Talk:Ptolemaic Kingdom

Cleaning House

I've corrected some factual inaccuracies and spelling errors. Some rough sentences were also tightened up.

Also replaced the pompous and unwieldy BCE with the more conventional BC.--Ironzealot (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have erased the Civil War that was the focus of the kingdom for 20 years....hm....Ericl (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm new (http://www2.nau.edu/~rdr/) and I would like to 'chat' with you(all) about this topic. 21:28 28 FEB 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.136.23 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article...

I just got finished working on a project about the Ptolemies at Florida State University, so I logged on to this article because the topic is on my mind. To my surprise, it seems that it's been edited recently by someone of the persuasion that modern Slavic "Macedonians" are somehow equivalent to the Greeks that governed the Ptolemaic kingdom and other Hellenistic dynasties. Given that the Slavs didn't live in the Balkans until the early Middle Ages, I find this highly unlikely. The names of the kings are rendered in their Slavic Macedonian translations (I speak Russian and they're basically the same from that) and when listing the countries the Ptolemaic Kingdom is now part of, it lists Macedonia as opposed to Greece, which certainly couldn't have been the case since the only part of Europe the Ptolemies ever occupied for any portion of time was eastern Crete. Most horrifically of all, the currency was changed to the Macedonian denar, the currency used in modernMacedonia; I'm sure Egyptians during antiquity were exchanging goods with the same currency as a present day Former Yugoslav Republic. All in all what has happened to this article is a travesty and representative of the terrible historical revisionism that "Macedonian" Slavs since the 19th Century have put on the rightfully Greek kingdom that was ancient Macedon and its Successor States in the Eastern Mediterranean. I would edit the article myself but I'm not familiar with how links work, so I was wondering if someone could help out and stem the tide against really banal historical revisionism. Also, I'd like to point out that I'm not a Greek either, and that's not where I'm coming from with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.100.224 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Map and language

All right, so it doesn't take much effort to "translate" the German, but an English version would still be nice. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoes cause riots

This article links distant volcanoes, Nile droughts, famine and riots in the Ptolemaic epoch. Popular description here and here. TGCP (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This TV documentary says that volcano eruptions in 44 BC caused drought, famine and riots in Egypt, challenging the Cleopatra reign (same historians). There are also academic articles in the Okmok source section (news article).

Sulphur was found in ice cores from 50-40 BC in both Greenland and Antarctica. That combination is only possible from a tropical volcano, maybe Apoyeque, or the wind belts prevent spread between hemispheres. I have not been able to find the academic article behind it. The distribution of grain from royal granaries was signed by Cleo herself.

This book ISBN 9780520048034 page 74-75 describes how the vital grain transport was occasionally guarded. Grain price fluctuated, and Alexandria was prioritized under death penalty in 50 BC. TGCP (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for any change. The proposed change to Ptolemaic Empire was largely rejected, while the alternative name of Ptolemaic Egypt does not have consensus for a move. For Ptolemaic Egypt, there was quite a bit more support, but while it is a more commonly used term than Ptolemaic Kingdom in the abstract, concerns were raised about whether the title accurately covered the article's scope. As for making the title the sentence case Ptolemaic kingdom – this discussion did not have enough focus on the capitalization status for there to be a clear consensus on which capitalization the article should use – this was also a slight issue in general across this RM, but it most prominently presented through the capitalization.

