Normally when this scenario comes up the people that are talked about the most are Hugronaphor and Ankhmakis, by far the most successful of the rebel "pharaohs" who reigned in Upper Egypt for a few years. However other revolts popped up from time to time, especially as the Ptolemies started to decline irreversibly, after the relatively competent reign of the first three kings. What if it had succeeded in pushing out the Ptolemies in either 245 BC, which is what prevented Ptolemy III Eugertes from taking Syria, Babylonia, and potentially all of Asia, when the Seleucids are declining and haven't experienced their resurgence yet under Antiochus III, and the Romans are still engaged in the Punic Wars, or in 131 BC, under Harsiesi. In each of these scenarios, what would happen? If they somehow forced out the Ptolemies and restored native rule, what would be the impact?
WI: Successful native Egyptian revolt against the Ptolemies?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
Deleted member 160141
Well, the area would still be Rome's chief grain supplier no matter what, so they're going to want to conquer it eventually.
Maybe the specifics will change and specific Romans (Pompey, Caesar, etc) will conduct politics there differently, but the outcome is the same.
Maybe the specifics will change and specific Romans (Pompey, Caesar, etc) will conduct politics there differently, but the outcome is the same.
with genuine major reforms to the general parasitism of the Greek landowning and military classes and a drastic reduction foreign adventuring as the new Pharaohs give less of a shit about Greece and Macedon, why would Egypt fall prey to Roman conquest like the OTL Ptolemies? Egypt has very very few borders that don't have natural geographic barriers, as Perdiccas found in his death, and the Romans are famously rubbish at the seaborne invasions that would have to be their best bet to invade. Just have a sensible regime that isn't squeezing the lifeblood out of the native Egyptian Machimoi and peasantry for vainglorious military adventures and palatial projects and Egypt is nearly impregnable.
"Nearly impregnable" is overstating it, I think -- the Kushites, Assyrians, and Achaemenids had all managed to conquer Egypt in previous centuries -- but you're right that an Egypt free from tensions between a Greek ruling class and native peasantry would be in a better position to maintain itself.
Either way (with a native or a greek ruling class), if the Romans continue their ascension, Egypt will become a roman province at some point. The territory was a breadbasket for the East, great geographical position to maintain trade relation with India via the Red Sea and it would cost little to defend. Even if you take into account the defensibility of the territory, the romans will keep throwing legions until they succed. For the average peasant it will not matter if he pays taxes to a native pharaoh or to the emperor in Rome so there will not be a levee en masse to combat the threat.
Well
1) the 245 BC. revolt is, in my view, very difficult to succeed; the foundations of Ptolemaic (and by extension, Greek) rule over Egypt are still strong. (Also, I think it's still unclear whether it was really an uprising of the locals or a court plot in Alexandria).
Thus, there may be more destruction and the Ptolemaic dynasty may be forced earlier on to make concessions to the local population, but Egypt will remain under their control. In my view, the consequences will be seen outside Egypt. For example, if the rebellion spreads quickly enough, this means that it will be more difficult to be suppressed, thus the Ptolemaic government wouldn't be in the position to reclaim the cities of Ionia, Pamphylia and Cilicia that Ptolemy II had been forced to give up after the 2nd Syrian War or make the gains it did IOTL. This means that the Ptolemaic presence in the Aegean remains both less extensive and less impressive than IOTL. Furthermore, in the early stages, the government in Alexandria may find itself very short on troops. With most of the army still away, they could resort to the same measure that Ptolemy IV employed, namely the recall of most if not all troops from the Aegean area. These may lead Antigonus II of Macedonia to try to finally extinguish Ptolemaic presence in the area and limit their opportunities to meddle to the affairs in Greece (there are some reports of him actually doing that IOTL and defeating the Ptolemaic fleet near the island of Kos in 246 BC, but it is very uncertain). If he tried to take the entirety of the Aegean, I think that Rhodes would move against him. Given that Antigonus II was first and foremost a very careful politician and leader, I think that he would content himself with some gains (the Methana peninsula in the northeastern Pelloponnese, in order to further control Corinth and also support his allies in Argolida against the Achaean League, the Cyclades and possibly Lesbos. The rest of the islands, particularly those in Rhodes's neighbourhood would be left alone, in order to avoid the latter's provocation.
Also, Seleucus II will have an easier time reclaiming the territories he had lost early on the war. With the main Ptolemaic army occupied, he may be able to try to conquer Coele Syria and/or Cyprus. If it looks like that he has a good chance to succeed, Ptolemy III will offer terms in order to avoid a total defeat; it depends on whether Seleucus wants to play it safe or go all out. In my view, in such a scenario, he would press his advantage.
