Confusion : Why was Egypt ruled by outside forces for so long?

Yet another video-game inspired thread! (Hurrah!)

I'm quite curious as to why, despite being repeatedly conquered after the invasion of Egypt by Persia - that Egypt was never ruled by an obviously home-grown establishment till the modern day.

Am I missing an important piece of history here? Or is there a PoD where this could happen?
 
Yet another video-game inspired thread! (Hurrah!)

I'm quite curious as to why, despite being repeatedly conquered after the invasion of Egypt by Persia - that Egypt was never ruled by an obviously home-grown establishment till the modern day.

Am I missing an important piece of history here? Or is there a PoD where this could happen?

There was a rebellion against the Ptolemaic dynasty early, and I think there was a thread that focused on it.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...volts-against-ptolemies.426050/#post-15622398

Although you do have a question what does it mean to be Egyptian after the Roman conquest of Egypt.
 
Because the height of Egypt was the New Kingdom, centuries before. It had been in a gradual decline since then. From the mid-1st millennium on, a succession of rising powers - Persia, Macedonia, Rome - ensured that there was never an opportunity for a native dynasty to assert itself.
 
I guess it depends on how you picture it, if we count Italians as outside invaders of whatever people were before them, then there has been no home-grown establishment in Italy since the Etruscans.
 
I guess it depends on how you picture it, if we count Italians as outside invaders of whatever people were before them, then there has been no home-grown establishment in Italy since the Etruscans.

Very debatable, as the Etruscan language may have come from Anatolia.
 
De to think of it, it is a bit odd how much rulers tried to separate themselves from the ruled. Such as the Ptolemaic dynasty keeping it to the family and trying to always stay Greek, while the Mamelukes kept replenishing their money from recruits and slaves from the Caucasus due to looking down upon childbirth. Odd thing. Still, these thighs happen when you have a valuable area everyone wants. Guess there was no local noble house worth marrying into.
 
Very debatable, as the Etruscan language may have come from Anatolia.
I guess my example wasn't that good, but what I mean is basically that even if a lot of Islamic and pre-Islamic dynasties came from outside Egypt, ultimately Egypt ended up being the center of such powers, for example Mameluks, Fatimids, M.Ali Pasha of Egypt, Ptolemy etc.
 
Very debatable, as the Etruscan language may have come from Anatolia.
The letters, perhaps, but it would have been from the Greeks there. Anyways, far too little is known on the origins and lives of the Etruscans. Guessing they just melded into the Romans as time went on.
 
The letters, perhaps, but it would have been from the Greeks there. Anyways, far too little is known on the origins and lives of the Etruscans. Guessing they just melded into the Romans as time went on.

What would have been from the Greeks?

Several major Roman families prided themselves on their Etruscan origins into the imperial era, so that is true.
 
I'm quite curious as to why, despite being repeatedly conquered after the invasion of Egypt by Persia - that Egypt was never ruled by an obviously home-grown establishment till the modern day.
It's mostly due to how valuable Egypt was in a pre industrial world. The Nile is extremely fertile and can pretty much be the sole breadbasket of a Middle Eastern Empire.

Also I don't really know if it's true that Egypt wasn't "ruled by an obviously home grown establishment till the modern day". I mean wouldn't one be able to make an argument that the Ayyubid Sultanate and Mamluk Sultanate were Egyptian? At the very least early on.

There was also no strong Egyptian identity in the centuries following the Roman conquest. What was an Egyptian really? Greek, Coptic, Nubian, Pagan, Arab, Roman? There was no real answer.

There were some revolts as mentioned during the Ptolemaic period, one during the reign of Emperor Antonius Pius and and quite a few during the early Arab rule (mostly due to heavy taxes, although Arabs/Muslims would also take part in these rebellions). However for most Egyptians Arab rule wasn't really seen as a major change early on. The Arabs allowed Egyptians to be administrators early on, so most Egyptians probably wouldn't have even met any Muslim Arabs early on.
 