A new requested move should focus on one specific change to make to the title, but there is no prejudice against opening a new requested move for either Ptolemaic Egypt or Ptolemaic kingdom. There seems to be discussion about a new RM for the capitalization issue, so feel free to start that immediately. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Ptolemaic Kingdom → Ptolemaic Empire – This page should move for two reasons. First and foremost, "Ptolemaic Empire" is the more prevalent name in the preponderance of sources, when used as a proper name (in upper case) for the state, see Ngrams. The terms are more or less evenly matched when the search is case insensitive (presumably there is roughly even descriptive usage), but since we are looking for a proper name here, that evidence weighs more heavily. On Google Scholar, "Ptolemaic Empire" meanwhile gets 2,440 results, while "Ptolemaic Kingdom" gets 2,030 results. Secondly, the move is supported by historical context. The Ptolemaic Empire is the Ptolemaïkḕ basileía in Greek, i.e. a polity ruled by a "basileus", meaning monarch (not specifically a king or emperor); basileía is the same word used for the monarch of Macedonia (first as a king, later as an emperor), and also in the Seleucid Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc. (my emphasis here being on the latter, as by this junction the supranational Greek polities had much more the flavour of empire than kingdom). In its time, the Ptolemaic Empire, which included the area of modern-day Egypt, eastern Libya, Cyprus and, c. 200BCE, the Southern Levant and southwestern Anatolia, was a direct peer/rival of the Seleucid Empire, so "Empire" is appropriate from a regional perspective – Empires rival each other – and a consistency perspective. Among the many works using the terminology of the proposed term, here is a prominent work that discussed both Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires with that parallel descriptor: Comparing the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. And for a more general work by an academic publisher using the term, see: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that the phrase "Ptolemaic Empire" is used to mean "The Ptolemaic Kingdom and its territories outside of Egypt proper", whereas the article is primarily about the kingdom ruled by the Ptolemies, of which other territories constituted only a part. Its territory, at its maximum extent, was roughly equivalent to the Egyptian New Kingdom (in which context we also find "Egyptian Empire", but the Egyptian state is still referred to as the "New Kingdom"). Egyptian rulers are universally referred to as kings and queens in English, never as emperors or empresses, and this is consistent throughout Egyptian history; the Ptolemaic rulers are no exception, and are always described as "kings" or "queens", never emperors.

Also, basileus is normally translated "king", not "emperor", prior to its adoption by the emperor Heraclius in AD 639, and I find the comparison with Macedon inapposite—Macedonian rulers are always referred to as "kings", never "emperors", even Alexander. No doubt this is due to the anachronism—the word "imperator" did not refer to the ruler of the Roman world until the time of Augustus, and even then was somewhat informal, as the official style of the Roman emperors was Augustus.