1) If Seleucus achieves full victory, Coele Syria would be annexed by the Seleucids and the situation would be, geopolitically, very similar to the one in 200 BC, with a Ptolemaic realm reduced to Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrenaica and the outpost of Itanos in eastern Crete, a Seleucid kingdom controlling much of western Asia, including Coele Syria and the Antigonids dominant in mainland Greece and the Aegean.
2) If Ptolemy III manages to snatch a close victory from the jaws of defeat, then he could retain the southern half of Coele Syria (Judea and its nearby regions) while the Seleucids would take the northern half (Phoenicia and southern Syria (Damascus). Although this wouldn't be as clear a victory as the aforementioned one, the Seleucids have managed to win decisively for the first time against Egypt, and more importantly, they have deprived the Ptolemies of one of their main sources of ships, sailors and navy - related resources, which breaks the naval dominance of the Ptolemies in the eastern Mediterranean.
In both cases however, the Seleucids emerge victorious. This is very important, as it was this prolonged conflict and later on the war between Seleucus II and Antiochus Ierax ("the Hawk") that drastically weakened Seleucid control over the easternmost satrapies (Bactria and Parthia), which prompted the latter's governor, Andragoras to rebel, which in turn allowed Diodotus, the governor of Bactria to sever all ties to the ruling dynasty and emboldened the Parni (later Parthians) to attack Parthia (namely set off the collapse of the Seleucid realm east of the Euphrates). With a short and victorious war and his primary opponent being busy for quite some time, Seleucus II can turn his attention to Asia Minor and deal more effectively with the Galatians, the Bithynians and Pergamum,thus consolidating his position in the region. He will also be able react more effectively to challenges from the east and secure (at least for the time being) the loyalty of these areas.
1) the 245 BC. revolt is, in my view, very difficult to succeed; the foundations of Ptolemaic (and by extension, Greek) rule over Egypt are still strong. (Also, I think it's still unclear whether it was really an uprising of the locals or a court plot in Alexandria).
Thus, there may be more destruction and the Ptolemaic dynasty may be forced earlier on to make concessions to the local population, but Egypt will remain under their control. In my view, the consequences will be seen outside Egypt. For example, if the rebellion spreads quickly enough, this means that it will be more difficult to be suppressed, thus the Ptolemaic government wouldn't be in the position to reclaim the cities of Ionia, Pamphylia and Cilicia that Ptolemy II had been forced to give up after the 2nd Syrian War or make the gains it did IOTL. This means that the Ptolemaic presence in the Aegean remains both less extensive and less impressive than IOTL. Furthermore, in the early stages, the government in Alexandria may find itself very short on troops. With most of the army still away, they could resort to the same measure that Ptolemy IV employed, namely the recall of most if not all troops from the Aegean area. These may lead Antigonus II of Macedonia to try to finally extinguish Ptolemaic presence in the area and limit their opportunities to meddle to the affairs in Greece (there are some reports of him actually doing that IOTL and defeating the Ptolemaic fleet near the island of Kos in 246 BC, but it is very uncertain). If he tried to take the entirety of the Aegean, I think that Rhodes would move against him. Given that Antigonus II was first and foremost a very careful politician and leader, I think that he would content himself with some gains (the Methana peninsula in the northeastern Pelloponnese, in order to further control Corinth and also support his allies in Argolida against the Achaean League, the Cyclades and possibly Lesbos. The rest of the islands, particularly those in Rhodes's neighbourhood would be left alone, in order to avoid the latter's provocation.
Also, Seleucus II will have an easier time reclaiming the territories he had lost early on the war. With the main Ptolemaic army occupied, he may be able to try to conquer Coele Syria and/or Cyprus. If it looks like that he has a good chance to succeed, Ptolemy III will offer terms in order to avoid a total defeat; it depends on whether Seleucus wants to play it safe or go all out. In my view, in such a scenario, he would press his advantage.
1) If Seleucus achieves full victory, Coele Syria would be annexed by the Seleucids and the situation would be, geopolitically, very similar to the one in 200 BC, with a Ptolemaic realm reduced to Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrenaica and the outpost of Itanos in eastern Crete, a Seleucid kingdom controlling much of western Asia, including Coele Syria and the Antigonids dominant in mainland Greece and the Aegean.
