Tweeted twitter.com/StackHistory/status/942316219377561600
3 deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags
source | link

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., by a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was the later victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., by a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

2 deleted 96 characters in body
source | link

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was there a disruption of Alexandrian trade, possibly by Hadramawt or the fall of the Maurya's? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was there a disruption of Alexandrian trade, possibly by Hadramawt or the fall of the Maurya's? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?

1
source | link

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies decline?

From mainstream internet sources, I've had difficulty understanding the reasons for the decline of the Ptolemies. Ptolemy's kingdom was the most well position of all the Greek kingdoms, and subsequently dominated affairs in the Eastern Medditerranean. The zenith of their power was around 250, and within 25 years they are viewed as an impotent vassal of Rome. They did, however, briefly control Syria in 160 B.C.

The main reason given for their decline is a resurgence in Egyptian society. This was especially so after the Battle of Raffia (one of the biggest battles in ancient history?), when Egyptians were used for a Ptolemaic victory. Subsequently, upper Egypt broke off. Another reason is the chronic Syrian Wars, but this does not seem to have kept Antioch from reestablishing the Seleucid Empire, c. 220. Somehow, they charged forward while Egypt did not.

Did all of Egypt, or just the Ptolemies spiral downward in the last decades of the 3rd century? Was there a disruption of Alexandrian trade, possibly by Hadramawt or the fall of the Maurya's? Was the later Ptolemaic victory in Syria c. 160 B.C., a whole different, Egyptianized monarchy?