WI: Independent Seleucid Egypt.

The main obstacle to all this would be the Roman's interest in Hellenistic politics. But if Rome was unable to intervene in Diadochi business for whatever reason, and Anticochus would have succeeded in taken Egypt in 200 BCE. Would Antiochus III be convinced to divvy up his empire among his sons, with perhaps the Antiochus the firstborn taking the OTL Seleucid dominions, while possibly Demetrius (who became a Roman hostage in OTL) taking the throne of Egypt?
 
Need more info here. Wouldn't an independent Egypt have been Plolemaic?

He just said Antiochus the Seleucid Emperor would have taken Ptolemeic Egypt in 200 BC (like was attempted) without Roman intervention.

To Lysandros, I think it is plausible certainly, although it seems more likely that Egypt would just become a part of the Greater Seleucid Macedonian Empire, who was at the forefront of recreating Alexander's Empire.
 
With the Seleucid Empire already large enough and difficult to administrate, either Antiochus III or his successor may wish to ease their own burden by just granting Egypt their own Basileus from within their own family. Better to have Egypt as a client-kingdom than another satrapy which the Syrian-based Seleucids would have to pay for its defence and administration.
 
With the Seleucid Empire already large enough and difficult to administrate, either Antiochus III or his successor may wish to ease their own burden by just granting Egypt their own Basileus from within their own family. Better to have Egypt as a client-kingdom than another satrapy which the Syrian-based Seleucids would have to pay for its defence and administration.


On the other hand, Egypt is so damn wealthy, it can pay for it's own defence many times over and still provide a profit. IMO, the Seleucids, should they take Egypt, would rather sacrifice the soon-to-fall eastern satrapies rather then give it up. I mean, I took them generations of bloody conflict to take the place, and now they would just give it up and be back to square 1 ? Because any ruler of Egypt will have enough force projection capabilities to threaten Syria and intervene in dynastic disputes, civil wars, launch invasions etc.

I think there are three possible ways to achieve an independent Seleucid Egypt in the short term:

1. A member of the Seleucid family takes control of Egypt during a period of instability, but fails to take over Syria and/or Mesopotamia

2. It results out of Roman intervention in internal Seleucid politics, maybe as part of a "divide et impera" policy

3. The Seleucid Empire loses most of its other possessions (Persia, Mesopotamia, what they have left of Anatolia, maybe even Syria) and shifts its focus to Egypt
 
Top