2) If Ptolemy III manages to snatch a close victory from the jaws of defeat, then he could retain the southern half of Coele Syria (Judea and its nearby regions) while the Seleucids would take the northern half (Phoenicia and southern Syria (Damascus). Although this wouldn't be as clear a victory as the aforementioned one, the Seleucids have managed to win decisively for the first time against Egypt, and more importantly, they have deprived the Ptolemies of one of their main sources of ships, sailors and navy - related resources, which breaks the naval dominance of the Ptolemies in the eastern Mediterranean.
In both cases however, the Seleucids emerge victorious. This is very important, as it was this prolonged conflict and later on the war between Seleucus II and Antiochus Ierax ("the Hawk") that drastically weakened Seleucid control over the easternmost satrapies (Bactria and Parthia), which prompted the latter's governor, Andragoras to rebel, which in turn allowed Diodotus, the governor of Bactria to sever all ties to the ruling dynasty and emboldened the Parni (later Parthians) to attack Parthia (namely set off the collapse of the Seleucid realm east of the Euphrates). With a short and victorious war and his primary opponent being busy for quite some time, Seleucus II can turn his attention to Asia Minor and deal more effectively with the Galatians, the Bithynians and Pergamum,thus consolidating his position in the region. He will also be able react more effectively to challenges from the east and secure (at least for the time being) the loyalty of these areas.
Last edited:
(I hope that my ideas are solid 
)
2) The second rebellion is a more dangerous one. When it broke out, in 207 BC, the country suffered from Ptolemy IV's mismanagement and an economic downturn caused by the 2nd Punic War, which shut down trade with southern Italy, Sicily and Carthage, which was perhaps the largest part of foreign trade in Ptolemaic Egypt. But more importantly, there were many locals with recent battle experience (Raphia in 217 BC.) and who knew how a hellenistic army fought. Thus, the rebellion itself was more threatening, while the government was weak and divided. If things really go down, then there is an actual chance that, by 205/204 BC, the rebels could control almost the entire country.
This means that Ptolemaic outer territories (especially Coele Syria) would be even more vulnerable than OTL. Thus, when Antiochus III invades the latter, he faces only token resistance and certainly not a response like Skopas' offensive during the winter of 201-200 BC. that prolonged the conflict. Also, Egypt is most certainly in chaos after the rebellion. This may prompt Antiochus to invade Egypt itself in 204 BC (although Egypt is not a part of the Seleucid patrimony, whose total reclamation was Antiochus' goal, Antiochus may think that it is too good an opportunity to miss). The locals would fight, sometimes to the bitter end perhaps, to fend off this offensive. But most likely, they will be defeated, and after one or two years of fighting, Egypt is controlled by the Seleucids.
Antiochus could choose to make Egypt a client state of his, under a scion of the Ptolemaic dynasty. This would spare him the potential trouble of pacification and would be more in line with his methods in the East, where he allowed the rulers of Parthia and Bactria to remain independent but under his suzerainty. But he could also be worried about a Ptolemaic resurgence that could threaten the Seleucids in the future, and Egypt is much closer to Antioch and much wealthier than Parthia or Bactria, thus direct control could be considered preferable to indirect rule.
Judging from the administrative organisation the Seleucids imposed in Coele Syria, Antiochus would most likely impose a far less controlling administration than what the Ptolemaic one had been. The locals would receive certain freedoms and a limited degree of autonomy, as a "nation" within the Seleucid realm. There will be a continuation of the previous economic system, where the king controls most of the land and thus a large part of the economy, but a large number of the regulations that were previously in place would be dropped. This would help with stability, as farmers wouldn't be as pressed by a non-adjusting tax burden and the rather exploitative system that was the rule before and consequently, they would be able to meet their obligations with greater ease. Therefore, we could expect that Seleucid rule would be fairly secure in these first years.
Rome may react, but apart from a diplomatic demonstration/presentation, it couldn't do much more. It would still be embroiled in the 2nd Punic War (as it is 204/203 BC and I think it would be rather difficult to end the war earlier than OTL in this last stage of it). When Rome manages to force Carthage to sign the peace treaty and turn its attention eastwards however (we could expect that Philip V of Macedonia would still embark on his quest to capture the whole Aegean region, in accordance to a deal like the famous "secret pact" he had formed IOTL with Antiochus, that Attalus I of Pergamum and Rhodes would scream bloody murder and ask Rome for help and that something small like the OTL affair of the Akarnanians that has betrayed the Eleusinian Mysteries would be enough to trigger a general conflict in Greece). However, this time Rome may be forced to be more diplomatic and thus actually try to negotiate instead of forcing Philip to go to war, as Antiochus isn't preoccupied in Coele Syria ITTL and therefore, he may intervene on behalf of his ally/"ally" and many in Rome would be unwilling to enter another potentially long war. For his part, I think that Philip V would accept a negotiated settlement; if he doesn't do anything like his OTL Abydus stunt, then war would have been temporarily averted (let's say for 2-3 years).
