Cleopatra was white and I can prove it

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Why not Egypt? Alexandria wasn't an isolated racial island in Egypt.

Minor semantic difference. Though I want to emphasize the difference between the Greeks and the Egyptians as they were neither the same nor saw themselves as the same.

She was not a foreigner, the "Gypsy" Queen.

She was a Greek of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Whether she was taught Egyptian or not doesn't change that. She wasn't Egyptian in any way, she was play acting as an Egyptian as her ancestors had done. She may have been better at putting on the act but she was acting nonetheless.

Also going to disagree with one of those articles you posted. Libyans and Nubians were not native to Egypt nor were they ever seen as Egyptian. The Nubians/Napatans (25th Dynasty) were extremely resented by the populace at large. The prior Libyan dynasty (22nd Dynasty) was made by a man of Libyan origin whose family had been in Egypt since the 1200's or 1100's. The Libyan tribes (Meshwesh) had been forcefully resettled in the Delta, in most cases, to work the land for Pharaoh and to provide workers and soldiers. Gradually they became assimilated into the Egyptian culture but that is after hundreds of years. It is worth noting that the Meshwesh resided in their own communities separate from the Egyptians. Due to a lack of written sources we don't whether the 22nd Dynasty was seen as foreign but certainly the Meshwesh in Libya were not considered Egyptian. We already know what happened to the Hyksos as well. Therefore we cannot assume that there was a change in mindset among the Egyptians at any point.

The Egyptian civilization was not born in hellenistic Alexandria (with an ethnically mixed population). One of the difficulties is defining the term "literacy" as it applies to ancient populations: the average roman was a illiterate.

I don't get what you mean.
My point is that an illiterate peasant (the majority of Egypt's population) does not overthink these things. The first thing they care about is whether their ruler is one of them or at least is able to play the role convincingly. If not they rebel or get suppressed by military force. We know from Egyptian history: the Hyksos were chased out, the Meshwesh were overthrown, the Napatans were overthrown, the Assyrians were chased out, the Persians were chased out. Really only the Greeks were able to form a capable foreign rule. Why this was can be debated but Greek rule was more heavy handed than Persian rule. Alexander extorted more taxation in his short reign than probably most of the Persian rule, and yet the Egyptians preferred his rule to that of the Persians. Despite this Alexander and the Ptolemies were largely accepted by the Egyptian ruling class and by extension the Egyptian peasantry. So Cleopatra was by no means the exception and the Egyptian ruling class had been in league with the Greeks since Alexander and Ptolemy I. Which leads me to questions whether Cleopatra stands out as much as claimed among the Ptolemies, or whether it was not actually the case that the Ptolemies were more capable of using state repression and that this is not mentioned due to effective Ptolemaic propaganda.

[Ludicus]

Minor semantic difference. Though I want to emphasize the difference between the Greeks and the Egyptians as they were neither the same nor saw themselves as the same.She was a Greek of the Ptolemaic Dynasty...she was play acting as an Egyptian as her ancestors had done...it takes quite a bit of brainwashing to accept a foreigner who pretends to be Egyptian

I have to disagree here. In my opinion, Cleopatra was not a "foreign ruler" in a foreign land. To start with, the "Alexandrians" were people of mixed Greco/Egyptian descent (Fraser 1972:48). In the later Ptolemaic period, due to mixed marriages there was a huge social mobility that brought several Egyptian people into the classes of the Greeks. Regarding the false "dichotomy" between an highlighted/superior race and the brainwashed/illiterate/conquered people, I can also express a different point of view (see also a previous post, Edith Hall, "Inventing the Barbarian").

1) governance in ptolemaic egypt: from raphia to cleopatra vii

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II understood that the days of race-based imperial rule were finally over. This involved changing the whole basis of his rule and devolving power on two groups who were previously disadvantaged and largely despised. These were the local Egyptian elite and the ‘Alexandrians’, those Greeks who had intermarried with the Egyptians and could hardly any longer be regarded as Greeks in the true sense of the word.
He expelled and/or exterminated the expatriate Greeks. Instead, he embraced the local Egyptian population, their religion, culture and values.
In these different ways he finally broke the stranglehold of Greekness in the colony of Egypt, and, in its place, established what in modern parlance we would call ‘local rule’.

2) looking at the egyptian elite: sculptural production of the ... - jstor

..when these two populations started their cohabitation, the contraposition between their cultures was not so obvious anymore.
The need of adapting to the new geopolitical situation forced these people to change their own habits, even if sometimes unconsciously, so they could not be considered as purely Hellenic or Egyptians any more but as a new heterogeneous population

3) The Cambridge History of Egypt

Generally ignored in older studies of Ptolemaic society compiled by classicists...the very notion of official ethnic discrimination becomes quite dubious for the Ptolemaic period.
By late Ptolemaic times, a number of such Hellenized Egyptians - or Egyptianized Hellenes - had risen to prominence in civil and military positions, and the accelerating process would surely have continued but for the harsh decrees of social separation imposed by Octavian himself

...Under the Ptolemies, the wealthy Memphite family of high priests...Like medieval popes, these Egyptian "pontiffs" crowned the succeeding rulers and controlled extensive territories attached to religious institutions

Cleopatra was hated by the elites in Alexandria, simply because she followed her father's policies of placating Rome. But the remaining contemporary Egyptian sources suggest that she was very popular among her own "brainwashed" people. Let's keep in mind that strangers who were perceived as such by the native Egyptians, suffered at times ill-treatment,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume III: The Late Period

Everywhere the stranger is the servant of the inferior man.
He arouses wrath in the crowd though he has done no wrong.
Someone will despise him <though> he does not spite him.
He must listen to insulting cursing and laugh at it as a joke.
He must forget the crime of (being treated as) a woman because he is a stranger.

Papyrus Insinger
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III, p.208

(Let's also take into consideration the worst possible insult Dio has hurled at Cleopatra: "true to her nature as a woman and Egyptian", Cassius Dio, Roman History 50.33 - Lexundria)

Religious and political brainwashing still exists today. Alexander self-deification set an example for many other rulers. After the death of Alexander, the dynastic cult, acceptable to both to Egyptian and Greek communities, was provided by theologians at king's court, and also required the service of a specialist in Greek religion (Burkert, 1987).
After the victory in Actium against Anthony, the almost simultaneous appearance of the imperial cult in every Roman province, rapidly expanded in the Greek world and in other parts of the empire
The imperial cult in the Peloponnese | Francesco Camia - Academia.edu

Octavian managed very skillfully to promote his divine partnership with his stepfather – the divus Iulius – in order to be considered, at least in the Greek world, a beneficent god.

In fact the emperors' perceptions of himself changed because of exposure to Ptolemaic traditions (Nicholas Eid, 1995). The differences between the imperial cult, the dynastic cult of the Ptolemies and the "brainwashed" pharaonic tradition of kingship were simply caused by ideological differences: for the Greeks, kings/semi-mythological heroes became individuals in the divine world in their own right; for the Egyptians, the pharaoh on his death became an Osiris; in political terms, the living god, the pharaoh, was all powerful.

To sum up,
a)The Egyptian concept of divinity and the concept of divinity of the Roman emperor in the imperial cult were fundamentally similar.
b) the success and expansion of the Roman imperial cult is an excellent hallmark of "brainwashed" peoples: in fact, the native Egyptian culture influenced the later development of the Roman imperial cult in the Roman world.

Regarding the Hellenistic ruler cult, one of the most interesting sources is the text of a processional song for King Demetrios Poliorketes in 291.The visibility of divine power-epiphaneia- is an essential feature of Greek religious beliefs. (Angelus Chariotis, 2003)
"How the greatest and dearest of the gods have come to the city! For the hour has brought together Demeter and Demetrios...How the greatest and dearest of the gods have come to the city!...For the For the other gods are either far away, or they do not have ears, or they do not exist, or do not take any notice of us, but you we can see present here; you are not made of wood or stone, you are real".

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Doesn't this support my previous post? Only point where the quotes diverge is the assumption that Egyptian society had changed to the point where they now accepted foreign rulers rather than native Egyptians.

But Alexandria was a significantly different place from the rest of Egypt. The Greek ruling class lived in a separate part of the city. That the Egyptian nobility and priesthood had a stake in the Ptolemaic dynasty isn't all too different from Persian rule, and Persian rule was universally rejected as soon as the Persians conquered Egypt all the way to Alexander's arrival. Between the conquest of Cambyses and the death of Darius III Egypt had rebelled against the Persians around five times. In the Ptolemaic period the Egyptians had rebelled maybe once (in the reign of Ptolemy II). I don't necessarily buy that this was because the Egyptians all of a sudden became more accepting of foreigners. Rather the Ptolemies had more effective policies when it came to ruling Egypt, in spite of their massive control and taxation. Or we are simply not getting the full picture and the Ptolemies had to put down constant revolts but they were so good at covering this up through propaganda that it has not been recorded pretty much anywhere.

I am questioning the proposed dichotomy that a ruler is either loved or they have brainwashed their people.
It seems to be the case that many subjects that love their ruler are brainwashed.

[sumskilz]

Let's keep in mind that strangers who were perceived as such by the native Egyptians, suffered at times ill-treatment,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume III: The Late Period

Everywhere the stranger is the servant of the inferior man.
He arouses wrath in the crowd though he has done no wrong.
Someone will despise him <though> he does not spite him.
He must listen to insulting cursing and laugh at it as a joke.
He must forget the crime of (being treated as) a woman because he is a stranger.

