Sulemain
Banned
The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms.
216BCE-190BCE.
The defeat of Rome on Carthage had wide reaching percussions, not least upon Ptolemaic Egypt, a power favourably inclined to Rome. The effects of Rome’s defeat would not be felt in Alexandria, but when did they come, they struck like a Thunderbolt from Thor himself.
In the Ptolemaic Kingdom’s heartland was the dualistic nature of many of the successor states displayed. Egypt was and is an ancient country whose existence even in the 3rd Century BCE long pre-dated the Alexandrian Expansion. The Ptolemaic Kings occupied a strange middle ground; they were simultaneously Hellenistic ruler in the mode of the Great Alexander, but also Egyptian Pharaohs; divine figures who transcended any mere mortal monarch; their rule was a reflection of the celestial order. While they were certainly presented to the Egyptian people as Pharaohs of the old school, the Ptolemys acted in their grand city of Alexandria like Hellenic Kings; speaking the Hellenic tongue and ruling in that manner. It was to be a duality that would ultimately doom their dynasty.
Ptolemaic Egypt had had contact with Rome since 273BCE, and had been studiously neutral throughout both of Rome’s conflicts with Carthage, having maintained friendly ties with all the major parties. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Rome was able to secure a huge loan from the Ptolemaic King at the time, Ptolemy IV Philopator. Ptolemy IV was a weak willed King who realm was wracked with chaos and rebellion his reign; he was disinterested in matters of state, letting himself be ruled by his favourites, male and female. Much of Upper Egypt was lost to rebellion in his reign, and only regained with great effort. Still, problems persisted and the divided between King and subject grew ever worse.
While Carthage had no territorial ambitions in the eastern Meditarian, it certainly had considerable commercial interests in the area, interests that were challenged by the Kingdom’s maritime might. And that commercial interest could easily turn into a military threat if a suitable ally to Carthage presented itself; that ally was the Seleucid Kingdom, stretching across Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria and parts of Anatolia. Whereas the Ptolemy’s had an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Rome, the Seleucid Kings were impeccably hostile to the Roman Republic, and had for much longer been enemies of the Ptolemaic Kings.
The death of Ptolemy IV and the ascendency of Antiochus III marked the ultimate end of the Ptolemaic Dynasty’s rule over Egypt. Having unified the Seleucid heartland, a territory of vast population and resources, and proclaimed himself Megas Basileus, the High King, of the Seleucid Empire. In return for trading concessions along the southern Anatolian coastline, and a promise of a share of tribute and plunder, Carthage funded a mercenary army to attack Egypt from the west, while Antiochus III marched south. As the second century BCE turned into the first he attacked, through Judeah-Israel, through Arabia, establishing Satraps and regional rulers as he did so; in due time these areas would be fully integrated under the central control of Antioch, but for now the distant kingship of the client system remained. The power of the central government in Antioch waned, royal magistrates giving way to royal governors giving way to client kings the more one got away from the capital. Seizing control of the Arabian Peninsula changed that; the coastline of Persia came under the firm control of the Kings in Antioch, and from there power would spread in land.
Antiochus had already established himself as a great military leader; his handling of the ruler-ship of Egypt showed his peacetime wisdom. The settlement of 195 BCE solidified his gains in Arabian and the Levant, as well as securing the loyalty of the Seleucid client states in western Anatolia and the Aegean. As promised, tribute and loot were granted to Carthage, and tariff relief and room for markets along the southern Anatolian coast established. Tariff, long a Ptolemaic vassal, was placed under the control of its own department in Antioch.
Egypt however, needed a unique solution. Although the Ptolemy’s had been defeated and either held captive or driven into exile, Egypt needed a ruler. And while Antiochus had a dualistic divide between Hellenic and Persian methods of kingship, that division was not as great as it once was; Persians had ruled Hellenes, and vice versa, for many years. The Egyptians had barely tolerated foreign rulers who lived in Alexandria; they would not tolerate one who lived in Antioch. Antiochus would have to find a way to ensure Egypt’s loyalty and support, in a way that would solidify his power over the region whilst avoiding the costs of controlling it from Antioch.
A new dynasty was therefore put on the throne of Egypt, ruling from Alexandria. Halfway between a client king and an ally, the new dynasty was of mixed Hellenic and Egyptian heritage, who’d already built up a dynastic reputation for honesty and public service. The Antipater’s, named for one of Alexanders generals, had not a drop of royal blood to them, but they had popularity and they had support of the most powerful successor monarch. The oaths the new King swore were that of someone who recognised the Seleucid’s superiority, and promised grain and wealth, but not subservient. In this way, Antiochus squared the circle of the Egyptian dilemma, and was free to focus on his own realm.
216BCE-190BCE.