During that period, Philip would most likely continue his operations in the Aegean, although he would be more cautious and limit his attacks on Ptolemaic territories in the Aegean. He could make some more gains than OTL (some minor cities in Ionia, the island of Lesbos, perhaps the rest of the Cyclades - if the Rhodians retreat from the area). Meanwhile, his opponents would try to stop his advances, by installing garrisons to some of the last remnants of Ptolemaic presence in the area that are strategically important to them and trying to get the neutrals in the Aegean and the Aetolians to form an alliance against Philip.
At the same time, Antiochus has 2-3 years free of other entanglements, unlike OTL. I think that he would use this time to strengthen his reforms and consolidate his eastern gains, as well his conquests in Coele Syria and Egypt. Antiochus would also launch operations in Asia Minor and capture the Ptolemaic territories in Cilicia and Pamphylia (if they hadn't already surrendered following the collapse of central authority). In western Asia Minor, Antiochus would have a harder time, as Rhodes and Pergamum were equally opposed to Philip and him (Pergamum also had been, for a long time, somewhat adversarial to the Seleucids, since the Attalids vied for control of the Seleucid territories in Asia Minor and had intervened in their civil wars).
There could also be attempts to dislodge the remnants of the Ptolemaic dynasty from Cyrenaica, where it would most likely have retreated. Assuming that Ptolemy IV is dead and that he killed the same people as IOTL, then Antiochus may consider it a good idea to give Cyrenaica to a lesser, surviving member of the dynasty (perhaps the branch that IOTL controlled the area of Telmyssus in southwestern Asia Minor). However, in the long term, this could be a really bad idea, especially if Antiochus IV gets on the throne and has the same ideas like OTL, since an uncompromising Hellenisation campaign would cause rebellions in Egypt that the scions of the Ptolemaic dynasty would try to benefit from to reclaim their lost kingdom. Also, Antiochus would possibly consider such an arrangement unnecessary and annex this last remnant of the Ptolemaic realm, in which case the remaining members of the dynasty would have to seek sanctuary somewhere.
Thus, by 197 BC. things could lead to war. Rome has managed to largely recover from the previous war and its more warlike faction has regained influence. Most of its allies in Greece and Asia Minor ask for it to intervene against Philip, Antiochus or both. The Ptolemies could also send emissaries to ask for help against Antiochus, stressing his alliance with Philip.
The Senate would be in a difficult position, since it could potentially have to fight most of the Hellenistic East and the most powerful monarch of his time. Therefore I think that they would try to secure Antiochus' neutrality, by all means necessary, before they would start dealing with Philip (they could promise him Philip's holdings in Asia Minor in exchange). Rhodes and Pergamum, although not very happy about such an arrangement, they could tolerate it in order to deal with Philip. There are two potential outcomes :
1) Antiochus would of course love such a deal and he would most likely take it. The rest would most likely happen like OTL : the Romans and their allies declare war, Philip fights but ultimately loses. There may be a more moderate peace treaty, as the Romans wouldn't want to make Antiochus worried and, perhaps, because they wouldn't want to antagonise Philip so much that, in case of a war with Antiochus, Macedonia would side with the Seleucids (although the latter possibility could be also an argument in favor of a equally harsh or harsher treaty than OTL, I don't think it would be likely). Antiochus gets what he was promised. Given the fact that he has been even more successful than OTL, I think that he would press for the restoration of Seleucid control of the Hellesponte and Thrace, which were the Roman red line in the negotiations. Therefore, an analogue to the Antiochic War could very well happen ITTL too.
In this case, Antiochus is in a rather better starting position, since he has had an earlier headstart in creating his navy (likely 5 or 4 years earlier than OTL) and his operations in Asia Minor (at least 3 years). He also has greater prestige as a political and military leader, while the fact that he is considered even more powerful than OTL may prompt the Romans to maintain their troops in Greece longer, something that would make anti-Roman feelings more prevalent and increase pro-Antiochus ones. Combined with a milder peace that probably didn't decimate his military capabilities as extensively as OTL, this might lead Philip V to set aside the bitterness from Antiochus' opportunistic neutrality during his war against the Romans and agree to work with the former against the latter. This however would demand very delicate diplomacy on Antiochus' part, in order to be able to maintain his diverse coalition in Greece (it would be very difficult to have the Aetolians and Macedonia on the same side). Therefore, it would be more likely for Philip to side with a Rome that is very short of allies in Greece.
