Great name for an update!
I honestly never noticed this TL, I'll try reading through it later this week, but it seems great to me. Interesting to see Egypt doing pretty well despite being divided.
A New Carthaginian Age: Trade, Politics, War and Treachery in the post-Roman World
- Thread starter RiseofBubblez
- Start date
I honestly never noticed this TL, I'll try reading through it later this week, but it seems great to me. Interesting to see Egypt doing pretty well despite being divided.
What can I say? I’m a sucker for Egypt. Plus, I always feel like political division doesn’t always have to equate to weakness or failure. I think there can be a lot of cultural or economic vitality even in periods that appear to be chaotic or decentralised.
Chapter LVII: Divine Rule? The Development of the Cult of Horus
In the 19th Century, a famous author described the 36th Dynasty of Egypt as:
The idea, simply enough, was that in a scheme of history built around empires and the succession from one to the next, much of the period from the end of the 3rd Century BCE to the middle of the 1st Century CE had seen nothing more than transience. The Barcid Empire had lasted less than 100 years, many of the hegemonies of the Western Mediterranean had come and gone just as quickly, Macedon had risen and fallen again and so on. In contrast, if we take the Seleucids from the death of Alexander in 323 and work on the basis of their official continuation into the 1st Century BCE, we an almost 3 centuries of imperial rule with varying degrees of power. In this context, the longer-lasting Egyptian empire of the 36th, 37th and 38th Dynasties could be seen as the first 'true' empire since that time, an empire that not only managed to achieve a prodigious size but also a relatively long-standing power.
Of course, all of this is a rather poor way of characterising history; the Barcids were remarkably influential and had seen various permutations over the course of almost two centuries, for instance. Rome's influence went beyond just its direct imperial power, Massalia's beyond just its rule over Southern Gaul and so on. These are states worth our time regardless of whether they lasted 50 years or 500. Nor should we entirely fall into the trap of characterising everything in Egypt from Thutmose V at the latter side of the 34th Dynasty until the end of the 38th Dynasty some 400 years later as being somehow identical or fixed in any way. Even within that time, Egypt saw division and weakness, triumph and golden ages. Egypt changed culturally, economically, politically and its empire was never a fixed entity. In recent years, for instance, one view has turned this interpretation on its head, choosing to view Egyptian empires, dividing it not only into different periods but into different aspects of empire. One such empire might be seen in its cultural reach, its religious patronage, its economic ties and so on. Different parts of the empire might have been prominent at different times but should never be dismissed.
It seems unlikely that Sasobek and his successors could have truly known how their actions were set to affect the rise of Egypt in the coming decades, nor the bloody retribution that they would bring. Still, the period from the civil war of 9 CE to the end of their regency under Ahmose VII was actually a rather successful and prosperous time for Egypt as a whole. Interestingly enough, this period of regency was not predicated on the inherent weakness of every one of the kings. Some were less effective than others for certain, but Thutmose VI was an active king in his own right, unable to do much politically but a major proponent of building works and rather interested in picking up on Sasobek's irrigation works in the Faiyum.
While the Sasobekian leaders effectively took over the process of political and economic policy, the kings fell back on the cultural and symbolic aspects of their rule. Thutmose VII and Amenhotep VII, in particular, cultivated their courts as centres of Greco-Egyptian culture. On his trip to Antioch in 28 CE, Thutmose VII effectively recruited dozens of Seleucid scholars to return with him to Memphis for discussions, debate and eventually to be folded into the Library of Alexandria. Possibly the most important was Amenhotep VII, however. The basic idea of Sasobek's 'Cult of Horus' had somewhat taken root in Memphis over the following years and were set to be further expounded upon in the future. Here, the reign of Amenhotep VII formed a key dividing line in the move from Horus as an Egyptian god to Horus as an internationalised god.
In effect, the rather internalised views of the Sasobekians began and ended with Sasobek II. As Addaya took over leadership, then passing it to Sasobek III, the political climate effectively forced them to look outwards to the rest of the world. The success of the Isiac cult abroad and even the Sarapis cult in Egypt, bearing in mind that the latter had started specifically as a government project by the Ptolemies, seemed to be something of possible inspiration for the development of the Horus cult in the future. What the work under Sasobek II had done was reconstruct Horus to take the place of Isis and Sarapis, pushing the god as the most important god of Egypt, stressing his role as a protective deity and adopting concepts of salvation and a better world into the cult. Nothing there was strictly revolutionary save for, perhaps, the decision to formalise that in the guise of an actual central text.