Papyrus Insinger
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III, p.208

From Miriam Lichtheim's translations (Volume II, p.144), we can also learn that foreigners weren't all bad, like other beasts they can be taught:

The dog obeys the word,
And walks behind its master.
The monkey carries the stick,
Though its mother did not carry it.
The goose returns from the pond,
When one comes to shut it in the yard.
One teaches the Nubian to speak Egyptian,
The Syrian and other strangers too.
Say: "I shall do like all the beasts,"
Listen and learn what they do.

[Abdülmecid I]

But Alexandria was a significantly different place from the rest of Egypt. The Greek ruling class lived in a separate part of the city. That the Egyptian nobility and priesthood had a stake in the Ptolemaic dynasty isn't all too different from Persian rule, and Persian rule was universally rejected as soon as the Persians conquered Egypt all the way to Alexander's arrival. Between the conquest of Cambyses and the death of Darius III Egypt had rebelled against the Persians around five times. In the Ptolemaic period the Egyptians had rebelled maybe once (in the reign of Ptolemy II). I don't necessarily buy that this was because the Egyptians all of a sudden became more accepting of foreigners. Rather the Ptolemies had more effective policies when it came to ruling Egypt, in spite of their massive control and taxation. Or we are simply not getting the full picture and the Ptolemies had to put down constant revolts but they were so good at covering this up through propaganda that it has not been recorded pretty much anywhere.

You are right about Alexandria, but I completely disagree with your observations about public order. For the first part, it's interesting to notice an important semantic difference in the Roman name of the city. It was called Alexandria ad Aegyptum, Alexandria near and not in Egypt. In general, we should avoid generalisations based on a small and unrepresentative sample of evidence. Alexandria was a huge metropolis, the heart of foreign immigration and the center of political power, so its circumstances were certainly special, in comparison to the rest of the country. These generalisations affect particularly the Ptolemaic studies, because a disproportionately large portion of our papyrological sources comes from Fayum, thanks to its dry climate, after the desertification of the ancient oasis.

That being said, your conclusions about Persian rule in Egypt seem quite arbitrary and you trust way too much Greek historiography and its unreliable sources of information. Firstly, it's wrong to describe the uprisings as universal and popular. We know nothing about their social composition, but common sense and indirect indications (comparison with similar revolts elsewhere, archeological data and the political system the rebels adopted) clearly point towards them being aristocratic. Chauvinism has always existed, but the tendency to view history from modern nationalistic lenses is misleading. It is generally accepted that Cambyses owes his comically vile reputation to his initiative of slashing the temples' sources of revenue, without this meaning that he was hated by clergy and nobility alike. The bull's of Apis burial records explicitly contradict Herodotus' and other authors' claims of Cambyses and Artaxerxes III transforming the bovine into a hamburger. On the contrary, they ceremonially "celebrated" its death, according to their jurisdictions as Pharaohs of the country. Moreover, the inscription of the statue of Udjahoresnet glorifies extremely the Achaemenid rule and ridicules its native predecessors. I'm not saying that all was rosy in the Egyptian satrapy, but the real image is much more nuanced, with the Egyptian society being friendly, hostile or totally indifferent to the ethnicity of its governor. Inaros, for example, was a petty king in the Delta, marshy region notoriously difficult to subjugate, where marauders caused problems to the authorities even until the Roman period.

Finally, there were many more than one Egyptian uprising against the Lagids. Even the names of some "revolutionary" pharaohs have survived, such as Hugronaphor or Harsiesi. I believe that at least 10 different uprisings are known to us, but the real number is obviously bigger and presumably equal to that of Achaemenid Egypt. Interestingly enough, in Ptolemaic Egypt we meet one of the first recorded instances of "strikes" (ἀναχώρησις), where the destitute peasant refused to attend his farm (usually rented from a temple) and instead sought refuge away from state, clerical and aristocratic oppression, in the desert (it has been considered, a bit excessively, in my opinion, as the precursor of the Christian anchorites). The only difference is that Egypt never entirely escaped from Ptolemaic rule, unlike what happened in the 4th century, but the answer to this question is easy. Egypt was the center of Ptolemaic power and even Thebes was relatively close to the capital. Susa not so much, while the imperial army was also obliged to cross the inhospitable Sinai desert and overwhelm the Nile fortifications. Both herculean tasks and practically impossible without the consent of Arab nomads, as the failure of Perdiccas' and Antigonus' gigantic armies showed.

To summarize, with the possible exception of the priesthood (due to their privileges being curtailed by the Cambyses), there is absolutely zero evidence that Macedonian rule was more tolerable than Persian. Archeological record has demonstrated beyond doubt that local uprisings were frequent occurrence and that the horror stories of Greek writers are products of either their partiality or that of their sources (most likely, Egyptian priests). The explanation about why Egypt was never completely controlled by Egyptians during the Hellenistic era has more to do with geographic factors than domestic policy.

[Ludicus]

The Achaemenid rule has a bad press. The 27th Dynasty came to an end with the revolt of Amyrtaeus of Sais.There had been periodic revolts in Egypt throughout the 5th century, some instigated perhaps by Athenian agitation (Henry Colburn, archeology of the Achaemenid rule in Egypt, 2014)
The Ptolemy dynasty ruled for three centuries. Ancient nationalism did exist, but in fact, not all Egyptians took part in the revolt of 205/186, essentially caused by economic reasons. Btw, the Amnesty decree of 186 is probably the oldest form of habeas corpus in history.

...the assumption that Egyptian society had changed to the point where they now accepted foreign rulers rather than native Egyptians

I'm trying to say that there was a bicultural accommodation, during those three centuries. I'm not alone,




The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship

Throughout the pharaonic period, Egyptian religion and administrative tradition concerned themselves intimately with the ideology of Egyptian rulers. They appear to have contributed no less significantly to the ideology of Ptolemaic kingship.
The Ptolemaic monuments at Karnak, Edfu, Kom Ombo, and Philae, situated in plain view of all subjects, Egyptians and Greeks alike, celebrated an ideology of kingship that deliberately emulated pharaonic prototypes.These monuments do not advertise an Egyptian ideology of kingship as distinct from a Greek one, but rather demonstrate a coalescence of the two.

To balance Professor Samuel's emphasis on the Hellenic component, I have stressed the Egyptian.

As we know, Antiochus IV invaded Egypt in 168 BC (and before that, in 170 BC) and established "protectorate" over Ptolemy VI. Rome ordered Antiochus to withdrew from Egypt (it's a funny story, the meeting between Popillius Laenas and Antiochus, near Alexandria).

A month later, an Egyptian priest named Hor of Sebbenytos - who was involved in the administration of the ibis-cult at Memphis - wrote a letter - found at Saqqara (Lower Egypt) - where he describes his premonition dream of the salvation of Egypt, prophesying the departure of Antiochus.

This native priest uses his own language and the Egyptian tradition (the interpretation of dreams) in service of his pharaoh, Alexandria and Egypt. It reads, at the end of the document,
"...I gave it to the Pharaohs in the great Serapium (*) which is Alexandria (1)...I read out the salvation of Alexandria and every man who was within it in which happened through the good disposition of the Pharaohs"
(*) Serapeum, dedicated to a syncretic Greco-Egyptian deity.

Bicultural accommodation also applies to the Hyksos Dynasty.
Scholars rely in non contemporary evidence, and the most well known non contemporary evidence is Manethos's history.
Many scholars debunked Manetho's history, arguing for a peaceful takeover by resident Levantines. After the fall of the 13th dynasty, they were able to form peacefully their own dynasty. In the end, the Hyksos dynasty was a result of the Egyptian rulers' own persistent relations with the Levant from the very beginning of 12th dynasty to the Second Intermediate Period.
Within Egypt, they intermingled with the local population, adopting Egyptian names, titles, dress and incorporated the worship of Egyptian gods into their own beliefs and rituals.

The 12th Dynasty gives the Middle Kingdom its reputation as the classical age of Egypt, but it is also true that the innovations of the Hyksos transformed the culture of Egypt and also preserved the past. Under Apepi, old papyrus scrolls were copied and carefully stored and many of these are the only extant copies to have survived.

If it were not for the Hyksos, the Egyptian army would have been without the composite bow and the horse driven chariot, the bronze dagger, the short sword and other innovations (an improved potters' wheel, the vertical loom, new cultivation techniques, and new fruit).

To sum up, the Hyksos secured their own Dynasty by developing its commercial ties while promoting a hub of cross cultural contact (Anna‐Latifa Mourad, 2104).

Some call it a "foreign dynasty", one might say, an amazing Egyptian dynasty.

But Alexandria was a significantly different place from the rest of Egypt. The Greek ruling class lived in a separate part of the city.

(1) "The great Serapium which is Alexandria"

Identity and Cross-cultural Interaction in Early Ptolemaic Alexandria

Until the last two decades or so, the latter school held sway: Peter Fraser's comment that " the gulf between Greek and Egyptian was almost complete in normal social intercourse of the middle and upper classes, represented something of a consensus.
However, this thesis of cultural and social separation has been effectively challenged, and even in earliest Alexandria a binary construction of strict "Egyptian " and " Greek" ethnic identities would have been unlikely.
Based on literary evidence specifically relating to the city and extrapolating from papyrological sources, it is clear that Alexandria was quite heterogeneous.

Indeed, archeological survey work in the western Nile Delta has revealed the profound impact that Alexandria's foundation has on the surrounding landscape, demonstrating that the city was bound-up with the Egyptian countryside in ways that belie models of strict separation

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

You are right about Alexandria, but I completely disagree with your observations about public order. For the first part, it's interesting to notice an important semantic difference in the Roman name of the city. It was called Alexandria ad Aegyptum, Alexandria near and not in Egypt.