So while the phrase "Ptolemaic Empire" has legitimate uses, "Ptolemaic Kingdom" is probably a better description of the main subject of the article, and is less confusing when considering that its rulers were kings and queens, while the term "emperor" to refer to a ruler is anachronistic during the Ptolemaic era. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The New Kingdom of Egypt never controlled Cyrenaica, Cyprus or any portion of Anatolia, so I disagree that the polities had a similar scope. The Ptolemaic Empire was, from the get-go, an empire spanning land and ocean borders across the Eastern Mediterranean and an empire by any classical determination of the word, e.g. the opening line of our empire page: a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries". The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) exercises political control over the peripheries. Here the center of the empire was Egypt for sure, and then it had various peripheral territories, including Cyrenaica, which Ptolemy conquered after taking over Egypt, with the Libyans in question in no way being Egyptians. Alongside establishing Cyprus as a protectorate and seizing a swathe of Syria, Ptolemy followed up on his campaigns in Anatolia by crossing into Greece and briefly taking possession of Corinth, Sicyon and Megara. It retained "non-Egyptian" territory for its duration. I went into the usage of basileus in some length in my opening comment, so the statement about Heraclius is confusing; obviously the Seleucid Empire also had a basileus (and by the same virtue could be called kingdom, but it is not). The statements about Egyptian rulers always being called kings and queens is simply fallacious: they were Pharaohs, plain and simply, and this, like basileus, is not a term that cleanly translates/transposes to anything. The Pharaoh of Egypt had no queen, but a Great Royal Wife. Since you may now be thinking of Hatsheput and Cleopatra, both of these individuals were also simply 'Pharaoh', which has no feminine equivalent. 'Queen Cleopatra' is a misnomer and problematic fluff. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The point about the Seleucids is no minor one. There is a very strong case for treating these entities similarly and consistently, whatever the terminology chosen. In addition to the sources in the opening comment discussing both as similar polities, see Social Unrest and Ethnic Coexistence in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, which abstracts: This article aims to demonstrate that the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms were multi-ethnic empires successful at integrating socially and ethnically diverse populations. They were at least as successful as the Roman empire after them in this regard, even if many scholars have stressed the degradation of the power of these kingdoms because of ethnic, even nationalistic, reaction to Greek conquest and colonization. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's striking that the very title of the paper, "Social Unrest and Ethnic Coexistence in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire" does not use "Ptolemaic Empire" and that the opening sentence names them as "kingdoms". (Also, that web page correctly describes the text presented as an extract, not an abstract; it's simply the opening two paragraphs of the article.) The paper does refer to both as "empires" thus: "the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms were multi-ethnic empires", "in both empires", "the multi-ethnic empires that developed in the eastern Mediterranean"; "the comparison of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid states show that both of these ancient multi-ethnic empires". However, whenever a name is needed for the Ptolemaic domain, it does not use "empire". Instead, it has "Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms"; "In the case of Egypt, the core of the Ptolemaic state ... The vast Seleucid Empire, by contrast"; "papyri for Egypt, cuneiform texts for the Seleucid empire"; "in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire"; "the Seleucid and Ptolemaic states"; "more fragmentary for Ptolemaic Egypt than for the Seleucid Empire"; "both the Seleucids and the Ptolemies"; "the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt"; "the Ptolemaic and Seleucid states". NebY (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"kingdoms" is lower case, not a name; the upper case term used is Ptolemaic Egypt. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that argument helping the case for the proposed title; it would seem to argue against it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't really an argument; I was just clarifying. No, that particular observation, based on that particular source, does not support the proposed title. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The New Kingdom didn't control parts of Anatolia—well, except perhaps along its border with Hittite territory, as it controlled the eastern Mediterranean to a far greater extent than the Ptolemies, and for much longer. And while the Ptolemies did control Cyrenaica for the duration of their rule, they didn't conquer it; it was already part of the Egyptian kingdom at the time Alexander conquered Egypt. Meanwhile, the New Kingdom controlled Nubia up to the sixth cataract—considerably further than the Ptolemies. For the majority of their rule, the Ptolemies did not control most of the other territories included in their "empire" at its greatest extent: they kept Cyrenaica, which was contiguous with Egypt, and Cyprus, but that's not much of an "empire". We probably wouldn't call it the "Roman Empire" if it only consisted of the territory traditionally included in Italy by the Romans, plus Cisalpine Gaul and Sicily. So I think that the phrase "Ptolemaic Empire" is a bit of a stretch for most of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

The fact that the Seleucids were kings, not emperors, who ruled what modern scholars describe as an empire, could be considered merely idiosyncratic—although the extent of their territory, and the fact that it wasn't contiguous with and descended from other historical empires preceding Alexander's conquests, could explain why the term is generally applied in that instance, while usage varies considerably with respect to Ptolemaic Egypt. But my point was that basileus is rarely or never translated "emperor", except for and from the time of its adoption by the Byzantine emperors in the seventh century, which is why the fact of its use by the Ptolemies isn't an argument in favour of calling their territory an empire—not that you can't refer to territory as an empire because its ruler was termed basileus.

