User talk:Back2back2back/Sandbox

Ptolemaic Kingdom and Egypt

Essentially, we both agree that your argument is Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt, and that there was simply a change of government.

Would you agree that Egypt was not independent the entire time it was under the rule of Persians and Alexander the Great?

Alexander the Great's Kingdom was simply split into different pieces, with different generals and such ruling each one. That does not give Egypt independence.

In France-England example, England was not a conquered land to begin with. At no point did the country become independent.Back2back2back (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt wasn't independent while it was under rule from another nation (i.e. ruled from outside Egypt). That includes both the Persian period and the Alexandrian period.

But you still don't seem to grasp how Egypt became independent. It still wasn't independent when Alexander appointed Ptolemy as his satrap (regional governor) of Egypt: indeed, Alexander exploited the wealth of Egypt to fund his ongoing conquest of the Persian empire, rather than for Egypt's direct benefit. You don't seem to grasp the fact that Alexander's empire wasn't "simply split into different pieces" (it broke apart in a bloody series of wars, including Ptolemy's war of independence against Perdiccas, Alexander's heir, the man who was still trying to rule a united empire, not a "split" one), nor the fact that the non-Egyptian territories weren't gained in this "split" (they were conquered by Egypt later).

And, though England wasn't a conquered land before William took it (and William didn't have a large empire elsewhere), that is irrelevant. After the Norman Conquest, England was just as "independent" as Ptolemaic Egypt was. It was, in fact, in exactly the same situation: free from all foreign control, but internally ruled by a "foreign" monarch and aristocracy, speaking a foreign language (for centuries afterward). Yet it was still "England" under a different government, it wasn't "France": just as Ptolemaic Egypt was still "Egypt", not "Greece". And England went on to fight wars against France, just as Ptolemaic Egypt went on to fight wars against Greece. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both modern America and medieval England are valid analogies to Ptolemaic Egypt in some respects, but not in others. Let's go through this step by step.

1. Before the conquest: "America" didn't exist as a single nation, but both England and Egypt had already existed. Egypt had been occupied by the Persians for some time, whereas England was still independent at this point.

2. Conquest/colonization: the native peoples of America, England and Egypt found themselves under foreign rule, by people who came from elsewhere and didn't speak their language. America and Egypt were ruled from elsewhere as part of a larger empire. William had lands in Normandy, but nowhere else: he moved to England and ruled Normandy from there.

3. Independence: the immigrant rulers of America and Egypt declared independence from their ruling empires and succesfully fought off the attempts to recapture them. They became independent. Not being subject to a foreign empire, England was able to skip this step.

4. Nationhood: In England and Egypt, the immigrant ruling class took over the pre-existing government structure of the old nation, with the monarchs becoming "King of England" and "Pharaoh of Egypt" respectively. Both sets of immigrant rulers continue to speak their own languages and to keep much of their own culture, but also integrate with the customs, culture and rituals of the pre-existing nation. In America, a new political structure is devised, which sidelines the natives.

5. Empire: England, America and Egypt gain additional lands. At no point does this involve loss of independence or coming under external rule of any sort. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes, and here's a summary:

1. "Ezekiel then prophesies the conquest and sacking of Egypt by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and the scattering of its entire population to other lands (Ezekiel 29:3 - Ezekiel 30:26).". From the context, it's pretty clear that Ezekiel intended Nebuchadrezzar to be the depopulator of Egypt, regardless of any possible ambiguity regarding the "multitudes" that Nebby was supposed to drive off (the verses naming Nebby are thoroughly mixed in with the verses describing depopulation, and chapter 30 ends with God using him to scatter the Egyptians, not the "multitudes"). There is very little "wiggle room" for the apologist here. However, my wording does allow that "wiggle room", leaving open the possibility of the sacking by Nebby and the scattering of the population as two separate events, without specifying two separate events. I think that's about as far as the apologetics can be stretched.

