AHC/WI : Successful Egyptian revolts against Ptolemies

In the IInd and Ist centuries BCE, you had two (recorded) important native revolts against Ptolemaic rule, leaded by self-styled pharaohs : Herwennefer and Ankhmasis between -205 and -185 being the more successful contenders, taking the main part of Upper Egypt, and Harsiesi between -131 and -130.

How could these anti-Lagic pharahohs could stand their ground against Ptolemies and create a XXXIV Dynasty in Upper Egypt?
What would become of it? Could they became an eventual Roman client (possibly absorbated after awhile)? Could they even (even if I'm suspicious, giving the alliance Ptolemies had with Rome) take on Lower Egypt, allying with Lagid's foes?
 
I seem to recall reading about these revolts-I recall they had success in the rural areas and besieged the cities but they couldn't take them.

I also recall how the Egyptian priesthood would privately hope for the coming of Horus(or something to the effect of a native dynasty being restored)

So obviously the political base for the success of such a movement exists but they'd have to take the cities and drive out or kill the Greek elites and their foot soldiers.

And then they'd have to work out internal divisions amongst themselves.

Then they'd need to face the reality of the classical world.

If somehow they took Alexandria and the other major cities I'd expect retaliation from at least some of the Greek city states and maybe the Seleucids as well.

But I think they could do it, it would be hard and the aftermath would be challenging to meet and not falter but maybe a Pharaoh whose ancestors lived and died on the floodbanks of the Nile would sit on the throne in Thebes again...
 
Last edited:
Any idea why they couldn't take cities? I was under the impression that Upper Egypt cities weren't that well fortified?
 
Any idea why they couldn't take cities? I was under the impression that Upper Egypt cities weren't that well fortified?
Well they could always be supplied by sea I'd guess and Ptolemaic armies would hold off rebels pretty well.

Though I suppose they could have fallen.
 
Well they could always be supplied by sea I'd guess and Ptolemaic armies would hold off rebels pretty well.
Though I suppose they could have fallen.

Not enough public support in in urban areas, I imagine?

I think there's a confusion : I said Upper Egypt, the southern part of the country, where rebellions began and were apparently really popular up to the point being on the verge taking Thebes.
 
I think there's a confusion : I said Upper Egypt, the southern part of the country, where rebellions began and were apparently really popular up to the point being on the verge taking Thebes.
Right, what I was guessing was, while it was popular in the countryside, the rebellion may have had significantly less popularity in urban centers, even in Upper Egypt, to overcome Ptolemaic garrisons.
 
I think there's a confusion : I said Upper Egypt, the southern part of the country, where rebellions began and were apparently really popular up to the point being on the verge taking Thebes.
Well they weren't so successful I imagine in lower Egypt. And you'd have to get Alexandria in the Ptolemaic era.
 
Well they weren't so successful I imagine in lower Egypt. And you'd have to get Alexandria in the Ptolemaic era.
Which is why I wondered about anti-Lagid pharaohs being able to set up a state "and create a XXXIV Dynasty in Upper Egypt"? The question about being able or not to go for Lower Egypt was, for me, relatively secondary.
 
Which is why I wondered about anti-Lagid pharaohs being able to set up a state "and create a XXXIV Dynasty in Upper Egypt"? The question about being able or not to go for Lower Egypt was, for me, relatively secondary.
They'd never be secure unless they took Alexandria.
 
What made Ptolemaic Lower Egypt this strong? There's several occurences of separated kingdoms in Egyptian history : for instance, Hyksos Lower Egypt and native Upper Egypt.
Alexandria was the center of wealth and culture. A native dynasty in the south would fall unless they seized Alexandria
 
important native revolts against Ptolemaic rule, leaded by self-styled pharaohs : Herwennefer and Ankhmasis between -205 and -185 being the more successful contenders, taking the main part of Upper Egypt
The Hellenistic regime of the Lagids was military, organizationally and financially stronger than the Upper Egypt pharaohs.

So the only chance for them I see in Antiochus III the Great returning from his Eastern campaigns when he smelled Egyptian internal trouble somewhere in 205-200; and returning for good with Grand Army.
As Antiochus III the Great had his hands full in the East he might get allied with the pharaoh of Upper Egypt against the Egyptian territories controlled by the Lagids; so the allies invade the Lagid territories, loot, plunder and take as much contribution as possible.
Antiochus would probably take Caele-Syria and the Mediterranean possessions of the Ptolemies; but he would keep the rump Lagid state in the Low Egypt as a counterbalance to the Upper Egypt.

So Antiochus III the Great is going far away east again and the Upper Egypt might have their chance against severely weakened and demoralized Low Egypt; if they play their cards well they can conquer all Egypt and unite it. If the non-Lagid Egypt doesn't threaten the Seleucids territories in Syria and in the Mediterranean, they might get away with it.

That would be "pure" Egypt without too many non-Egyptian territories; but when Antiochus III is defeated by the Romans, Egypt might take their chance and take Syria, the traditional sphere of influence of Egypt. Everything else depends on the character of the new native Egyptian regime - they might conquer as much as they want to the South of Egypt without disturbing their Mediterranean neighbors, especially Rome. They have free hands in the Red sea, Southern Arabia and African coast - that might become a nice Egyptian Empire, the Lagids were too preoccupied in the Mediterranean and neglected these definitely promising directions of expansion.

If new native Egypt is good in his conquests, strong financially, controlling Red sea and trade with India/Arabia, Egypt might become a force to be reckoned with. As opposed to the decadent Ptolemies, this Egypt would have much more recruiting pool - all ingenious Egyptians, not only 7% of "Hellenic population".

