Cleopatra was not just a famed Greek queen of Ancient Egypt but was also known for her love of parties. She even created her own secret drinking club.

The famous ancient ruler became well known during her time for her intellect and wit and was often described as incredibly seductive and persuasive. These qualities made her all the more mysterious throughout the centuries.

She is now a popular figure in media, literature, and art, and her enchanting qualities, romantic relationships, and beauty are of particular interest to people.

Perhaps the most surprising fact about Cleopatra, who was a strategic and often cutthroat ruler, is that she was quite the reveler.

Cleopatra maintained a relationship with Roman leader Mark Antony and even gave birth to his twins, Alexander Helios, which means sun, and Cleopatra Selene, which means moon, shortly after Antony returned to Rome in 40 BC.

While Antony was living in Egypt with Cleopatra, despite being married in Rome, the pair would throw parties and were known to appreciate a good drink.

Cleopatra formed a secret drinking club, played pranks

In fact, Cleopatra and Antony created their own secret drinking club called “The Inimitable Livers,” ostensibly as a group to honor the god Dionysus but likely to drink and revel.

In 41 BC, the couple formed the group, which included nightly feasts and debauchery, as well as the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol.

Along with these drinking parties, Antony and Cleopatra were known to roam around the streets of Alexandria, the urban center of ancient Egypt, wearing disguises and pulling pranks on locals.

Cleopatra generally loved joking around and even pranked her Roman lover. According to Pliny the Elder, Cleopatra once bet Antony that she could spend 10,000,000 sesterces, which is likely equivalent to over $10 million today on one dinner alone.

Antony balked at the preposterous idea and agreed to the bet, believing that spending such a massive sum on one dinner was impossible.

Cleopatra and Antony then went to dine together, and the couple was served a completely normal meal which definitely wasn’t worth such a sum.

As the meal was ending, Antony was beginning to believe he had won the bet. Cleopatra, however, called one of her servants over and asked for a cup filled with strong vinegar.

Once the servant brought the vinegar to the queen, Cleopatra removed one of her massive pearl earrings from her ear and dropped the precious earring into the cup.

The pearl, which was worth a huge amount of money, then began to dissolve in the vinegar solution. After it was fully dissolved, Cleopatra drank the solution.

Cleopatra VII Philopater ruled over Ancient Egypt from 51 to 30 BC and was the last ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt. After her death, the Roman Empire took control of the country.

The Ptolemaic Dynasty was formed by Ptolemy I Soter, a Greek general in Alexander the Great’s army, in 305 BC. Although located in Egypt, the dynasty that Ptolemy established remained incredibly Greek.

Cleopatra, a direct descendant of Ptolemy, was the first Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language, as all those before her spoke only Greek. She was also believed to have spoken Ethiopian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Median, Parthian, and Latin.

The name Cleopatra comes from the Ancient Greek words κλέος (kléos), meaning “glory,” and πατήρ (pater), meaning “father,” which means “glory of her father.”

The Greek queen of Egypt Cleopatra is associated with a very public love affair with Roman leader Julius Caesar apart from her glamorous beauty routines, deadly snake bites, and lavish banquets. But their “situationship” was complex, according to two historians.

By Charlotte Dunn and Jayne Knight

This doomed romance ended abruptly in 44 BC when Caesar was quite literally stabbed in the back (and from all sides) by his enemies in Rome. And she pretty soon hooked up with one of his closest allies.

When Caesar met Cleopatra, he was 52 and had a wife back in Rome. But something about the 21-year-old Cleopatra caught his eye.

Perhaps it was her charming banter and impressive mind. The ancient author Plutarch reports Cleopatra was an irresistible conversation partner, and fluent in nine languages.

Things really got started when Caesar got involved in a family feud involving Cleopatra and her royal relatives.

Cleopatra came from a long line of dramatic and ruthless kings and queens, which we now call the Ptolemies.

The Ptolemies had ruled Egypt since about 305 or 304 BC. They didn’t always get along but they were very close. As in, genetically close.

The Ptolemies had practiced brother-sister marriages (and other in-the-family marriages as well) for several generations.

According to this tradition, Cleopatra was probably married to her ten-year-old brother Ptolemy XIII when their father died and they became co-rulers of Egypt.