However, the biggest stage in its development seems to have been oddly premeditated and came in the mid-30s under Amenhotep VII and Sasobek III. Traditionally, there have been a few theories as to what began the process of change regarding the Horus cult. One theory is that Amenhotep VII sought to formalise the cult and centralise it in a way that hadn't really existed before, trying to unify and centralise worship. This wouldn't be unprecedented in Egyptian history; remember that Sarapis had begun as something of a constructed god and even earlier pharaohs such as Akenhaten had (unsuccessfully) tried the same thing. Another possibility is that the ideas that became folded into the Horus cult were already emerging in some places, possibly through theological discussion in Memphis. A third is that the goal was to politicise and control the cult as a means to try and create it as a specifically international religion that could be utilised by Egypt for political ends.
Whatever the case, the cult of Horus began a process of three major changes. The first came in 36 when a priest of Horus tied to the court in Memphis published The Book of the God Horus. In effect, this book served really just to compile earlier writings on the cult of Horus including the Oracles of the Osirian God and the Words of the Osirian God, folding them into a single text. However, the book concluded with what amounts to a lengthy commentary on the nature and history of the Cult of Horus, arguing that the ultimate concern of the entire cult is that of succession. In effect, the idea is that Horus, as a protective god, represents the transition in the world, the continuation and maintenance of order as the world moves constantly forward. For simplicity's sake, the idea is that Osiris, murdered by Seth in some ancient time of gods, is the eternal 'former king' and that Harsomtus, Horus' son, is the eternal 'future king'. Horus is thus the eternal pharaoh whose job, as a god, is the protection of that transition across all of Egypt.
Thus, Horus knows the future and can relate the future to mortals for the purposes of protecting order and ensuring that the transition from past to present to future always maintains Maat (order) and expels Isfet (chaos). Every transition, then, is part of Horus' remit from birth to death. Other gods can exist in this framework but as subsidiaries to the will of the divine Pharaoh. It's a bit unclear at this stage whether or not the idea was that these gods are extensions of Horus' will or if they were seen as distinct entities. In some works, for instance, Anubis is presented as the form of Horus as he protects the spirit on its way to the afterlife. In others, Anubis is an individual god but his role and power are guided by Horus who controls and dictates all that happens.
At the same time, the text also made itself very clear on two points: Horus was also an oracular god who knew and could relate the future, and Horus was Amun. The latter point actually begins as something of a throwaway line when the author describes the Oracle at Siwa as:
What is important about these two points is that they built on existing ideas to construct and justify the nature of the Cult of Horus in its new form. Amun was not degraded or relegated, he was syncretised as had already happened. It's no coincidence that texts for decades after this deal with Horus as 'Horus-Amun', 'Horusamun' or, in one case, 'Horusrasamun', combining three gods into a single name. Thus, Horus was raised to a point of near omnipotence as a god; ruler of the future, present and past, an oracular deity, a god of sky and protection and war and sun. Everything else all came under Horus' remit anyway as he was either Pharaoh of the Gods or, in some cases, an omnipotent deity who controlled all these aspects anyway.
The important development upon this came with the work of Siamun, the Priest of Horus at Edfu after the reunification of Egypt in 42. Siamun effectively formalised aspects of the cult of Horus further, under his guidance the centre of the cult moved finally from Memphis back to the Ptolemaic-era site at Edfu. It was from here that the new Cult of Horus would change and spread across Egypt and then even further beyond. Sometime between 46 and 48, Siamun expounded on the ideas developed earlier in his own set of literary works. Well versed in Greek literature, and almost certainly from a Greco-Egyptian background, Siamun first agreed on the point that Horus and Zeus were the same god. Historically, Horus had been syncretised with Apollo and now that both could be seen as sun gods and oracular gods, it would have made sense.