Okay? Not really sure what you mean.

In general, we should avoid generalisations based on a small and unrepresentative sample of evidence. Alexandria was a huge metropolis, the heart of foreign immigration and the center of political power, so its circumstances were certainly special, in comparison to the rest of the country.

Again not sure what you mean. Doesn't the last bit support my point? The implication is that Alexandria being a "heterogeneous" city is the exception then and the rest of Egypt is mostly a homogeneous place that is mostly Egyptian. Even colonies established across Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt follow the trend of a Greek ruling class with the surrounding Egyptians being mostly lower class or peasant serfs. It is important to note that in Alexandria the city was walled off into various areas, most notably the Greek Quarter, which was inhabited by the Greeks. The assumption that Greeks and Egyptians frequently intermingled is therefore untrue. The Egyptian upper class which was accepted into the ruling class are an exception.

These generalisations affect particularly the Ptolemaic studies, because a disproportionately large portion of our papyrological sources comes from Fayum, thanks to its dry climate, after the desertification of the ancient oasis.

The generalization being... that the Greeks were a separate ruling class?

That being said, your conclusions about Persian rule in Egypt seem quite arbitrary and you trust way too much Greek historiography and its unreliable sources of information.

What specifically? There is nothing particularly unreliable about the multiple large native revolts carried out against the Persians. In so far as this is concerned the sources are correct. Even more so because archaeology seems to confirm this, as Persian taxation and coinage was nowhere near as extensive as it was under Alexander or the Ptolemies (which we can also gather from inscriptions and even the sources themselves). Alexander appointed an official for the sole task of extracting money from Egypt. He also appointed various "governors" and divided the territory into multiple occupation regions, undertook a construction campaign and treated the territory as his own property. The Ptolemies more or less continued these policies and carried out massive colonization campaigns in the Delta. At one point even attempting to suppress rebellious locals in Upper Egypt but settling Greeks down there as well. This is basically the exact opposite of what the Persians did, who largely left Egypt to its own devices and kept it intact as a separate nation.

Firstly, it's wrong to describe the uprisings as universal and popular. We know nothing about their social composition, but common sense and indirect indications (comparison with similar revolts elsewhere, archeological data and the political system the rebels adopted) clearly point towards them being aristocratic.

Against the Persians? They certainly were. According to the histories there was a revolt in Upper Egypt DURING Cambyses' stay in Egypt. The reason why he managed to conquer Egypt so quickly was because he used the common Persian strategy of striking the main nerve center (the king) and bribing key aristocrats (so same as they took Babylon). But in so doing Cambyses had to pacify the outlying areas and this was his main motivation in sending the so called "lost army" to Siwa.

Chauvinism has always existed, but the tendency to view history from modern nationalistic lenses is misleading.

Can you give an example of where I did this? I don't believe that I ever did this, nor do I know of any source that applies this type of thinking.

It is generally accepted that Cambyses owes his comically vile reputation to his initiative of slashing the temples' sources of revenue, without this meaning that he was hated by clergy and nobility alike. The bull's of Apis burial records explicitly contradict Herodotus' and other authors' claims of Cambyses and Artaxerxes III transforming the bovine into a hamburger.

Ah, this is where it gets interesting. The claim that Cambyses killed the Apis bull is problematic. On the one hand it is easily dismissed by those who have a bone to pick with "the Father of Lies" while on the other hand it might explain a lot. For starters this is dismissed because the slaying of the Apis bull is not recorded by Egyptian or Persian sources but as both at that time were conduits for state propaganda we can't trust it either way. Herodotos says that his source for this was an Egyptian priest, which may or may not be true, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand either way (even if one argues that Egyptian priests are biased).

I'll go over why this event may have been possible. It is known that Cambyses had problems with foreign subjects, specifically with ceremonial rites (as the Apis Bull might imply) since the reign of his father. It is recorded in Babylonian sources that Cambyses attended a Babylonian religious ceremony while armed and with armed guards. This was a major taboo to the Babylonians and his lack of tact probably led to his father sending him to govern Bactria instead. If this is true then not only does Herodotos' narrative seem more likely but so does the general picture of Cambyses as some kind of harsh ruler who is a meat head/brute type of personality. We also know from Zoroastrianism that worship of animals and all living beings was strictly forbidden (as an Iranian scholar explained to me). Whether he killed the Apis bull or not doesn't matter, but the general picture that Cambyses and the Persians struggled to govern Egypt in spite of their lenient policies is supported. If Cambyses did in fact crack down on the priesthood and all of these are lies invented to discredit him... then we still need to ask why they went to such lengths to do so. The fact that this is happening at all and given what is said by Greeks or inferred by modern historians, it remains that poking the priesthood is a bad policy in Egypt and the Greeks did the opposite, which may explain their success.

On the contrary, they ceremonially "celebrated" its death, according to their jurisdictions as Pharaohs of the country. Moreover, the inscription of the statue of Udjahoresnet glorifies extremely the Achaemenid rule and ridicules its native predecessors. I'm not saying that all was rosy in the Egyptian satrapy, but the real image is much more nuanced, with the Egyptian society being friendly, hostile or totally indifferent to the ethnicity of its governor. Inaros, for example, was a petty king in the Delta, marshy region notoriously difficult to subjugate, where marauders caused problems to the authorities even until the Roman period.

Udjahorresnet isn't really a trustworthy source with regards to Achaemenid rule considering that he was one of the first to defect to the Egyptians. Aristocrats defecting isn't really indicative of the culture as a whole or the peasantry (or other aristocrats). It is widely assumed that Achaemenid success in conquering Egypt was due to him. Herodotos' statements about Persian unpopularity in Egypt is mostly true (if not close to 100% true). For starters there was a revolt which had to be suppressed within the first couple of years of Cambyses' conquest. But in the reign of Darius (within years of Cambyses' death) there was another revolt which had to be put down, it is attested to by Achaemenid sources (most likely Petubastis III). When Xerxes took the throne Egypt rebelled yet again (most likely Psamtik IV). In Artaxerxes' reign a massive Egyptian revolt under the supposed Inaros II broke out. This time the Egyptians were supported by the Athenians under Perikles. As it is attested by Thukydides, Herodotos, Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus this was the largest revolt in Egypt which the Persians had to put down and even prior to Athenian intervention this pretender was able to make significant gains, though ultimately defeated and put to death. Under Darius II the so called Amyrtaios (Psamtik V?) took over upper Egypt and then gradually overtook all of Egypt. He was eventually killed and replaced by a certain Nefaarud (who is attested to in Egyptian sources) and probably established his own dynasty, then succeeded by the 30th Dynasty of the Nectanebos. Native rule returned to Egypt for 60 years which was unmatched in the Ptolemaic period, at most the Ptolemies lost control of Upper Egypt, not even all of Egypt. Artaxerxes III was forced to undertake two campaigns in Egypt and a campaign in Phoenicia, as well as a massive army with political support from the Greeks and lots of mercenaries. Then in the reign of Darius III a revolt broke out in Egypt under Khabash. He must have been popular because even Ptolemy refers to Khabash as part of an anti-Persian struggle. Finally we have the silent revolt in which Egypt turned over to Alexander, who also appealed to these pretenders to legitimize himself.

Finally, there were many more than one Egyptian uprising against the Lagids. Even the names of some "revolutionary" pharaohs have survived, such as Hugronaphor or Harsiesi. I believe that at least 10 different uprisings are known to us, but the real number is obviously bigger and presumably equal to that of Achaemenid Egypt. Interestingly enough, in Ptolemaic Egypt we meet one of the first recorded instances of "strikes" (ἀναχώρησις), where the destitute peasant refused to attend his farm (usually rented from a temple) and instead sought refuge away from state, clerical and aristocratic oppression, in the desert (it has been considered, a bit excessively, in my opinion, as the precursor of the Christian anchorites). The only difference is that Egypt never entirely escaped from Ptolemaic rule, unlike what happened in the 4th century, but the answer to this question is easy. Egypt was the center of Ptolemaic power and even Thebes was relatively close to the capital. Susa not so much, while the imperial army was also obliged to cross the inhospitable Sinai desert and overwhelm the Nile fortifications. Both herculean tasks and practically impossible without the consent of Arab nomads, as the failure of Perdiccas' and Antigonus' gigantic armies showed.

I was referring largely to what is written in the ancient sources such as Diodorus, Ctesias, Plutarch et all. So I do not doubt that there were many revolts which were covered up by the Ptolemies. Even so none of these revolts were as successful or widespread as the many revolts against the Persians. At its largest the Ptolemies temporarily lost control over Upper Egypt.

To summarize, with the possible exception of the priesthood (due to their privileges being curtailed by the Cambyses), there is absolutely zero evidence that Macedonian rule was more tolerable than Persian. Archeological record has demonstrated beyond doubt that local uprisings were frequent occurrence and that the horror stories of Greek writers are products of either their partiality or that of their sources (most likely, Egyptian priests). The explanation about why Egypt was never completely controlled by Egyptians during the Hellenistic era has more to do with geographic factors than domestic policy.