Cleopatra pursued Julius Caesar

So in pursuing Caesar, you might say Cleopatra was going against the family trend by dating outside her siblings.

Cleopatra’s union with her little brother was not a happy one: the young Ptolemy, alongside his advisors, had managed to run Cleopatra out of Egypt, wanting to rule the kingdom without her interfering.

While Cleopatra was busy raising an army to reclaim her place on the throne, Caesar arrived at the royal palace at Alexandria in 48 BC.

Caesar had his own political woes. He was in the middle of a civil war and was pursuing his rival Gnaeus Pompey (also known as Pompey the Great) after defeating his army in Greece.

Ptolemy, completely misreading the situation, greeted Caesar with a gruesome and unexpected gift: Pompey’s severed head.

Outraged and disgusted, Caesar demanded Cleopatra and her brother reconcile, but Cleopatra had other plans.

Plutarch says she hid herself in a bed sack and got smuggled into the palace to meet and charm Caesar.

Was it true love?

The young Cleopatra was ambitious, and there’s no denying a connection with Caesar was politically advantageous.

Caesar also had plenty of other affairs, including one with another queen, Eunoë of Mauretania.

But there may well have been a true connection with Cleopatra. Caesar, after all, was also very well educated and ruthlessly ambitious, and the ancient author Suetonius states Cleopatra was Caesar’s most passionate love affair.

But whatever sparks flew, Cleopatra couldn’t fully escape her family responsibilities.

Caesar put her back on the throne but arranged for her to marry her youngest brother, Ptolemy XIV after her previous brother-husband (Ptolemy XIII) drowned.

Nothing spells romance like your lover ordering you to marry your 12-year-old brother, but Cleopatra needed Caesar’s help to secure her position on the throne.

Being older and ambitious, she seemingly had no trouble taking the lead in running their kingdom, pushing Ptolemy XIV to one side.

Cleopatra and Julius Caesar take a luxurious cruise down the Nile

Some sources say Cleopatra and Caesar celebrated their success at smoothing things over in Alexandria by taking a luxurious cruise down the Nile, accompanied by 400 ships.

This promoted their partnership and alliance, and by this time there was something else to celebrate: Cleopatra was pregnant with Caesar’s son, something she wanted to advertise as the future of her dynasty.

Cleopatra and Caesar’s son was nicknamed Caesarion, meaning “little Caesar”, although he is also known as Ptolemy Caesar or Ptolemy XV.

Caesarion’s existence was a bit of a problem. Caesar probably acknowledged the boy as his son, but Roman law did not, because Roman men were not allowed to marry foreign women.

There was also of course the matter that Caesar was still married at the time, to a Roman woman named Calpurnia.

The fiercely republican Romans of this era did not have much love for monarchy, and Caesar’s dalliance with Cleopatra probably made his fellow Romans even more suspicious about his own grand plans.

When in Rome

Despite many Romans disapproving of the relationship, the Egyptian queen spent about 18 months living on Caesar’s estate in Rome.

While there, Caesar seems to have done nothing to dispel the rumours about his situationship with Cleopatra, and he may have even dedicated a golden statue of Cleopatra as Venus in the temple of Venus Genetrix.

The famous orator Cicero was not impressed, writing in a letter to a friend “reginam odi” or “I hate the queen.”

After Caesar’s assassination, Cleopatra returned to Egypt.

But she soon began a love affair with Marc Antony, Caesar’s right-hand man and would-be successor to his power, if 19-year-old Octavian (who would eventually become the first emperor Augustus) had not been named heir in Caesar’s will.

Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship flourished but ended in tragedy when Octavian’s political rivalry with Antony intensified, and Octavian used their relationship as fuel for anti-Antony propaganda.

The lovers were eventually pursued and defeated by Octavian’s forces. Both took their own lives – he stabbed himself with a sword and she, according to one version of the tale, by compelling a snake to bite her.

Charlotte Dunn is a Lecturer in Classics, the University of Tasmania

Jayne Knight is a Senior Lecturer in Classics, the University of Tasmania

The article was published in The Conversation and is republished under a Creative Commons License

Scholars acknowledge that some legends from Greek mythology are strikingly similar to stories from the Bible. According to some theories, a few individual characters from the Bible might also appear in Greek mythology. One theory argues that the famous Moses of Egypt can be found in Greek records. Does Moses really appear in Greek mythology, or is this just wishful thinking?

