Just caught this the other night. Where do they dig these "profilers" up. It was so obvious that she was going draw some "different" conclusion than the accepted historical one.

Even her analysis of Cleopatra was dumbed down. This "survivor" and "battler" ran away from the last battle she was in (also the first??), drew Anthony away with her and caused the battle to be lost. Why? did that act, and the subsequent ramifications prey on her mind? Did she really love Anthony? As I recall, he committed suicide before she did, and she knew about it. No recognition that she was a *realist* and that *pride* was one of her strongest characteristics. Instead, we are supposed to think that she was going to hang on to life so she could be "displayed" in a Roman triumph and then killed?

The jump to judgement regarding using poison as an alternate to the "asp" was amazing. We're told that hemlock was a poison, but since it acted so slowly, Cleopatra couldn't have used it and been dead by the time Octavian reached her. URRGH. Aren't there other poisons? Really fast-acting ones? And the timeline for sending the suicide note to Octavian just blithly assumes that it was sent before she had the bite/poison. It could have been sent just as the poison was finishing her off -- by one of the handmaidens who were still alive when Octavian did arrive.

Sloppy, sloppy work.