AHC/WI: Stronger Ptolemaic Egypt

From what I could gather from searching in this forum about the topic and research I've done myself, I think that the best POD would be to have either Ptolemy I or II start to use native Egyptians in phalanxes, giving the early Ptolemies much more manpower to use. Having Cilles win the Battle of Myus by avoiding the ambush and then defeating Demetrius could also work with the other POD, as IMO it would give Egypt short-term control of Cilicia and long-term of Syria. Avoiding the whole inbreeding thing is also good.

In any case I'd like to hear your thoughts about this and also other PODs which would lead to a stronger Ptolemaic Egypt.
 
Some ideas that come to mind...

Have Ptolemy III refuse to let the army atrophy and the local manpower dwindle following his ephemeral victories in Asia Minor and Greece.

Have Magas succeed Ptolemy III

Have Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V live longer and avoid leaving children on the throne and nasty regencies.

Have Ptolemy VI Philometor execute his brother Physcon when he captures him after a Roman funded rebellion on Cyprus.

I think Ptolemy VI Philometor dying on campaign and leaving a child heir and his bother alive was the point of no return. Ptolemy VI Philometor was at the pinnacle of his power when he marched his army into Syria to support his daughter and her husband Alexander Balas, the Seleucid pretender he had propped up on the throne. Due to intrigue, when he arrived in Antioch, he decided to support the rightful Seleucid heir Demetrius II instead but the Antiochean did not want either Alexander or Demetrius as king and offered the crown to Philometor, who’s mother was a Seleucid princess. He wisely turned it down preferring to rule via proxy through a puppet, most likely to prevent any immediate Roman interference. Philometor then proceeded to defeat Alexander but died due to injury from battle. Demetrius became king of Syria and Philometors brother Physcon became king of Egypt and both empires continued to decline. Historical sources portray him as a just ruler and administrator and he led his own army. Philometor also had a history of blatantly ignoring Roman demands regarding his brother and other pro Roman policies despite knowing what happened to Antiochus the great and Antiochus Epiphanes.

Say what you want about Physcon as a person but dispite his civil wars with his sister/wife the dynasty really didn’t start to decline anymore then it had already under Ptolemy V regency until after his death and the seeds of the civil war he planted between his niece/wife and two sons started to blossom and the empire fractured...
 
Last edited:
From what I could gather from searching in this forum about the topic and research I've done myself, I think that the best POD would be to have either Ptolemy I or II start to use native Egyptians in phalanxes, giving the early Ptolemies much more manpower to use. Having Cilles win the Battle of Myus by avoiding the ambush and then defeating Demetrius could also work with the other POD, as IMO it would give Egypt short-term control of Cilicia and long-term of Syria. Avoiding the whole inbreeding thing is also good.

In any case I'd like to hear your thoughts about this and also other PODs which would lead to a stronger Ptolemaic Egypt.
This is exactly was Ptolemy IV tried at Raphia and it lead to a revolt in Upper Egypt for 20 years. Conscripting natives while retaining the political and military power in the hands of the Greeks is not going to end well.
 
This is exactly was Ptolemy IV tried at Raphia and it lead to a revolt in Upper Egypt for 20 years. Conscripting natives while retaining the political and military power in the hands of the Greeks is not going to end well.
Yeah but at the time of Ptolemy I and II the Egyptians didn't see them as bad rulers. The Ptolemies could also use the "liberator" card as Alexander was very much seen as one. That isn't to say there won't be rebellions, but they will have nowhere near the amount of support the one from 207-186 had.
 
Yeah but at the time of Ptolemy I and II the Egyptians didn't see them as bad rulers. The Ptolemies could also use the "liberator" card as Alexander was very much seen as one. That isn't to say there won't be rebellions, but they will have nowhere near the amount of support the one from 207-186 had.
Even if they use native Egyptians earlier, Hellenistic troops of Greek/Macedonian culture would still be preferred, as the Ptolemies were still a Macedonian successor state, that based a not insignificant amount of their power on such troops.
 
Anyway, I think Ptolemy III Eugertes not retreating from his campaign against the Seleucids and pressing onward would be enough. Maybe he manages to take Antioch in this situation?
 
The situation would be likely worse not better.
The quality of the monarchs should at least be better.I don’t see how it would be worse.The competence and wellbeing of the monarch should be the most important thing in any monarchy with actual power.
 
Last edited:
The quality of the monarchs should at least be better.I don’t see how it would be worse.The competence and wellbeing of the monarch should be the most important thing in any monarchy with actual power.
But the Ptolemaic's troubles do NOT originated there and not marrying in the family would open another can of worms.
 
