So how come the state of Egypt was not the dominant force in the Classical period?

[cloneof]

Everywhere I turn, I'm reminded of the fact that Egypt was the basket case for the imperial Roman Empire and was an incredible source of wealth for as long as it was part of the Empire.

So how come the conquering powers of the Classical period came from Greece, Italy or Carthage instead of Egypt?

 

[Sanny]

Everywhere I turn, I'm reminded of the fact that Egypt was the basket case for the imperial Roman Empire and was an incredible source of wealth for as long as it was part of the Empire.

So how come the conquering powers of the Classical period came from Greece, Italy or Carthage instead of Egypt?

Civil Wars, unstable dynasties, hence why it was subjugated by Rome.

 

[Riotkiller]

Same reasons Zimbabwe hasn't dominated Africa, and Ukraine didn't dominate Europe

 

[Sanny]

Same reasons Zimbabwe hasn't dominated Africa, and Ukraine didn't dominate Europe

It did have the largest fleet in the Mediterranean at one point though, and could amass large armies when there was a stable period. The chariots with the blades on the wheels were feared weapons of war in the ancient world, along with african elephant archers.

 

[keynes2.0]

Everywhere I turn, I'm reminded of the fact that Egypt was the basket case for the imperial Roman Empire and was an incredible source of wealth for as long as it was part of the Empire.

So how come the conquering powers of the Classical period came from Greece, Italy or Carthage instead of Egypt?

I wonder how much this is exaggerated because it's simple and repeatable. Egypt wasn't the only breadbasket, Sicily and Africa were also major grain exporters. And in exchange for their grain exports, Egypt did import lots of wine, olive oil, pottery and timber.

 

[DoomBunny]

Same reasons Zimbabwe hasn't dominated Africa, and Ukraine didn't dominate Europe

Socialism?

 

[Riotkiller]

Socialism?

Shakespeare's original text of Anthony & Cleopatra contained the entire verse of the Red Flag and an uprising of the proletariat, but the Crown censored those parts for fear of stoking a new wave of red terror.

 

[keynes2.0]

Shakespeare's original text of Anthony & Cleopatra contained the entire verse of the Red Flag and an uprising of the proletariat, but the Crown censored those parts for fear of stoking a new wave of red terror.

That was the story at the time but it was later revealed that Elizabeth was a crypto-fascist.

 

[Culise]

Civil Wars, unstable dynasties, hence why it was subjugated by Rome.

Indeed. While cloneof almost certainly meant a "breadbasket" for Rome, it feels like "basket case" might actually be a rather accurate description of late Ptolemaic Egypt. Let's see, now, there's Ptolemy VI who was briefly deposed by the Seleucids and replaced by Ptolemy VIII. After the Seleucids withdrew, the two ended up feuding in an uneasy joint arrangement until the former died. Ptolemy VI's heir was an infant, deposed by Ptolemy VIII. Ptolemy IX was driven out by his mother and eventually returned, but his heir was lynched by an Alexandrian mob after murdering his step (or natural) mother, half-sister, and bride, who were all the same person. Cleopatra VII's elopement with the already-wed Mark Antony was really quite mundane by comparison.

EDIT: Parse check.

 

[liveandletdie14]

this

 

[Xeorm]

It takes more than wealth to go conquering. It requires a stable state structure and a will to dominate.

 

[trybald]

My understanding is that Ptolemaic Egypt punched fat below its weight due to limited pool of available soldiers. The backbone of the army were always the migrants from the broad Hellenic world and their descendants. Ptolemaic rulers went lengths to covet migrants, but their numbers were always to small. Egypt's malaric climate was pretty deadly back then, and we also have to take into the account the toll of constant warfare. Egypt was simply unable to recover from a heavy defeat, a feat in which the Romans excelled. Even the Carthaginians and Seleucids had some breathing space in this respect, as evidenced for example by Antiochus III's rather swift recoveries after the defeats at Raphia and Magnesia. Thus the Ptolemaic policymakers were more than reluctant to engage in assertive foreign policy, unless it was pretty much forced upon them.

Ptolemaic rulers plugged the gaps in their rank with mercenaries, but these were notoriously expensive and unreliable. During the first invasion of Antiochus III they even resorted to arming native Egyptian, an error which backfired with grave consequences.

 

[Galaahd]

Same reasons Zimbabwe hasn't dominated Africa, and Ukraine didn't dominate Europe

Ukraine isn't really a good comparison. I'd say France is in regards to Europe, and it did dominate Europe at times.

 

[Cavalry]

Egypt is not famous for war. They even lost faraway Jerusalem land to Hebrew!
By that time even the Greek is not good in war!
I think at this time the Japanese was also not good in war?
Take a long research to understand why peoples lost their war spirit!

 

[Yakman]

Shakespeare's original text of Anthony & Cleopatra contained the entire verse of the Red Flag and an uprising of the proletariat, but the Crown censored those parts for fear of stoking a new wave of red terror.

Delightful.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

It did have the largest fleet in the Mediterranean at one point though.

When was that? Egypt was never a naval power. Not then, not after.

For one simple reason: Egypt has no trees.

Except when it had access to imported timber (e.g. from Levant, Balkans, etc.), Egypt was never able to mount a sea-sailing fleet of any size.