2. "Uncertainty among modern scholars" is back, but with a reference. This addresses Jorfer's point regarding the possible "decoupling" of the two sections of the prophecy. Meanwhile I've requested additional references for the "authorship" section of Book of Ezekiel.

3. The wikilink to Amasis II has been moved up, from the second occurrence to the first occurrence of his name.

4. Periods of Egyptian independence from external rule have been mentioned, and nations conquered by Egypt have been listed. This is needed for NPOV: we should have both lists (nations ruling/ruled by Egypt) or neither. References are a bit problematic at the moment, because Ptolemaic Kingdom lacks inline citations: I have tagged it accordingly, and simply grabbed the "further reading" as references. Not an ideal solution, but I'll do some Googling later. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that the Ptolemaic Kingdom consisted only of Egypt when it was first established, without giving any sources.

And you think that any country which is not governed externally is independent. If aliens take over the world, and the alien's home planet blows up, you would be saying that the Earth became independent when that happened, even though the planet is run by aliens.

There is also another serious problem.

On the sandbox page, you said that Egypt ruled over other nations, and you simply copied sources from the Ptolemaic Kingdom page (all six of them in fact) to support it.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ptolemaic_kingdom#Further_reading

Even though the wikipedia page there doesn't say anything about Egypt ruling over other kingdoms.

This kind of dishonesty is extremely inappropriate when writing an unbiased article.Back2back2back (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That list of lands conquered by Ptolemaic Egypt came FROM the Ptolemaic Kingdom page! Why are you now trying to claim that the page "doesn't say anything about Egypt ruling over other kingdoms" when it contains sentences like "Within a few years he had gained control of Libya, Coele-Syria (with Judea), and Cyprus", "Ptolemy occupied Corinth and other parts of Greece", "...left Ptolemy the master of the eastern Mediterranean, controlling the Aegean islands and the coastal districts of Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia and Caria", and so forth? Conquest after conquest! Though the word I used wasn't "kingdoms" anyhow, but "nations" (and while not every territory mentioned was an entire nation in itself, some were, and "lands" or "territories" could easily be used instead). Bogus accusations of "dishonesty" are not appropriate.

The article also says that Ptolemy I began by holding Egypt, and then expanded outwards from there. "His first object was to hold his position in Egypt securely, and secondly to increase his domain. Within a few years he had gained control of Libya..." and so on. The article describes how the Ptolemies built up their empire, step by step. Plenty of sources say that Ptolemy I was given Egypt, yet I have found no source whatsoever, anywhere, that mentions Ptolemy initially being given anything at all except Egypt. So your reason for believing otherwise is... ??? Try looking at a map of their empire and comparing it with a list of their conquests.

As for "independence": you cannot argue that a nation is NOT "independent" (from any other nation) if you cannot identify any other nation that it is "not independent" FROM. Your initial claim that this "other nation" was Greece was obviouly bunk. Now you're trying to argue that Ptolemaic Egypt was "not independent" from... Ptolemaic Egypt? I think you may be confusing the "independence" of a nation with the "freedom" of its people: but we're talking about nations, not people, and we're talking about absolute monarchies in which the people weren't free under any set of rulers. In your "alien invasion" scenario, you're assuming a transition from democracy to despotism, but what if the alien refugees became citizens of Earthly democracies and then got voted into government because they became so popular? But the actual phrase I used clears up any ambiguity anyhow: "independence from external rule". This is undoubtedly true. No power outside Egypt ruled over Egypt.

And I note that you have deleted the reference to Nebuchadrezzar again. As Ezekiel specifically mentions him over and over again in the prophecy, his name has to be in the prophecy summary somewhere. That information is too relevant to conceal from the reader. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article mentioned Ptolemaic Kingdom and Ptolemy conquering other lands, not Egypt. And blindly copying six sources and using it as support is nothing short of dishonesty, completely inappropriate when trying to write an unbiased article.

Egypt was not independent from the PTOLEMAIC KINGDOM, a new kingdom which was established, ruled by Alexander's Generals and the Greeks, split off from Alexander the Great's Kingdom.

