As internal harmony in the Golden Age guaranteed a strong policy, so the lack of it from the end of the third century onwards caused times of crisis, exploited by ambitious individuals, resistance groups, and foreign powers. The numerous royal cartouches left blank in temples in this period may reflect cases of dynastic strife. Even though we use explicit terms like ‘‘disturbed internal harmony’’ and ‘‘Age of Crisis,’’ the second century bc (mainly the reigns of Ptolemy VI, VIII, and part of the reign of IX) should not be labeled so since state intervention became stronger than ever before.
The complicated dynastic history of the Age of Crisis is dealt with in excellent studies (recently Holbl 2001 and Huss 2001). In this chapter we focus on the causes of the dynastic strife. Ambitious individuals at court are a first cause of the disturbances. Ptolemy IV was influenced by the unscrupulous Alexandrian Sosibios, who had several members of the royal family murdered and became, together with Agathokles of Samos, the king’s counsellor. Their actions would mortgage the succession for the coming two generations in the absence of adult heirs to the throne. When finally Ptolemy VI put the empire back on the rails, the future of the country was mortgaged again, this time by the marriage policy of his brother and successor Ptolemy VIII. In 141/40 BC the latter, already espoused to his sister Kleopatra II, married his step-daughter and niece Kleopatra III and made her queen as well. Mother and daughter became ‘‘the fiercest of rivals, without precedent in the Hellenistic world’’ (Holbl 2001: 195).
The dynastic cult was also abused to claim the throne, and the cult name became a political identity card. Kleopatra II, for instance, who claimed to be sole queen, replaced her cult name ‘‘Benefactor’’ (Euergetis), which recalled her reign with her rival brother-husband Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, by ‘‘Mother-loving Savior’’ (Philometor Soteira), which referred to her first husband-brother Ptolemy VI Philometor.
The sole inhabitants of Egypt who played a major role in the dynastic strife were the Alexandrians, who did not shrink from using force. Ptolemy’s IV counsellor Agathokles, for instance, was lynched by the Alexandrian mob. After 168 bc the Romans intervened increasingly in Ptolemaic affairs (Lampela 1998), and Ptolemaic princes tried to strengthen their position by turning to the Roman senate and even bequeathed foreign possessions and, in the end, Egypt itself to the Romans. Under Ptolemy XII Auletes (‘‘Flute-player’’) a real clearance-sale was held. Chased away by the Alexandrians, he distributed impressive bribes in Rome and managed to seize the throne, but debts had to be cleared, and Rabirius Postumus, the main creditor of the new king, became Minister of Finances. In the Alexandrian War (48-47 bc), the Alexandrians and Romans finally took a stand against each other. The Alexandrians preferred Ptolemy XIII, whereas Caesar (to whom Ptolemy XIII offered the head of Pompey) decided to support Kleopatra. In this grim struggle the world-famous Alexandrian library accidentally went up in flames spreading from ships in the harbor.
Leaving the Alexandrian and Roman stage, we turn to the consequences of the dynastic strife for the Egyptian countryside (McGing 1997; Veisse 2004). The inland troubles are often vaguely described as ‘‘revolts,’’ but we need to distinguish between (a) revolts by natives, usually concentrated in the south, (b) a coup d’etat by a confidant of the king, (c) a civil war in which inhabitants did not turn against the foreign rulers but supported one of the rival kings. Two native revolts are attested, of which only the first produced native rebel kings, and even these revolts may not have been a reaction against foreign rule. The main cause was rather the general decline in living conditions.
World History