The defeat of Rome on Carthage had wide reaching percussions, not least upon Ptolemaic Egypt, a power favourably inclined to Rome. The effects of Rome’s defeat would not be felt in Alexandria, but when did they come, they struck like a Thunderbolt from Thor himself.
In the Ptolemaic Kingdom’s heartland was the dualistic nature of many of the successor states displayed. Egypt was and is an ancient country whose existence even in the 3rd Century BCE long pre-dated the Alexandrian Expansion. The Ptolemaic Kings occupied a strange middle ground; they were simultaneously Hellenistic ruler in the mode of the Great Alexander, but also Egyptian Pharaohs; divine figures who transcended any mere mortal monarch; their rule was a reflection of the celestial order. While they were certainly presented to the Egyptian people as Pharaohs of the old school, the Ptolemys acted in their grand city of Alexandria like Hellenic Kings; speaking the Hellenic tongue and ruling in that manner. It was to be a duality that would ultimately doom their dynasty.
Ptolemaic Egypt had had contact with Rome since 273BCE, and had been studiously neutral throughout both of Rome’s conflicts with Carthage, having maintained friendly ties with all the major parties. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Rome was able to secure a huge loan from the Ptolemaic King at the time, Ptolemy IV Philopator. Ptolemy IV was a weak willed King who realm was wracked with chaos and rebellion his reign; he was disinterested in matters of state, letting himself be ruled by his favourites, male and female. Much of Upper Egypt was lost to rebellion in his reign, and only regained with great effort. Still, problems persisted and the divided between King and subject grew ever worse.
While Carthage had no territorial ambitions in the eastern Meditarian, it certainly had considerable commercial interests in the area, interests that were challenged by the Kingdom’s maritime might. And that commercial interest could easily turn into a military threat if a suitable ally to Carthage presented itself; that ally was the Seleucid Kingdom, stretching across Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria and parts of Anatolia. Whereas the Ptolemy’s had an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Rome, the Seleucid Kings were impeccably hostile to the Roman Republic, and had for much longer been enemies of the Ptolemaic Kings.
The death of Ptolemy IV and the ascendency of Antiochus III marked the ultimate end of the Ptolemaic Dynasty’s rule over Egypt. Having unified the Seleucid heartland, a territory of vast population and resources, and proclaimed himself Megas Basileus, the High King, of the Seleucid Empire. In return for trading concessions along the southern Anatolian coastline, and a promise of a share of tribute and plunder, Carthage funded a mercenary army to attack Egypt from the west, while Antiochus III marched south. As the second century BCE turned into the first he attacked, through Judeah-Israel, through Arabia, establishing Satraps and regional rulers as he did so; in due time these areas would be fully integrated under the central control of Antioch, but for now the distant kingship of the client system remained. The power of the central government in Antioch waned, royal magistrates giving way to royal governors giving way to client kings the more one got away from the capital. Seizing control of the Arabian Peninsula changed that; the coastline of Persia came under the firm control of the Kings in Antioch, and from there power would spread in land.
Antiochus had already established himself as a great military leader; his handling of the ruler-ship of Egypt showed his peacetime wisdom. The settlement of 195 BCE solidified his gains in Arabian and the Levant, as well as securing the loyalty of the Seleucid client states in western Anatolia and the Aegean. As promised, tribute and loot were granted to Carthage, and tariff relief and room for markets along the southern Anatolian coast established. Tariff, long a Ptolemaic vassal, was placed under the control of its own department in Antioch.
Egypt however, needed a unique solution. Although the Ptolemy’s had been defeated and either held captive or driven into exile, Egypt needed a ruler. And while Antiochus had a dualistic divide between Hellenic and Persian methods of kingship, that division was not as great as it once was; Persians had ruled Hellenes, and vice versa, for many years. The Egyptians had barely tolerated foreign rulers who lived in Alexandria; they would not tolerate one who lived in Antioch. Antiochus would have to find a way to ensure Egypt’s loyalty and support, in a way that would solidify his power over the region whilst avoiding the costs of controlling it from Antioch.
A new dynasty was therefore put on the throne of Egypt, ruling from Alexandria. Halfway between a client king and an ally, the new dynasty was of mixed Hellenic and Egyptian heritage, who’d already built up a dynastic reputation for honesty and public service. The Antipater’s, named for one of Alexanders generals, had not a drop of royal blood to them, but they had popularity and they had support of the most powerful successor monarch. The oaths the new King swore were that of someone who recognised the Seleucid’s superiority, and promised grain and wealth, but not subservient. In this way, Antiochus squared the circle of the Egyptian dilemma, and was free to focus on his own realm.
. I'll look at Gaul next before returning to Carthage in the 200BCE-150BCE period.