It was many times worse and more repressive than Achaemenid rule. Despite that there are also far less successful or widespread revolts in the Ptolemaic period. Though I would not discount domestic policy. Simply because there were revolts does not mean that the Ptolemies were not more efficient or smarter rulers in so far as governing Egypt is concerned. The very fact that revolts were not as large as in the Achaemenid period is testament. The Persians were simply not popular rulers for whatever reason and I see no reason to doubt this. The benign neglect of Achaemenid rule was not necessarily a popular or effective policy. The direct and repressive rule of the Ptolemies was not only more successful but paradoxically caused less activity against the regime. If there was wide spread resentment against the Ptolemies it did not necessarily manifest itself in the form of large scale physical violence.

[conon394]

the Amnesty decree of 186 is probably the oldest form of habeas corpus in history.

How do you reach that conclusion? Nothing in it stipulations are as far reaching as Athenian law. Really it simply seems to curb what had been sort of extra legal privileges of the Greeks and Priests. In any event has a gift from a victorious absolute monarch and not a forced concession of a defeated one I don't think the comparison is apt.

[Ludicus]

It is important to note that in Alexandria the city was walled off into various areas, most notably the Greek Quarter, which was inhabited by the Greeks.

Previous post, Thomas Landvatter challenges the thesis of racial/cultural isolation.
------

Full book , PDF , 278 pages, IDENTITY, BURIAL PRACTICE, AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
I can't summarize 278 pages in short phrases. Read the whole book. It's well worth a reading. Just a few excerpts,

Greeks and Egyptians
1.1 – Introduction
P. M. Fraser, in his monumental study of Alexandria, made the following statement, which largely encapsulates post-Second World War scholarly assumptions about cultural interaction in the city and Egypt at large throughout the Ptolemaic period:
“Very little is heard of the Egyptian population until the end of the third century, and from this general silence we may infer that the gulf between Greek and Egyptian was almost complete in normal social intercourse of the middle and upper classes, though no doubt contact existed at a lower level”

That such a clear divide ever existed, even in earliest Alexandria, has rightfully come under scrutiny. Susan Stephens’ work “Seeing Double,” for example, explicitly argues that the “Greek” poetic and artistic achievements of Alexandria must be interpreted as being fully engaged with Egyptian culture.

Simon Goldhill, in a review of her work, believes her to be with this thesis provocatively setting out to “debunk the purity of Greek artistic achievement.”

The notion that cultural engagement and interaction should be provocative speaks to an assumption long-held for the study of Ptolemaic Egypt: that contact zones between Greeks and Egyptians were few, understanding minimal, and that cultural and ethno-linguistic
boundaries were vigorously maintained This division provides the primary paradigm through which Egypt is viewed: Greeks and Egyptians were defined by respective ethnic identities, which in turn determined and limited an individual’s scope of action.

.. the discourse on cross-cultural interaction for this period has suffered from an assumed relationship between “culture” – taken broadly to mean a mutually recognizable set of behaviors, traditions, and symbols – and “ethnicity” – an identification that relies on socially constructed ideas of common origin – that often borders on equivalency. A concern for this merged “ethno-cultural” identity of an individual or group was intertwined with concerns about race and cultural purity that were partly a projection of the concerns of a very specific, colonial present onto a very different past.

This study assumes that “ethnicity” and “culture” are not equivalent terms, and that testing their relationship – and their relationship to material culture – is necessary for a more nuanced understanding of cross-cultural interaction in Ptolemaic Egypt.
This work adds an archaeological case study to a field that is often dominated by textual evidence, contributing to a trend in scholarship on Ptolemaic Egypt which has been developing over the last two decades.
This paradigm denies a complete separation, and emphasis has instead been placed on how Greek and Egyptian populations interacted with each other; that they did so is of no question. However, this also assumes that the identities of “Greek” and “Egyptian” are not a priori the most important. An overwhelming emphasis on a perceived ethno-cultural “Greek” and “Egyptian” identity has masked the presence and importance of other identities, such as socioeconomic level, regional origin, and gender. For the archaeologist, this has led to biased interpretations of material culture, such that everything carries an implicit ethnic meaning"

1.2 – The “Two Societies” and the Ethnicity Problem
The tendency until quite recently has been to see “Egyptians” and “Greeks” as two monolithic blocks: this is the thesis of the existence of two separate societies, native Egyptian and immigrant Greek.

...A full analysis of the evidence cannot support the view that a Greek/Egyptian dichotomy was the primary organizing principle of Ptolemaic society.
...With current understandings of identity broadly and ethnicity in particular, we must reject the conception of “Greeks” and “Egyptians” as two monolithic racial-cultural-linguistic blocks, and – perhaps more importantly – the a priori assumption that Greek and Egyptian “ethnic” identities were a primary organizing force in society.


...The typical model of cultural interaction used in discussions of Ptolemaic Egypt, namely acculturation under the problematic and ill-defined moniker of “Hellenization” or its converse “Egyptianization,” has served to reinforce the model of the “two societies.”

1.4 – Archaeology, Identity and Ethnic Interpretation
The previous section described theories of identity, ethnicity, and cultural interaction and their relevance to Ptolemaic Egypt in order to demonstrate the weakness of the “two societies” thesis and argue for a more nuanced view of ethnicity.


..I have shown that a society characterized mainly by the “separateness” of two ethnic groups is too simplistic a model. Ethnic identities did not predominate in the funerary realm. Once a priori conceptions of the importance of “Greek” and “Egyptian” identities are removed,

...it becomes apparent just how diverse in population and tradition Ptolemaic Egypt was; the mortuary systems of the period reflect this. The study of Ptolemaic Egyptian society is best-served by moving beyond ethnic dichotomies to a more nuanced conception of identity and social change

How do you reach that conclusion? has a gift from a victorious absolute monarch and not a forced concession of a defeated one I don't think the comparison is apt.

According to...
The great revolt of the Egyptians (205–186 BC) - UC Berkeley Library

Amnesty decree of 186 (P.Kroll): Another positive measure by the government is a general amnesty for fugitives and policemen, with a remittance of debts for farmers of royal land, for owners of vineyards, orchards and bathhouses. Abuses of officials are curbed: it is forbidden now to put a person in prison for private causes; instead the accused should be brought before the judge. This is probably the oldest form of habeas corpus in history. I doubt that it has much practical impact, but from a juridical point of view it was a great step forward in the direction of human rights, allowing me to finish this survey of a rather depressing period in hellenistic history with a positive note.

Willy Clarysse, professor emeritus of the KU Leuven, currently working in Leuven and Paris on the edition of several papyrus texts, especially a group of bilingual surety documents in third century Fayum. Willy Clarysse | KU Leuven - University of Leuven - Academia.edu

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Achaemenid rule has a bad press. The 27th Dynasty came to an end with the revolt of Amyrtaeus of Sais.There had been periodic revolts in Egypt throughout the 5th century, some instigated perhaps by Athenian agitation (Henry Colburn, archeology of the Achaemenid rule in Egypt, 2014)
The Ptolemy dynasty ruled for three centuries. Ancient nationalism did exist, but in fact, not all Egyptians took part in the revolt of 205/186, essentially caused by economic reasons. Btw, the Amnesty decree of 186 is probably the oldest form of habeas corpus in history.

The Athenians couldn't have been responsible for the Egyptian revolts. There were many revolts prior to Athenian intervention and various rebels had already achieved some success prior to the Athenian intervention. When Perikles ordered an expedition to support the Egyptians they were defeated by the army of the Achaemenid King (not just a mere satrap). Prior to this the Athenians were trying to consolidate their hold over the Aegean and Cyprus, controversially Perikles wanted to expand their influence into Egypt which was opposed but he managed to get his way.

I don't agree with the counter narrative that Persian rule was great or particularly good. While surely there was a reason why the Achaemenids held power over these foreign subjects there is also a reason for why they lost this power. Herodotos may have had a bias but that is no reason to say that his history is wholly unreliable. On the contrary I actually found his writings to be fairly useful and even the areas in which he might be wrong it is probably because he is attempting to interpret it from a Greek point of view and simply doesn't understand. Achaemenid contrarianism is really annoying, not because I dislike the Persian Empire (quite the opposite to be sure) but the contrarians try to present a different narrative about everything (Xerxes didn't destroy Athens, Cyrus made the first declaration of Human Rights, Persians didn't own slaves, Herodotos is wrong about everything etc) is not only absurd it is blatantly untrue. With regards to Egypt the Persians simply were not capable in governing these lands, I'm not saying it is because the Persians were tyrannical (my argument is actually that the Ptolemies were more tyrannical and paradoxically more successful) but their record shows they didn't do a good job in Egypt (granted they did better than the Assyrians).

I'm trying to say that there was a bicultural accommodation, during those three centuries. I'm not alone,

The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship

P. M. Fraser, in his monumental study of Alexandria, made the following statement, which largely encapsulates post-Second World War scholarly assumptions about cultural interaction in the city and Egypt at large throughout the Ptolemaic period:
“Very little is heard of the Egyptian population until the end of the third century, and from this general silence we may infer that the gulf between Greek and Egyptian was almost complete in normal social intercourse of the middle and upper classes, though no doubt contact existed at a lower level”

Accommodation has always existed in some form. Certainly there was some accommodation done by the Ptolemies. Saying that Bleeding Kansas, the end of slave states or sanctuary in northern states is proof that segregation or slavery did not exist would be wrong.

Also I am not saying that there was a totally enforced segregation. But that Ptolemaic Egypt created some kind of Greco-Egyptian synthesis into a homogeneous society? Cannot be true.

As we know, Antiochus IV invaded Egypt in 168 BC (and before that, in 170 BC) and established "protectorate" over Ptolemy VI. Rome ordered Antiochus to withdrew from Egypt (it's a funny story, the meeting between Popillius Laenas and Antiochus, near Alexandria).