As for the point about "queens", I certainly wasn't referring to Hatshepsut—but the Ptolemies were Greek, and in Greek they were kings or queens, not emperors or empresses. We don't translate their titles as anything else except for "Pharaoh", and we do describe the wives of all Egyptian kings as "queens" in English—so describing the territories that they ruled as the "Ptolemaic Empire" throughout its duration remains potentially confusing. There is no similar objection to the current title, and a third alternative that most people in this discussion support or can live with is also a strong argument against the proposed move. P Aculeius (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The ruler titles might be a bit of a rabbit hole. If we assume that the principle title is Pharaoh, there is nothing explicitly prohibiting the state ruled by a Pharaoh being considered an empire at any given point in time, and, as you say, various iterations of Egyptian states had considerable reach in all different directions. However, I am coming around to the idea that the third option may be the best solution, with the detail and nuance all left to the body. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per P Aculeius. Also the most "imperial" period was relatively brief. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  What is the period that you're considering? Wouldn't any 'post-imperial phase' just be a diminished empire? The Ptolemaic domain retained Cyrenaica, a territory outside of Egypt (and any traditional Egyptian holdings), for its duration. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ptolemaic Egypt (a redirect) is more common per Ngrams and book titles than either the status quo or the proposal. Srnec (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think I could support that. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, and it wouldn't be a bad title. P Aculeius (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I considered this and went for the proposed because the Ptolemaic domain extended well beyond most conceptions of Egypt, so Ptolemaic Egypt has some recognizability and precision issues for me. Also, many of the sources that use "Ptolemaic Egypt" use this term is a descriptive manner, not necessarily to term the state itself "Ptolemaic Egypt", but in the context of discussing aspects of Egyptian society under the Ptolemies (such as the economy, culture etc.) But, on mass balance, I would prefer it to the page's current title. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Never seen it referred to as that. "Basleios" in Greek is literally "king", and that is quite a big deal, particularly for Macedonians, and especially for the Ptolemies, who would otherwise be notionally just satraps subordinate to the Macedonian king. "Emperor" is a Roman Republican title. These are not Romans nor republics. Modern English usage may have absconded with the the term loosely to mean merely anything "big" and applies it rather indiscriminately. But it is better to keep it correct, especially for this era. Walrasiad (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is precisely why I drew the parallels with the Seleucid Empire, which also had a basileus. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Ptolemaic Egypt is the common name and would be happy with a move there. Furius (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The points made below about this term being too narrow have convinced me that Ptolemaic Egypt, too, would be inappropriate. At this stage, the only change I'm on board with is changing the case of the k, to Ptolemaic kingdom. Furius (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: On the nature of the terminology here: "... the Ptolemies were inaugurated as basileus in Alexandria and as pharaoh in Memphis ..." [1], "... basileus to the Greek population; pharaoh to the Egyptian ..." [2]
• Move to Ptolemaic Egypt since that seems to be by far the most common name.★Trekker (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  As mentioned above, this title, though not my preference, also improves on the current title. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Ptolemaic Egypt because it has the advantage of pinning the subject to a location. Andrew Dalby 14:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Ptolemaic Egypt, as above. This title is better for non specialists, and avoid the debate on the nature of the Ptolemaic kingdom/empire. T8612 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Ptolemaic Egypt per above. Note also: according to Ngrams, "Ptolemaic kingdom" is more commonly "kingdom" in lower case. It is the most common of Ptolemaic kingdom, Ptolemaic Kingdom, Ptolemaic empire, and Ptolemaic Empire. Ptolemaic Egypt, overwhelmingly dominates. Ifly6 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Ptolemaic Egypt per Iffly6. A. Parrot (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Ptolemaic Kingdom or, to a lesser extent, Ptolemaic Empire, Oppose Ptolemaic Egypt. Because "Ptolemaic Egypt" would focus on the state of Egypt and its people under the Ptolemies (sociology, economy, arts, demographic trends etc...), whereas Ptolemaic Kingdom properly refers mainly to the dynastic history of the Ptolemies, their rule, their conflicts etc... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @पाटलिपुत्र: That is a valid concern. Two responses: (1) At History of Egypt, this is the "main article" to which readers are pointed. There is no other article on Egypt in this period. This is that article. Note, too, that the article has sections on culture, demographics and agriculture. (2) There is a separate article at Ptolemaic dynasty. The family history belongs there. This is a page about the state/country under their rule, which largely corresponds to Egypt. Srnec (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Ptolemaic Kingdom; alternatively support Ptolemaic Empire, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, definitelly oppose Ptolemaic Egypt. 1) The current version (and, at least, the proposed one) is an exact translation of the contemporary name, which was Ptolemaike Basileia. Also, 2) the article itself is about the state (polity) –the political entity established by the Ptolemies– and, thus, its history(establishment, rise, decline), the Ptolemaic family and their rule, the state military etc., while 3) "Ptolemaic Egypt" sounds more vague as a term and, per @पाटलिपुत्र and @Iskandar323's previous comments, it seems like it focuses more on Egypt, simply as geographical region, and/or the Egyptian population. Additionally, 4) the term makes an erroneous correlation with Roman Egypt, which is a term referring to the Egyptian territory as part of the Roman Empire, while the Ptolemaic Kingdom/Empire was a distinct state on its own. 5) It's important to remember that in modern historiography sometimes names may be a bit conventional, especially in different languages, in which a word is translated. Basileia basically referred to a state with a monarch, today it best correspods to the meaning of the word kingdom -or sometimes empire- so its use is technically correct. 6) Consistency with the naming of rest of the Hellenistic polities that places emphasis on the state and not on geography. E.g. it's not Seleucid West Asia, but Seleucid Empire, the state established and rulled by Seleukos and his successors; Attalid Kingdom, and not Attalid Anatolia etc. Overall, I think the current version is actually fine, eventhough as I said Empire is not a wrong term either. Piccco (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Other points aside, I don't see how Ptolemaic Egypt can be confused with Roman Egypt. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I didn't mean that the readers would confuse the content of the two articles. I emphasized more on the naming process of the two "states"; whereas the one is a polity of its own, the other is simply a conventional name for the Egyptian territory, as a province of the Roman empire. Piccco (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, Another suggestion would be to include the alternative name(s), by which the state is known, in the lead (similar to the Attalid Kingdom) either in the first sentence, in a parenthesis, or even a note (?). Alternatively, we could add a "Name" section, similar to the Seleucid Empire, if there is enough to be said.Piccco (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  That should be done anyway, and I've done it now, but it's an aside to the many page titling. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ptolemaic Egypt since the Ptolemaic kingdom was not restricted to Egypt, and Hellenistic monarchies were personal not territorial. Piccco's arguments are convincing. Either "kingdom" or "empire" are fine, and if the former is kept, move to lowercase. Avilich (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in general, keep at Ptolemaic Kingdom. "Ptolemaic Egypt" is the common name and is definitely a strong second choice, but per Avilich, it might sound like it is restricting the scope of the article to just the Egyptian holdings. "Ptolemaic Kingdom", the current title, is fine as is and is an accurate translation of the Greek term, so that is probably preferred when sources are split in usage and the best option (Ptolemaic Egypt) has the unclear scope problem. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Additional comment on capitalization: I prefer the capital "K" in the Ptolemaic Kingdom vs. kingdom. This was a proper name, not a random lowercase-k kingdom that happened to also be Ptolemaic. See Kingdom of England which uses lowercase k when referring to a kingdom in general, but also a "Kingdom of England" when referring to a proper name. SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