Once the war breaks out, it is very difficult to say whether Antiochus could win or not. The addition of Egypt to his domains would increase his power considerably, therefore increasing his chances of victory. On the other hand, if he were to do something like raising taxes, Egypt could rise up in revolt against his rule and tie down troops that could be deployed in Asia Minor and Greece, while the experience from Egypt's conquest could make Antiochus worried about the loyalty of native troops, which would force him to work with a smaller army (although a smaller, more integrated and easily controlled army has its benefits).
If Antiochus loses the war, then the situation may develop in a way similar to OTL, although with a much milder peace treaty (because the real treaty of Apamea was really an ASB moment, and Antiochus is in a relatively stronger position). With a (much) smaller indemnity to pay and fewer restrictions, Antiochus would be much less under pressure to find money, which will avert the attempted raid of the temple of Velus in Elymais and his early death and will leave the Seleucid state more robust and stable. Antiochus would probably turn his attention to the internal reorganisation and reforms and perhaps a new campaign in the East, perhaps in an effort to strengthen Seleucid control there. These, potentially combined with continued control of Egypt and Cyprus (since the Ptolemies weren't very closely related to Rome IOTL until ca. 168 BC. and ITTL they are without a powebase), the Antiochus could gradually prepare for a second round against Rome.
If Antiochus wins the war (possibly by taking a much larger army with him in Greece and crashing the Ronan forces quickly, then heeding to Hannibal's advice to consolidate his position in Greece while his fleet attacks the Romans near Italy and perhaps even carry the war on Italian soil-or threaten to do so) then Rome's influence in the eastern Mediterranean will be diminished for some time at least. The Romans will try to limit Antiochus' influence in Greece by supporting its few remaining allies (particularly Macedonia, which now is more threatened from the Seleucids, who could try to restore Alexander's empire). Rome would temporarily turn its attention to the west, while waiting for a moment of weakness for the Seleucids to strike eastwards. As far as the Seleucids are concerned, the victory would make them stronger; but with their interest more focused on the west of their realm, there is a possibility of the eastern satrapies slipping from their control again.
2) Antiochus refuses the deal, due to Rome's continued support for the Attalids. Philip then perhaps tries to get Antiochus on his side by offering him certain territories in western Asia Minor. Antiochus agrees and declares his support for Philip. Rome is unwilling to take on the two most powerful hellenistic kings at the same time and temporarily backs down. This can avert war for some time. But Antiochus will continue his operations in Asia Minor, and he could actually ask that Phillip give up any remaining possessions of his in the area. This could be the beginning of a diplomatic realignment, as Philip is now pressed by Antiochus and Pergamum and Rhodes consider Antiochus a potentially existential threat. Thus, these three could reach an understanding and form a united front against Antiochus. Antiochus may back down temporarily as well. If not, there may be a war between the two sides; in this case, if Rome enters the war against Antiochus, Philip will be unwilling to potentially disturb the balance of power and thus try to reach an agreement with Antiochus, who would likely accept the idea. In the end, there could be a negotiated peace, which would make some territorial arrangements in Ionia but would keep the status quo.
) 2) The second rebellion is a more dangerous one. When it broke out, in 207 BC, the country suffered from Ptolemy IV's mismanagement and an economic downturn caused by the 2nd Punic War, which shut down trade with southern Italy, Sicily and Carthage, which was perhaps the largest part of foreign trade in Ptolemaic Egypt. But more importantly, there were many locals with recent battle experience (Raphia in 217 BC.) and who knew how a hellenistic army fought. Thus, the rebellion itself was more threatening, while the government was weak and divided. If things really go down, then there is an actual chance that, by 205/204 BC, the rebels could control almost the entire country.
This means that Ptolemaic outer territories (especially Coele Syria) would be even more vulnerable than OTL. Thus, when Antiochus III invades the latter, he faces only token resistance and certainly not a response like Skopas' offensive during the winter of 201-200 BC. that prolonged the conflict. Also, Egypt is most certainly in chaos after the rebellion. This may prompt Antiochus to invade Egypt itself in 204 BC (although Egypt is not a part of the Seleucid patrimony, whose total reclamation was Antiochus' goal, Antiochus may think that it is too good an opportunity to miss). The locals would fight, sometimes to the bitter end perhaps, to fend off this offensive. But most likely, they will be defeated, and after one or two years of fighting, Egypt is controlled by the Seleucids.
