Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
At one point Harmachis and Ankmachis had reconquered up to eighty percent of the Egyptian countryside at the height of the uprising against the Ptolemies. What if they did succeed and expel them from the country.
Another damn plausibility check: An Ancient Egypt revival
- Thread starter Cuāuhtemōc
- Start date
At one point Harmachis and Ankmachis had reconquered up to eighty percent of the Egyptian countryside at the height of the uprising against the Ptolemies. What if they did succeed and expel them from the country.
They would need to take the major cities. Alexandria, Memphis, and Cyrene and Thebes. If they can't do that, they don't stand a chance
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Cyrene (it was never really within the historical orbit of Egypt in the first place so it may be ignored) and Alexandria may be very difficult. Thebes and Memphis seem easy enough to take. Plus the rebelling Egyptians under Harmachis had the experience of fighting alongside Ptolemy IV Philopator in his campaign against the Seleucids so it's not like they didn't know how to manuever around the Macedonian phalanx. I think they can pretty much win.
I believe Thebes was already under Hugronaphid control (and if it wasn't, it wouldn't be too hard to capture - Thebes has a much larger Egyptian population, and has a lot of history and prestige as a "free" city, etc.), and Memphis was at least on the cusp of falling. Cyrene isn't important really... (as another idea, maybe the Ptolemies hike out there for a while if Egypt falls...) so really Alexandria is the target. Alexandria's takable too; but it's going to be more difficult. Probably need a losing war, dynastic crisis... some sort of legislature like the one that made Egyptians recruitable into the army... something like that that can get Egyptians really mobilized and nationalistic (or maybe just more anti-Greek/Ptolemaic). Or get an Egyptian born minister to take power in a coup, that could work too. It (not the coup, the other stuff) was pretty close to happening IOTL, Rome intervened to stop the Seleucids from putting a finishing blow on the Ptolemies during this time period, and there was a lot of problems with the transition from Ptolemy IV to Ptolemy V with a bunch of the nobles and ministers wanting to take power via the regency.
What happens afterwards... I could see the Seleucids intervening in full force, and conquering it... either annexing it directly or splitting the (Seleucid) kingdom up. After all, that's what the Seleucids had been trying to do for a century. Whichever route the Seleucids would take if this were to happen, the Basileus would have to ensure that the Egyptians saw him as a liberator rather then another Greek, and would probably have to adopt a lot of Egyptian customs. If the ruling Seleucid doesn't Egyptianize the dynasty, whether that's the whole Empire or just Egypt, then the Egyptians just rebel and overthrow the Seleucid Pharaoh... which could lead to two different things; first, provided Rome wins the Second Punic War, you could see Roman intervention really quickly to help the rebels, or the Egyptians win political freedom. But both of those scenarios ignore that Rome would probably intervene before the Seleucids invade, either forcing Antiochus III to back down from diplomacy or by going to war. Rome's probably successful with either of these options unless the Seleucids invade during or just after the Second Punic War, and especially so if Rome gets into Greece and Macedonia beforehand.
So basically there's three outcomes: Seleucids take over, Rome takes over, or Egypt becomes a self-ruled kingdom again, too big to conquer, but too weak to make a huge impression on Mediterranean politics. And if the same kind of path continues as what happened IOTL, Rome probably ends up with Egypt anyways - the Seleucids have too many problems, and Egypt's grain and history (and Alexandria) makes it attractive to conquer, moreso then Germania or Brittania anyways. That's how I see it.
What happens afterwards... I could see the Seleucids intervening in full force, and conquering it... either annexing it directly or splitting the (Seleucid) kingdom up. After all, that's what the Seleucids had been trying to do for a century. Whichever route the Seleucids would take if this were to happen, the Basileus would have to ensure that the Egyptians saw him as a liberator rather then another Greek, and would probably have to adopt a lot of Egyptian customs. If the ruling Seleucid doesn't Egyptianize the dynasty, whether that's the whole Empire or just Egypt, then the Egyptians just rebel and overthrow the Seleucid Pharaoh... which could lead to two different things; first, provided Rome wins the Second Punic War, you could see Roman intervention really quickly to help the rebels, or the Egyptians win political freedom. But both of those scenarios ignore that Rome would probably intervene before the Seleucids invade, either forcing Antiochus III to back down from diplomacy or by going to war. Rome's probably successful with either of these options unless the Seleucids invade during or just after the Second Punic War, and especially so if Rome gets into Greece and Macedonia beforehand.