However, in his list of the most important Horusian oracular sites, Siamun placed Siwa at the top, followed by Delphi and then Dodona. Basically, this appropriated the Greek sites; Delphi was associated with Apollo but he could be seen as just part of Horus' will or another god that serves Horus as divine Pharaoh. Dodona was already an oracular site for Zeus who was just another name for the same king of the gods, one who could also rule over the skies through his own elevation and syncretism with Amun. Siamun thus very carefully Hellenised the cult just enough. On one hand, the cult could now use either Egyptian or Greek temple precedents, drawing particularly on certain shared customs such as votives, sacred ground, temenos walls and so on, as well as existing names and identities but surrounding new ideas of salvation, personal growth, the protection of a universalised order and so on.
Finally, in 96, Archibius of Tanis published a new history of the world since its creation, building his upon the new ideas of the Cult of Horus and included within a 'sacred map', effectively marking what he thought to be the most important religious locations within the cult. Included were the tomb of Sarapis at Abydos (building on an idea floating around at the time that sought to reintegrate Isis and Sarapis into the cult, substituting Osiris and Apis for Sarapis but keeping the same ideas), the Temple of Horus at Edfu, the oracles at Dodona, Siwa and Delphi. Seeking to further integrate the Hellenistic world with the Egyptian, Archibius built upon the idea of sacred geography, effectively trying to develop the map of the world as it was and equate it to a shared heritage that could allow the cult to integrate other groups. In his view, the ancient kingdom of Horus had once covered the world, eventually descending to the Greek age of heroes of which the Homeric and earlier heroes were descendants.
At no point, however, did these ideas just freeze in place. Discussion and development continued long after these initial pushes and there was never really a unanimous or entirely accepted idea of the cult. While the cult of Horus and its sometimes rival cults of Isis and Sarapis would be integral to the Egyptian empire going forward, it could never really be centrally controlled in the way some might have hoped.
In the 19th Century, a famous author described the 36th Dynasty of Egypt as:
The idea, simply enough, was that in a scheme of history built around empires and the succession from one to the next, much of the period from the end of the 3rd Century BCE to the middle of the 1st Century CE had seen nothing more than transience. The Barcid Empire had lasted less than 100 years, many of the hegemonies of the Western Mediterranean had come and gone just as quickly, Macedon had risen and fallen again and so on. In contrast, if we take the Seleucids from the death of Alexander in 323 and work on the basis of their official continuation into the 1st Century BCE, we an almost 3 centuries of imperial rule with varying degrees of power. In this context, the longer-lasting Egyptian empire of the 36th, 37th and 38th Dynasties could be seen as the first 'true' empire since that time, an empire that not only managed to achieve a prodigious size but also a relatively long-standing power.
Of course, all of this is a rather poor way of characterising history; the Barcids were remarkably influential and had seen various permutations over the course of almost two centuries, for instance. Rome's influence went beyond just its direct imperial power, Massalia's beyond just its rule over Southern Gaul and so on. These are states worth our time regardless of whether they lasted 50 years or 500. Nor should we entirely fall into the trap of characterising everything in Egypt from Thutmose V at the latter side of the 34th Dynasty until the end of the 38th Dynasty some 400 years later as being somehow identical or fixed in any way. Even within that time, Egypt saw division and weakness, triumph and golden ages. Egypt changed culturally, economically, politically and its empire was never a fixed entity. In recent years, for instance, one view has turned this interpretation on its head, choosing to view Egyptian empires, dividing it not only into different periods but into different aspects of empire. One such empire might be seen in its cultural reach, its religious patronage, its economic ties and so on. Different parts of the empire might have been prominent at different times but should never be dismissed.
It seems unlikely that Sasobek and his successors could have truly known how their actions were set to affect the rise of Egypt in the coming decades, nor the bloody retribution that they would bring. Still, the period from the civil war of 9 CE to the end of their regency under Ahmose VII was actually a rather successful and prosperous time for Egypt as a whole. Interestingly enough, this period of regency was not predicated on the inherent weakness of every one of the kings. Some were less effective than others for certain, but Thutmose VI was an active king in his own right, unable to do much politically but a major proponent of building works and rather interested in picking up on Sasobek's irrigation works in the Faiyum.
