Parallels - Cleopatra and Daenerys

[Melissa Westbrook]

Hi all, this is my first time posting in this forum.  I have been following a lot of the amazing commentary from the community on youtube and in this forum, and love using Wiki of Ice and Fire to help me structure my thoughts around ASOIAF. 

With the controversial recent ending of GOT airing and leading to speculation about how the stories of Daenerys and Jon will be comparable in the books, I've found myself thinking a lot about the strong parallels between the story of Jon and Daenerys in the show and the story of Cleopatra and Mark Antony.  A bit of a history buff, I've been reading up on the Ptolemeic Dynasty in recent weeks and couldn't help but be struck by the parallels not only between the two famous couples, but also the insights to be found when reviewing the family line of Cleopatra and the possible parallels with the story of Daenerys’ ancestors, as well as how they influenced her philosophy in the final two episodes of the show.  So I wrote them down. 

I should emphasise, the below contains the first of three parts (so no D+J v. C + A here), with this one pertaining to the commonality of the two women in having famous forebears who were conquerors, and how that influenced their ideology as rulers.  

Also, I'm aware there is a lot of online hate about the final two episodes of the show and Daenerys' abrupt pivot in character.  I don't want to get into that here if possible, unless it's constructive.  I'd like to just concentrate on the subtle clues throughout the show and its final two episodes that more or less aligned Daenerys' philosophy for rule with that taught to her by her brothers and history.  Seriously guys - in researching this, I found myself watching the 2004 movie "Alexander", starring Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie and directed by Oliver Stone.  There truly are worse viewing experiences to be had in this life.  

-----------

The below is a historical analysis of the fictional character of Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, “the Last Dragon” of Westeros, and the historical figure of Cleopatra (8th) VIII Philopator of House Ptolemy, “the last Pharaoh” of Egypt.  It seeks to compare and contrast their histories and assess how they might have shaped the attitudes and decisions that ultimately led to their downfall.  The argument is that, for both women, the story of their family's origins in the kingdom they struggled to hold greatly influenced their mindset around the nature of the rule they felt they were entitled to.  It led to an intrinsic belief in both women that their goal wasn’t necessarily to rule but to doggedly expand and consolidate power in order to align with a deeply ingrained sense of manifest destiny.  The conclusion is that this ongoing search for their next consolidation of power is what ultimately led to the demise of their respective dynasties. 

Firstly, both women inherited a sense of requisite overachievement borne from their dynasty’s only middlingly influential origins in their homelands.  Similar to House Targaryen’s origins as a not particularly dominant noble House in Valyria, the impressive Ptolemeic dynasty in Egypt originated in Macedonia, one of the smaller and less influential kingdoms at the time to make up classical Greece.  The House of Ptolemy originated with Ptolemy I Sotor, a General (and rumoured half-brother) to Alexander the Great, a famous conqueror who established Greek rule in Egypt following his lifelong goal to conquer Persia.  Similarly, Aegon I Targaryen of Old Valyria, known as “Aegon the Conqueror”, established Valyrian rule in Westeros.  What’s often less focused on in both histories is that both men seem to have developed this expansionary mindset out of a sense of loss, or threat, associated with their House historically being of a weak position - even facing extinction. 

Historical records show that in the 4th Century BC, or the hundred years before the time of Alexander the Great, Macedonia was a small Greek kingdom ruled by Alexander’s ancestors outside of the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes.  Where Greece had Kings, Valyria had Dragonlords.  It is noted in The World of Ice and Fire that though they were dragonlords, the Targaryens were only middling in their influence compared to the other rulers within the Valyrian Freehold.  If you compare a map of the Valyrian freehold to Greece in the 4th Century BC it can be noted that Valyria had a similar geography to Greece, with the core power of the freehold being centred in a cluster of cities based on a peninsula.  While we don’t know exactly where the Targaryens originated geographically within the Valyrian freehold, we do know that the Valyrian Freehold was expansive, and that the lands of the Targaryens would probably have needed geographical alliance with the powerful cities of the Valyrian peninsula in order to be considered a ‘powerful’ House within the aristocracy. 

We do know that in classical Greece, Macedon had no such luxury and that by the time of the rule of Philip II of Macedon, father to Alexander the Great, things were so dire that Philip had to completely reform his ancient Macedonian army in order to keep the neighbouring noble Greek houses, such as the Thracians and the Paoionians, from encroaching significantly on his territories.  It’s hard to comment with specificity as to whether this was the case for the Targaryens, but we do know that like Classical Greece, Valyria was a freehold with no federalised concentration of power, although the powerful cities of Athens and Valyria often defaulted to this status during territorial disputes.  This indicates that any Valyrian free state within the freehold would have been vulnerable to its neighbouring dragon lords should there be a barrier to resources such as food, minerals between them, just as Macedon was vulnerable to neighbouring Thrace, Paoionia, and for a period, Persia. 

This existential threat to his family’s legacy certainly resonated with Philip II of Macedon, who responded by devoting his life to reversing Macedon’s fortunes by consolidating and expanding his rule in the region using a mix of diplomacy and military superiority.  He pushed back against his fellow Greeks with diplomacy and tributes, while also showing ruthlessness against one of mightier Greek cities, Athens, by crushing three thousand of its hoplites in battle using innovative military tactics.  The Targaryens in turn faced an even greater existential threat - the Doom of Valyria.  Having anticipated eminent defeat thanks to a prophecy from Daenys the Dreamer, they were forced to relocate to the remote outpost of Dragonstone in the narrow sea and spend the next one hundred years pondering how to re-establish the might of not only their own House, but that of their ancient homeland, Old Valyria. 