Who was Moses?

Firstly, let us establish who Moses was. He appears in the Bible books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Exodus contains the most famous part of his life story. It tells the story of how he was a Hebrew boy placed in the Nile River, where the Pharaoh’s daughter then found him.

When Moses was an adult, he tried to help his fellow Hebrews, who were slaves in Egypt, but then he ran away and remained in a distant land for forty years. He eventually returned after God allowed him to go and free his people from Egypt. Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go, but after ten devastating plagues from God, he relented.

Moses led the people out of Egypt across the Red Sea (where Pharaoh and his army drowned after trying to pursue them) and into the Sinai wilderness. There, he gave his people an extensive list of regulations from God, collectively known as the Mosaic Law. He also wrote many religious writings. The first five books of the Bible are attributed to him, as well as several poetic writings.

Did the Greeks know about Moses?

The theory that Moses appears in Greek mythology depends on the idea that the Greeks could have known of Moses in the first place. After all, he could not have appeared in their mythology if they did not know about him.

As it so happens, Moses does appear in quite a few Greek records. The Egyptian priest Manetho, from the third century BCE, mentioned Moses in his history of Egypt. Since Manetho lived in Egypt during its Hellenistic era, it is virtually certain that the Greeks of that region were aware of Moses. They certainly would have known of him after reading Manetho’s history.

Interestingly, there is evidence that the Greeks knew about Moses even before the Hellenistic era of Egypt. The first-century BCE Greek historian Diodorus Siculus wrote about the origin of the Jews. His account came from Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek traveler from c. 300 BCE.

Hecataeus’ account differs from the Bible’s account in numerous ways, but it is still fundamentally the same story of Moses. Therefore, at least as early as 300 BCE, the Greeks definitely knew about Moses.

Was Musaeus from Greek mythology the same as Moses?

In ancient times, several writers explicitly identified Moses with a certain figure from Greek mythology. This figure was Musaeus. It is obvious that the main reason for identifying the two figures is due to the similarity between their names. But is there any more of a connection than this? Well, what does Greek mythology say about Musaeus?

Musaeus was a legendary intellectual, philosopher, seer, prophet, poet, musician, and historian. The Greeks believed that he founded a class of priestly poetry in Athens. He allegedly lived in the time of Heracles and was associated with Orpheus, another prominent poet and prophet from Greek mythology.

Immediately, we can see that there are some definite similarities between Moses and Musaeus from Greek mythology. In addition to the similarity in their names, their roles are also similar. Moses was a prophet, since he relayed messages from God. He was a poet, since he wrote the poetic book of Job and several of the Psalms. He was also a historian, since he wrote part of the history of the Jews.

Why Musaeus could not have been Moses

Despite these similarities, there is a key reason why Musaeus could not have been Moses. The key reason is that they did not live at the same time.

At first glance, it might look like the chronology works very well. Moses is usually placed at the time of Ramesses II, who ruled in the 13th century BCE. He is also placed in the time of Heracles, who lived about half a century prior to the Trojan War. That would also put him in the 13th century BCE according to the traditional date of the Trojan War. Therefore, it seems at first glance that Musaeus and Moses would have been exact contemporaries.

However, the reality is not so simple. Despite the popular association between Moses and Ramesses II, this has no historical or Biblical basis. The Bible’s internal chronology, along with its genealogical record of the prophet Samuel, places Moses firmly in c. 1500 BCE. That means he lived almost three centuries earlier than the traditional era of Musaeus.

The true era of Musaeus

The theory connecting Moses with Musaeus is further disproved if we examine the information about Musaeus from Greek mythology even more closely. For one thing, there is evidence that the Trojan War occurred several centuries later than the traditional date.

Furthermore, recall that Musaeus was closely associated with Orpheus. Some records say that Musaeus was Orpheus’ son, while other records give the inverse relationship. In either case, they lived at about the same time.

Greek tradition claims that Homer was a tenth generation descendant of Orpheus. That would place Orpheus, and therefore his associate Musaeus, about 200 to 250 years prior to the time of Homer. Since Homer lived in the seventh century BCE, that would mean that Musaeus would have probably lived in the ninth or tenth century BCE. Hence, this would have been long after the time of Moses. Therefore, it is virtually certain that Moses was not Musaeus from Greek mythology.