While the Sasobekian leaders effectively took over the process of political and economic policy, the kings fell back on the cultural and symbolic aspects of their rule. Thutmose VII and Amenhotep VII, in particular, cultivated their courts as centres of Greco-Egyptian culture. On his trip to Antioch in 28 CE, Thutmose VII effectively recruited dozens of Seleucid scholars to return with him to Memphis for discussions, debate and eventually to be folded into the Library of Alexandria. Possibly the most important was Amenhotep VII, however. The basic idea of Sasobek's 'Cult of Horus' had somewhat taken root in Memphis over the following years and were set to be further expounded upon in the future. Here, the reign of Amenhotep VII formed a key dividing line in the move from Horus as an Egyptian god to Horus as an internationalised god.
In effect, the rather internalised views of the Sasobekians began and ended with Sasobek II. As Addaya took over leadership, then passing it to Sasobek III, the political climate effectively forced them to look outwards to the rest of the world. The success of the Isiac cult abroad and even the Sarapis cult in Egypt, bearing in mind that the latter had started specifically as a government project by the Ptolemies, seemed to be something of possible inspiration for the development of the Horus cult in the future. What the work under Sasobek II had done was reconstruct Horus to take the place of Isis and Sarapis, pushing the god as the most important god of Egypt, stressing his role as a protective deity and adopting concepts of salvation and a better world into the cult. Nothing there was strictly revolutionary save for, perhaps, the decision to formalise that in the guise of an actual central text.
However, the biggest stage in its development seems to have been oddly premeditated and came in the mid-30s under Amenhotep VII and Sasobek III. Traditionally, there have been a few theories as to what began the process of change regarding the Horus cult. One theory is that Amenhotep VII sought to formalise the cult and centralise it in a way that hadn't really existed before, trying to unify and centralise worship. This wouldn't be unprecedented in Egyptian history; remember that Sarapis had begun as something of a constructed god and even earlier pharaohs such as Akenhaten had (unsuccessfully) tried the same thing. Another possibility is that the ideas that became folded into the Horus cult were already emerging in some places, possibly through theological discussion in Memphis. A third is that the goal was to politicise and control the cult as a means to try and create it as a specifically international religion that could be utilised by Egypt for political ends.
Whatever the case, the cult of Horus began a process of three major changes. The first came in 36 when a priest of Horus tied to the court in Memphis published The Book of the God Horus. In effect, this book served really just to compile earlier writings on the cult of Horus including the Oracles of the Osirian God and the Words of the Osirian God, folding them into a single text. However, the book concluded with what amounts to a lengthy commentary on the nature and history of the Cult of Horus, arguing that the ultimate concern of the entire cult is that of succession. In effect, the idea is that Horus, as a protective god, represents the transition in the world, the continuation and maintenance of order as the world moves constantly forward. For simplicity's sake, the idea is that Osiris, murdered by Seth in some ancient time of gods, is the eternal 'former king' and that Harsomtus, Horus' son, is the eternal 'future king'. Horus is thus the eternal pharaoh whose job, as a god, is the protection of that transition across all of Egypt.
Thus, Horus knows the future and can relate the future to mortals for the purposes of protecting order and ensuring that the transition from past to present to future always maintains Maat (order) and expels Isfet (chaos). Every transition, then, is part of Horus' remit from birth to death. Other gods can exist in this framework but as subsidiaries to the will of the divine Pharaoh. It's a bit unclear at this stage whether or not the idea was that these gods are extensions of Horus' will or if they were seen as distinct entities. In some works, for instance, Anubis is presented as the form of Horus as he protects the spirit on its way to the afterlife. In others, Anubis is an individual god but his role and power are guided by Horus who controls and dictates all that happens.
At the same time, the text also made itself very clear on two points: Horus was also an oracular god who knew and could relate the future, and Horus was Amun. The latter point actually begins as something of a throwaway line when the author describes the Oracle at Siwa as:
What is important about these two points is that they built on existing ideas to construct and justify the nature of the Cult of Horus in its new form. Amun was not degraded or relegated, he was syncretised as had already happened. It's no coincidence that texts for decades after this deal with Horus as 'Horus-Amun', 'Horusamun' or, in one case, 'Horusrasamun', combining three gods into a single name. Thus, Horus was raised to a point of near omnipotence as a god; ruler of the future, present and past, an oracular deity, a god of sky and protection and war and sun. Everything else all came under Horus' remit anyway as he was either Pharaoh of the Gods or, in some cases, an omnipotent deity who controlled all these aspects anyway.