Together with Parthia Egypt might become a problem for Rome instead of an easy prey.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would be the cultural outlook of this new native regime? After all Egypt had been under foreign dominion in some form or another for centuries, having a return to indigenous rule seems like it would change the outlook and affect the psyche of the Egyptian people greatly.

Would a native Egypt grasp the realities of the classical world? Would they be able to engage in statecraft with the best of the Mediterranean?

The resurgence of Egyptian identity in this era I think would have very important consequences-Egypt in OTL was under foreign dominion from the seventh century BC until well after the Arab conquest.

In this timeline the Egyptians will have spent nearly 700 years under foreign rule.

The affect this would have on how they perceived themselves, the world around them, and their religion id think would be incalculable
 
I wonder what would be the cultural outlook of this new native regime? After all Egypt had been under foreign dominion in some form or another for centuries, having a return to indigenous rule seems like it would change the outlook and affect the psyche of the Egyptian people greatly.

Would a native Egypt grasp the realities of the classical world? Would they be able to engage in statecraft with the best of the Mediterranean?

The resurgence of Egyptian identity in this era I think would have very important consequences-Egypt in OTL was under foreign dominion from the seventh century BC until well after the Arab conquest.

In this timeline the Egyptians will have spent nearly 700 years under foreign rule.

The affect this would have on how they perceived themselves, the world around them, and their religion id think would be incalculable
incalculable?
I don't know...
We might look at the contemporary analogues, similar situations:

When the Parthians kicked out the Seleucids first they themselves and other indigenous non-Greek populations (Iranians and non-Iranians) were heavily Hellenized and they stayed that way for decades. But then step by step the process of de-Hellenization started and in a century or so the entity returned to the old ways to the old identities with a slight touch of Hellenization left.

I would expect the same pattern of cultural and civilizational development in native non-Greek Egypt. Even faster and harder, as there had been some preconditions, background for it - Egyptian eschatological literature with a public incitement to "push the alien Greeks into the Sea".
If the Egyptians had enough time for that, if they were not conquered by Rome, which would have brought its own civilisational patterns.
 
Last edited:
incalculable?
I don't know...
We might look at the temporary analogues, similar situations:

When the Parthians kicked out the Seleucids first they themselves and other ingenious non-Greek populations (Iranians and non-Iranians) were heavily Hellenized and they stayed that way for decades. But then step by step the process of de-Hellenization started and in a century or so the entity returned to the old ways to the old identities with a slight touch of Hellenization left.

I would expect the same pattern of cultural and civilizational development in native non-Greek Egypt. Even faster and harder, as there had been some preconditions, background for it - Egyptian eschatological literature with a public incitement to "push the alien Greeks into the Sea".
If the Egyptians had enough time for that, if they were not conquered by Rome, which would have brought its own civilisational patterns.
they'd been under foreign rule far longer and much more grievously than Parthian and Persian identity was not near as strong as Egyptian.
 
I wonder what would be the cultural outlook of this new native regime? After all Egypt had been under foreign dominion in some form or another for centuries, having a return to indigenous rule seems like it would change the outlook and affect the psyche of the Egyptian people greatly.

Would a native Egypt grasp the realities of the classical world? Would they be able to engage in statecraft with the best of the Mediterranean?

The resurgence of Egyptian identity in this era I think would have very important consequences-Egypt in OTL was under foreign dominion from the seventh century BC until well after the Arab conquest.

In this timeline the Egyptians will have spent nearly 700 years under foreign rule.

The affect this would have on how they perceived themselves, the world around them, and their religion id think would be incalculable

they'd been under foreign rule far longer and much more grievously than Parthian and Persian identity was not near as strong as Egyptian.

It helps the Ptolemy Family was already undergoing their own Egyptization with Ptolemy III, but then again, it won't make too much of a difference giving when a native Egypt comes back.

Ptolemaic Kingdom's navy was, for a time, one of the strongest in the Mediterranean. Have Free Egypt keep this, and will be a large help in keeping Rome away with any funny ideas.

Save the Library of Alexandria, and the world will love you forever.

Maybe ask NikoZnate. Egypt is his thing. In fact, he said a few things close to the matter.


Generally the Greeks kept to themselves, and that's the way the Egyptians liked it. Greeks (especially during the Ptolemaic period) readily adopted many Egyptians gods (or fused them with their own) and some religious customs, and Egyptian religion had a profound effect on the developments of some branches of Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, but that was generally the extent of the assimilation. Really, Greek culture ended up having a more visible effect on the Egyptians, leading to the development of Coptic culture. When Greek/Greco-Roman rule over Egypt was broken (basically, after the Arab invasions) this cohabitant arrangement broke down and many Greeks likely assimilated into the Coptic (and later Arab-Egyptian) communities.

If Greek rule over Egypt persists, the pre-Islamic dynamic will likely continue. If native Egyptian rule is restored (say, as a result of Horwennefer and Ankhwennefer's rebellion), I could see it going two ways - the Greeks remain a distinct community, but absorb a bit more Egyptian cultural influences; or, the bulk of the Greek community is assimilated into a Greek-inflected Egyptian cultures. Either way, Greeks will probably still be coming to Egypt to settle as merchants, mercenaries, or scholars, and will continue to be a distinct part of the social fabric.
 
Polybius connects the rebellion of Ankhmasis and Hugronaphor to an emboldened native egyptian spirit after native-born troops under Ptolemy IV contributed to the defeat of Antiochus III at the Battle of Raphia (217 BCE).
I postulate that an opposite outcome in the battle could still lead to a similar result: the ptolemaic dynasty loses prestige and the native egyptians, supported by Antiochus III, revolt.
 
Top