Fact:

However, this image of a female leader notorious for her seductive and persuasive appearance has no historically documented proof. In fact, her features, as they appear on ancient artifacts may even suggest otherwise.

This vision of a persuasive and cunning ruler is more likely to have been related to her character and intellect rather than to her physical appearance. She did in fact seduce the prominent Roman leaders Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony, but this may not have been the function of her physical appearance. Ancient historians never actually made direct references to her physical beauty. Moreover, her portraits on ancient coinage do not reveal attractive features. Instead, these portraits depict a small forehead, a big nose, a small mouth and a long chin. Not exactly Elizabeth Taylor.

In 2001, the British Museum again shed light on this issue with an exhibition of marble statues that had been made of the queen. These statues, agreed on by many historians as depicting Cleopatra, show a woman rather small in size, with harsh facial features and expressions. The historian and biographer Plutarch in his Life of Antony said the following of Cleopatra: “Her actual beauty...was not so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of her presence...was irresistible.... The character that attended all she said or did was something bewitching.”

To this day, we are not able to decipher what the queen looked like, but the closest portrayals do not exhibit the great beauty that the movies have created. This is further backed by writings that never mentioned her beauty. The image of a beautiful queen remains baseless. The undeniable charm of her character is then more likely linked to her charisma, her eloquent speech, intelligence and her persuasive ways.