of cleo's son, esu. julius was killed by his own men (supposedly). as soon as he was killed, his successor knew that esu was the next in line for the throne when the father died, and immediately set about hunting him down.

technically, esu was the rightful heir to 3 major powers, simultaneously. he was heir to the throne of egypt and the actual pharaoh, however he was still too young so cleo continued on the throne as the pharaoh of egypt, till he came of age. when julius died, all that changed. as the son of julius,he was heir to the throne of the roman empire, and because of his lineage from king david, via cleopatra's ptolemy line, was heir to the throne of israel, as well. he had a huge target painted on him. so cleo sent him off on the silk route which eventually deposited him in israel with his relatives.

There are a couple of things that are just factually incorrect here. First is that Caesarion was not at all an heir to the Roman Empire because it wouldn't exist for another 14 years after the death of Caesar when Octavian finally consolidated his power. Also, Cleopatra had no lineage to David or any other royal from Judea

this is where most researchers of this particular theory stop. they assume cleo died. i do not. i think she faked her own death and went to israel as well, to be with esu there. in effect, cleopatra was the virgin mary. now before anybody freaks out, realize that in ancient texts a virgin of the magnitude of mary or cleopatra, was a woman who gave birth to a demi god or divine offspring via artificial insemination of some kind. although i do not believe esu was a nephil (not fully human in his flesh).

What are the sources you are using to support this far reaching supposition?

esu=caesarian. esu was his egyptian name. will ya look at that etymology!

And where exactly did you come up with Esu as his Egyptian name? He had several, none of which was Esu.

In addition to his Greek name and nicknames, Caesarion also had a full set of royal names in the Egyptian language:
Iwapanetjer entynehem
Setepenptah
Irmaatenre
Sekhemankhamun

cleo was not a seductress or adultress, as caesar was already dead when she started having a relationship with marc antony. even her relationship with marc antony becomes suspect since the story teller is octavian himself.

there were many first hand, contemporary accounts of Antony and Cleopatra, Roman, Greek and Egyptian so I'm not sure what Octavian has to do with the final outcome of the "story".

octavian may not have killed her, in my theory, she faked the whole thing. if she was as much of a survivor as pat brown suggests in the video, and as use to political intrigue inside her own ruling class, she would've been just as likely to have planned out an escape route for not only esu but for herself as well, as octavian's armies advanced on egypt.

Could you explain the basis for why you believe this to be so? As for why she wouldn't have planned an escape, Cleopatra had sent word to Octavian that she was willing to abdicate her throne in favor of her sons(She also had twins w/ Marc Antony) if Octavian would spare her life.

the cover up may not have been related to octavian trying to pretend he wasn't there, but that he never got the real mccoy, as he would later discover the dead woman wasn't actually cleopatra herself. a variant of this same thing would repeat in octavian's version of the death of esu. if esu had been smuggled out to israel via the silk route, how then did octavian kill him?

What makes you think Caesarion was in Judea? When Octavian invaded Egypt, Caesarion was sent to Berenice which is a port city on the Red Sea(now called Medinet-el Haras). Berenice was a perfect place to make a quick escape from but the possible destination (which he never left for) was likely India. Recent archaeological excavations have shown a large presence of Tamil from roughly the same period as we are discussing and it would have been easy to board a ship headed to India. It's also a far more likely hiding place than Judea because Judea was a Roman province whereas Rome held no sway over India.

according to the histories of rome, octavian had him hunted down and eventually found him and strangled him to death. this is unlikely, as esu would've no longer been wearing the customary garb of an egyptian royal, nor would his deposition inside israel itself, correlated with octavian's version of where he found him. this would, however, explain why there was a manhunt on for esu in israel, in the biblical account, as herod would not want a royal heir to replace him either.

He wasn't in hiding and went back to Alexandria on his own according to Plutarch. Whether he was tricked or betrayed by his own people is another story entirely however.

Caesarion, who was said to be Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar, was sent by his mother, with much treasure, into India, by way of Ethiopia. There Rhodon, another tutor like Theodorus, persuaded him to go back, on the ground that [Octavian] Caesar invited him to take the kingdom

a reply to: peter vlar

did you watch the video?

a reply to: undo

yes, but since I can't cross examine a video I'm instead asking you.

a reply to: peter vlar

according to national geographic, it's described in plutarch

Cleopatra had him sent unto the Indians through Ethiopia, with a great sum of money. But one of the governors also called Rhodon, even such another as Theodorus, persuaded him to return into his country, and told him that Caesar [Octavian] sent for him to give him his mother’s kingdom.

plutarch's account


they also listed "cassius dio" book 51 that says, cleo sent caesarian (esu) to ethiopia but octavian claims he killed him along the road

here's link

cassius dio's account

no matter which approach you take, you get octavian claiming he killed him and octavian is the target subject of the video, as the potential perpetrator of the crime against cleo. i think he covered up that cleo had faked her death when he realized he'd been second guessed and also claimed he killed caesarian (esu), when esu escaped with cleo to israel.

that's my theory. esu, ya know who esu is right?

word mes "son" or mesu "be born"...of isis.
since he was a son and not a daughter, the ending of eesay (isis), would be esu. rather confusing. would that make it esu esu or mes esu, or mesu esu? lol

no wait, i got that wrong. it would be mesu of eesay or mesu of aset. son of isis, who cleopatra, claimed she was
how they get isis out of aset, is beyond me