The important development upon this came with the work of Siamun, the Priest of Horus at Edfu after the reunification of Egypt in 42. Siamun effectively formalised aspects of the cult of Horus further, under his guidance the centre of the cult moved finally from Memphis back to the Ptolemaic-era site at Edfu. It was from here that the new Cult of Horus would change and spread across Egypt and then even further beyond. Sometime between 46 and 48, Siamun expounded on the ideas developed earlier in his own set of literary works. Well versed in Greek literature, and almost certainly from a Greco-Egyptian background, Siamun first agreed on the point that Horus and Zeus were the same god. Historically, Horus had been syncretised with Apollo and now that both could be seen as sun gods and oracular gods, it would have made sense.
However, in his list of the most important Horusian oracular sites, Siamun placed Siwa at the top, followed by Delphi and then Dodona. Basically, this appropriated the Greek sites; Delphi was associated with Apollo but he could be seen as just part of Horus' will or another god that serves Horus as divine Pharaoh. Dodona was already an oracular site for Zeus who was just another name for the same king of the gods, one who could also rule over the skies through his own elevation and syncretism with Amun. Siamun thus very carefully Hellenised the cult just enough. On one hand, the cult could now use either Egyptian or Greek temple precedents, drawing particularly on certain shared customs such as votives, sacred ground, temenos walls and so on, as well as existing names and identities but surrounding new ideas of salvation, personal growth, the protection of a universalised order and so on.
Finally, in 96, Archibius of Tanis published a new history of the world since its creation, building his upon the new ideas of the Cult of Horus and included within a 'sacred map', effectively marking what he thought to be the most important religious locations within the cult. Included were the tomb of Sarapis at Abydos (building on an idea floating around at the time that sought to reintegrate Isis and Sarapis into the cult, substituting Osiris and Apis for Sarapis but keeping the same ideas), the Temple of Horus at Edfu, the oracles at Dodona, Siwa and Delphi. Seeking to further integrate the Hellenistic world with the Egyptian, Archibius built upon the idea of sacred geography, effectively trying to develop the map of the world as it was and equate it to a shared heritage that could allow the cult to integrate other groups. In his view, the ancient kingdom of Horus had once covered the world, eventually descending to the Greek age of heroes of which the Homeric and earlier heroes were descendants.
At no point, however, did these ideas just freeze in place. Discussion and development continued long after these initial pushes and there was never really a unanimous or entirely accepted idea of the cult. While the cult of Horus and its sometimes rival cults of Isis and Sarapis would be integral to the Egyptian empire going forward, it could never really be centrally controlled in the way some might have hoped.
You've been spoiling us lately with all these updates, loving it. The rise of the cult of Horus is fascinating. While there's a lot of syncretism going on at the moment and even competition with the cults of Isis and Sarapis will we see a trend towards monolatry or monotheism down the track?
Last edited:
FInally catch up with your amazing work ! I'm realy curious what you will do with the gauls there is quite a lot that could appen in the "post roman world"
This reminds me that IIRC, we don't know what was happening in Palestine, and particularly with the Jewish and their cult of Yahweh either there or the Diaspora's communities. Especially given that I'd suppose that the Maccabean Revolt and/or their OTL success, would probably have been ITTL butterflied away.
I was wondering this as well, don't think we've seen any mention of disturbances caused by a certain baptist or carpenter either. Judaism was mostly monolatrist if not monotheistic by now right? IIRC the stories of the life of JC had some surface similarities to Horus'. Be interesting to see what happens in the Levant and Mesopotamia in general. Are the old Canaanite and Sumerian/Assyrian gods still worshiped worshiped in their homelands at all?
Last edited:
The Mesopotamian religions should still exist, IRL they were still practiced to a degree, though the region was heavily Hellenized, there was a short-lived revival of the Mesopotamian gods under the Parthians around this time, before it declined from Christianization.
Maps and Visual Aids:
I have only gone up to 74 BCE thus far because I am awful at map-making and these took longer than they should have. There are almost certainly a few mistakes in them; there are a lot of different ongoing 'plots' and despite my best efforts, I can't keep track of them all. I'm also pretty sure I misplaced Massalia.