 

[gagenater]

When was that? Egypt was never a naval power. Not then, not after.

For one simple reason: Egypt has no trees.

Except when it had access to imported timber (e.g. from Levant, Balkans, etc.), Egypt was never able to mount a sea-sailing fleet of any size.

This is true, and to expand a bit, Egypt lacks trees AND iron ores, and has a climate that tends to be rough on horses. Enough horses to equip a few elite charioteers was doable. Enough to equip sizable mounted forces like the Persians - no way.

The lack of trees and iron ores was even more acute . Once burning trees to refine iron and steel for armor, swords and spear points became THE key to military dominance Egypt was doomed. It would be a valuable possession to be fought over - not a power in its own right. Even it’s slim supply of horses became less useful without plenty of iron and steel to arm and equip their riders.

In the Bronze Age, Egypt was a power to be reckoned with. Afterwards it struggled. Without the ability to raise and equip a sizable contingent of heavily armed horsemen, OR large numbers of heavily armored iron clad foot soldiers Egypt had all it could handle just to maintain its sovereignty.

Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and then Romans (in that order) overwhelmed and conquered the Egyptians with superior armed forces from external places repeatedly from ~ 1,500 BC to 0 AD. All of them had ready access to plenty of timber and iron, plenty of horses or both.

 

[Sanny]

This is true, and to expand a bit, Egypt lacks trees AND iron ores, and has a climate that tends to be rough on horses. Enough horses to equip a few elite charioteers was doable. Enough to equip sizable mounted forces like the Persians - no way.

The lack of trees and iron ores was even more acute . Once burning trees to refine iron and steel for armor, swords and spear points became THE key to military dominance Egypt was doomed. It would be a valuable possession to be fought over - not a power in its own right. Even it’s slim supply of horses became less useful without plenty of iron and steel to arm and equip their riders.

In the Bronze Age, Egypt was a power to be reckoned with. Afterwards it struggled. Without the ability to raise and equip a sizable contingent of heavily armed horsemen, OR large numbers of heavily armored iron clad foot soldiers Egypt had all it could handle just to maintain its sovereignty.

Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and then Romans (in that order) overwhelmed and conquered the Egyptians with superior armed forces from external places repeatedly from ~ 1,500 BC to 0 AD. All of them had ready access to plenty of timber and iron, plenty of horses or both.

It is thought they used cedar wood from Lebanon and reeds from the Nile to construct ships. And they were an early naval power before Rome came along or even when Greece was united. Egypt's history is long, of course everything was made obsolete by the time the Iron Age when the Persians, Macedonians and Romans started conquering the ancient world. As you said probably lack of access to their own resources and not keeping up with foreign military technologies during the Iron Age which is why they were defeated.

Even at the Battle of Antium, Egypt had around 250 galleys on top of Antony's 250 Roman warships so 500~ combined force against Octavian's 250 warships which were smaller than Antony's larger ones. If Cleopatra hadn't chosen to retreat before engaging then Octavian would have been defeated. Still amazes me how Octavian won that despite being disadvantaged as he was attacking a defensive formation within a gulf.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It is thought they used cedar wood from Lebanon and reeds from the Nile to construct ships. And they were an early naval power before Rome came along or even when Greece was united. Egypt's history is long, of course everything was made obsolete by the time the Iron Age when the Persians, Macedonians and Romans started conquering the ancient world. As you said probably lack of access to their own resources and not keeping up with foreign military technologies during the Iron Age which is why they were defeated.

Even at the Battle of Antium, Egypt had around 250 galleys on top of Antony's 250 Roman warships so 500~ combined force against Octavian's 250 warships which were smaller than Antony's larger ones. If Cleopatra hadn't chosen to retreat before engaging then Octavian would have been defeated. Still amazes me how Octavian won that despite being disadvantaged as he was attacking a defensive formation within a gulf.

Agrippa was a seasoned admiral who was holding Antony's battle orders.

And, as everyone in Britain knows; history has many examples of smaller, better, fleets beating larger fleets of bigger boats.

 

[trybald]

This is true, and to expand a bit, Egypt lacks trees AND iron ores, and has a climate that tends to be rough on horses. Enough horses to equip a few elite charioteers was doable. Enough to equip sizable mounted forces like the Persians - no way.

The lack of trees and iron ores was even more acute . Once burning trees to refine iron and steel for armor, swords and spear points became THE key to military dominance Egypt was doomed. It would be a valuable possession to be fought over - not a power in its own right. Even it’s slim supply of horses became less useful without plenty of iron and steel to arm and equip their riders.

In the Bronze Age, Egypt was a power to be reckoned with. Afterwards it struggled. Without the ability to raise and equip a sizable contingent of heavily armed horsemen, OR large numbers of heavily armored iron clad foot soldiers Egypt had all it could handle just to maintain its sovereignty.

Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and then Romans (in that order) overwhelmed and conquered the Egyptians with superior armed forces from external places repeatedly from ~ 1,500 BC to 0 AD. All of them had ready access to plenty of timber and iron, plenty of horses or both.

Lack of timber and, to some extent, iron, was also a problem for many Greek city-states, which didn't prevent them from becoming powerhouses. Athens was famously lacking of timber, yet it still maintained a powerful navy thanks to trade and its hegemony over northern Greek cities.