A month later, an Egyptian priest named Hor of Sebbenytos - who was involved in the administration of the ibis-cult at Memphis - wrote a letter - found at Saqqara (Lower Egypt) - where he describes his premonition dream of the salvation of Egypt, prophesying the departure of Antiochus.

This native priest uses his own language and the Egyptian tradition (the interpretation of dreams) in service of his pharaoh, Alexandria and Egypt. It reads, at the end of the document,
"...I gave it to the Pharaohs in the great Serapium (*) which is Alexandria (1)...I read out the salvation of Alexandria and every man who was within it in which happened through the good disposition of the Pharaohs"
(*) Serapeum, dedicated to a syncretic Greco-Egyptian deity.

He was loyal to Ptolemy to the Ptolemies? This isn't really indicative of a homogeneous society. I mean Lezek the Black was supported by both the Cumans and Hungarians, does this mean Cumans were Hungarian?

Bicultural accommodation also applies to the Hyksos Dynasty.
Scholars rely in non contemporary evidence, and the most well known non contemporary evidence is Manethos's history.
Many scholars debunked Manetho's history, arguing for a peaceful takeover by resident Levantines. After the fall of the 13th dynasty, they were able to form peacefully their own dynasty. In the end, the Hyksos dynasty was a result of the Egyptian rulers' own persistent relations with the Levant from the very beginning of 12th dynasty to the Second Intermediate Period.
Within Egypt, they intermingled with the local population, adopting Egyptian names, titles, dress and incorporated the worship of Egyptian gods into their own beliefs and rituals.

Accommodation does not equal popular support.
I don't really want to get into the Hyksos but we could say for certain that they were not popular rulers. They were not regarded as being Egyptians either. All of the 12th Dynasty depictions shows them as Asiatics.

The 12th Dynasty gives the Middle Kingdom its reputation as the classical age of Egypt, but it is also true that the innovations of the Hyksos transformed the culture of Egypt and also preserved the past. Under Apepi, old papyrus scrolls were copied and carefully stored and many of these are the only extant copies to have survived. If it were not for the Hyksos, the Egyptian army would have been without the composite bow and the horse driven chariot, the bronze dagger, the short sword and other innovations (an improved potters' wheel, the vertical loom, new cultivation techniques, and new fruit).

To sum up, the Hyksos secured their own Dynasty by developing its commercial ties while promoting a hub of cross cultural contact (Anna‐Latifa Mourad, 2104).

... You could say this about European colonization of Africa. Was Cecil Rhodes a Zulu? Were the Boers? After all some Jewish merchants settled in Natal and were accommodated by Shaka. Was Shaka a Jew?

Some call it a "foreign dynasty", one might say, an amazing Egyptian dynasty.

It was an Egyptian dynasty... of foreigners.

(1) "The great Serapium which is Alexandria"

Identity and Cross-cultural Interaction in Early Ptolemaic Alexandria

But I'm not saying that there was no interaction. Just that the Greeks were not Egyptians and the Egyptians knew this. Cultural syncretism doesn't make you an Egyptian.

Previous post, Thomas Landvatter challenges the thesis of racial/cultural isolation.
------

Full book , PDF , 278 pages, IDENTITY, BURIAL PRACTICE, AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
I can't summarize 278 pages in short phrases. Read the whole book. It's well worth a reading. Just a few excerpts,

Thanks for the links.
But I mean social changes don't make the Greeks any less Greek.

The tendency until quite recently has been to see “Egyptians” and “Greeks” as two monolithic blocks: this is the thesis of the existence of two separate societies, native Egyptian and immigrant Greek.

...A full analysis of the evidence cannot support the view that a Greek/Egyptian dichotomy was the primary organizing principle of Ptolemaic society.
...With current understandings of identity broadly and ethnicity in particular, we must reject the conception of “Greeks” and “Egyptians” as two monolithic racial-cultural-linguistic blocks, and – perhaps more importantly – the a priori assumption that Greek and Egyptian “ethnic” identities were a primary organizing force in society.

...The typical model of cultural interaction used in discussions of Ptolemaic Egypt, namely acculturation under the problematic and ill-defined moniker of “Hellenization” or its converse “Egyptianization,” has served to reinforce the model of the “two societies.”

The assumption here is because Greeks adopted some Egyptian culture then that makes them Egyptians. This doesn't present an effective challenge to the above argument which I underlined.

[conon394]

Previous post, Thomas Landvatter challenges the thesis of racial/cultural isolation.
------

Full book , PDF , 278 pages, IDENTITY, BURIAL PRACTICE, AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN PTOLEMAIC EGYPT
I can't summarize 278 pages in short phrases. Read the whole book. It's well worth a reading. Just a few excerpts,





According to...
The great revolt of the Egyptians (205–186 BC) - UC Berkeley Library





Willy Clarysse, professor emeritus of the KU Leuven, currently working in Leuven and Paris on the edition of several papyrus texts, especially a group of bilingual surety documents in third century Fayum. Willy Clarysse | KU Leuven - University of Leuven - Academia.edu

Yes I know where you got it from, but it remains a poor statement. The amnesty decree was one off royal decree handed out as a gift, it has no biding in a law above the King, it is not anyway comparable to the Magna Carta or the concept in Greek Polis law of - the rule of law. What the Ptolemy decides today he can make undecided tomorrow. Who rules in Alexandria? The Ptolemy. Who rules in 4th century Athens? The Law. In the former you cannot have a Magna Carta, in the latter you can (or the functional equivalent of it).

You can say a lot of good or bad things about the Ptolemies, but development constitution law is not one of them.

[AqD]

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II understood that the days of race-based imperial rule were finally over. This involved changing the whole basis of his rule and devolving power on two groups who were previously disadvantaged and largely despised. These were the local Egyptian elite and the ‘Alexandrians’, those Greeks who had intermarried with the Egyptians and could hardly any longer be regarded as Greeks in the true sense of the word.
He expelled and/or exterminated the expatriate Greeks. Instead, he embraced the local Egyptian population, their religion, culture and values.

Thank you for all the supporting evidences! I have nothing valuable to add but,

Can you not see just how hilarious that was? First they ruled by an army, then their army was gone, the next king immediately realized that (before his subjects did!) and started to befriend natives, "embrace" their culture and pretend he's one of their own, even expelled people of his own blood to show off his new race!

Do you not think those Egyptians, if they truly believed that line of royalty was theirs, were actually deceived, cheated, if not brainwashed?

That's really funny

[Ludicus]

There were many revolts prior to Athenian intervention.

That's exactly what Henry Colburn says, in archeology of the Achaemenid rule in Egypt, 2014 "There had been periodic revolts in Egypt throughout the 5th century, some instigated perhaps by Athenian agitation"

it is not anyway comparable to the Magna Carta...

In fact, it is not anyway comparable to the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the US Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the US Bill of Rights... and the same applies to to the Cyrus Cylinder, recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.UN Archives File related to Cylinder of Cyrus
British Museum - The Cyrus Cylinder travels to the US

It is often referred to as the first bill of human rights as it appears to encourage freedom of worship throughout the Persian Empire and to allow deported people to return to their homelands. It was found in Babylon in modern Iraq in 1879 during a British Museum excavation and has been on display ever since

I don't agree with the counter narrative that Persian rule was great or particularly good. the contrarians try to present a different narrative about everything ..Cyrus made the first declaration of Human Rights

Who knows, see above. But I just said "The Achaemenid rule has a bad press". I essentially praised the Hyksos dynasty.

Page 400,please. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ACHAEMENID RULE IN EGYPT

The Achaemenid Empire's Contributions to Public Administration ...

The Achaemenid Empire established the world’s first complex administrative system of government in 559 B.C. There are numerous administrative accomplishments by the Achaemenids that have not successfully been duplicated in modern times, despite the Pony Express, the Suez Canal, and perfected recycling systems. Political debate, formal rewards systems, federal agencies, and integrated federal and provincial levels of government among a culturally diverse population were characteristic of the trailblazing Achaemenid Empire. Furthermore, administrative ideologies such as government’s responsibility to serve the public and provide equal rights were incorporated first by Cyrus the Great’s Human Rights Charter

I mean social changes don't make the Greeks any less Greek...Just that the Greeks were not Egyptians... The assumption here is because Greeks adopted some Egyptian culture then that makes them Egyptians

Remember what you said "But Alexandria was a significantly different place from the rest of Egypt. The Greek ruling class lived in a separate part of the city. "
And I said " Alexandria was not an isolated racial island"

In fact, quoting,

...But does analysis of the funerary system as a whole indicate the presence of an explicit “Greek” identity which would have been recognizable to Alexandrian society?...

The answer is no, it didn't happen.

An ethnic identity is necessarily horizontal: since it indicates an identity associated with a “fictive” kinship that is not based on wealth or class, it must be available to all members of a group regardless of socioeconomic status.". Ethnic and cultural identity were considered equivalent: persons deemed “Greek” or “Egyptian” were thought to have certain inherent cultural attributes from which deviation was abnormal

Alexandria is the paradigmatic “Greek” city of the Ptolemaic period. Excavation in Alexandria has largely been the purview of Classicists and classically trained archaeologists, a situation almost unique among sites in Egypt. The city has always been considered something apart from Egypt – by Egypt rather than in Egypt, as related in Classical sources. This idea has been taken too literally, such that the city was often treated as if it were located in Greece rather than the Nile Delta

"

“Hellene,” “Egyptian,” and other ethnics are markers of specific kinds of social, occupational, or tax status deemed of interest to the state rather than indications of an assumed ethno-cultural identity as experienced by the population of Egypt.