It's mostly due to how valuable Egypt was in a pre industrial world. The Nile is extremely fertile and can pretty much be the sole breadbasket of a Middle Eastern Empire.

Also I don't really know if it's true that Egypt wasn't "ruled by an obviously home grown establishment till the modern day". I mean wouldn't one be able to make an argument that the Ayyubid Sultanate and Mamluk Sultanate were Egyptian? At the very least early on.

There was also no strong Egyptian identity in the centuries following the Roman conquest. What was an Egyptian really? Greek, Coptic, Nubian, Pagan, Arab, Roman? There was no real answer.

There were some revolts as mentioned during the Ptolemaic period, one during the reign of Emperor Antonius Pius and and quite a few during the early Arab rule (mostly due to heavy taxes, although Arabs/Muslims would also take part in these rebellions). However for most Egyptians Arab rule wasn't really seen as a major change early on. The Arabs allowed Egyptians to be administrators early on, so most Egyptians probably wouldn't have even met any Muslim Arabs early on.

There could be an argument, but for the sake of the thread, lets work as if they weren't.

Thing is, despite its incredible fertility it wasn't able to expand. Now, post Alexander and Persia, it was because it was occupied and surrounded by other groups. But I'd be very curious to see a Post-Ptolemaic Egypt. Perhaps via some sort of revolt that captures Alexandria. Or sooner, an Egyptian revolt on Alexanders death, with Ptolemy instead taking the Levant and Selucius lands further east (there is an ignorance of that period there I feel.)

An alliance between a Free Egypt and a Ptolemaic Syria could be interesting - especially if Egypt modernises its armies via the Macedonian model and adapts to others as well. Its own interests would lead to avoiding as many of the wars it was involved in IOTL, instead selling to the various Greek powers - and perhaps being able to see the politics of the Greater Mediterranean. A Free Egypt as a trading power could well make the move to take advantage of the Punic Wars - allying with Rome, and taking Carthage, and its trade routes, for their own. Perhaps later even adapting to the Roman model of war.

I'll admit, I'm quite enchanted by the idea of a Pharonic refounding of Alexandria, and an overseas Empire of city states trading. It'd be a completely different Med.
 
It seems more like a Middle East thing(in this case limited to Egypt, Levant and Mesopotamia), this region as effectively experience a series of foreign domination starting from the Persians, then Greeks, then Romans and Parthians, the Greeko-Romans and Sassanids and then Arabs for a good while. Maybe someone can make an argument about why it happened but to me this series of event doesn't exactly need explanation as it could mostly coincidental.
 
To expand Gloss's point, there is the argument that perception has an impact on how we view one region versus another region of the world. Egypt has a place in Western education and culture. For those from the United States, whatever we know about Egypt is far more than we know any other region in the Middle East or North Africa; yet alone any of the other cradles of civilization. Each and every one of the locations have experienced long extended foreign administration, but due to the lack of exposure far less is known.
 
I wonder if you could have seen an Independent Egypt if Empire had survived longer? Or if not Independent, but Egyptian-Ruled Egypt. Alexander was seemingly a fan of merging the Persians and Greeks - it doesn't stretch the mind to think that he'd try to do the same in Egypt, or have Egyptian-populated armies.

If the Alexandrian Empire fell apart one or two generations in, once Egyptians had started to form a major part of an African Corps, then I could see that happening - with an Egyptian Commander becoming Pharaoh.
 
Come to think of it, Egypt has had civilization for... four thousand years? Read somewhere that Cleopatra was closer to out time than to when the Great Pyramids were built. Anyways, I am sure that counting ancient times would tip the scale for domestic ruler ship.
 
Come to think of it, Egypt has had civilization for... four thousand years? Read somewhere that Cleopatra was closer to out time than to when the Great Pyramids were built. Anyways, I am sure that counting ancient times would tip the scale for domestic ruler ship.

Undoubtably. But still, it'd be great to see a multi-polar Med with Greece, Rome, Egypt and Carthage all in balance.
 
Top