The Mediterranean in c. 174 BCE on the eve of the Roman Democratic revolution.
The Barcid Empire (dark Green) is at its height, sprawling across much of Iberia, North Africa, Sardinia and Sicily. Its roots go even deeper, a political and trade empire built on growing influence that exploits varying privileges, alliances and useful networks to strengthen its position. The Seleucid Empire (Dark Grey) ruled by Antiochus III is close to its height, bearing down on the weakening Ptolemaic Dynasty and wrestling control over much of Alexander's domains. In Italy, the Italian League is ruled from Capua but held together not through loyalty so much as the constant political struggle of the Capuans and the support of the Barcids.
Macedonia has consolidated Greece under the able rule of Philip V despite setbacks in Ionia at the hands of Antiochus III and now looks to regain its empire abroad as a step towards consolidating Alexander's empire.
The Mediterranean in 139 BCE, after the collapse of the Barcid Empire.
With the defeat of the Barcids in the civil war with Carthage, the empire is now split in two and the power of the Barcid family has begun to rapidly retract. Still, their hold on Iberia remains and they will continue to dominate the peninsula for decades to come. In Italy, the Italian League has split into three smaller leagues now seemingly destined for conflict; Pisae, Rome and Capua now look to dominate the Italian peninsula. Macedon, having expanded further into Thrace and Illyria and having regained Ionia since the death of Philip V is met with the Seleucid EMpire at its height under Seleucus IV, having recently brought down the Ptolemies and established the Greek exclave at Alexandria. However, the rest of Egypt, while officially united under Ahmose III, is actually deeply split and will see almost ten years before it is fully reunited.
The Mediterranean in 74 BCE. Massalia has swung into power in the North, first under Eugenius and Jason and now under the democracy of Xanthippus and his successors. Carthage, also resurgent, is consolidating its position in Northern Africa even as Rome battles for its survival in Italy. The Three Italian Leagues are now long gone and the Germanic Cimbric and Teutonic kingdoms are supreme in Northern Italy. In Greece, Macedon has been driven back and is now divided in a civil war between Berenike and King Alexander. Opposed on either side, Athens and Rhodes seek to gain at Macedon, and each others', expense.
The Seleucid Empire has fallen on hard times; the political successors of Bridya's cabal battle with a coalition of ministers and state officials for control of the position of First Minister and the government as a whole. Much of Seleucus IV's empire is gone and Mesopotamia has only recently been restored to the fold after the Great Revolt aimed at corruption in the government of Seleukeia. To the South, Ahmose V is close to his death but rules over a powerful state reaching from Crete and Cyprus down to Nubia and Arabia. In the West, the powers are changing. The Barcid Kingdom retracts despite the official reunification of the kingdom and campaigns of Hamilcar I.
Note from the Author:The Barcid Empire (dark Green) is at its height, sprawling across much of Iberia, North Africa, Sardinia and Sicily. Its roots go even deeper, a political and trade empire built on growing influence that exploits varying privileges, alliances and useful networks to strengthen its position. The Seleucid Empire (Dark Grey) ruled by Antiochus III is close to its height, bearing down on the weakening Ptolemaic Dynasty and wrestling control over much of Alexander's domains. In Italy, the Italian League is ruled from Capua but held together not through loyalty so much as the constant political struggle of the Capuans and the support of the Barcids.
Macedonia has consolidated Greece under the able rule of Philip V despite setbacks in Ionia at the hands of Antiochus III and now looks to regain its empire abroad as a step towards consolidating Alexander's empire.
The Mediterranean in 139 BCE, after the collapse of the Barcid Empire.
With the defeat of the Barcids in the civil war with Carthage, the empire is now split in two and the power of the Barcid family has begun to rapidly retract. Still, their hold on Iberia remains and they will continue to dominate the peninsula for decades to come. In Italy, the Italian League has split into three smaller leagues now seemingly destined for conflict; Pisae, Rome and Capua now look to dominate the Italian peninsula. Macedon, having expanded further into Thrace and Illyria and having regained Ionia since the death of Philip V is met with the Seleucid EMpire at its height under Seleucus IV, having recently brought down the Ptolemies and established the Greek exclave at Alexandria. However, the rest of Egypt, while officially united under Ahmose III, is actually deeply split and will see almost ten years before it is fully reunited.