The ethnic, in turn, was only one aspect of an individual's official, state-designated identity.

Though the terms “Hellene” and “Egyptian” are maintained in the documentation and are defined in opposition to one another, the “real” ethnic origin of an individual was not of interest to the state, and so is not reflected in the documentary record

Clarysse and Thompson:

it is onomastics rather than ethnicity which is primarily involved in the terms ‘Greek’ and ‘Egyptian"

Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt: Volume 2, Historical Studies
---

Can you not see just how hilarious that was?

I don't want to be rude, but it seems to me that you didn't understood what you are reading. On a second thought, feel free to contribute in a meaningful way.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

-Well Colburn is wrong because the Athenians did not cause any revolt in Egypt. But if they did one needs to ask why they succeeded.

-Unfortunately that is a forgery, the Cyrus Cylinder does not say that. The actual Cyrus Cylinder is basically propaganda against Nabonidus in which Cyrus tries to legitimize his position as King of Babylon.

-I was not referring to you specifically. Only to the contrarians in general who praise the Achaemenids and claim everything which Herodotos et all writes as Greek propaganda.

-I don't see how one can interpret that adopting aspects of a host culture makes one that culture or ethnicity. Sure there were the mummies but I mean that doesn't make one an Egyptian.

[Abdülmecid I]

Okay? Not really sure what you mean.

As I said, I agree with you about Alexandria.

What specifically? There is nothing particularly unreliable about the multiple large native revolts carried out against the Persians. In so far as this is concerned the sources are correct. Even more so because archaeology seems to confirm this, as Persian taxation and coinage was nowhere near as extensive as it was under Alexander or the Ptolemies (which we can also gather from inscriptions and even the sources themselves). Alexander appointed an official for the sole task of extracting money from Egypt. He also appointed various "governors" and divided the territory into multiple occupation regions, undertook a construction campaign and treated the territory as his own property. The Ptolemies more or less continued these policies and carried out massive colonization campaigns in the Delta. At one point even attempting to suppress rebellious locals in Upper Egypt but settling Greeks down there as well. This is basically the exact opposite of what the Persians did, who largely left Egypt to its own devices and kept it intact as a separate nation.

Lack of coinage is hardly a reliable indication to assess Achaemenid economic policy in Egypt. Coins were only gradually introduced to the country, during the late 4th century, before that, the Egyptians and the state authorities used other means for trade, such as silver ingots. I doubt there were significant differences between Persian and Macedonian taxation, although the latter was probably slightly more effective, thanks to the fact that the capital was located nearby, so there was smaller room for autonomous communities and corrupt officials. Cleomenes' tax-grabbing role is exaggerated by Lagid propagandists, who try to legitimize Ptolemy's I ascension to power, in contrast to Cleomenes' and Darius' arbitrariness.

Can you give an example of where I did this? I don't believe that I ever did this, nor do I know of any source that applies this type of thinking.

I'm referring to the common stereotype of the Egyptian nation being allegedly very eager to overthrow the foreign elites and to reclaim independence. It's a completely baseless and unscientific approach that has only recently begun to be treated with skepticism. This interpetation is a classic case of anachronism, by identifying ancient empires with their modern counterparts (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and etc.) and their subjects with "oppressed nations". In reality, we know almost nothing about the hopes and worries of the populace, while the archeological data points towards the uprising being a complex fighting between multiple parts of the local nobility, one of which is usually allied with the imperial administration.

Ah, this is where it gets interesting. The claim that Cambyses killed the Apis bull is problematic. On the one hand it is easily dismissed by those who have a bone to pick with "the Father of Lies" while on the other hand it might explain a lot. For starters this is dismissed because the slaying of the Apis bull is not recorded by Egyptian or Persian sources but as both at that time were conduits for state propaganda we can't trust it either way. Herodotos says that his source for this was an Egyptian priest, which may or may not be true, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand either way (even if one argues that Egyptian priests are biased).

It's neither problematic nor controversial, it's outright wrong. Egyptian sources explicitly record the death of the Apis bull in 524 B.C. and depict Cambyses, dressed as a Pharaoh, appropriately honouring the animal, according to the native ceremonial protocol. It's not a case of absence of evidence, but of presence of evidence for the exact opposite:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Udjahorresnet isn't really a trustworthy source with regards to Achaemenid rule considering that he was one of the first to defect to the Egyptians. Aristocrats defecting isn't really indicative of the culture as a whole or the peasantry (or other aristocrats). It is widely assumed that Achaemenid success in conquering Egypt was due to him. Herodotos' statements about Persian unpopularity in Egypt is mostly true (if not close to 100% true). For starters there was a revolt which had to be suppressed within the first couple of years of Cambyses' conquest. But in the reign of Darius (within years of Cambyses' death) there was another revolt which had to be put down, it is attested to by Achaemenid sources (most likely Petubastis III). When Xerxes took the throne Egypt rebelled yet again (most likely Psamtik IV). In Artaxerxes' reign a massive Egyptian revolt under the supposed Inaros II broke out. This time the Egyptians were supported by the Athenians under Perikles. As it is attested by Thukydides, Herodotos, Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus this was the largest revolt in Egypt which the Persians had to put down and even prior to Athenian intervention this pretender was able to make significant gains, though ultimately defeated and put to death. Under Darius II the so called Amyrtaios (Psamtik V?) took over upper Egypt and then gradually overtook all of Egypt. He was eventually killed and replaced by a certain Nefaarud (who is attested to in Egyptian sources) and probably established his own dynasty, then succeeded by the 30th Dynasty of the Nectanebos. Native rule returned to Egypt for 60 years which was unmatched in the Ptolemaic period, at most the Ptolemies lost control of Upper Egypt, not even all of Egypt. Artaxerxes III was forced to undertake two campaigns in Egypt and a campaign in Phoenicia, as well as a massive army with political support from the Greeks and lots of mercenaries. Then in the reign of Darius III a revolt broke out in Egypt under Khabash. He must have been popular because even Ptolemy refers to Khabash as part of an anti-Persian struggle. Finally we have the silent revolt in which Egypt turned over to Alexander, who also appealed to these pretenders to legitimize himself.

Khabash almost certainly revolted before Darius III, probably during the reign of Arses. I'm not denying that Udjahorresnet is not an impartial source or that multiple insurrections occured in Achaemenid Egypt. But, in order to confirm that Persian rule was universally detested in the Nile valley, you need to either cite sources that attest a serious level of unrest across all the social strata or, at least, compare the number of revolts with those of the Ptolemaic or Roman period (which would only give an indication of the real situation, because of the severe lack of primary sources). In any cases, neither of these requirements is satisfied, in what concerns our debate. The only significant difference is that Egypt succeeded in interrupting Persian domination for 60 years, but I already explained the reasons for that, which lie in geography. Susa could only difficultly control a densely populated and rich region, separated from easily flooded rivers and inhospitable deserts. On the contrary, the Ptolemies lived in Egypt, so they could easily dispatch forces to ensure the efficient administration and the maintenance of public order, while expulsion would automatically lead to the demise of the dynasty.

I don't agree with the counter narrative that Persian rule was great or particularly good. While surely there was a reason why the Achaemenids held power over these foreign subjects there is also a reason for why they lost this power. Herodotos may have had a bias but that is no reason to say that his history is wholly unreliable. On the contrary I actually found his writings to be fairly useful and even the areas in which he might be wrong it is probably because he is attempting to interpret it from a Greek point of view and simply doesn't understand. Achaemenid contrarianism is really annoying, not because I dislike the Persian Empire (quite the opposite to be sure) but the contrarians try to present a different narrative about everything (Xerxes didn't destroy Athens, Cyrus made the first declaration of Human Rights, Persians didn't own slaves, Herodotos is wrong about everything etc) is not only absurd it is blatantly untrue. With regards to Egypt the Persians simply were not capable in governing these lands, I'm not saying it is because the Persians were tyrannical (my argument is actually that the Ptolemies were more tyrannical and paradoxically more successful) but their record shows they didn't do a good job in Egypt (granted they did better than the Assyrians).

Your impression of Achaemenid historiography looks a bit like a caricature, as, in reality, the image is much more nuanced. No serious historian calls Herodotus as the "Father of Lies" or seriously believes that the Cyrus Cylinder is comparable to a bill of rights. Especially the latter was a myth propagated by the Shah and his royalist apologists, which was never adopted to any academic circles outside those of the Iranian diaspora. For what it's worth, I doubt that Herodotus intentionally lied to his audience, apart from some rare instances, when he wanted to tickle its curiosity (e.g. with the absurdly astronomical numbers of Xerxes' army). He is probably a victim of the unreliability of his sources. The main culprits are the Egyptian priesthood, whose privileges were indeed targeted by Cambyses, and Ptolemaic propaganda, as expressed in the Satrap's Stela. The insistence of the Second Sophistic (and of moralists willing to distort history to match their narrative, like Plutarch) to demonize the "barbarians" probably contributed to this trend. However, with a bit of critical thinking and the help of material evidence, we can be capable of detecting a portion of the truth, presumably in the middle of the two extremes, Ptolemy's and his clergy's vilification campaign and the embellished memories of Udjahorresnet.

[conon394]

In fact, it is not anyway comparable to the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the US Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the US Bill of Rights... and the same applies to to the Cyrus Cylinder, recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.UN Archives File related to Cylinder of Cyrus
British Museum - The Cyrus Cylinder travels to the US

So you are agreeing it is not comparable to Magna Carta. It is comparable to the Cyrus Cylinder however in that is simply a benevolent moment from an absolute ruler.