But the Ptolemaic's troubles do NOT originated there and not marrying in the family would open another can of worms.
If the Ptolemies are able to produce competent monarchs on a more consistent level,such monarchs could have likely handled such problems.We talk about ways the Ptolemies could have made their kingdom stronger, but if they lack the competence and genius to plan and execute such plans, it‘s all for nothing.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree, if they didnt have the massive amount of incest theres alot better chance of the ptolemys siring stronger kings, however thats not the only problem, you have to stop the power of their advisors, if the successors of the Ptolemys stopped being kids then we could have seen strong willed kings doing what was best for the kingdom instead of the kings and queens being pandered and overuled by advisors who would just murder them if they disagreed.
 
If the Ptolemies are able to produce competent monarchs on a more consistent level,such monarchs could have likely handled such problems.We talk about ways the Ptolemies could have made their kingdom stronger, but if they lack the competence and genius to plan and execute such plans, it‘s all for nothing.
The local Egyptians will be unhappy at this... The incest also permitted a level of continuity as the XXXII Dynasty of Egypt, a divine lineage which requires no other bloodline for which to maintain itself. Heights of the Bronze Age New Kingdom, saw kings borne from extreme incest, yet it did not cause issues beyond what the state could care for.
 
The local Egyptians will be unhappy at this... The incest also permitted a level of continuity as the XXXII Dynasty of Egypt, a divine lineage which requires no other bloodline for which to maintain itself. Heights of the Bronze Age New Kingdom, saw kings borne from extreme incest, yet it did not cause issues beyond what the state could care for.
I don't see what the relevance of the latter point is, since post-Alexander Egypt is not in the Bronze Age any more and is facing a different strategic and geopolitical landscape than the New Kingdom did. To use a slightly later example, there's a reason that the Romans abandoned the structures and ideals set up by Augustus to form the Dominate, and it's because those structures and ideals, while suitable for the age of Augustus himself, were no longer conducive to Rome's survival and stability. Likewise, the fact that incest might not have been a serious problem for Egypt in the New Kingdom era does not mean that it could not be a problem in the Hellenistic period.
 
The local Egyptians will be unhappy at this... The incest also permitted a level of continuity as the XXXII Dynasty of Egypt, a divine lineage which requires no other bloodline for which to maintain itself. Heights of the Bronze Age New Kingdom, saw kings borne from extreme incest, yet it did not cause issues beyond what the state could care for.

I guess with the heigth of the New Kingdom you mean the 18th and 19th dynasty? Apart from Kamose, Ahmose I and Amenhotep I(who are technically part of the 17th dynasty), who were all offspring of a brother-sister marriage afterwards it seems if a sibling marriage took place it was more ceremonial than anything, in emulation of the gods themselves. From Thutmose I (who himself was unrelated to his predecessor Amenhotep I) onwards heirs were mostly born of minor wives unrelated to the royal family. The Ptolemaic dynasty really emphasized the purity of the bloodline much more than any preceding dynasty, perhaps in an effort to appear authentic to the native Egyptians.
 
Last edited:
Have Ptolemy VI Philometor execute his brother Physcon when he captures him after a Roman funded rebellion on Cyprus.
Yep, that was a massive facepalm moment for me, every time I read about it in any book covering the Ptolemaic period.

Considering incest and the locals position on it, yes they had to be seen as a divine dynasty, BUT there is a big but: even at the heights of Egyptian power, there were attempts to marry off "spare" children to other powers of the region. The most famous case was two Hittite princesses being sent to marry Ramesses II (the better known one took an Egyptian name of Maathorneferure). And the other way around, before that, in late 18th dynasty, a Hittite prince Zannanza almost became a pharaoh, but died en route before he could marry Ankhesenamun. So yes, there is a way to both be seen as a divine dynasty and to forge alliances and introduce (some) fresh blood into the bloodline.
 
Yep, that was a massive facepalm moment for me, every time I read about it in any book covering the Ptolemaic period.

Considering incest and the locals position on it, yes they had to be seen as a divine dynasty, BUT there is a big but: even at the heights of Egyptian power, there were attempts to marry off "spare" children to other powers of the region. The most famous case was two Hittite princesses being sent to marry Ramesses II (the better known one took an Egyptian name of Maathorneferure). And the other way around, before that, in late 18th dynasty, a Hittite prince Zannanza almost became a pharaoh, but died en route before he could marry Ankhesenamun. So yes, there is a way to both be seen as a divine dynasty and to forge alliances and introduce (some) fresh blood into the bloodline.
The Hittite princesses were sent in Egypt to be secondary wives (who was quite used at that time) and Ankhesenamun was pretty desperate in the moment in which she asked to the King of Hatti to sent one of his sons to her
 
The Hittite princesses were sent in Egypt to be secondary wives (who was quite used at that time) and Ankhesenamun was pretty desperate in the moment in which she asked to the King of Hatti to sent one of his sons to her
Yes and yes, but it means "keeping the bloodline pure" was never an all or nothing thing.
 
Yes and yes, but it means "keeping the bloodline pure" was never an all or nothing thing.
Well to me looked who in Egypt was more “the link to power pass thought females” than “keeping the bloodline pure” as most of the Pharaohs married sisters, daughters or nieces
 
Top