So basically there's three outcomes: Seleucids take over, Rome takes over, or Egypt becomes a self-ruled kingdom again, too big to conquer, but too weak to make a huge impression on Mediterranean politics. And if the same kind of path continues as what happened IOTL, Rome probably ends up with Egypt anyways - the Seleucids have too many problems, and Egypt's grain and history (and Alexandria) makes it attractive to conquer, moreso then Germania or Brittania anyways. That's how I see it.
Last edited:
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Monopolist, the Egyptians were already recruited in the Ptolemaic army and navy in very large numbers by the time the revolt broke out. You can only do so much with a small Greek population and constantly importing foreign mercenaries; they had to and they did use Egyptians in the Battle of Raphia.
Harmachis could carve a deal with Rome. Rome wanted Antiochus IV Epiphanes out because Egypt provided grain for Rome, no? Harmachis can make a deal with the Roman Republic recognizing him as Pharaoh of Egypt in exchange for military assistance against the Ptolemies and perhaps help defend them from Seleucid incursion via Palestine. It's not in Rome's interests to conquer the East yet, they were more than happy having vassals or allies handle the job.
Harmachis could carve a deal with Rome. Rome wanted Antiochus IV Epiphanes out because Egypt provided grain for Rome, no? Harmachis can make a deal with the Roman Republic recognizing him as Pharaoh of Egypt in exchange for military assistance against the Ptolemies and perhaps help defend them from Seleucid incursion via Palestine. It's not in Rome's interests to conquer the East yet, they were more than happy having vassals or allies handle the job.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
There's isn't much on the actual revolt though except two wikipedia articles and a few cited sources which give me jack on it. All I know is that at one point they managed to secure eighty percent of Egypt and based on that, I'm under the assumption that with a little luck, they can win. That's all I pretty much know on it. It's the whole reason why I'm trying to foster discussion.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I would say it's an either or between Rome and the Seleucids. I would say the former because they have an interest in maintaining a secure supply of grain and if that means supporting the rebels with naval assistance, so be it. Then there's the Seleucids though Monopolist suggested that despite the desire to expel the Ptolemies from Egypt, they would probably want the country for themselves.
I don't think lack of siege equipment would be too much for a problem. Given how the Ptolemaic army by the battle of Raphia had a large percentage of native Egyptians, they can have access to some. The only problem is a navy when it comes to taking Alexandria.
In the long run, Egypt still gets conquered by Rome, I'm not denying that. I'm just seeing if there's a small possibility for a native dynasty to emerge in Egypt for at least a century.
I know that, I mentioned that in my post. If you're getting at where I said some sort of act like the one that let Egyptians get conscripted, well I meant something like it. I was listing off things that could help Hugronaphor's revolt take Alexandria... Lower Egypt and Alexandria are going to be hard conquests for him with just brute military force. 80% of the land doesn't mean 80% of the military and political power, obviously. Hugronaphor's going up against a more professional army, a much richer population, and not an overwhelming amount more people, if at all. He needs at least one of the things I mentioned to help him out (or foreign intervention...), I think - though I don't know what the act would be that could rally and militarize a lot of Egyptians to Hugronaphor's cause similarly to Ptolemy IV's arming of the Egyptians, I was saying something like that could help Hugronaphor.
OK, I said that Rome could either intervene before or after the Seleucids invaded; before meaning that it's taking place just long enough after the Second Punic War for Rome to feel that it's worth sending men to help the Egyptians fight back against the Seleucid invasion, and after meaning that it's taking place some point in the future after a successful Seleucid conquest, meaning another revolt entirely.