Cyrus Cylinder, recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights.

Which is unfortunate since it is not, and the result is mostly the because of Shah era Iranian propaganda.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/

[sumskilz]

Lack of coinage is hardly a reliable indication to assess Achaemenid economic policy in Egypt. Coins were only gradually introduced to the country, during the late 4th century, before that, the Egyptians and the state authorities used other means for trade, such as silver ingots. I doubt there were significant differences between Persian and Macedonian taxation, although the latter was probably slightly more effective, thanks to the fact that the capital was located nearby, so there was smaller room for autonomous communities and corrupt officials. Cleomenes' tax-grabbing role is exaggerated by Lagid propagandists, who try to legitimize Ptolemy's I ascension to power, in contrast to Cleomenes' and Darius' arbitrariness.

No idea how it compares, but anyway...

Herodotus 3.89, 3.91:

Those that paid in silver were required to render the weight of a Babylonian talent; those that paid in gold, of a Euboic talent; the Babylonian talent being equal to seventy-eight Euboic minae. In the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses after him there was no fixed tribute, but payment was made in gifts. It is because of this fixing of tribute, and other similar ordinances, that the Persians called Darius the merchant..

The sixth province was Egypt and the neighboring parts of Libya, and Cyrene and Barca, all of which were included in the province of Egypt. From here came seven hundred talents, besides the income in silver from the fish of the lake Moeris; besides that silver and the assessment of grain that was given also, seven hundred talents were paid; for a hundred and twenty thousand bushels of grain were also assigned to the Persians quartered at the White Wall of Memphis and their allies.

If the Levant is any indication, the governor of each medinah (subdivision of a satrapy) also collected local taxes. In what is almost certainly the governor's palace compound on top of Ramat Raḥel overlooking Jerusalem, there was a warehouse full of wax-sealed stamped storage jars, some containing olive oil, some containing wine. This was a taxation system that originated under the Judahite monarchy, which was maintained under the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Achaemenid administrations. Only the stamps on the jar handles really changed. The governor's palace at Samaria (next medinah to the north) looks to be about the same. No doubt, the specific produce collected would vary by region if this was consistent across other satrapies.

EDIT: Storage jar stamps...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Interesting that the Yehud stamps seem to overlap the Persian to Hellenistic transition.

[Cyclops]

It is very interesting that the tribute system seems to roll along under the changing facade of imperial rule. My feeling is its a very deeply entrenched system in Egypt, so the local "Big Men" are more able to keep middle management positions (the rather archaic Temple-based system) in their own hands.

My own impression is Egyptians would get sick of foreigners on top maybe a little more often than one of their own, and the Makedonians qualify as foreigners on that count.

Was Egypt less revolting under the Caesars? Does this mean Augustus was Egyptian? JK. Egypt was quieter under Rome though, is that right? We see native Egyptians adopting Helleno-Roman portraits into their thoroughly Egyptian coffins, they adopt Helleno Roman state religion in Christianity. What did the Romans do differently? I imagine it was the usual trick offering local elites near full equality before the law, full social status and a shot at the curtailed cursus honorum.

Or was it because the Romans dismantled the old Temple elite in favour of their privatised tax collection system leading to a social revolution and disempowering conservative elites with a a nationlist agenda in favour of Romanised locals and foreigners? Wish I knew more about classical Egypt.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Lack of coinage is hardly a reliable indication to assess Achaemenid economic policy in Egypt. Coins were only gradually introduced to the country, during the late 4th century, before that, the Egyptians and the state authorities used other means for trade, such as silver ingots. I doubt there were significant differences between Persian and Macedonian taxation, although the latter was probably slightly more effective, thanks to the fact that the capital was located nearby, so there was smaller room for autonomous communities and corrupt officials. Cleomenes' tax-grabbing role is exaggerated by Lagid propagandists, who try to legitimize Ptolemy's I ascension to power, in contrast to Cleomenes' and Darius' arbitrariness.

Persian coinage finds were particularly in Anatolia, coastal Syria and Babylonia, not so much in other regions which implies local markets, with some Imperial policies of introducing or using coinage here and there. By contrast we have tonnes of coins from Alexander's reign specifically and the accumulated 300 years of the Ptolemaic period. Alexander had no geographic advantage and yet his conquest of Egypt was met with local support. The satrap Mazakes surrendered, and the various mercenaries which garrisoned the country also surrendered (something which would put the support for the Persians into question). Also important to note there was absolutely no native resistance in the reign of Alexander.

Darius I only taxed 910 talents while this is a fair bit it would not even be 1/10th of the total amount taxed by Darius I throughout the Empire. Most of the taxes were collected as tribute and mostly in the form of grain and some other goods. The local satrap was allowed to take tribute to provide for his foreign army, which he used to occupy the country. Later on more troops were required to control the whole country (into the reign of Darius III, supposedly over 20,000 foreign troops as garrisons). In around 460 a rebel Pharaoh (probably Inaros II) sent up to 40,000 medimnoi of wheat to secure an Athenian alliance (which clearly debunks the assumption that revolts were caused by Athenian meddling). The Persian kings would eventually establish small foreign colonies in the Delta (mostly for commercial purposes). But under Alexander and the Ptolemies many colonies of Greeks and Levantines would be built (for various purposes including land for his veterans, resettlement, economic purposes) and rebellion was not as wide spread (in Alexander's reign no rebellion).

Cleomenes of Naucratis was made the treasurer of Egypt and his task was to extract taxation and was technically the official of the King. A far larger contribution in coins was made than previously. However the grain taxation was kept in place, which actually means that he taxed more than the Achaemenids. Alexander also removed Persians from their administrative positions in Egypt. Garrisons were placed throughout the Nile and under the command of Companions. An Egyptian was appointed to govern Upper Egypt and another Egyptian was appointed to govern Lower Egypt (technically Egypt was not a satrapy and Alexander wanted to decentralize the power).

Cleomenes may have extorted money but this does not show a lack of taxation, if anything it might imply a greater amount of taxation and in spite of this no revolt materialized. Alexander would have needed coinage to pay his army, particularly his Greek mercenaries, and grain to feed them. If he could not get coinage he would have extracted taxes in any other way so long as it was gold and silver. Throughout his reign he extracted 235,000 talents from the Achaemenid Empire, most of it was actually silver ingots and gold plate, which were then struck into gold or silver drachma. In spite of the fact that Egypt did not typically use coinage, Alexander actually established a mint in Memphis, definitely indicative of his standardized taxation and market policies, as well as multiple other costs involved with managing and controlling the empire. The minting and expenditure of coins under Alexander alone would have surpassed any single Persian ruler. Military activity would have as well, so we can be certain that Alexander and his successors not only taxed more but depended more on hard currency.

Ptolemy would have centralized the control under himself and reformed taxation and increased coinage. What with the construction of Alexandria, a new fleet, Ptolemy's army, an occupation policy and a construction campaign across the Nile this actually means more taxes (but Ptolemy has no other places to draw taxes from). The claim that Cleomenes taxed the temples comes from Aristotle, I don't see a reason to assume that this is Ptolemaic propaganda. Cleomenes was no threat, as he was dead by 322 and had briefly served Ptolemy anyway. The fact that Alexander did not prosecute him could be for any number of reasons. Although he did prosecute many others, including Harpalus who was treasurer of Babylonia.

The lack of exact records is no obstacle; this information alone would lead us to assume that but the sheer amount of coins found in the Hellenistic period not only demonstrates the level of expenditure but also the increase of coins used by the people involved in the market. That said inscriptions and historical writings, some intact papyri, do provide some numbers for how many talents (or drachmae) were in the hands of a particular king (or spent by them at a given time). Under the Achaemenids the economy could be described as a local economy (without much trade in certain areas) with some state intervention (as the Great King or Satrap could order currency to be put into the market, or coins to pay for their armies). However under the Greeks there was at the very least a case to be made that the economy was starting to globalize and that the importance of markets (especially in economic centers; Alexandria, Sidon, Ephesos etc) with standard currency increased. This means more need for taxation to maintain all of this and more opportunity for taxation now that the economy was moving.

The Ptolemies needed coins to pay for their various expenditures. The taxation in the form of grains and goods was retained. But Ptolemy I and II also put more coinage into the economy and made laws which included that certain goods and services to be paid in gold. Taxation was then gradually collected in gold and silver coins and this was also extended to the peasantry. Meaning that farmers had to engage in the economy by selling their goods, acquiring currency and then paying that currency as a tax. They could also give their services to the King which included service as tax collectors. Gradually, one could say, that more than half of the actual taxes collected were in the form of hard currency as the Ptolemaic period went on. For this reason markets and cities grew as being commercially viable and rather than having to provide for urban food supplies through taking grain, the city dwellers might be able to acquire grain through the market and the farmers could acquire coins by selling to the market (or by providing a service, mostly labour or martial). In such a way taxation in the form of coin could be taken by the king (through coercion obviously) because coins were in circulation and the state did not depend on grain with fluctuating prices or which risked being lost from drought or swarms of birds or locusts etc.

I'm referring to the common stereotype of the Egyptian nation being allegedly very eager to overthrow the foreign elites and to reclaim independence. It's a completely baseless and unscientific approach that has only recently begun to be treated with skepticism. This interpetation is a classic case of anachronism, by identifying ancient empires with their modern counterparts (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and etc.) and their subjects with "oppressed nations". In reality, we know almost nothing about the hopes and worries of the populace, while the archeological data points towards the uprising being a complex fighting between multiple parts of the local nobility, one of which is usually allied with the imperial administration.

