Why din't egypt regain independence after the Persian conquest?

[innonimatu]

That huge discussion about the population of Egypt made me wonder about something else: why did Egypt remain under foreign control since the Persian conquest and until the 20th century, with only small periods of local rule?
(I'm not considering the macedonians or the mamelukes local)

Is was a very wealthy and well-populated land, always an exporter of food and key to feeding first Rome and then Constantinople. It also had minerals. It only lacked wood. So why didn't local rebellions succeed in putting in power an egyptian dynasty again? Lack of resources? Religion? Too many strong competitors around? What of these causes, or others, weighted more?

 

[LightSpectra]

The Ptolemaic dynasty was independent of other powers until its acquiescence to Rome.

This is just a guess, but I would think Egypt's situation was similar to Bavaria in the early modern period: a respectable power that was nevertheless always wedged between two or three great powers.

 

[Cynovolans]

I'm assuming it was because they relied too much on Greek assistance against the Persians. All the pharaohs of the Late period used Greek mercenaries, and this was unpopular despite they needed all the help they could get. The last pharaoh before the first Persian satrapy of Egypt was betrayed and abandoned by some of his Greek allies.

But even if they didn't have help from Greeks Egyptians were always revolting against the Persian, and lost princes of former dynasties started to magically appear.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm assuming it was because they relied too much on Greek assistance against the Persians. All the pharaohs of the Late period used Greek mercenaries, and this was unpopular despite they needed all the help they could get. The last pharaoh before the first Persian satrapy of Egypt was betrayed and abandoned by some of his Greek allies.

Thanks, I didn't knew that the use of greek mercenaries was already usual before the persian conquests.

 

[Lord Baal]

Funnily enough a good portion of the Persian troops were comprised of Greek mercenaries as well.

 

[Kraznaya]

So uh, the Fatimids don't count?

 

[Verbose]

I'm assuming it was because they relied too much on Greek assistance against the Persians. All the pharaohs of the Late period used Greek mercenaries, and this was unpopular despite they needed all the help they could get. The last pharaoh before the first Persian satrapy of Egypt was betrayed and abandoned by some of his Greek allies.

Just to elaborate a bit, late dynastic Egypt seems to have been fairly well-beaten ground for the Greeks, with a proper Greek trading colony called Naukratis in the Delta. And at Cambyses' conquest the Egyptian king was in an honest to goodness alliance with Sparta, which had dispatched an army and one of its kings to fight alongside them. At the time there were no Greek mercenaries on the Spartan side, iirc. However, Athens was said to have had one of its leading "strategists", elected generals, placed at the Persian court acting as military advisor to the Persians.

 

[Verbose]

So uh, the Fatimids don't count?

Apparently not (the strangeness of that call I add my voice to).

Foreign rule of Egypt didn't begin with the Persians either, with 22 etc. dynasties being Libyan, and the 25th being Kuhorsehockeye, Nubian (approx. 950-650 BC), though admittedly both these groups were rather heavily influenced by Egypt before their conquest of the place. The Kuhorsehockeyes were brought down in turn by an Assyrian invasion and subsequent occupation, where their appointed local client eventually took over the place as the 26th dyn., as the empire fell apart from overextension. The Saite 26th dyn., and its descendants rebelling aginst the Persians being native Egyptian, though it seem it might have relied on some kind of hereditary warrior caste created by the Libyan dynasties. (At least enough for it to later be regarded as experimental when forming native Egyptian military units, in Ptolematic times for instance. By the time of the battle of Raphia 216 BC, where newly formed Egyptian phalanxes did well, most fighting on behalf of Egypt had been done by Libyans, Nubians, Greeks etc. for approx. 700 years.)

Though the extensive use of foreign mercenaries in Egyptian armies extends at least back to the Ramesside period, and already Middle Kingdom grave figures feature things like companies of Nubian mercenaries, and they seem to have been recruited as early as the Old Kingdom 6th dyn.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

For the most part, it was simply because the Egyptian fellahin were allowed to go on about their business (especially their religion), so they didn't much care. When they were empowered (like being raised as local levies and given arms) or some high priest got delusions of grandeur (both if which happened during Ptolemaic times), then their rulers had some serious problems.

 

[Dachs]

So uh, the Fatimids don't count?

What, those dirty Tunisians? They were as Egyptian as the Greeks were!

 

[innonimatu]

For the most part, it was simply because the Egyptian fellahin were allowed to go on about their business (especially their religion), so they didn't much care. When they were empowered (like being raised as local levies and given arms) or some high priest got delusions of grandeur (both if which happened during Ptolemaic times), then their rulers had some serious problems.

Ok, I guess that they were not that different from people everywhere else before the rise of nationalism: why care about which bastard is ruling, so long as he isn't ruling very badly? A foreign dynasty with a capital in Egypt, even whet their city seemingly stood apart from the rest of the country probably should be counted as local...

It's still odd that there were few regional rebellions by local governors and other powerful figures, but those did happen sometimes when Egypt was part of an empire ruled from afar.

 

[Verbose]

Ok, I guess that they were not that different from people everywhere else before the rise of nationalism: why care about which bastard is ruling, so long as he isn't ruling very badly? A foreign dynasty with a capital in Egypt, even whet their city seemingly stood apart from the rest of the country probably should be counted as local...

It's still odd that there were few regional rebellions by local governors and other powerful figures, but those did happen sometimes when Egypt was part of an empire ruled from afar.