If Rome intervened before the Seleucids mobilized an invasion of Egypt ((which the Seleucids do in both scenarios that I'm talking about because Egypt appears very vulnerable and has always been a realm that Antiochus III and other Seleucids wanted to add to the empire) (after a successful rebellion... I'm assuming this is around the 195-190ish range)), and were successful (as I assumed they would be, which I think is reasonable enough) in fighting back against the Seleucids, they could do one of two options: do what you said and give Hugronaphor more or less complete autonomy, or they could make Hugronaphor a Roman puppet, like Pergamon and such. Annexing it would be incredibly stupid on Rome's part here; Rome would have to fight another war to fully pacify the Egyptians and somehow keep them pacified for a time afterwards... or they would have to come off as literally godlike liberators. Neither is probably going to happen. So, with the first two options, I'd say that Rome would likely go for the latter option... vassalization seems like the more appropriate, Roman-like thing to do, and probably smarter then merely recognizing Hugronaphor as Pharaoh and asking for a little more grain.
If Rome intervened in another rebellion, after allowing the Seleucids to take control (this is assuming a Seleucid conquest in like 200 BC (the conquest coming probably during the revolt rather then after like the other scenario...), which would probably require a Second Punic War PoD to make that war last a little longer... and I'm assuming again that Rome is victorious with the Egyptians), they could either 1) liberate the Egyptians and give them complete autonomy, 2) make Egypt a puppet of Rome, or 3) annex Egypt. Full liberation again probably isn't going to happen; Egypt's going to have to fight and win independence on it's own if it's getting full independence from Rome and the Seleucids. 2 and 3 depend on when this war is taking place; 2 probably happens if it's before 100 BCE; 3 still probably doesn't happen after 100 BCE, but is much more likely then before, assuming that this is more or less the Roman Empire that emerged IOTL.
So Rome in both scenarios I'd think would make Egypt a puppet. Hence my saying that Rome takes over; Rome controlling Egypt as a puppet means they do take over. And, making Egypt a puppet means that a more direct takeover is more likely, after all, Rome eventually took over the puppets that it had IOTL. Same thing here; Egypt probably gets annexed in the end if it's made a puppet. And, if Egypt manages to stay independent despite the Roman Empire's rise, ignoring as many butterflies as possible, Rome probably still ends up with Egypt in the end, as Egypt's a good place to conquer for a Roman general - but I doubt that Egypt manages to stay completely independent with these scenarios. But who knows, it's all butterflies.
I apologize, hopefully all I said is clear now; I've always been really horrible at explaining my thoughts with typing.
Last edited:
If they had did have such a capability, why weren't they able to take major cities?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
It's an assumption based on what little information there is. I did take a second look and they manage to hold onto Thebes and presumably most of Upper Egypt where there wasn't a big Greco-Macedonian or foreign population living there. Lykopolis is also mentioned as a city they took but that's all that Wikipedia is giving me. The only internet source that cited has it's link broken though I'm giving a check in a website devoting to the Ptolemies if there's anything on the uprising.
The Ptolemies and other Hellenistic kingdoms tend to keep their government offices reserved for Greeks. This was a source of contention amongst the Egyptians and from what I'm reading of Bevan, fighting Macedonians from the Seleucid side prompted many of the 20,000 native Egyptians (armed to fight in phalanx formation) that fought in the battle of Raphia to rebel against the Ptolemies.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Africa/Egypt/_Texts/BEVHOP/7*.html
This site explains it a lot better than I can.
edit: Ptolemy IV's successor Ptolemy V appparently felt it necessary to abolish some taxes, build Egyptian temples, begin hiring Egyptians to serve his court, and granting pardons in order to stave off the temptation of uprising.
Last edited:
80% of the land doesn't mean 80% of the military and political power, obviously. Hugronaphor's going up against a more professional army, a much richer population, and not an overwhelming amount more people, if at all. .
Perhaps the Egyptians could take and hold all but Alexandria and its environs, which would continue as a wealthy Hellenistic city state. The revivified Pharonic dynasty, ruling from Thebes or Memphis would produce grain. The two states would soon develop a modus vivendi, as after all the Egyptian wheat would still need to be exported via Alexandria
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I don't think that would last too long but it might happen. The other port, Naucratis, had been declining in use and activity since Alexandria's founding so it might be necessary.