How is it unscientific?
Given their history this assumption does seem to be true. Given that it is not actually an assumption and is supported by history.
Why is it anachronism?
I certainly never applied this, nor anything that I read, and yet the conclusion is more or less the same. It kind of looks like you are pointing to the minority of cases and then suggesting that this completely changes our perception. Or missing the point that we are discussing about the general relations between the Egyptians and the Persian rulers. So Artaxerxes II had some supporters, are we then to assume that this is somehow indicative of the majority and that various successful revolts just sort of happened for no reason? We wouldn't know if Achaemenid loyalists aren't doing this for their own interests, rather than an inherent support for the Persians. Kind of a pointless exercise which wouldn't take us anywhere.

It's neither problematic nor controversial, it's outright wrong. Egyptian sources explicitly record the death of the Apis bull in 524 B.C. and depict Cambyses, dressed as a Pharaoh, appropriately honouring the animal, according to the native ceremonial protocol. It's not a case of absence of evidence, but of presence of evidence for the exact opposite:

Right but the record would have been at the orders of Cambyses. For all we know Cambyses did outlaw animal worship (as it was completely antithetical to Zoroastrianism), realized he screwed up and then undid the previous policy. We know that Cambyses had similar issues while he was in Babylon. Did he learn from his mistake? What about Zoroastrian religious matters in so far as the Mithraism controversy with the Medes? Or the religious taboo with worshiping living beings or images of animals? So my point is that there is no need to outright reject Herodotos' claims with regards to the Apis Bull. The Serapis Bull in itself doesn't really matter. We already know why Cambyses was opposed, and that was his opposition to the Egyptian clergy. Whether this was due to matters of religion or matters of social class could be debated, it could be elements of both for all we know. Anyway the better proof about the Bull itself would be the Serapis sarcophagus with the royal inscription. This does suggest that the Egyptian record is correct. But on its own? I wouldn't really trust it.

Khabash almost certainly revolted before Darius III, probably during the reign of Arses. I'm not denying that Udjahorresnet is not an impartial source or that multiple insurrections occured in Achaemenid Egypt. But, in order to confirm that Persian rule was universally detested in the Nile valley, you need to either cite sources that attest a serious level of unrest across all the social strata or, at least, compare the number of revolts with those of the Ptolemaic or Roman period (which would only give an indication of the real situation, because of the severe lack of primary sources). In any cases, neither of these requirements is satisfied, in what concerns our debate. The only significant difference is that Egypt succeeded in interrupting Persian domination for 60 years, but I already explained the reasons for that, which lie in geography. Susa could only difficultly control a densely populated and rich region, separated from easily flooded rivers and inhospitable deserts. On the contrary, the Ptolemies lived in Egypt, so they could easily dispatch forces to ensure the efficient administration and the maintenance of public order, while expulsion would automatically lead to the demise of the dynasty.

We would date the uprising of Khabash to the late reign of Philip II. Hearing of the revolt Philip intended to capitalize on this by invading Persia. This suggests that Philip was willing to collaborate with the locals and did not have a plan to conquer all of the Achaemenid Empire. Philip also made agreements with various satraps in Anatolia. But Philip is another topic for another time.

To clarify I am not saying that Udjahorresnet is necessarily lying about his claims. Just that we should be hesitant to accept his claims at face value. But also to note that his opinions may differ from other aristocrats and the majority of the peasantry.

I would say that I adequately demonstrated that Persian rule was probably the most unpopular. Not the reasons why but certainly there were no other native revolts as numerous or widespread as those under the Romans or Ptolemies. However bringing down the reason to geography (while a factor it could not have been the factor) would be extremely problematic. For starters the Persians would still have significant naval forces with which to bring armies over to subdue rebellion. Second the Persians did not experience this level of difficulty in any of the other extremities of their empire (not in Anatolia or Sogdia) and this is despite the fact that any troubles in those parts of the empire were dealt with by satraps. Densely populated as Egypt may have been, rebel success must have been due to a large army. Which does suggest a large amount of support for the native pretenders. To say that multiple dynasties rising up in this period is only one difference doesn't actually make sense. It is THE difference, really the only one that matters to show us that something was different, not just a matter of geography.

Your impression of Achaemenid historiography looks a bit like a caricature, as, in reality, the image is much more nuanced. No serious historian calls Herodotus as the "Father of Lies" or seriously believes that the Cyrus Cylinder is comparable to a bill of rights. Especially the latter was a myth propagated by the Shah and his royalist apologists, which was never adopted to any academic circles outside those of the Iranian diaspora. For what it's worth, I doubt that Herodotus intentionally lied to his audience, apart from some rare instances, when he wanted to tickle its curiosity (e.g. with the absurdly astronomical numbers of Xerxes' army). He is probably a victim of the unreliability of his sources. The main culprits are the Egyptian priesthood, whose privileges were indeed targeted by Cambyses, and Ptolemaic propaganda, as expressed in the Satrap's Stela. The insistence of the Second Sophistic (and of moralists willing to distort history to match their narrative, like Plutarch) to demonize the "barbarians" probably contributed to this trend. However, with a bit of critical thinking and the help of material evidence, we can be capable of detecting a portion of the truth, presumably in the middle of the two extremes, Ptolemy's and his clergy's vilification campaign and the embellished memories of Udjahorresnet.

I'm not referring to historiography though, I'm talking about people on the internet.

The Iranian diaspora is a major part of Achaemenid history in the past couple decades, some of them may be guilty of embellishing. Kaveh Farrokh is okay, if anything I find him to adhere a bit too much to primary sources. Reza Zargamee I believe to be a very good scholar.

When I say universal I don't mean literally 100% as those aristocrats who collaborated with Cambyses would already disprove it. What I mean by this is the majority of the population. As we know in the reign of Artaxerxes II the various pretenders also had to defeat Egyptians who were in favour of Artaxerxes II. But this really doesn't disprove that Persian rule was generally despised. We don't need nuance to address that point.

I don't really believe that Greek writers tried to demonize the Persians all that much. Certainly not Herodotos nor Xenophon who generally approached the subject without much bias or even a fair bit of interest. That Herodotos makes mistakes or is given false information isn't indicative of an anti-Persian bias. The errors are probably easily attributed to his lack of understanding of the Persian culture.

[Ludicus]

And again, Alexandria was not a Hellenic "island" in Egypt, living three hundred years in racial/cultural isolation. Much to the contrary.
In fact,



Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria - Susan A. Stephens - Professor of Classics at Stanford University,
Some excerpts,
(...) even with large numbers of Greek immigrants the city was always ethnically mixed (...)
In this mix the imported Macedonian Greek population was well below a majority.

(...) Even the appearance of Alexandria, with structures like an Isis temple with its pylon gate, colossi, and obelisks, some of which ( in true pharaonic fashion),seem to have been transplanted from other Egyptian locations, must conveyed an impression of cultural mixing. How then were the Ptolemies to rule on these reconceptualized "Two Lands" - lands with two different economic power bases and two different ethnic and religious identity?

( ...) Traditional histories emphasize the separateness of the Egyptian and Greek populations, assuming Greek culture not only took precedence over Egyptian for Greeks, but that it isolated Greeks from significant contact with native populations.
Yet this is open to question and dependent upon the materials one consults.

(...) ( "the brainwashed" ) Egyptians possessed an older, richer material culture, a culture that earlier Greeks had found fascinating if not admirable.
What is more, their political, religious, and artistic practices were thoroughly integrated and distinctive, adapted over millennia to a unique system. In contrast, the small population of Macedonian soldiers and Greeks drawn to the city would have lacked unifying sense of identity, because their familiar gods and civic structures were notable absent.
Over time, assimilation which had happened to earlier Greek populations like the Hellenomemphites, was inevitable, and it is by no means clear that Ptolemaic policies were designed to prevent this. Even structures like the gymnasium, which later appear to have been isolated pockets of supposed ethnic purity, may have initially included assimilated Egyptians.

(...) Although questions of ethnic identity and privileges and /or degree of separateness accorded to various ethnic groups under the earlier Ptolemies continue to be subject of considerable scholarly interest, it is not possible to draw very firm conclusions from waht is now available.

The problems are multiple. First, recent work of scholars like Clarysse, Thompson and La'da underscores the difficulties in any discussion of ethnicity of early Ptolemaic Egypt. There is very little documentation at all from the third century, nothing survived from Alexandria itself, and the Demotic texts are under-published in comparison to Greek. Next, terms as "Persians of Epigone", or even "Hellene", which no doubt originally marked real ethnic identities, evolved to indicate something else- occupations or financial status.
Third, names are not adequate indicators of ethnicity, since even within ethnically Greek families, a Greco-Egyptian double name could occur.
Fourth, the bulk of evidence adduced from later periods, without independent corroboration, is not applicable to the early Hellenistic period...Finally, there is also bias of interpreters.

(...) Moreover, if Thompson's supposition about the category "Hellene" is correct, then never have been a category at all in Alexandria for ethnic Greeks as a whole as opposed to assimilated ethnicities who now spoke and wrote Greek.
To put this differently, in classical Greece, "Greek" was the unmarked or default category, against which all others must be measured, as we see in Herodotus' discussion of the component peoples of the Persian Empire. But in Ptolemaic Egypt, end even in Alexandria, this would not have been the case. If there was an "unmarked" category from which all other ethnicities needed to distinguish themselves, it was Egyptian".