United Seleucid-Egyptian Kingdom

The scenario I came up with starts with Ptolemy V. OTL he marries Cleopatra I, daughter of Antiochus the Great, and has two sons and one daughter, who end up screwing up the entire dynasty. But what if he just had one daughter by Cleopatra I? Let's call her Cleopatra II, because I'm not creative.

I was thinking Ptolemy V dies on time, five years after his daughter's birth. Cleopatra I and II ascend to the throne. Of course Cleopatra II is too young to actually rule, so her mother does all the actual politics. Cleopatra I arranges a marriage between her daughter and her nephew Demetrius, the eldest son and heir apparent of King Seleucus IV, King of the Seleucid Empire.

The arrangement is made, and Demetrius is sent to Egypt instead of Rome OTL, and in his place they send Antiochus, the younger son of the king (let's just I have stuff in store for him;))

Cleopatra I dies in 176BC, and Cleopatra II is the sole ruler of Egypt at ten years old. A year later, Seleucus is killed and Demetrius, backed by Egypt, is crowned as King of Syria, under the regentship of Mithradates (his uncle and OTL King Antiochus IV). Demetrius is married to Cleopatra, uniting the two kingdoms for the first time since the time of Alexander the Average.

And they live happily ever after!

Just kidding!

I just can't reveal that yet...

So what do you think? Is it plausible? When I have time I'll make it a TL, so I wanna know what you guys think.
 

Toraach

Banned
The Romans wouldn't allow that. Just like they didn't allo Anthiochus IV to conquer Egypt, or like later civil wars in the Seleucid Kingdom happened by their inspiration.
 
Interesting idea it seems like a plausible enough development to me. Though as Toraach said Rome would be opposed to their Egyptian friends being absorbed and I imagine their would be plenty of internal revolts as well. Another scenario I have been contemplating is where Ptolemy III tries to take over the Seleucid Empire by force of arms, in OTL he managed to enter Antioch and Babylon. Not sure if this would be easier to accomplish.
 
The Romans wouldn't allow that. Just like they didn't allo Anthiochus IV to conquer Egypt, or like later civil wars in the Seleucid Kingdom happened by their inspiration.

Good point, but Rome just wants grain and goods from Egypt, with a friendly king that won't threaten Rome. Plus, Rome doesn't have to fund wars between Egypt and Syria. They'll also have access to eastern goods.

Interesting idea it seems like a plausible enough development to me. Though as Toraach said Rome would be opposed to their Egyptian friends being absorbed and I imagine their would be plenty of internal revolts as well. Another scenario I have been contemplating is where Ptolemy III tries to take over the Seleucid Empire by force of arms, in OTL he managed to enter Antioch and Babylon. Not sure if this would be easier to accomplish.

Ptolemy III could not have conquered the Seleucid Empire. He was a B+ general at the most, and his campaign for Syria was just your average "plunder, pillage, and get a huge amount of tribute so we can leave loaded". Plus, famine struck Egypt during his campaign and the Nile didn't flood that year. Humans have a tendency to die when there is no food. But if you can butterfly that away, he might be able to conquer Syria. But holding it? That's a whole other problem.
 
Top