Antiochus could choose to make Egypt a client state of his, under a scion of the Ptolemaic dynasty. This would spare him the potential trouble of pacification and would be more in line with his methods in the East, where he allowed the rulers of Parthia and Bactria to remain independent but under his suzerainty. But he could also be worried about a Ptolemaic resurgence that could threaten the Seleucids in the future, and Egypt is much closer to Antioch and much wealthier than Parthia or Bactria, thus direct control could be considered preferable to indirect rule.
Judging from the administrative organisation the Seleucids imposed in Coele Syria, Antiochus would most likely impose a far less controlling administration than what the Ptolemaic one had been. The locals would receive certain freedoms and a limited degree of autonomy, as a "nation" within the Seleucid realm. There will be a continuation of the previous economic system, where the king controls most of the land and thus a large part of the economy, but a large number of the regulations that were previously in place would be dropped. This would help with stability, as farmers wouldn't be as pressed by a non-adjusting tax burden and the rather exploitative system that was the rule before and consequently, they would be able to meet their obligations with greater ease. Therefore, we could expect that Seleucid rule would be fairly secure in these first years.
Rome may react, but apart from a diplomatic demonstration/presentation, it couldn't do much more. It would still be embroiled in the 2nd Punic War (as it is 204/203 BC and I think it would be rather difficult to end the war earlier than OTL in this last stage of it). When Rome manages to force Carthage to sign the peace treaty and turn its attention eastwards however (we could expect that Philip V of Macedonia would still embark on his quest to capture the whole Aegean region, in accordance to a deal like the famous "secret pact" he had formed IOTL with Antiochus, that Attalus I of Pergamum and Rhodes would scream bloody murder and ask Rome for help and that something small like the OTL affair of the Akarnanians that has betrayed the Eleusinian Mysteries would be enough to trigger a general conflict in Greece). However, this time Rome may be forced to be more diplomatic and thus actually try to negotiate instead of forcing Philip to go to war, as Antiochus isn't preoccupied in Coele Syria ITTL and therefore, he may intervene on behalf of his ally/"ally" and many in Rome would be unwilling to enter another potentially long war. For his part, I think that Philip V would accept a negotiated settlement; if he doesn't do anything like his OTL Abydus stunt, then war would have been temporarily averted (let's say for 2-3 years).
During that period, Philip would most likely continue his operations in the Aegean, although he would be more cautious and limit his attacks on Ptolemaic territories in the Aegean. He could make some more gains than OTL (some minor cities in Ionia, the island of Lesbos, perhaps the rest of the Cyclades - if the Rhodians retreat from the area). Meanwhile, his opponents would try to stop his advances, by installing garrisons to some of the last remnants of Ptolemaic presence in the area that are strategically important to them and trying to get the neutrals in the Aegean and the Aetolians to form an alliance against Philip.
At the same time, Antiochus has 2-3 years free of other entanglements, unlike OTL. I think that he would use this time to strengthen his reforms and consolidate his eastern gains, as well his conquests in Coele Syria and Egypt. Antiochus would also launch operations in Asia Minor and capture the Ptolemaic territories in Cilicia and Pamphylia (if they hadn't already surrendered following the collapse of central authority). In western Asia Minor, Antiochus would have a harder time, as Rhodes and Pergamum were equally opposed to Philip and him (Pergamum also had been, for a long time, somewhat adversarial to the Seleucids, since the Attalids vied for control of the Seleucid territories in Asia Minor and had intervened in their civil wars).
There could also be attempts to dislodge the remnants of the Ptolemaic dynasty from Cyrenaica, where it would most likely have retreated. Assuming that Ptolemy IV is dead and that he killed the same people as IOTL, then Antiochus may consider it a good idea to give Cyrenaica to a lesser, surviving member of the dynasty (perhaps the branch that IOTL controlled the area of Telmyssus in southwestern Asia Minor). However, in the long term, this could be a really bad idea, especially if Antiochus IV gets on the throne and has the same ideas like OTL, since an uncompromising Hellenisation campaign would cause rebellions in Egypt that the scions of the Ptolemaic dynasty would try to benefit from to reclaim their lost kingdom. Also, Antiochus would possibly consider such an arrangement unnecessary and annex this last remnant of the Ptolemaic realm, in which case the remaining members of the dynasty would have to seek sanctuary somewhere.
Thus, by 197 BC. things could lead to war. Rome has managed to largely recover from the previous war and its more warlike faction has regained influence. Most of its allies in Greece and Asia Minor ask for it to intervene against Philip, Antiochus or both. The Ptolemies could also send emissaries to ask for help against Antiochus, stressing his alliance with Philip.