Furthermore, you still seem to think that a country's ruler must be outside the country's territory or else it is independent. If aliens take over the world, and the alien's home planet blows up, you would be saying that the Earth became independent when that happened, even though the planet is run by aliens.Back2back2back (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The PTOLEMAIC KINGDOM was created when Ptolemy declared independence, and made himself Pharaoh of EGYPT. It was, initially, a government of Egypt alone. It conquered other lands, and therefore eventually came to mean more than just Egypt itself... but then so did many other empires throughout history. Was "Rome" not independent because it was a part of the "Roman Empire"? The Roman Empire was ruled from Rome, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom was ruled from Egypt.

And what about medieval England? You're arguing that medieval England was not an independent nation! Try reading Richard the Lion-Heart, a ruler in a near-identical situation to the later Ptolemies. A descendant of immigrant conquerors, he ruled other lands, but he was still King of an independent England.

...However, this discussion is supposed to be about the article. I see that Nebuchadnezzar is back in, so that's fine (though I'll add a little more detail: Ezekiel was quite specific about the land being entirely uninhabited for 40 years, which is more than the usual amount of "scattering" that might be expected from an invasion). I actually think we're nearly there now. I actually have no objection to mentioning the fact that Egypt was under Hellenistic rule at the time of these conquests, and indeed I have mentioned that fact in a previous edit: I'll put this back in, with an Encarta reference. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC

I would really appreciate it if you could be honest. First you blindly copied six sources as support for your statements, then you said that I argued "medieval England was not an independent nation!". I never argued that. Please stop.

You still seem to be under the impression that a country must be governed from outside or else it has to be independent.

"However, it has also enjoyed periods of independence from external rule. During the Hellenistic period, while ruled by the Ptolemaic Dynasty (of Macedonian origin), an Egypt-based empire controlled Cyrenaica (now northeastern Libya), Palestine, and Cyprus at various times.[5]"

There are several problems.

1. "also enjoyed periods of independence from external rule."

this is misleading since it implies the nation was independent, when that is disputed and many, many sources say it was under greek control

2. "During the Hellenistic period, while ruled by the Ptolemaic Dynasty (of Macedonian origin)"

"During the Hellenstic period" is misleading. There is no mention of the fact that the are where Egypt is, is actually the Ptolemaic Kingdom. I have said many times that references can be made of a conquered land, such as "Roman Greece", it doesn't mean that Greece is not part of the Roman Empire

3. "an Egypt-based empire controlled Cyrenaica (now northeastern Libya), Palestine, and Cyprus at various times."

an Egypt based empire? what is that supposed to mean? An empire originating from the area of Egypt? The language is too vague and gives the impression that an Egypt based empire is actually Egypt. Back2back2back (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are making an argument that would mean that medieval England was not an independent nation. If you think that medieval England WAS an independent nation, then please explain what condition made medieval England independent, which did not also apply to Ptolemaic Egypt. Because I don't see any relevant difference, therefore you appear to be applying double standards.

1. "also enjoyed periods of independence from external rule." - this is misleading since it implies the nation was independent, when that is disputed and many, many sources say it was under greek control.

Not a single source says that it was under the control of Greece (because it definitely wasn't): therefore it would be misleading to use the phrase "Greek control" without distinguishing between the Greek nation and the Greek ethnicity. Also, modern Egypt is in one of these periods of independence from external rule: if you disagree, then you need to name the external nation that rules modern Egypt. Meanwhile, if you dispute the fact that Ptolemaic Egypt was independent from external rule, then you need to name the external power that ruled over Egypt (from outside Egypt) at this time, because historians apparently know of no such power.

