In 192 B.C., Antiochos III embarked on his invasion of mainland Greece, hoping to take advantage of the withdrawal of the Roman garrison army. The ensuing war with Rome, Pergamon, and Rhodes led to a humiliating string of defeats, the loss of most of Asia Minor, and a crippling indemnity. At the same time, though, Egypt was in freefall. Middle and Upper Egypt were in open revolt against the Ptolemies, a child sat the throne, and in 201 B.C., Antiochos himself had inflicted a devastating defeat on the Egyptians at Panium, thereafter conquering Syria got good. Antiochos concluded a pact with Philip V of Macedon to partition the Ptolemaic empire. Hindsight is always 20/20, but why did Antiochos choose Asia Minor, Thrace, and Greece as his direction of conquest, instead of immediately taking over Egypt, probably the richest kingdom in the Mediterranean world? It doesn't seem to have presented a particular challenge after his crushing victory at Panium, and his son's campaigns in Egypt seemed pretty successful. Rome returned to the Greek East in 192 because of Rhodian and Pergamese fears of a world hegemon stirring; would Rome attempt to intervene again if Antiochos took possession of Egypt, and if so, how successful would they be?