Actually the Egyptians are sometimes interpreted as curious for having a kind of very early concept of a unified nation, of "Ta-meri", the Beloved Country. Which was known to be geographically defined from the delta to the First Cataract at modern Aswan (Suny, to the Ancients). Stuff south of there was "Kush", and all the oasises in the desert west of the Nile weren't included, even if people there might well have spoken the same language etc.

At a time where city states seems to have been rather the norm, a concept of a political enitity that large was a bit of a rarity.

Though what the "fellahin" were actually thinking isn't quite known of course. What seems to be true otoh is that any ruler buckling down, donning the paraphrenalia of the Pharaos and ruling like one, was perfectly acceptable. A bit like in China.

 

[rollo1066]

They did. After about 150 years of Persian rule the Persians were driven out and native rulers ruled Egypt. The Persians reconquered Egypt about 10-20 years before being conqured by Alexander the Great.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That huge discussion about the population of Egypt made me wonder about something else: why did Egypt remain under foreign control since the Persian conquest and until the 20th century, with only small periods of local rule?
(I'm not considering the macedonians or the mamelukes local)

Is was a very wealthy and well-populated land, always an exporter of food and key to feeding first Rome and then Constantinople. It also had minerals. It only lacked wood. So why didn't local rebellions succeed in putting in power an egyptian dynasty again? Lack of resources? Religion? Too many strong competitors around? What of these causes, or others, weighted more?

Egypt did rebel against Persia, several times, but was reconquered each time. And it was technically an independent state during the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Even though it was not a native Egyptian dynasty, it had the full blessing of the Egyptian priesthood which made it legitimate in the eyes of its people.

Egypt was also independent under the Fatimid Caliphate as well as the Mamelukes.

By the early Middle Ages, the original Egyptian culture had become diluted and so was no longer recognizable as unique. For example, their hieroglyphic writing system was forgotten and their religion was replaced first by Christianity then by Islam. Even their language, Coptic, has barely survived, being largely replaced by Arabic.

 

[bombshoo]

So uh, the Fatimids don't count?

Egypt was also independent under the Fatimid Caliphate as well as the Mamelukes.

The Fatamids are Tunisian in origin and the Mamelukes were from about everywhere except Egypt for a long time (eventually some free Egyptians did start selling themselves into slavery in hopes of becoming a Mameluke as being a privileged slave was probably still better than being a poor peasant.) Egypt did have periods of "independence" but their rulers do seem to have tendency to be none-Egyptian in origin. Even Muhammad Ali, the first Egyptian "nationalist", was Albanian.

 

[mitsho]

I think the concept of "local rule" here is generally broke.

As pointed out, there's the difference between ruling class and the people itself. After all, Egypt has been a "realm" of herself for a long time and not part of a bigger empire. Then, culturally speaking there always was a feeling of Egypt in the population, just look at modern Egypt, which considers itself Arab, but first and foremost Egyptian ;-) Still, the Egypt of today is not the Egypt of the Ancient Times, Culture changes, self-identification point changes, it is a process. Then, would you say that after the first or so generations of the for example Ptolemics are not "Egyptian", sure, they were Greek, but they were also Egyptian.

And again, what does it matter? Does "Self-rule" make Egypt better historically? Or what is it you actually want to know with this question?

 

[innonimatu]

And again, what does it matter? Does "Self-rule" make Egypt better historically? Or what is it you actually want to know with this question?

Just wondering how a polity which had lasted for over 3000 years and had a unique culture evolved to being just one piece of larger empires without (apparently) putting up much resistance.

But as other people have already mentioned, they did rebel against the persians, and it seems that the foreign rulers over the next centuries had to take on the title of pharaoh and negotiate with the priests. So I guess I was wrong, there was a long transition period.

 

[Lord Baal]

Just wondering how a polity which had lasted for over 3000 years and had a unique culture evolved to being just one piece of larger empires without (apparently) putting up much resistance.

But as other people have already mentioned, they did rebel against the persians, and it seems that the foreign rulers over the next centuries had to take on the title of pharaoh and negotiate with the priests. So I guess I was wrong, there was a long transition period.

Resistance was limited though, bu the fact that in Egypt the leadership class was often the priesthood, rather than the military. If foreign rulers and invaders could keep the priesthood happy, they'd often have little to worry about. Until military strongmen decided to exercise their authroity for themselves rather than the empire, of course, which led to independence under such chaps as the aforementioned Muhammad Ali.

 

[Verbose]

Just wondering how a polity which had lasted for over 3000 years and had a unique culture evolved to being just one piece of larger empires without (apparently) putting up much resistance.

But as other people have already mentioned, they did rebel against the persians, and it seems that the foreign rulers over the next centuries had to take on the title of pharaoh and negotiate with the priests. So I guess I was wrong, there was a long transition period.

Quite, and the thing is, Egypt tended to assimilate conquerors, who ended up playing by the rules of the Egyptian civilisation and polity. So even the late stuff, like the Ptolemaic period, saw a flourishing of Egyptian culture, with lots of new literary composition, temple art etc. Some of it clearly saw influences from outside. Otoh Egyptian ideas of for instance the afterlife did travel into Greek religion, and later Christianity. Also as late as in imperial Roman times hieroglyphic inscriptions were carved in perfectly good Egyptian in Italy proper, probably through the cult of Isis.

I'd say in the end, it wasn't political conquest that did Ancient Egyptian culture in, but the officially unendorsed Christian faith, which one over enough Egyptians and produced a shift that made the culture unrecognisable, even if the linguistic continuity was unbroken it seems well into the Middle Ages.

 

[Squonk]

All hail the righteous ruler of Egypt!