Caesar did not marry Cleopatra, so Caesarion had no rights under Roman law. And as Rome was still a Republic (barely) at that time, there was no power that could be passed down to his son. Octavian was his Grand-Nephew and inherited his money. He later became Consul and Triumvir.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Caesar did not marry Cleopatra, so Caesarion had no rights under Roman law. And as Rome was still a Republic (barely) at that time, there was no power that could be passed down to his son. Octavian was his Grand-Nephew and inherited his money. He later became Consul and Triumvir.

i think there's a bit of an argument on that, which is why every historian thinks octavian's claim that he killed him was true. national geographic put it this way:

Instead, however, Octavian listened to his confidant, the philosopher Arius Didymus, who advised that “too many Caesars is not good,” which Plutarch informs us is a pun based on a line from Homer’s Odyssey, “Too many lords doth not well.” (In Robert Fagles’ modern translation of Homer, the line becomes, “If you serve too many masters, you’ll soon suffer.”) Octavian then ordered Caesarion’s murder. There is no definitive account, but the most popular version seems to be that he was strangled by his captors. Octavian then declared himself ruler of Egypt, and went on to become the first Roman emperor, under the name of Augustus.

tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com...

how much of the world did the romans own at that point? they had israel, for sure, almost had egypt, for sure had rome. wonder how many territories they had. whether it was a full fledged empire or not, does not discount the political intrigue suggested in the video or the article.

a reply to: undo

No. Caesar's will (which could only see a Roman inherit, due to their laws) passed everything on to Octavian, at a time when Octavian was not very powerful. He was Caesar's nearest male heir. Caesarion could not inherit anything from Caesar. He could have been Pharaoh, but that's about it. And yes, Rome held Judea and much of the Near and Middle East. Egypt was always going to fall because it was weak and because it was the grain basket of Rome. Rome needed Egypt to feed the city of Rome itself.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: undo

No. Caesar's will (which could only see a Roman inherit, due to their laws) passed everything on to Octavian, at a time when Octavian was not very powerful. He was Caesar's nearest male heir. Caesarion could not inherit anything from Caesar. He could have been Pharaoh, but that's about it. And yes, Rome held Judea and much of the Near and Middle East. Egypt was always going to fall because it was weak and because it was the grain basket of Rome. Rome needed Egypt to feed the city of Rome itself.

i have a slight problem with all of that, because, as the video suggests, it was octavian and his cohorts who wrote the histories, which really don't show up in any historical format for western reading until 100 years later in the form of plutarch. if you wanted to own a territory and there was something between you and success, and that something was the only son of caesar and his mother, well, you get the idea.

a reply to: undo

Interesting.

i theorized that what the researchers were missing was the possibility that cleopatra didn't kill herself but instead, staged /faked her own death, then fled to israel, where she had already sent her son, via the silk route.

Didn't Octavian track Cleopatra's son down (the one that had been hidden away from Egypt) and have him dragged back to Alexandra to be killed? The son's tutor betrayed him. This was before Octavian returned to Rome and took the name Augustus, taking with him the daughter, Cleopatra Selene - who became a queen...

Caesarian did indeed go back to Rome with his sister, not sure what became of him though... can't recall his brother's name... (the one dragged back and murdered).

originally posted by: Blister
a reply to: undo

Interesting.

i theorized that what the researchers were missing was the possibility that cleopatra didn't kill herself but instead, staged /faked her own death, then fled to israel, where she had already sent her son, via the silk route.

Didn't Octavian track Cleopatra's son down (the one that had been hidden away from Egypt) and have him dragged back to Alexandra to be killed? The son's tutor betrayed him. This was before Octavian returned to Rome and took the name Augustus, taking with him the daughter, Cleopatra Selene - who became a queen...

Caesarian did indeed go back to Rome with his sister, not sure what became of him though... can't recall his brother's name... (the one dragged back and murdered).

did you watch the video?

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: undo

No. Caesar's will (which could only see a Roman inherit, due to their laws) passed everything on to Octavian, at a time when Octavian was not very powerful. He was Caesar's nearest male heir. Caesarion could not inherit anything from Caesar. He could have been Pharaoh, but that's about it. And yes, Rome held Judea and much of the Near and Middle East. Egypt was always going to fall because it was weak and because it was the grain basket of Rome. Rome needed Egypt to feed the city of Rome itself.

i have a slight problem with all of that, because, as the video suggests, it was octavian and his cohorts who wrote the histories, which really don't show up in any historical format for western reading until 100 years later in the form of plutarch. if you wanted to own a territory and there was something between you and success, and that something was the only son of caesar and his mother, well, you get the idea.

No, you don't understand Roman traditions. These are well attested to and ironclad at this point in time. Caesarion wasn't Caesar's legal son as Caesar was not married to Cleopatra. Roman citizens filed their wills with the Vestal Virgins. No-one at this point in time would have been as stupid as to mess with that - and at this point Rome was in turmoil due to Hitler's assassination. If anyone would have tried to mess with the will it would have been Marcus Antonius. But he didn't.
Octavian was Caesar's legal heir according to Roman law.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

that's really interesting. i'll do some further research on that. if i find anything further, i'll post it in this thread.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

that's really interesting. i'll do some further research on that. if i find anything further, i'll post it in this thread.

Caesar's problem was that he only had one legitimate child - his daughter Julia, who was married to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and who died in childbirth (the child did not survive). He had no other children with his wives.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

by the way, did you watch the video?