Egyptian archaeologists have uncovered part of an ancient cemetery from the Greco-Roman period at Tell Kom Aziza in Egypt’s Nile Delta, offering fresh insight into one of the region’s most historically layered sites. The site sits in Beheira Governorate and spans multiple historical periods stretching back thousands of years.

The Egyptian archaeological mission, working under the Supreme Council of Antiquities, found a wide range of burial types during excavations. Some bodies were placed directly in simple earth pits.

Others were buried in mud brick-framed pits, painted plaster coffins, or barrel-shaped pottery coffins. The barrel-shaped pottery coffin was among the most common burial types during the Ptolemaic era.

Tourism and Antiquities Minister Sherif Fathy said that the site holds value far beyond its burial remains. He described it as a window into settlement patterns, daily life, and how people interacted with their environment over millennia.

Burial diversity points to centuries of ritual evolution

Secretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities Hisham El-Leithy said that early analysis of human remains pointed to a notable variety in burial practices. Some graves were individual, while others were collective.

Burial orientations ran along both north-south and east-west axes. Hand positions ranged from resting at the sides to the crossed-arms “Osirian” pose on the chest.

El-Leithy added that studying the archaeological layers confirmed the Greco-Roman cemetery was built over earlier settlement levels. Artifacts trace human activity at Tell Kom Aziza from the Old Kingdom through the New Kingdom, the Late Period, and into the Greek and Roman eras.

Mohamed Abdel Badie, head of the Egyptian Antiquities Sector, said that excavations produced a broad range of everyday artifacts. These included pottery and stone vessels, bread molds, multi-purpose stone tools, ovens, and storage jars.

Large quantities of fish, bird, and animal bones were also recovered, offering clues about the diet and daily habits of the site’s ancient residents.

Wild boar burials found at Egypt’s Greco-Roman cemetery

Among the more unusual finds, mission chief and Beheira Antiquities Director Khaled Abdel Ghani Farhat reported the discovery of complete wild boar burials within one of the archaeological layers.

He said that this is rare at ancient Egyptian funerary sites, given the pig’s symbolic association with the god Set. The find may suggest the boar played an economic or livelihood role at the site during a specific period of use.

Farhat said that the findings confirm Tell Kom Aziza is more than a burial ground. It is a detailed archaeological record of human life across successive historical eras. Further excavation seasons are expected to uncover more of what the site still holds.

For some time, Ancient Egypt was ruled by a dynasty of Ethiopian kings. According to legend, one of them was so powerful that he conquered Anatolia, across the Mediterranean from Egypt. Could such a conquest have really occurred, and if not, then what led to this legend of an Ethiopian king of Egypt who was said to have conquered Anatolia?

Strabo’s legend of the Ethiopian king of Egypt who conquered Anatolia

The source for this legend comes from one particular document. This is Strabo’s Geography, written in the first century BC. Strabo mentions a particularly notable Ethiopian king twice. In the first instance, he mentions him alongside other notable conquerors of the ancient world, writing:

“Nor yet for the most part are the expeditions of their chiefs, for instance, Madys the Scythian, Tearko the Ethiopian, Cobus of Trerus, Sesostris and Psammeticus the Egyptians.”

Without going into details, the context of this reference makes it clear that Tearko the Ethiopian was supposed to have set out on a major expedition or conquest. He is grouped together with other famous conquerors of antiquity, such as Sesostris.

The next mention of Tearko provides additional information. Here, Strabo calls him “Tearco.” Referring to the claims of an earlier historian called Megasthenes, he wrote:

“Sesostris, the Aegyptian, he adds, and Tearco the Aethiopian advanced as far as Europe; and Nabocodrosor, who enjoyed greater repute among the Chaldaeans than Heracles, led an army even as far as the Pillars. Thus far, he says, also Tearco went; and Sesostris also led his army from Iberia to Thrace and the Pontus.”

According to this legend, Tearco the Ethiopian conquered as far as the Pillars, meaning the Pillars of Hercules. However, how is this associated with Anatolia, and why have we called this Ethiopian ruler a king of Egypt?

Who was Tearco the Ethiopian?