The Senate would be in a difficult position, since it could potentially have to fight most of the Hellenistic East and the most powerful monarch of his time. Therefore I think that they would try to secure Antiochus' neutrality, by all means necessary, before they would start dealing with Philip (they could promise him Philip's holdings in Asia Minor in exchange). Rhodes and Pergamum, although not very happy about such an arrangement, they could tolerate it in order to deal with Philip. There are two potential outcomes :
1) Antiochus would of course love such a deal and he would most likely take it. The rest would most likely happen like OTL : the Romans and their allies declare war, Philip fights but ultimately loses. There may be a more moderate peace treaty, as the Romans wouldn't want to make Antiochus worried and, perhaps, because they wouldn't want to antagonise Philip so much that, in case of a war with Antiochus, Macedonia would side with the Seleucids (although the latter possibility could be also an argument in favor of a equally harsh or harsher treaty than OTL, I don't think it would be likely). Antiochus gets what he was promised. Given the fact that he has been even more successful than OTL, I think that he would press for the restoration of Seleucid control of the Hellesponte and Thrace, which were the Roman red line in the negotiations. Therefore, an analogue to the Antiochic War could very well happen ITTL too.
In this case, Antiochus is in a rather better starting position, since he has had an earlier headstart in creating his navy (likely 5 or 4 years earlier than OTL) and his operations in Asia Minor (at least 3 years). He also has greater prestige as a political and military leader, while the fact that he is considered even more powerful than OTL may prompt the Romans to maintain their troops in Greece longer, something that would make anti-Roman feelings more prevalent and increase pro-Antiochus ones. Combined with a milder peace that probably didn't decimate his military capabilities as extensively as OTL, this might lead Philip V to set aside the bitterness from Antiochus' opportunistic neutrality during his war against the Romans and agree to work with the former against the latter. This however would demand very delicate diplomacy on Antiochus' part, in order to be able to maintain his diverse coalition in Greece (it would be very difficult to have the Aetolians and Macedonia on the same side). Therefore, it would be more likely for Philip to side with a Rome that is very short of allies in Greece.
Once the war breaks out, it is very difficult to say whether Antiochus could win or not. The addition of Egypt to his domains would increase his power considerably, therefore increasing his chances of victory. On the other hand, if he were to do something like raising taxes, Egypt could rise up in revolt against his rule and tie down troops that could be deployed in Asia Minor and Greece, while the experience from Egypt's conquest could make Antiochus worried about the loyalty of native troops, which would force him to work with a smaller army (although a smaller, more integrated and easily controlled army has its benefits).
If Antiochus loses the war, then the situation may develop in a way similar to OTL, although with a much milder peace treaty (because the real treaty of Apamea was really an ASB moment, and Antiochus is in a relatively stronger position). With a (much) smaller indemnity to pay and fewer restrictions, Antiochus would be much less under pressure to find money, which will avert the attempted raid of the temple of Velus in Elymais and his early death and will leave the Seleucid state more robust and stable. Antiochus would probably turn his attention to the internal reorganisation and reforms and perhaps a new campaign in the East, perhaps in an effort to strengthen Seleucid control there. These, potentially combined with continued control of Egypt and Cyprus (since the Ptolemies weren't very closely related to Rome IOTL until ca. 168 BC. and ITTL they are without a powebase), the Antiochus could gradually prepare for a second round against Rome.
If Antiochus wins the war (possibly by taking a much larger army with him in Greece and crashing the Ronan forces quickly, then heeding to Hannibal's advice to consolidate his position in Greece while his fleet attacks the Romans near Italy and perhaps even carry the war on Italian soil-or threaten to do so) then Rome's influence in the eastern Mediterranean will be diminished for some time at least. The Romans will try to limit Antiochus' influence in Greece by supporting its few remaining allies (particularly Macedonia, which now is more threatened from the Seleucids, who could try to restore Alexander's empire). Rome would temporarily turn its attention to the west, while waiting for a moment of weakness for the Seleucids to strike eastwards. As far as the Seleucids are concerned, the victory would make them stronger; but with their interest more focused on the west of their realm, there is a possibility of the eastern satrapies slipping from their control again.
