Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PitoPlankton3415 t1_iyv9liz wrote

Why?

81

acm2033 t1_iyvowy9 wrote

Instead of being a Roman settlement, Egypt was largely left alone for a while under the Ptolymies. They already had agriculture (which was very different than the rest of the Roman world), language, a system of government, and economy that worked. No need for the Romans to come in and establish things that were already there.

That changed after Cleopatra backed Mark Antony in the civil war, and lost. Octavian made Egypt a province to be governed through Rome, rather than an independent state.

The whole blog is about a 30 min read, well worth the time.

253

Choppergold t1_iyvr0l8 wrote

The end of the Hellenistic age and the beginning of the Roman. Cleopatra was not only Egyptian but descended from the Ptolemy who served Alexander the Great himself. Gets forgotten, that Macedonian Greek heritage in Egypt from 300 BC to when Cleopatra killed herself

109

ValidationRequired t1_iyyewpb wrote

Cleopatra wasn't even ethnically Eqyptian. The Ptolemy dynasty was Greek and did not intermingle with the Egyptian people. Cleopatra was actually the first ruler to even speak Egyptian instead of just Greek like her forebears.

25

koga90 t1_iywszby wrote

>Octavian made Egypt a province to be governed through Rome, rather than an independent state.

Octavian made Egypt a roman province under exclusive control of the imperator (commander, which is the title he adopted since monarchy was a big nono to romans and evolved into our emperor) unlike other provinces that had appointed governors.

23

AeonsOfStrife t1_iyxb34o wrote

That's not what Imperator meant in republican context, and that's not the title he regularly used. Imperator meant someone who is invested with imperium, and thats literally it, varying from a governor, to a general, to a high level magistrate, etc. It's true Egypt had one after Imperial integration, but your supposition as to why is a bit erroneous. It was used because literally anyone in control of a province had to have Imperium, and anyone with Imperium was Imperator. Imperator took on a different usage throughout the empire especially after the crisis of the 3rd century, and that's the one you're using. Augustus generally used the titles of "Princeps", "Pater Patriae", or "Caesar" as even by his later life it had taken on a political sense, not just a reverential one.

13

mglyptostroboides t1_iyyszwd wrote

>They already had agriculture (which was very different than the rest of the Roman world), language, a system of government, and economy that worked.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by this. Could you clarify what you mean? I'm fairly certain that many of the other places the Romans conquered already practiced farming before the Romans conquered them. And what do you mean by "language" here? Surely you mean written language, right? Because people have been speaking for tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands!) of years.

2

stormearthfire t1_iyyzalm wrote

Egyptian farming is very much tied to the flood plains of the Nile river and it's annual innudation. The innudation process enriches the soil and determines the quality of the harvest.

Source: played a shit ton of Pharoah city sim back in the days

0

mglyptostroboides t1_iyzcbzd wrote

I wasn't asking about the parenthetical about Egyptian agriculture being different from the rest of Roman territory. It was the implication from how that comment was worded that Rome introduced the very concept of agriculture to most of the places they conquered which is extremely wrong.

In fact, the whole comment was worded in such a way that it seems like the author literally thought Rome was going into places and introducing the very concepts of farming, language (?!???! what?!) and government....

See:

>Instead of being a Roman settlement, Egypt...

(contrasting Egypt with the rest of Roman territory)

and

>No need for the Romans to come in and establish things that were already there.

Does this mean the author of the comment literally thought people in, say, pre-Roman Gaul were just walking around, grunting wordlessly until the Romans taught them Latin? I'm pretty certain that's not what they meant, but you have to admit it was worded very ambiguously. However, in light of the fact that they (apparently?) assume the Romans introduced agriculture to most of their empire, I'm not sure what to think...

2

Pyranze t1_iyzfdv4 wrote

I think they meant that the Romans introduced their versions of these things to those areas which would better integrate them into the Empire as a whole, whereas Egypt already had institutions and infrastructure that the Romans could use without issue.

Edit: re-reading it, I'm pretty sure that's what they meant. They said "the Egyptians already had [list of stuff] that worked" so I assume they meant the stuff worked for the Romans.

2

mglyptostroboides t1_iyzfzp4 wrote

Ah! That changes a lot. I parsed that as "[things] and and economy that worked]". As if the "that worked" was referring to just the economy not the rest of the things they listed.

2

[deleted] t1_iyvbot5 wrote

[removed]

−64