To understand the answer to these questions, we first need to understand who Tearco actually was. It is necessary to take a look at the context in which Strabo places him. In the first reference to him, Strabo grouped him together with figures such as Madys the Scythian, known to modern historians as Madyes, his contemporary king Cobus, and Psammeticus of Egypt. These were figures of the seventh century BC.

In the second reference to Tearco, Strabo groups him together with Nabocodrosor of the Chaldaeans, known to historians as Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and Sesostris of Egypt, probably the historical Shebitku. These were also figures of that same era. Furthermore, immediately after the quoted passage, Strabo mentions Idanthyrsus, a Scythian king of the sixth century BC.

Therefore, based on the context in which Tearco is mentioned, it is obvious that we should be looking for an Ethiopian king who ruled at some point within that same era. For this reason, the mainstream conclusion among scholars is that Strabo’s Tearco is the historical Taharqa.

Taharqa was a member of the Ethiopian dynasty that ruled Egypt for much of the eighth and seventh centuries BC. Chronologically, he fits in perfectly with the other figures mentioned by Strabo, and his name is a linguistic match as well. We know, historically, that Taharqa became the ruler of Egypt, despite Strabo making no mention of this fact.

Understanding the legend

Now that it’s clear who Strabo was referencing, let us see if we can actually understand Strabo’s claim. It is easy to be confused by the reference to Tearco conquering as far as the Pillars. It might seem like Tearco was said to have conquered as far as Spain. After all, the Strait of Gibraltar is the standard location of the Pillars of Hercules.

For a king of Egypt, this might appear to make sense in the context of an exaggerated tale. It would mean that Tearco warred across the coast of North Africa until finally reaching the Strait of Gibraltar. However, this is illogical in the context of Strabo’s passage. As the quoted passage shows, Strabo states that both Nebuchadnezzar and Tearco reached the Pillars.

Given the reference to Nebuchadnezzar, Strabo may be referring to pillars that, according to Isocrates, were situated near the entrance of the Black Sea, at Troy, rather than the actual Pillars of Hercules at Gibraltar. While Nebuchadnezzar never historically got as far as Troy, he did conquer parts of Anatolia.

Furthermore, Strabo associates the event with Sesostris’ campaigns as far as Thrace and the Pontus (the Black Sea). This reinforces the point that Strabo was referring to pillars by the entrance to the Black Sea rather than the Pillars at the Strait of Gibraltar. Incidentally, the reference to Iberia in association with Sesostris must point to the Caucasian Iberia, as it is often called by modern historians, on the eastern end of the Black Sea region.

Conclusively, Tearco the Ethiopian, the historical Taharqa king of Egypt, was said to have conquered all across the Levant and right through Anatolia.

Is the legend of the Ethiopian king who conquered Anatolia actually true?

If an Ethiopian king of Egypt really did conquer Anatolia, we would definitely know about it. There would have been clear references to such an event in archaeological records. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this legend has no identifiable historical basis.

It is clear that the legend is not simply based on exaggerated accounts of Taharqa’s historical conquests. The reason is that Taharqa was, in reality, not a notable conqueror. Plenty of kings of Egypt engaged in far more impressive conquests than he ever did, yet no legends ever centered around them. Therefore, the true explanation must be something unique in his case.

The Bible provides the answer. In its account of Sennacherib of Assyria waging war against Jerusalem, the Bible mentions Taharqa. Using the spelling “Tirhakah,” it describes how this Ethiopian king went out to fight against Sennacherib. Historically, Taharqa was unable to secure a victory.

Nevertheless, we know that the Egyptians remembered it as a victory. Herodotus, in the fifth century BC, recorded an Egyptian legend about a king of Egypt named Sethos who successfully defeated the Assyrians. Scholars generally understand Sethos to be Shebitku. It appears that Shebitku was the senior king at the time of Sennacherib’s attack, with Taharqa as the junior king. Shebitku was the king of Egypt, while his relative Taharqa was the king of Ethiopia and the one who actually led the army against the Assyrians.

Hence, what appears to have occurred is that the Egyptians remembered the attack as a victory, regardless of the historical outcome. It was then exaggerated into tales of Tearco actually conquering the Assyrians. Since their territory extended far into Anatolia, this naturally led to the legend of Tearco, an Ethiopian king of Egypt, conquering as far away as Anatolia.