The Mediterranean in 74 BCE. Massalia has swung into power in the North, first under Eugenius and Jason and now under the democracy of Xanthippus and his successors. Carthage, also resurgent, is consolidating its position in Northern Africa even as Rome battles for its survival in Italy. The Three Italian Leagues are now long gone and the Germanic Cimbric and Teutonic kingdoms are supreme in Northern Italy. In Greece, Macedon has been driven back and is now divided in a civil war between Berenike and King Alexander. Opposed on either side, Athens and Rhodes seek to gain at Macedon, and each others', expense.
The Seleucid Empire has fallen on hard times; the political successors of Bridya's cabal battle with a coalition of ministers and state officials for control of the position of First Minister and the government as a whole. Much of Seleucus IV's empire is gone and Mesopotamia has only recently been restored to the fold after the Great Revolt aimed at corruption in the government of Seleukeia. To the South, Ahmose V is close to his death but rules over a powerful state reaching from Crete and Cyprus down to Nubia and Arabia. In the West, the powers are changing. The Barcid Kingdom retracts despite the official reunification of the kingdom and campaigns of Hamilcar I.
I have only gone up to 74 BCE thus far because I am awful at map-making and these took longer than they should have. There are almost certainly a few mistakes in them; there are a lot of different ongoing 'plots' and despite my best efforts, I can't keep track of them all. I'm also pretty sure I misplaced Massalia.
I think it's a real possibility; monotheism and certainly monolatry are not unknown concepts in Egyptian religion and I think there might be developments along the Isis/Sarapis and Horus routes towards versions of this. We can even see something of a version in the interpretation of the Horus cult ITTL as being possible a single god with various different forms.
I'm glad you're enjoying it! Honestly, I've kinda strayed away from Gaul thus far because it isn't my speciality but I do plan to eventually work up the courage to throw myself headlong into Gallic politics. At the moment though, I'm still trying to get everything caught up because Rome and Greece and the Seleucids and Massalia somewhat have been rather left in the middle of the 1st Century BCE while Rerkertis and Egypt have zoomed ahead.
All that said, I have some... exciting things planned.
I mean, the Maccabean Revolt of OTL almost certainly hasn't happened. ITTL, the Seleucid kings after Antiochus III have been rather more effective. I actually read an article recently arguing that the reason for Antiochus IV's actions in Jerusalem that caused the revolt may well have been a reaction to the increasing instability of the empire after their defeats due to Rome and the loss of huge amounts of territory as he sought to consolidate his position with brutal results. That said, I do have plans for Judaea. Ahmose IV conquered it in the early 1st Century BCE but since 74 BCE...?
Done! Somewhat, anyway. I'm really not much of a mapmaker.
The Mesopotamian religions certainly still exist. We know that OTL the temples were still in operation under the Seleucids who often made dedications in the style of Mesopotamian or Babylonian kings at various shrines. That said, as with many other religions, they've somewhat adapted to the cultural situation of the Seleucid Empire. I don't really like throwing around terms like 'Hellenisation' or 'Romanisation' without quite strong modifiers to talk about adaptation, negotiation etc. and how they were not these blind, apathetic processes but if we can say they existed at all, then they existed as cultural negotiations. But I digress; these cults and religions have certainly changed but they're still around.
Then we come to the Christianity question. The thing is, the elements as far as I can see are still somewhat in play for some analogy of Christianity to arise. It certainly will not be the same as OTL but the possibility is still there; Messianic ideas already existed in Judaism, idea of personal Salvation in the Isiac cult and, as Rooki mentioned, the possibility that some of the stories of Jesus were influenced by Egyptian precedents. Of course, a lot will come down to the exact political climate of Judaea. As of 74 BCE, the Ahmosian Empire is gone but the Egyptians have been active there under Pedubastis and some of the other Lower Egyptian Pharaohs. Now with the influence of the Horus cult and the possibility of a resurgent Egyptian empire? Who knows what the result might be.
Yea it's great ! I understand as someone who's realy intersted into the ancient celt and particularly the gauls (I'm a student in archéology btw) i can say that yes that's a big subject and I realy want one day to do a alternate history thing on them ! HYPE to see what's coming for this world! your stuff is quite inspiring ^^