    MOS:CAPS indicates we should keep capitalisation only if it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority. Ngrams indicates kingdom holds the substantial majority. Ifly6 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    • It's not so clear. That's why I specifically picked Kingdom of England as an example - the lede of that article includes (correctly) lines like "Edward III (r. 1327–1377) transformed the Kingdom of England" when speaking about the proper name of the country, but also lines like "under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, the kingdoms of England and Scotland united to form the aforementioned Kingdom of Great Britain." It wouldn't shock me if many such uses of "Ptolemaic kingdom" with a lowercase k are similar. I could be convinced otherwise, but I'd want to either re-check some high-quality sources myself or have someone else do such a check. Will report back if I get to it. SnowFire (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

      I took an immediate look through the normal channels: CAH² 9 (1994) pp 315–25 uses kingdom rather consistently. So does the Companion to the Hellenistic world (2008) and Companion to ancient Egypt (2010). Ifly6 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ptolemaic Empire. The suggestion that any rival to an empire must be an empire itself and must be called an empire is not persuasive, and we see academic source such as cited above using "Ptolemaic Egypt" in opposition to "Seleucid Empire". However, also weak oppose Ptolemaic Egypt. Tempted, I reviewed this article to see what changes would be needed. Much already uses Egypt and Ptolemaic Egypt, usually well, but enough relates to the entire Ptolemaic domain or even focuses on those parts outside Egypt. So keep Ptolemaic Kingdom (perhaps as Ptolemaic kingdom); it's not perfect but seems better for this article than the alternatives. NebY (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Focusing this discussion further: The "Ptolemaic Empire" title has largely been rejected, so the question comes down to whether this should be moved to Ptolemaic Egypt or kept at Ptolemaic Kingdom (and if kept, whether it should be "Ptolemaic Kingdom" capitalized or "Ptolemaic kingdom" uncapitalized). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Most modern academic ancient history sources, as far as I can tell, use kingdom. Per MOS:CAPS, Kingdom should be used only if a significant majority do so. Also, should we split this capitalisation question to a separate section to clarity? Ifly6 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Since this where we are, I don't have a strong view on "K" or "k". Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Per @SnowFire's comment above, I also like the capital better; It is the Ptolemaic Kingdom, not just "a kingdom". Piccco (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• User:Ifly6's comment pretty conclusively establishes that lowercase is more normal practice. The example of the Kingdom of England isn't analogous - "kingdom of the Ptolemies" appears in scholarship with lower case pretty consistently [3] Furius (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that a discussion of capitalization would better be covered separately, because contributors to this discussion have been focused on another issue, and may not be aware that capitalization is being debated. However, I think we would be better off leaving the title as-is. An ngram for both "Kingdom" and "Empire" shows that both capitalized and uncapitalized forms are pretty widespread, but when we say "Ptolemaic Kingdom", we're treating the phrase as though it were a proper noun—you can't easily drop "Kingdom" and make sense, unless you replace it with another word (Empire, Dynasty) or rephrase the sentence entirely (but "the Ptolemies" is ambiguous in any context besides Egyptian history, and therefore avoided).

