Ptolemaic dynasty without Roman interventions

Aren't the Seleukids going to have to deal with the Parthians eventually? Wouldn't Parthian invasions direct Seleukid attentions elsewhere and give the Ptolemies some breathing room (assuming they can hold out that long)?
 
Aren't the Seleukids going to have to deal with the Parthians eventually? Wouldn't Parthian invasions direct Seleukid attentions elsewhere and give the Ptolemies some breathing room (assuming they can hold out that long)?

The Seleucids were not doing terribly bad against the Parthians. Even in the 130's they managed to continue scoring some victories over them. The problem was the Romans. The defeat at Magnesia was devastating and made the Seleukids terrified of the Romans. Antiochos' whole army was destroyed and he couldn't replace it right away.

IIRC, the Seleukids became so terrified of the Romans that when they later had a chance to march into Egypt, it only took the threat of a Roman intervention to stop them. Anyway, with the riches of Egypt in their hand, they'd be much more able to deal with the Parthians which weren't that big a problem in their own right as long as the Romans are kept at bay.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
A couple scenarios come to mind. Have the first punic war end in some kind of stalemate with Sicily partitioned, therefore keeping Rome's focus on Sicily longer and dragging out the Punic Wars.

Or have Antiochos not manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at Magnesia. That would keep Rome out of the affairs of the eastern med. to prevent them from seriously interfering in Egyptian affairs.

Victory at Magnesia would only count for so long, this is the same nation that came back from catastrophe at Cannae. So if Rome where to lose at Magnesia it it's effects could just be short-term and only makes Rome more focused to humble the Seleucids.

For Rome to stay entirely out of Eastern Mediterranean affairs they would need some sort of rival/deterrent in the Western Mediterranean. Your first scenario seems likely or perhaps Rome puts more focus on completing the conquest of Spain and defending against Gaul.
 
Victory at Magnesia would only count for so long, this is the same nation that came back from catastrophe at Cannae. So if Rome where to lose at Magnesia it it's effects could just be short-term and only makes Rome more focused to humble the Seleucids.

For Rome to stay entirely out of Eastern Mediterranean affairs they would need some sort of rival/deterrent in the Western Mediterranean. Your first scenario seems likely or perhaps Rome puts more focus on completing the conquest of Spain and defending against Gaul.

Victory at Magnesia should leave the Seleucids with enough breathing space to be able to successfully take Egypt. That's why it's so important.
 
Why would they when they can conquer them? The Syrian wars were practically a never ending conflict.

Rome not being a factor as Ptolemaic Egypt's guardian gives the Seleucids a good chance to conquer the Egyptians. I can see it now: Antiochus IV Epiphanes crowned as the first Pharaoh of the 34th dynasty in the palace with his troops marching victoriously through the streets of Alexandria. And a native Egyptian courtier gives Seleucus the head of Ptolemy. :D
 

katchen

Banned
Without a Roman Empire, there's every chance that Carthage might have taken over Egypt. Carthage certainly would have wanted Egypt for it's trade routes to the Red Sea.
 
Top