With a PoD between 320 BCE and 30 BCE, have Ptolemaic Egypt estabilish control over the Levant, Syria, Cilicia, Crete and Cyprus, while possessing hegemony over Lybia and the greek city-states.
Go!
 
The control of Syria essentially went back in forth between them and the Seleucids during the Syrian Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Wars
Thanks, and a very informative! FWIG, it seems the Egyptians were at the peak of their power following the Third Syrian War (246-241), and even then it wasn't until the Fifth War (202-195) that this peak was seriously curbed. You could actually have a PoD in the Second Punic War, making sure that Rome doesn't come swooping in from the west, and you'd still have time to make the Ptlomemies the premier power in the eastern mediterranean.
 
OK, I think the OP wanted them to at least KEEP their gains for the great grandchildren of the guy who took Levant, Syria, Cillia, and Cyprus.

You don't even need Rome not swooping in from the West to stop it. Rome gave up trying to subdue the Caladonians in Ireland. The Ptlomeies could end up resisting Roman influence and Rome calling it quits after a a decade or so of Skirmish. One guy things this would be the result of a Rome vs Persia clash if Alexander took Dariu's offer of 1/4 of his Empire generations before.

If the Egyptians kept their boarders from the Third Syrian war without bankrupting themselves, a female Ptolemy and a Roman might have teamed up and Egypt might be a pseudo client state, but one with much power, autonomy, and an army a third the size of its ally. The Roman would have to be in control of Rome itself though. In OTL, Octavian kept Mark Anthony away from Rome and prevented him from raising replacements and funds, so he had Cleopatra help him with funding, but this fed into rumors he was a Cleopatra stooge, which eroded the morale of his troops and made desertion a problem.
 

Raunchel

Banned
It is difficult, but I think that it can be done. The most important is having some more capable people holding the throne later on, and not spending all of their energy on internal power struggles. So, let's say that Ptolemy III Euergetes lives a few years more. He was a much more capable king than his successor, who probably also gained the throne when he wasn't ready for it yet, letting him fall under the control of all the trouble at court, and greatly weakening the state. So, Euergetes could then make the preparations for the inevitable war with Antiochus III. Even if he isn't alive anymore at the time of the fourth Syrian war, he will have had more time to prepare his son, who was only in his early twenties when he gained the throne. In such situations, even a few years can make a massive difference. Or of course, he figures out that his eldest isn't that capable, and has him suffer an 'accident' so one of the other sons can take the throne.

Either way, a more capable Ptolemy IV would be better at managing the situation with the integration of the native Egyptians in the army, which would have prevented or lessened the split with Upper Egypt of 207. Furthermore, a more prepared king, with a stronger army, could have inflicted a greater defeat on Antiochus III, which makes keeping Syria far easier. If this king was ambitious, he could even more to take a few more buffer regions in that area. Greater internal stability combined with greater success on the field would make Egypt a far stronger state, and once the moment where the native Egyptians were only just regaining confidence has passed, the Ptolemies could end up with a more permanently stable internal state.

A more stable state could have prevented the shift in power from the nomarchs to the strategoi in governing the nomes, and have allowed for a weakening of the temples. Both of these would make for greater income, allowing Egypt to be stronger on the international scene as well. A state like this might be hard-pressed to keep some of the more far-flung territories, but could at the very least have had a stronger presence in the lands closer to Egypt, so Syria, Coele Syria, the Sinai, Libya, and the islands like Cyprus (absolutely vital). The Aegean would be harder, but it can be kept with the stronger presence in Asia Minor allowed by a stronger economy and internal stability. This would probably lead to a coalition being formed against them, as a too-strong Ptolemaic state would look very threatening to the other successors, but they also have other distractions to deal with.
 
Could 204 BCE work as a PoD -- either Ptlomey IV lives a little longer (preventing the need for a regency for his son), or his sister-wife Arsinoe avoids being assassinated (stabilizing said regency)? Now that I look into it, I'd say Arsinoe III securing the regency is the better PoD of the two, since she seems to be a more impressive figure in her own right than her debaucherous brother-husband.