This isn't a case where one form or the other is grammatically required, but the present title is stable and readers are likely to search under it; insisting on mixed capitalization in the article title may seem overly fussy. If there's no clear consensus in general use or academia—and small majorities don't demonstrate clear consensus—then there isn't likely to be here. And for practical reasons, stability is preferable when there isn't likely to be consensus. All the more so when the community has just weighed in on the article title, and is likely tired of arguing over it. P Aculeius (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with @P Aculeius regarding the capital "K", that's the point I wanted to make above. It's neither "a kingdom" nor "the kingdom of...". As the title of this article, it's the "Ptolemaic Kingdom", it is the name of the state; that's why capital makes more sense to me. Piccco (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to Ptolemaic Egypt – Per responses from fellow Wikipedians. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  To me, this name seems the most problematic of all (as a title for this article only). The only argument I saw for this name was its widespread usage in the literature, and while this is true, the name is used to roughly correspond to the territory that we associate with "Egypt" and it's merely a conventional descriptive term, rather than an actual proper name. Plus, the Ptolemaic state at some point controlled territories far from Egypt, like parts of Northern Africa, the Levant and Anatolia, the island of Cyprus etc.Piccco (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's not really important in the ancient world. Polities are typically named by their central revolving element. The Macedonian kingdom extended well beyond Macedon, even before Alexander began his rampage. Henry VIII controlled Wales and Aquitane, but he was still just King of England. Here, Egypt was the majoritarian territory, hence the term of convenience. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, right, the name derives from the rulers (Macedonians, English, Ptolemies); the question is not about the word "Ptolemaic" but what follows after: "Kingdom" or just "Egypt". For these polities we use the terms "Macedonian Empire" or "Kingdom of England", not "Engish Britain" or "English Aquitaine"; the title focuses on the state, not its territories. But anyway, I still think that Kingdom (or even Empire as you had suggested -though not many were very supportive) is still the best option here. Piccco (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I hear your point. You certainly wouldn't use "Tudor England" as a by-phase for Kingdom of England, and yet, in the case of this subject, that is sometimes indeed the case, such as in Social Unrest and Ethnic Coexistence in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, where "Ptolemaic Egypt" is used as a name for the entire polity in just this somewhat style-breaking way. I rather suspect that this may be precisely to avoid the kingdom/empire dilemma, since Egypt, with its pharaohs, was always rather its own creature, and, since the words pharaohnarchy or pharaohdom don't exist, just "Egypt" tends to have to suffice. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I know that the term has been used in literature, but even in Egyptian historiography we use "Old Egyptian Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" etc.; these are polities ruled by Pharaohs. By "Egypt" we refer to a geographical region. Also, the Ptolemies were their own thing in Egyptian history, neither Egyptian nor sole Pharaohs; and their contemporaries had a name for their state "Basileia". I feel like the use of "Ptolemaic Egypt" over "Kingdom" in these cases is merely a stylistic choice, since the rulers of Egypt in English are always referred to as Kings and Queens anyway, along with Pharaohs, and their territories as "Kingdoms".Piccco (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  They are sometimes referred to as one thing; sometimes others, and the discrepancies in the terminology take us right back where this RM started. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I personally think that we are just over-scrutinizing it at this point. There was really nothing wrong in the first place... I was positive about including (or moving to) "Empire" however. Piccco (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think it's particularly relevant as to whether it is sensible to call something by a Proper Noun or whether "Egypt" is the most sensible descriptor. The only thing that matters is what the reliable sources (= academic literature in my opinion) calls it. They overwhelmingly call this ... polity ... Ptolemaic Egypt (eg Companion to Ancient Egypt). If people really want to keep the phrasing Ptolemaic K/kingdom, it does not matter whether we think this is a Proper Noun or not. When the scholarship calls it a kingdom, it writes Ptolemaic kingdom overwhelmingly. Even if some people call it Ptolemaic Kingdom it does not meet the substantial majority standard in MOS:CAPS. Ifly6 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, if people want an all-caps title then they should choose Ptolemaic Empire or Ptolemaic Egypt, the two titles that predominantly use all caps [4]. But Ptolemaic kingdom, where it is used, is principally descriptive with a lower case 'k', not as a proper noun. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ifly6 the book talks about "Ptolemaic Egypt" because it focuses on Egyptian history. It says that "Ptolemaic Egypt was part of a maritime empire which in is heyday strectched from Cyrene to encompass the Agean, the Anatolian coast, Cyprus, Syria, and Phonecia..." It clearly treats "Ptolemaic Egypt" as a geographical term, part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom/Empire. Piccco (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment if we eventually are to change something in the title, I could settle with lowercase "kingdom"; Even though I don't see it as necessary or as an improvement in any way, if it's used in literature and more editors support it, I could settle. (Maybe we should open a new discussion for the K/k question, because here the initial question was different. Piccco (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor follow-up on capitalization

• @Ifly6: Too late to respond in the RM, but re citing Blackwell's A Companion to the Hellenistic World... I checked the dead-tree edition at the library. There's a whole chapter on "The Ptolemies and Egypt" but it seems to call the state "Ptolemaic Egypt" when there's cause to talk about the phrase as a whole. There's only two-three hits on "Ptolemaic kingdom" in the Google Books search above which happen elsewhere in the volume (which is quite long!), and they seem plausible uses of lower-case k kingdom rather than as a "proper name." I'd consider ACtHW a source arguing for "Ptolemaic Egypt" but being a null tell on Kingdom vs. kingdom, myself. (Will update if I get around to reading your other sources as well, just figured I'd mention it now while it's fresh in my head since the RM close explicitly left open the possibility of a later RM on capitalization. SnowFire (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Greek or Greco-Egyptian state?