2. "During the Hellenistic period, while ruled by the Ptolemaic Dynasty (of Macedonian origin)" - "During the Hellenstic period" is misleading. There is no mention of the fact that the are where Egypt is, is actually the Ptolemaic Kingdom. I have said many times that references can be made of a conquered land, such as "Roman Greece", it doesn't mean that Greece is not part of the Roman Empire

Uh, haven't you been arguing that the "Ptolemaic Kingdom" is NOT just "the area where Egypt is"? The "Hellenistic period" is the term used by responsible historians (apparently to avoid the confusion that can arise in calling other nations "Greek" when they weren't ruled by Greece). Also, "Ptolemaic Dynasty" is the actual term used in the reference. The phrase "Hellenistic period" is also taken directly from the reference.

3. "an Egypt-based empire controlled Cyrenaica (now northeastern Libya), Palestine, and Cyprus at various times." - an Egypt based empire? what is that supposed to mean? An empire originating from the area of Egypt? The language is too vague and gives the impression that an Egypt based empire is actually Egypt

An "Egypt-based empire" is an empire based in Egypt. How is this not clear? Are you now denying that the Ptolemies were Egyptian Pharaohs, or that the city of Alexandria is in fact in Egypt? How else would you prefer to explain the fact that the base of the empire was in Egypt? It was from Egypt that the rest of the empire was conquered, and from Egypt that it was administered. I am not calling the empire itself "Egypt" in the article, so why is this not good enough for you? --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, you are making an argument that would mean that medieval England was not an independent nation."

No, I did not. This is the second time you've said that and the second time you've failed to produce an actual quote. If you are willing to drop the matter, I suggest focusing only on what to include in the article.

The article is misleading because it omits important information.

First, that the area of Egypt at that time was the Ptolmaic Kingdom.

Second, that the Ptolemic Kingdom is split off from Alexander the Great's empire.

Furthermore, an "Egypt based empire" could mean an empire based in the land of Egypt or an empire based from the country Egypt.

There needs to be less ambiguous language.Back2back2back (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have claimed that Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't an independent nation because it was ruled by immigrants. However, you apparently believe that medieval England and modern America DO qualify as independent nations, despite being ruled by immigrants: yet you are unable to explain why. In the case of medieval England (the closest example to Ptolemaic Egypt), you have argued that England was already independent before William took it (unlike Egypt in Alexander's time), but you haven't explained how England's independence somehow survived foreign conquest and occupation. If you continue to employ an incomprehesible double-standard, I'll continue to point this out.

However, this should be irrelevant to the article, as I mentioned a specific type of independence: independence from external rule. If you accept that there were times when Egypt wasn't ruled from outside Egypt (like, for instance, in the modern era), this should be uncontroversial, so perhaps this is a digression that can be dropped.

As for the "important information" that is supposedly "omitted": my reference did not use the phrase "Ptolemaic Kingdom". Instead, the article is about "Ptolemaic Egypt". Historians seem divided about what the most appropriate term is (apparently because the kingdom eventually included more than just Egypt). Incidentally, your own Encarta reference is about "Egypt" and uses the phrase "Ptolemaic Dynasty", just as mine does. However, I have included the most relevant information: that Egypt was ruled by Macedonians. I have no objection to expanding this a little. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have is the phrase "based in Egypt". The language is too ambiguous and needs to be more clarifying. Furthermore, no mention is made that it is actually the Ptolemaic Kingdom.Back2back2back (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the references don't use the phrase "Ptolemaic kingdom". However, we should be able to wikilink to History of Ptolemaic Egypt if the reader desires further information, which has a chapter on the Ptolemaic kingdom (and itself links to Ptolemaic kingdom), and/or link to Ptolemaic kingdom directly.

But we need some way of explaining that this empire was based in Egypt and expanded outwards from there, rather than engulfing Egypt from somewhere else as the Persians and Alexander had done (without going into too much detail: this article isn't supposed to be about Ptolemaic Egypt, after all). I have now explained that the Ptolemies inherited Egypt from Alexander's empire, and conquered the rest later. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version looks fine. I see no reason to change it.Back2back2back (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

...Excellent! OK, dispute resolved, I'll copy this back to the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)