In both scenarios, the families turned to expansionism via conquest.  Aegon the Conqueror built a table in the shape of a map of Westeros with 7 kingdoms on it, and determined that all seven should ultimately belong to his family.  Alexander the Great in turn, picked up the mantle of his father to conquer their greatest rival in the region, Persia, and not satisfied with consolidation and peace alone, subsequently set his sights on Egypt, Syria, Babylonia, Assyria and made it as far as the Indian sub-continent. 

In winning their dynasties these lands and legacies, and making them famous around the world, both conquerors established a House culture of cultural elitism and perpetual expansionism.  300 years later both Daenerys and Cleopatra were the last living descendants of their respective legacies, and once again facing imminent existential threat.  Daenerys responded as Aegon did - by setting her sights on the Iron throne, acquiring advanced weaponry and armies and using a combination of diplomacy and brute strength to reconsolidate her power.  Likewise, Cleopatra rallied support to win her own throne outright and engaged in alliances with the Romans with a view to not only maintaining her current power but also place her own family in the line of succession in Rome as well.  Neither woman succeeded where their forebears did, but it’s clear the legacy of their forebears, itself born from its origins in only modest power, influenced greatly the decision to expand territory, rather than maintain.  

[Uilliam]

There are parallels in circumstance, but how about their characters? Cleopatra was by all accounts conniving and dexterous. Danaerys seems more direct, not the type to spare the rod.

[Areisius]

1 hour ago, Uilliam said:

There are parallels in circumstance, but how about their characters? Cleopatra was by all accounts conniving and dexterous. Danaerys seems more direct, not the type to spare the rod.

Exactly. I listen to a podcast about Cleopatra and her incestuous roots are way worse than Dany's. We are talkimg about generation after generation being incestuous and killing one another. It runs so deep.

[Melissa Westbrook]

7 hours ago, Uilliam said:

There are parallels in circumstance, but how about their characters? Cleopatra was by all accounts conniving and dexterous. Danaerys seems more direct, not the type to spare the rod.

 

Hi, thank you for your comment, really great of you to take the time to read my post.

I think when you review the character of Daenerys in the show, and perhaps more apparently in the books, you see parallels with Cleopatra directly there as well.  I am planning on writing on this a little more as an add on to the above if you're interested to read it.  When you review Season 1 you do tend to focus a lot on how likeable Emilia Clarke is and how vulnerable Daenerys is in the situation.  But I notice more upon review that she moved more quickly and noticeably than I realised when she concluded Viserys wasn't going to cut it to further their family's fortunes, and that she started continuing with his plan not at his behest, but at her own independently.  She wasn't on good terms with her brother but she still took the initiative independently to manipulate Khal Drago, to discuss with him the need for the Iron Throne.  I believe she was the one who understood more than her brother the significance of having a child that would motivate the Dothraki horde to cross the Narrow Sea (which was later undermined by Mirri Maz Dur).  Her goal wasn't Viserys' crowning, it was to further House Targaryen's power in this region and the next. 

Cleopatra did the exact same thing with her brother.  They were supposed to wed each other and effectively share power but she independently decided to separate and challenge him instead.  She took advantage of Julius Caesar's visit to Rome when he was there to capture Pompey, where her brother, in an act that we can see Viserys probably doing himself, inadvertently insulted Caesar by desecrating Pompey's body in a fashion considered dishonourable in Roman culture.  The Romans in those times were considered by the Egyptians to be brutal unstoppable barbarians on the rise, and in a similar fashion she manipulated to marry into that line, consolidate her own power against her brother and carry Caesar's child as well in order to continue the familial legacy. 

What I'm basically saying here is - Dany often comes across as a hero in the show due to context but her single-mindedness in achieving a legacy for her familial houses is as ruthless as Cleopatra's was.  

Cleopatra was also quite brilliant at exploiting a loophole in the law to further her claim, in the sense that she wasn't married to her brother and her father, having expected them to marry, never officially declared who his heir was in his will.  Daenerys similarly undermined her brother after he sold her off to Khal Drogo, which is in a sense symbolically represented in the scene where Viserys is killed without use of a blade to spill blood - Khal Drogo exploits a loophole in the doctrine of melted gold to kill him. 

Cleopatra and Daenerys were also very good at winning over the public opinion and having general support following them.  Cleopatra, while her brother was alive, lived in exile of the palace in Alexandria for long periods of time rallying support among the common people for her claim to the throne, which is largely how she was able to show Julius Caesar that she had a better leadership position for uniting the region than her brother.  Daenerys for instance quite brilliantly used emancipation from slavery as a means to recruit a support base and the loyalty of armies that were otherwise unaffiliated with her.  In the show when she burns King's Landing, viewers often say 'but she was a liberator of slaves'.  She did not need to free the Dothraki from 'slavery' in order to bring them to her cause.  She needed to convince them she had the power of a God and lure them with blood and power in order to move them away from their superstitious beliefs and have them join her.  Daenerys has always told the people what they need to hear in order for her to win their support.  She wasn't so much a liberator of slaves as she was a manipulator of slaves to her cause.  In the show, Missandei tells Jon Snow that if she ever wanted to leave, 'her Queen would provide her a ship and wish her good fortune'.   Her singleminded response to Jon Snow's need to consult with his own family indicates this probably wasn't the case, as was her admission that when it came time to cast Daario aside she "felt nothing".