Since it has recently become subject to a tussle that is at risk of developing into an edit war, it seems sensible to have a talk page discussion on whether it is best to describe the Ptolemaic state as a Greek or Greco-Egyptian one. As noted in one of the recent edit summaries, religion in Ptolemaic Egypt developed along syncretistic lines into a Greco-Egyptian mythology, and the model of rulership combined both Greek and Egyptian traditions, with the ruler as both basileus and pharaoh. Both terms are used in scholarship, with the use of "Greco-Egyptian state" for the political entity itself plain to see in sources such as [5] and [6], or as "Greco-Egyptian kingdom" in sources such as [7], or "Greco-Egyptian empire" in [8]. Food for thought. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Just like with every other empire, the Ptolemaic monarchs reigned over a multinational and diverse society. As part of the former Macedonian empire that split into various polities, all of the emerging Hellenistic states, regardless of where they emerged, are overwhelmingly referred to as Greek states in literature. This means that the political institutions that exercised power were founded by and were reserved only for Greeks, specifically one family. The IP editor claimed that the Ptolemies were egyptianized, which is not really the case, since, while they adopted some aspects of Egyptian culture, mainly those that were politically beneficial (incest tradition and the deification of the ruler), not one Egyptian ruled the state under the Ptolemies and they themselves did not even learn Egyptian after reigning for three centuries (with Cleopatra being the only exception). I won't make any comments about the half-Egyptian theory the IP user brought up. For further scholarly analysis on these matters, please see Cleopatra race controversy. Piccco (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

So I don't at all disagree that the Ptolemaic dynasty would be characterized wholly as Greek, but I wonder if there is a distinction to be drawn between the dynasty and the state itself, and between Ptolemaic Egypt and the other states of the Diadochi. As noted, Ptolemaic Egypt had some fairly distinct syncretistic trends, and the Ptolemaic period heralded a distinctly new era for the blending of a new Greco-Egyptian culture, and this was an intentional act of the state [9]. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I understand what you meant; to clarify, the term Greco-egyptian that the editor used might not be wrong for the society of the Ptolemaic territory, but I find it misleading being used for the state itself, as a political institution. It gives a false impression that Greeks and Egyptians exercised power in the state equally, which is not the case. It's true that the Ptolemies actively embraced aspects of local culture and the Greco-egyptian syncretism is undeniable, eventhough it wasn't a unique characteristic of Ptolemaic Egypt; see for example Greco-Buddism syncretism. As I mentioned, every empire by definition is multicultural. The Ptolemies themselves, however, were still pretty reserved when it came to sharing power, with the family practicing especially high levels of incest, unlike the Seleucid dynasty, who married local royalty when they came to power. Piccco (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment, perhaps an alternative wording, that would hopefully satisfy the IP editor, would be a different sentense added in the lead paragraph mentioning the Greco-egyptian syncretism that occured in the Ptolemaic society, as you also mentioned above. For example, Reigning for nearly three centuries, the Ptolemies were the longest and final dynasty of ancient Egypt heralding a distinctly new era for the blending of a new Greco-Egyptian culture. or something like that? Piccco (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. The lead currently underplays the Greco-Egyptian cultural fusion that took place under the Ptolemies, focusing more on politics (except for a religious syncretism aside in the infobox). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice. I figured there could easily be a compromising solution here and the cultural blending seems worth the mention. Above, I just gave an example. I'll wait in case if you have a specific wording you'd also like to discuss/propose. Piccco (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not super inspired on precise wording, so fine with the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add this one soon. Piccco (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Demographics

One thing that is missing is an estimate of the relative proporitions of Greeks and native Egyptians. Were the Greeks a small overlay on the native population, or was there substantial Greek immigration?Bill (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)