So say you combine that with Carthage winning the Second Punic War (say Romans are devastated at Metaurus 207 BCE), so that Macedonia gets Roman possessions in the Illyria (these being among many other Roman losses we don't need to get into here); with the Seleucids still more or less cut off from the Mediterranean, they may well be vulnerable to being cut off from their Anatolian subjects should Cappadocia find it in their interest do so. In this kind of context, our more politically stable Ptolemaic government can get Phillip V of Macedon to go after these Seleucid holdings in Anatolia, instead of allying with the Seleucids to split Ptolemaic holdings. From there, Antiochus III just has to be distracted either trying to keep or retake Anatolia, or with another Parthian rebellion, or dying earlier than OTL, or what have you; point is, Egypt doesn't have to worry about the other two Diadochi Kingdoms or Rome for the time being, giving them time to consolidate their holdings.
 

Raunchel

Banned
Could 204 BCE work as a PoD -- either Ptlomey IV lives a little longer (preventing the need for a regency for his son), or his sister-wife Arsinoe avoids being assassinated (stabilizing said regency)? Now that I look into it, I'd say Arsinoe III securing the regency is the better PoD of the two, since she seems to be a more impressive figure in her own right than her debaucherous brother-husband.

So say you combine that with Carthage winning the Second Punic War (say Romans are devastated at Metaurus 207 BCE), so that Macedonia gets Roman possessions in the Illyria (these being among many other Roman losses we don't need to get into here); with the Seleucids still more or less cut off from the Mediterranean, they may well be vulnerable to being cut off from their Anatolian subjects should Cappadocia find it in their interest do so. In this kind of context, our more politically stable Ptolemaic government can get Phillip V of Macedon to go after these Seleucid holdings in Anatolia, instead of allying with the Seleucids to split Ptolemaic holdings. From there, Antiochus III just has to be distracted either trying to keep or retake Anatolia, or with another Parthian rebellion, or dying earlier than OTL, or what have you; point is, Egypt doesn't have to worry about the other two Diadochi Kingdoms or Rome for the time being, giving them time to consolidate their holdings.

It could work, but a surviving Ptolemy IV could work, but you really have to get rid of Sosibius and Agothocles (and other such figures). So, you really need a stronger Ptolemy IV. Raphia camouflages the weakness that he had started to allow to form. But perhaps you could have 204 work, where Arsinoe III wins the struggle in the regency, kills the overly powerful courtiers, and basically takes power for herself. As a regent, she could work to secure the regency yes, especially when no longer limited by her brother-husband's decadence. After all, she was the woman who put herself into danger on the battlefield, which almost seems to be a common thread in the Ptolemaic family, with the women being more capable.

The rest would definitely help, but the core is that you really need a more stable internal situation. With that provided by a strong and stable (I'm so sorry) regency from a powerful queen, you can get through the crises of this time. Ptolemy V living longer would also be a big advantage, but that might be helped by him inheriting a more stable kingdom from his mother. That way, you also avoid a second regency so soon. Those really didn't help the dynasty, but it might be hard to avoid because we don't know how he died, only that he wasn't old yet (about 28).
 
@Raunchel If we're going with Arsinoe III surviving and then doing better against the Seleucids, that likely means her son, Ptolemy V, doesn't marry the daughter of Antiochus III; so who is he likely to marry instead? I don't think he had a sister; maybe Phillip's daughter, Apame? Whoever he marries, if he has a son and a daughter born around the time Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II were born OTL, then it should be within the ability of Queen Arsinoe to live long enough to see her grandchildren reach the age of maturity (circa 170 BCE).
 

Raunchel

Banned
@Raunchel If we're going with Arsinoe III surviving and then doing better against the Seleucids, that likely means her son, Ptolemy V, doesn't marry the daughter of Antiochus III; so who is he likely to marry instead? I don't think he had a sister; maybe Phillip's daughter, Apame? Whoever he marries, if he has a son and a daughter born around the time Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II were born OTL, then it should be within the ability of Queen Arsinoe to live long enough to see her grandchildren reach the age of maturity (circa 170 BCE).

It's always difficult to say. It's not known if Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III had any more children, much simply isn't preserved, but Cleopatra Syra probably wouldn't be the right option, if only because a stronger Egypt wouldn't have a need for it. Apama always is a good option, or perhaps Eumenes II of Pergamon could have a suitable daughter, securing an alliance with this important city.
 
Top