2) Antiochus refuses the deal, due to Rome's continued support for the Attalids. Philip then perhaps tries to get Antiochus on his side by offering him certain territories in western Asia Minor. Antiochus agrees and declares his support for Philip. Rome is unwilling to take on the two most powerful hellenistic kings at the same time and temporarily backs down. This can avert war for some time. But Antiochus will continue his operations in Asia Minor, and he could actually ask that Phillip give up any remaining possessions of his in the area. This could be the beginning of a diplomatic realignment, as Philip is now pressed by Antiochus and Pergamum and Rhodes consider Antiochus a potentially existential threat. Thus, these three could reach an understanding and form a united front against Antiochus. Antiochus may back down temporarily as well. If not, there may be a war between the two sides; in this case, if Rome enters the war against Antiochus, Philip will be unwilling to potentially disturb the balance of power and thus try to reach an agreement with Antiochus, who would likely accept the idea. In the end, there could be a negotiated peace, which would make some territorial arrangements in Ionia but would keep the status quo.
3) The third revolt was perhaps the most dangerous of them all, since it happened in parallel to a civil war during which one of its participants (Ptolemy VIII Physkon ("the Bubble")) facilitated it in order to fight against his sister Cleopatra II, who was supported by the Greek element in Egypt, while the state was in steep decline. But this time, it wasn't a centrally controlled uprising like the 207 BC. one. Thus, if somehow Ptolemy VIII won and did enough to weaken the Greeks and piss off the natives, the rebellion could succeed, but it would be divided. Also, it happened that during that period, the Seleucid kingdom had perhaps the last great ruler of the dynasty, Antiochus VII Sidetes, who had recently subjugated Judea (more precisely made it a tributary state). Either Cleopatra or Ptolemy would ask for his support. Antiochus would most likely agree to support Cleopatra (Ptolemy was rather repugnant as a person and also somewhat less dependable). The Seleucid army invades Egypt and manages, after a rather hard fight, to conquer the country and restore Cleopatra on the throne. Cleopatra however wouldn't be completely independent, as she would likely have to help Antiochus in his campaigns. If we assume that Antiochus received support from Egypt and perhaps had an incident during his campaign there, during which he was attacked while his army was scattered, then his eastern campaign may be more successful than OTL and he may be able to restore control over Mesopotamia and Babylonia (Elymais and Medi are more difficult). He would have, however, to face Demetrius II, who had been freed by the Parthians to create trouble in Syria, which would probably force Antiochus to turn back; if he could deal with Demetrius quickly enough and Phraates of Parthia was kept busy by the Scythians in the east, then there is a possibility of a moderate resurgence of the Seleucid kingdom. However this would be temporary, as the Parthians would try really hard to reclaim their lost western provinces and after the death of Antiochus, a civil war between the sons of Demetrius and Antiochus could plunge the kingdom into chaos.
Rome would also be somewhat concerned by these developments, and memories of Antiochus IV besieging Alexandria could be used as arguments for Rome to take action. Ptolemy VIII would use everything in his power to get the Senate to restore him on the throne of the Ptolemies, and he was considered a friend of Rome. Thus, Antiochus would likely be forced to give up his support for Cleopatra and allow Ptolemy to return. Ptolemy would have to make more concessions to the natives than OTL, but apart from that, little would change.
It may be noted that I never talk about an independent Egypt under native rule. This happens because I think that in the three cases of rebellion, either the uprising wasn't organised and large enough and the government was stronger (the first one), or there was a more powerful neighbour that could intervene and annex Egypt (the second one) or there is a strong neighbour and Rome, which was the dominant power, preferred working with the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was dependable and dependent on Rome. The natives would also be considered somewhat too foreign for Rome's tastes as well. For all these reasons, I think that there wouldn't be an independent Egypt led by a native dynasty. Of course, these are just my views, which may be wrong.
Rome would also be somewhat concerned by these developments, and memories of Antiochus IV besieging Alexandria could be used as arguments for Rome to take action. Ptolemy VIII would use everything in his power to get the Senate to restore him on the throne of the Ptolemies, and he was considered a friend of Rome. Thus, Antiochus would likely be forced to give up his support for Cleopatra and allow Ptolemy to return. Ptolemy would have to make more concessions to the natives than OTL, but apart from that, little would change.
It may be noted that I never talk about an independent Egypt under native rule. This happens because I think that in the three cases of rebellion, either the uprising wasn't organised and large enough and the government was stronger (the first one), or there was a more powerful neighbour that could intervene and annex Egypt (the second one) or there is a strong neighbour and Rome, which was the dominant power, preferred working with the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was dependable and dependent on Rome. The natives would also be considered somewhat too foreign for Rome's tastes as well. For all these reasons, I think that there wouldn't be an independent Egypt led by a native dynasty. Of course, these are just my views, which may be wrong.
Last edited: