Talk:History of Egypt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateHistory of Egypt is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept


Shouldn't the history of Egypt be under an article Egypt/History?

No, this is a deep and complex subject and will need sub-pages of its own. Surely worth a topic in its own right. sjc

It will need lots and lots of articles, anyway, if not subpages.

This is a great article so far! --LMS

Yes, I helped canonize the */History bits by all the additions from the CIA World Factbook and now wish I hadn't; I've come to dislike subpages quite a lot--convinced, no doubt, by LMS' arguments. Anyway, but yes, this is a fantastic article. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Shouldn't this article also at least mention the most recent 2000 years of Egypt's history? Wesley

There's a lengthy writeup, in the public domain, here for anyone who cares to go through it and pick bits to incorporate. I don't consider myself qualified for it. Not a historian, Koyaanis Qatsi 15:20, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I included the text from this source. Kind of data dumping, sorry about that. Need wikification. olivier 07:15, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have heard that Mohammed Ali (or Mehmet Ali) was actually of Albanian descent (see this). Is there any truth to this? ¬ Dori 05:32, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes he was born to Albanian parents, see Wikipedia article "Muhammad Ali of Egypt" for more details. The Sultan sent him to Egypt and he did so well for himself he took over Egypt and most of Sudan and got titles from the Ottoman Sultan, but was never considered by the Ottoman Sultan to be an independent ruler or governor. MichaelSchwing 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a nice article, especially so since it tries to sum up 6000 years of history in about 10 pages. Some questions follow that I unfortunately don't know the answers to. Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First off it would be great to have a definition of a dynasty since this is an important concept used throughout the article. Does this mean a pharoah and his son, descending through the male line until an interruption occurs? Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Dynasty concept comes from Manetho. It has just been easier to keep his divisions than replace it with a new system. Some of the Dynasties could be combined together by modern definitions of family/dynasty. For instance Zanakht-Nebka and Netjerkhet-Djoser were brothers, sons of Khasekhemwy, thus uniting the end of 2nd Dynasty and beginning of the 3rd. But with Djoser began the Old Empire and (step) pyramid building along with more substantial building in stone, all attributed to his architect Imhotep, though stone floors, and door frames had been used in earlier constructions of King's tombs (at Abydos for instance). The 17th Dynasty King Seqenenre II Tao was father of Kamose and Ahmose, but with Ahmose Manetho began the 18th Dynasty as this was the New Empire and the final expulsion of the Hyksos and their followers and began the expansion into Canaan and Mesopotamia, and not just raids into those areas. So there is no real definition of Dynasty in the modern use of the term that would pertain to every Egyptian dynasty. For instance again, the two dynasties of Persian Kings were of one Persian family/dynasty the Achaemenidae (in Greek form). But their reign was interrupted by native dynasties so they count as two dynasties. In the 18th Dynasty Thutmoase I became king through his marriage with the daughter of Amenhotep I, though it is generally considered he was a son by a lesser wife. All through the 17th, 18th, and early 19h Dynasties the King became King because he married the Great Heiress, daughter of a King before him, hence the many brother-sister and even father-daughter marriages of Kings in these dynasties.

MichaelSchwing 00:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Egyptions reached Crete around 2000 BC...

This is the first mention that the united Egyptian kingdom was expanding. Why did it expand in that direction? Do we know?

...and were invaded by Indo-Europeans and Hyksos Semites.

They were invaded in Crete, or Egypt itself was invaded? Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When the box was opened it contained just sludge, all that remains of the Queen.

Was this opening something that happened a few years after she died, or in the 1800's? Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After this first one, several other Pyramids were built and some abandoned before they were finished.

It looks like something got deleted here. There isn't any mention of a pyramid before this paragraph. Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sesostris I continued to wage war on Nubia.

This is the first time it's mentioned that there was a war against Nubia, unless the previous mention of "expeditions into Nubia" is meant to mean that a war was initiated and continued for 700 years. Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

His given name was Tutankhaton, but with the resurgence of Amun eh was re-named Tutankhamun.

This is the first mention of Amun -- if there's discussion of a resurgence, can we mention Amun in some way previously? Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The discussion about the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th dynasties is confusing -- how was it that the 23rd ran concurrent with the 22nd? Was this a power grab with a pretender to the throne? Who was who? Was there an actual war? (unclear.) Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He died in 526 BC, and one year later in 525 BC Egypt fell under Persian power and Cambyset became the first king of the 27th Dynasty.

Fell under Persian power because of a military invasion? Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are a couple of lists in the middle of the article that are there for unclear reasons -- the list starting with Abbas I and ending with Hosn Mubarak (this probably just needs a title), and the 3 lines "Visier Imhotep / Pharaoh Horus Netjerikhet Djzoser / Pyramid of Djzoser". Tempshill 01:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is the first time I have looked at this article. I see that 2,000 years of history from Alexander to Napoleon is summed up in one paragraph. This represents a very 19th century view of Egyptian history, that after the Pharaonic period the country ceased to be of interest until it was discovered by Europeans. Is anybody working on writing a proper history of this period, or interersted in doing so? Adam 03:23, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is the original source for this edit?

I can only find it on various non-governmental sites, rather than the state department as mentioned in the edit summary. Note that this edit caused me to list the History of Arab and Ottoman Egypt as a possible copyright violation. After spending another 30 minutes on it, it seems like I might be wrong, but it would have helped if the original source was listed in the article or at least the edit summary. Daniel Quinlan 09:00, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

2000 dynasties?!?![edit]

"In the two thousand years that followed unification, more than two thousand dynasties rose and fell."

that means each dynasty was less than a year on average. Can a rule that was less than a year even be called a dynasty? -Lethe | Talk 01:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Introducing daughter articles[edit]

The six daughter articles should be introduced, not as a self-referential table of contents, but with each link accompanying a summary section on that period. This is not as hard as it sounds - inevitably a summary section needs to be kept short, and thus much content is not present, but for example, the "History of Ottoman Egypt" could at least explain in one or two sentences the fact of Egypt being in the Ottoman Empire (links being important too).

So, I suggest six short sections, of at most a half-dozen sentences each, with the daughter articles being linked to as follows:

Main article: History of Ottoman Egypt

I'm not going to do this myself, but I thought I'd take a minute to put this here for someone else to do if they so wish.

zoney talk 08:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


many of the history sub-articles have Eurocentric POV problems. Mostly references to the British and Egypt's fiscal situations. There's just so much, it's difficult to be consistant in revising multiple articles with the same problems. --Schwael 17:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite likely because they originally came from the 1911 Britannica. Anything you can do to improve them would be much appreciated. - SimonP 20:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of Egypt[edit]

I found a great list of the rulers of Egypt [ here]. I couldn't find a similar list on Wikipedia, so I thought I would put the link here. I am also unsure how much of this can be used (copying lists that take a long time to compile is not really fair, and probably breaches copyright). However, if the list can be recompiled or checked against existing sources, and these sources added to a "Rulers of Egypt" list/article, then that might be OK. And I might have missed an existing list. Also, that list only goes up to 1796, so if it can be extended, that would be great. Carcharoth 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having look round Wikipedia a bit more, I did find these pages: List of pharaohs; Rulers and heads of state of Egypt; Sultan of Egypt and some others. I tried to gather these lists at King of Egypt, which might not be the best name for what I've made the page. Is it worth having one page with all the rulers from ancient time to the present? Or would these separate lists be the best way to present it? Carcharoth 14:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This section: The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world, seems a bit odd to me. Wouldn't the unity imply a continuous rule inherited from the pharoahs, rather than rule by foreign invaders?

Yom 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Plus, there is a difference between the Arab Republic of Egypt, Ancient Egypt, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Mamluk Sultanate, and the Ayyubid dynasty, IMO, they're different states (except maybe Arab Republican Egypt+Mamluk Sultanate+Ayyubids are the same thing, or just Ayyubids+Mamluks). 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt is by fare the most ancient civilization the man kind has ever known. Since the Ancient ages the country stayed as a union between the north and the south. Later the "foreign invaders" invaded the whole country. Finally Islam Enters the country and it's a colony while Arabia is another colony and so as the levant. In the late ages of the Muslim Empire, Egypt was namely part of the rest of the Empire while it had and independent ruler who had the full power over the country -not a power over a colony with respect to the sultan-. Never the less, Shortly after the Ottomans came to power, Muhammad Ali Basha "The Great Baساa" claimed his control over the country and both namely and practically it was known as an independent state. He even fought the Sultan, and took parts of his Empire in the levant, arabia, and Africa. The French invaded the country and it was under their control -unlike the Ottoman Empire- and launched campaigns against the Ottomans from Egypt. The English did the same but succeeded this time, dividing arabia. the levant was under the control of the French and the English. After Independence, Egypt was not known as an arab nation. It's true that it participated in the 1948 war against the Jewish gangs, but the Egyptian participation was under the name of the Royal Egyptian Forces, while the arabs had their own Arab liberalization Army. It's wasn't before Nasser when Egypt was known as an arab nation by force. For more Information about why that dose not make Egyptian arabs, read the Identity subarticle in the main article of the country. Egypt is a nation that was made by it's own people, a nation that wasn't made by invaders, and not a nation that divided from another. Simply, the oldest Unified State.One_last_pharaoh 4:01 AM, 30 January 2008

Incorrect. Sumer first achieved civilization at least a century earlier than Ancient Egypt. (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i think that the fact that every arabic country has its own individual history is stupid. All it does is sponser further distance between these countries. While I wouldn't argue that all arabic countries all the same, the differences that exist between them arent of the severity that they should be subdivided. Before the british and the french got involved after the ottomen callopse, the arab countries were all one. I'm not sugesting that there should be one HUGE page describing each history- but one page with links to each country. At least this way the arab countries could be together. Seriously when one bothers to consider it, the differences are minute- yes there are lines and borders on a map- but had it not been for these-save the dialects- one couldnt tell a lebanese from a syrian from an iraqi or egyptian. All these countries are arabic they share the same culture. And while their history can differ, for example of course egyptian history and babylonian aren't the same, but it shouldn't be enough to divide them like this.

Whoa !! U can say; the world has collapsed, the sun swallowed the moon, the earth was turned apart, and the apes have become more superior to men. U cannot say that Egyptians are arabs, u cannot compare the history of Egypt with the history of the combined arab countries, and u even cannot say that the difference is not magnificent. Egyptians are simply Egyptians. they are not arabs, they are not like arabs, and that means that they are better. Arabs hate Egypt, but sorry fully Egyptians donot hate arabs -the majority- so good luck with your "arab union" article . —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talkcontribs) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General History of Egypt[edit]

I was just thinking: what happens to the reader who is looking for a summary of the history of Egypt? Does the person need to read 10 different articles about different periods to get a general picture? This page should be transformed into a general article about the history of Egypt. --JLCA 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is terrible that this article was left as a shell for years. See my comments further down the page. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to German page[edit]

German Wikipedia does not have an article about the history of Egypt in general, the link pointed to an article about the history of the Republic of Egypt, which covers only the time since 1952. I have thus moved this link to History of modern Egypt which, though it covers a longer time period, is the closest that English Wikipedia has.—Graf Bobby (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I had read somewhere that Ottoman Egypt last until 1914 when a protectorate was declared, also Egypt under Ali dynasty should included into Ottoman Egypt. (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See History of modern Egypt. — Zerida 18:31, 13 April 2008 (

Foreign rule[edit]

So basicly Egypt was under contunius foreign rule for almost 3000 years after the fall of the 21st dynesty starting around 1000BC first by the Libians and Nubians till 670 then by the Asseryans to 600 and persians to 300 then by the greeks under the mecadonian empire then a hellenistic kingdom to 30 BC then by the romens and byzantians to 600 and after that by the arabs first directy in the calpiet then under indipendet arab states and dynesties after 900 to 1600 and then by the ottemen turks first directly from istenble then a quassy independent saltunite in the 19th centry and then by the british first dyrectly as a protecterate then by a pupit turkish dynesty untill the 1940's and then independently by a turkish king to 1956. --J intela (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The history of Egypt is the longest of any country."[edit]

I thought the ancient Egypt has nothing to do with Egypt today culture wise. What could be used to support this very affirmative statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC) the world as we know it is very strange and I believe that egypt itself has the most fantastic history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research + Sources[edit]

This article quite confidently declares that Egypt has been a "state" for 5,000 years. Given that we rarely date the modern idea or states further back than 500 years. I'm going to label it as original research and as lacking sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State is the wrong word, but it is true that Egypt has existed as an entity for that long. I'm not sure what the best term is for it. Encarta calls it a "coherent political entity with a recorded history since about 3200 BC" while Britannica calls it "one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations." - SimonP (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is essentially a disambiguation page. History of Ancient Egypt is already a huge WP:SS article, and there is simply no benefit of giving another summary of that here and combine it with summaries on modern Egypt.

That is absolutely wrong. You are forgetting that this article exists to serve readers. The destruction of this basic article is a lamentable example of the failures of the wiki approach at their worst. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tabular overview of the main periods may be useful. Alternatively, this could either be a strict {{disambig}} page (mainly between History of Ancient Egypt, Medieval Egypt, Ottoman Egypt and History of the Republic of Egypt), or a redirect to Egypt#History. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article must exist![edit]

This is a basic topic, and the article simply must exist. Wikipedia's purpose is to serve the general reader. The general reader is likely to be looking for a basic introduction to the topic. Being informed that there are twenty more detailed articles available is not an acceptable substitute. It may seem that it is to an academic, but for the general reader it is not. I will start the repair of this editorial disaster by cutting and pasting the history section of the main Egypt article and adding an expansion notice. This article exists to serve readers who want an overview of the history of Egypt. It should be longer than the section in the main Egypt article, which is exists to serve readers who want a rounded overview of the country, and less detailed than breakout articles. This is not strange, it is the way the whole of wikipedia should work. It must not lose sight of its audience. It is not a database that simply accumulates facts, and it is not aimed at academics, who only attach status to extreme detail. It is an encyclopedia. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. Great work getting this started. - SimonP (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just created pointless duplication of content. I can appreciate your point, but you need to address this by redistributing content, not by writing yet another article about the history of Egypt (we have about three of those so far). If you really think that the entirely unrelated topics of history of Ancient Egypt and history of the Republic of Egypt need to be merged, please do a proper merge proposal. At some point, summaries of summaries of summaries are so summarized that a further summary of the summary of the summary of the summary is simply pointless. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion: instead of duplicating content, we can lose history of Ancient Egypt. We have Ancient Egypt, which is inherently historical, so that a separate "history of" isn't needed. History of Ancient Egypt can be a section redirect to Ancient_Egypt#History. Now History of Egypt can become a very succinct WP:SS article, as outlined in the present revision, with five very brief sections,

Basically, this just means adding bare bone prose to the list-like arrangement of dedicated articles we have now. Anything more will be detrimental. Why? Because it is a nightmare to maintain articles with large scope overlaps. People keep adding random material to one or the other article, and most of the time the summary will outgrow the dedicated article. This is part of the natural dynamics of the wiki, and we need to harness these dynamics, not try to work against it. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. I agree with your point about people adding random material to almost arbitrarily chosen articles (usually probably without knowing there are related articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that nobody does it. People are very quick with comments like "This article must exist!" but not as a rule willing to do the work required. Things were just fine before article recreation. They could be fixed along the lines discussed above. As long as nobody is willing to arrange this, our best option is just to revert to the status quo ante. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


you are a fool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This page is a copy of the history section of Egypt, it should be so much more than that. Egypt has an 7000-year old history, give it some real coverage guys! Charles Essie (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's history is describable in such detail that it's spread across many specific pages, e.g. History of Ptolemaic Egypt. This is just a summary article, describing the overall trend and providing links to more specific articles. It should be longer than the History section in the Egypt article, of course, but it shouldn't include all of Egyptian history. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How can you have a History of Egypt that totally omits the world-changing events of the desert campaign of 1940-43? Valetude (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add more thigs about it, while doing a projret, not useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't understand the above response. Valetude (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This article is meant to give the reader a quick overview of the history of Egypt (obviously). It is not meant to cover current events on a month by month basis. We have History of the Republic of Egypt and History of modern Egypt. At the moment the pre-Republic bits have just over 2000 words, and the part covering the Republic is just less than that - almost half. Editors need to move material to the articles covering contemporary Egypt to give this article more balance. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilated history?[edit]

Should it not mention more? What about connections with american stone buiders? Pyramids, precision drilling, stone clamps, giant stones, elongated skulls, similar gods... Similar items for a never explained ancient high technology. You can think this is nonsense, but the questions remains unanswered.-- (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classical antiquity?[edit]

Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Periods of Ancient Egypt
Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Late Period

Classical antiquity is not the Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt , twenty-eighth dynasty, twenty-ninth dynasty, Thirtieth dynasty, ... Sasanian Egypt. What book or museum classifies it that way? See:

Periods in Ancient Egypt

Classical antiquity? Is Late Period and Greco-Roman Egypt. Regards JMCC1 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The template deals with the history of Egypt
  • The influence of Greece in Egypt begins with the arrival of Alexander and the Ptolemies
  • This influence was important in Alexandria, but not in all of Egypt
  • As can be seen in all books, museums and in the wikipedia category, dynasties 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are the Late Period of Egypt, they are not Classical antiquity.
  • The period of the Ptolemies and Romans is called Greco-Roman Egypt, not Classical antiquity, for its partial influence on Egyptian art.

Regards JMCC1 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JMCC1, the Achaemenid Empire in one interpretation is considered to be part of the early classical age. This is why in the template when Egypt comes under Persian Administration, it is from then on considered to be part of classical antiquity and no longer part of the Ancient era. The same can be said about the Sassanid conquest of Egypt. Antiquity is not just specific to the Greco-Roman world but encompasses the middle east as well. I'm glad you started a discussion about your concerns on the talk page but you cannot change said template until the dispute is resolved and a consensus is reached. One possible route this can be done is by coming to an understanding between users and a compromise is considered. Engaging in edit wars is not productive in any circumstance and will only make yourself look bad. So please revert your last edit on the template until this issue has been resolved. Also you cannot leave those specific warnings/threats like the one you left on my talk page unless you are an administrator. Attempting to abuse administrative powers that you do not have clearance for can get you into serious trouble. So please remove that warning/threat from my talk page as well. Lets try and be reasonable about this without needing to escalate this any further. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JMCC1 and EdwardElric2016: I can see how the template ended up classifying the Twenty-seventh Dynasty onwards as "classical antiquity", because those periods were contemporary with classical antiquity, which conventionally starts with the Classical Age in Greece in the early fifth century BC. But JMCC1 is right that this is not the way the chronological lines are drawn in the history of Egypt. The Late Period, in which Egypt alternated between native and Persian rule, is traditionally set apart from the Ptolemaic period, when, although Egypt was independent of any outside power, Greek culture intruded on and affected Egyptian culture more profoundly than had the culture of any of Egypt's previous conquerors. The era of Roman imperial rule is generally lumped in with the Ptolemaic period as the Greco-Roman era, because Greek culture, the common culture of the eastern half of the empire, continued to shape that of Egypt in Roman times. (There's a case to be made that those two periods shouldn't be lumped together, but that's another ball of wax, and in any case it's not the Egyptologists' traditional way of dividing things up.) The convention division is between "Dynastic Egypt", that is, Egypt under any of the 30 (or 31) dynasties listed by Manetho, and "Greco-Roman Egypt". "Classical antiquity" is a Greek- and Roman-centric term, and I don't think it should be used in the template at all. A. Parrot (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JMCC1 and A. Parrot: I would prefer all the dynasties currently shown in the template to remain on it, but I would be just as fine if the Kushite, Persian and later Egyptian dynasties shown "Ancient" and "Classical Antiquity" after the Third Intermediate Period be instead shown in a new category called "Late Period". EdwardElric2016 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwardElric2016: I'm not proposing removing any dynasties from the template—this is the general History of Egypt template, so it incorporates everything from the Predynastic to the present. The question is where to put the dividers. (The current dividers that aren't under dispute are Ancient, Medieval, Early modern, and Modern.) Ending the Ancient Egypt section after the Third Intermediate Period doesn't make sense. The Late Period is still considered part of Dynastic Egypt, and the Third Intermediate–Late Period boundary is the least intuitive of the major divisions in ancient Egyptian history. The question is: where should the Ancient Egypt section end? Based on the way the sources divide things up, we have several options, some with more standing in the sources than others.

  1. The Late Period–Ptolemaic boundary, with the end of truly native rule and (a mere ten years later) the onset of Hellenistic culture shock.
  2. The Ptolemaic–Roman boundary, with the end of political independence.
  3. The Roman–Islamic boundary, which initiated the transformation of a still Egyptian-speaking Christian culture into an Arabic-speaking Muslim one.

Another major point of division in this period is the extinction of hieroglyphic and Demotic writing as well as ancient Egyptian religion, which cut off the Coptic Christian society of late Roman times from its pre-Greek past, but it's not a division we can reflect in this template because the change happened in the middle of Roman rule.

If we choose #1, then there's no good title for the section that follows Ancient Egypt except "Greco-Roman Egypt". If we choose #2, Roman and Byzantine Egypt has to stand on its own, with no other bullet points in the section. If we choose #3, it simplifies things because the section headings go straight from Ancient to Medieval, but it ignores that histories of ancient Egypt, including WP's main ancient Egypt article, often end with one of the two earlier cutoff dates, and it lumps together late Roman Egypt with the dynastic culture that it was so disconnected from. A. Parrot (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: I am not saying that it was you specifically who wanted to remove those dynasties from the template. If that is the assumption you made then I apologize for the confusion. What I meant to say is that in all of JMCC1's edits, the Achaemenid and post Achaemenid dynasties (non Greco-Roman) as well as Sassanian controlled Egypt were no longer viable on the template. I simply wanted to state my preference to keeping all of the dynasty links in the template. With respect to your proposals to when the Ancient period categorization should end, ending with the Macedonian conquest of Egypt makes the most sense to me since that is when native rule truly ended. Though it should also be noted that Ancient Egyptian practices were still being practice largely under the Ptolemaic dynasty, though I'm currently unsure how significant that fact should play when deciding where the Ancient Period ought to end. With respect to Sassanian Egypt, do you think that it should be placed under Classical antiquity of placed under the Middle ages? I personally would prefer it to be placed in the classical antiquity section since the Roman retook control of Egypt from the Sassanians. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwardElric2016: I'd group everything from Alexander's conquest to the Arab conquest together, thus including the Sassanians but it's probably better to call the section for that Greco-Roman. "Classical antiquity" simply isn't a term commonly applied to the history of ancient Egypt, and everything from the third century AD/CE to the seventh is considered late antiquity, not classical. A. Parrot (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Your proposal makes sense to me. With respect to another concern I have, I would like the links such as Kushite Egypt and Achaemenid Egypt to be placed under the "Ancient Egypt" category as opposed to removing them entirely and replacing them with "Late Period" as JMCC1 has done. I see those periods as too distinct in their own right to be removed and condensed with a late period link. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about you @JMCC1:? You should be engaging in this discussion since you are the one who brought up the dispute in the first place. You also have yet to address the warning/threat you left on my talk page. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally in agreement with A. Parrot. JMCC1 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1
History of Egypt
  • Prehistoric Egypt
Ancient Egypt
  • Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC
  • Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC
  • 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC
  • Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC
  • 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC
  • New Kingdom 1550–1069 BC
  • 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC
  • Late Period 664–332 BC
See: Category:Ancient Egypt. Similar periods
See also: Template:Ancient Egypt dynasties sidebar and Template:Pharaohs
Proposal 2
Greco-Roman Egypt
  • Hellenistic Egypt‎
  • Roman Egypt‎
See: Category:History of Egypt by period. Similar periods
See also: Category:Hellenistic Egypt and Category:Roman Egypt

What is your opinion? JMCC1 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC) (Links) JMCC1 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JMCC1 and A. Parrot: With respect to Ancient Egypt, foreign ruled or very significant dynasties like Bubastite Egypt, Kushite Egypt, Assyrian/Saite Egypt, and Achaemenid Egypt should not be removed and replaced by something too vague like "Late Period" as we would be removing information which in my opinion would be decreasing the quality of the template. Bubastite Egypt is significant since its the first time Egypt had been politically unified since the New Kingdom. I would be willing to include the "Late period" into the template as long as we also keep Kushite Egypt, Assyrian/Saite Egypt, and Achaemenid Egypt. Also we should not ignore Sassanian Egypt and should not have been removed from the template because again that would be decreasing the quality of the template. This is what I would propose. Proposal 1

  • Prehistoric Egypt
Ancient Egypt
  • Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC
  • Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC
  • 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC
  • Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC
  • 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC
  • New Kingdom 1550–1077 BC
  • 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC
  • Bubastite Egypt 945 BC - 720 BC
  • Kushite Egypt 744–656 BC
  • Late Period 664–332 BC
  • Assyrian/Saite Egypt 664-525 BC
  • First Achaemenid Egypt 525–404 BC
  • Second Achaemenid Egypt 343–332 BC
Greco-Roman Egypt
  • Macedonian/Ptolmaic Egypt‎ 332–30 BC
  • Roman/Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD
  • Sassanian Egypt 619–629

Also JMCC1 please undo your edits onto the Egypt template at least until a new template design can be agreed upon and finalized. I do appreciate that you took action to remove the warning/threat from my personal talk page so many thanks for that. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the template are reviewed by an administrator, Favonian, see User talk: 2019
Please, we should try to improve the template, without mixing periods with subperiods. JMCC1 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the template must match the classification of the categories and with the Egyptian history books. I have indicated references. I want to see the references of books or museums that support your classification. JMCC1 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JMCC1: Not to be rude but, I think it's quite deceptive of you to state that your edits were reviewed by an administrator when all I saw from the link you provided was some IP getting a warning for edit warring in a separate template not even related to this one. I will ask you once again to reverse your edits until a new template design is agreed upon. As of right now, your edits have not gained a consensus. It doesn't matter how right you think you are. I only, in your words "mixed up the periods" in my proposal, as a possible compromise with you. I would still prefer that no link/dynasty from the original template be removed, but will agree that the dates of the categories of "Ancient Egypt" and "Classical Antiquity" be changed. I fully believe that removing periods of Egyptian history won't improve the quality of the template as you have done. So I disagree with your definition of improving the template. Can we at least agree to not remove Sassanian Egypt from the template? If we are unsuccessful in bridging and coming to any kind of compromise or understanding between us, we may need to get other people involved to make a final decision on our behalf. What is your opinion @A. Parrot:? EdwardElric2016 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JMCC1 and EdwardElric2016: I know I said I didn't propose removing any dynasties from the template, but I didn't entirely realize the differences between your preferred versions. This template is focused on the broad strokes of Egyptian history, unlike the Template:Ancient Egypt dynasties sidebar that is used in most articles on periods of ancient Egyptian history, so we don't want to get too detailed. Subdividing the Third Intermediate and Late Periods doesn't work because the template only has two levels: the very broad sections (Ancient, Medieval, etc.) and the kingdoms and periods. Putting the TIP and LP on the same level as their own subdivisions causses confusion. Moreover, subdividing these periods doesn't fit with the practice of the sources. For instance, no periodization of ancient Egyptian history separates out the Bubastite period unless it's counting individual dynasties. The three dynasties of the New Kingdom are more significant than any of the individual dynasties in the Third Intermediate or Late Period—it's hard to overstate how large the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth loom in the archaeological record and the Egyptological literature compared with the periods that preceded and followed them.
I think Wikipedia's coverage of the periods of Egypt's Islamic history is less organized and maintained than that on ancient Egypt—the Western public's enormous fascination with AE countervails Wikipedia's general tendency toward recentism. Therefore, it's worthwhile for this template to cover shorter periods of Egypt's late antique and Islamic history (and thus include the Sassanian period). People looking for detail on AE can find their way to the dynasty articles; practically every article that is linked in the AE section of this template includes Template:Ancient Egypt dynasties sidebar.
To sum up, my preferred version looks a lot like JMCC1's but with the addition of the Sasanians:
  • Prehistoric Egypt
Ancient Egypt
  • Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC
  • Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC
  • 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC
  • Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC
  • 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC
  • New Kingdom 1550–1077 BC
  • 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC
  • Late Period 664–332 BC
Greco-Roman Egypt
  • Macedonian and Ptolemaic Egypt‎ 332–30 BC
  • Roman and Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD
  • Sasanian Egypt 619–629
A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Even though I would prefer periods like Kushite Egypt and Achaemenid Egypt to be seen in the template like we see Ptolemaic or Roman Egypt, I do ultimately see your point. Also I wasn't aware that a detailed template like the one you showed even existed. I would be fine with your exact version of the template. My question is what to do about the period between 1077 and 1069 BC? Another thing on a different note is that I think we also have issues with Medieval Egypt. The Rashidun, Ummayad, and Abbasid periods only links to the caliphate itself as opposed to the Egyptian province during that time. My proposal would be to replace the 3 subcategories in question with a single Arabian/Islamic Caliphate Egypt subcategory if a decent article for that exists. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwardElric2016: Aha, hadn't noticed the 1077/1069 discrepancy. I was just copying the proposal you laid out and modifying it. There is no period between the two; most sources give 1070 or 1069 as the end date of the New Kingdom and the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period. The current version of the template reflects that and uses 1069 for both. The 1077 date must be somebody's copying error.
As for the Islamic period, there doesn't seem to be a distinct article for Egypt in the caliphal period, just Egypt in the Middle Ages, which is already linked in the template and covers later Arab dynasties as well as the caliphates. A. Parrot (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JMCC1 and A. Parrot: Ultimately I will be fine with A. Parrot's proposal as long as Sassasian Egypt in kept in the template and the Ancient Egypt dynasties sidebar is added into the History of Egypt Wikipedia article. The 1077 BC date came from the New Kingdom Wikipedia article itself. If this date is incorrect, it should be fixed immediately. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EdwardElric2016: I changed the date on the New Kingdom article (it was unsourced anyway). I also went ahead and edited the template, even though JMCC1 hadn't weighed in on my latest proposal, but I hope it's satisfactory to everybody. If not, we can tweak it. A. Parrot (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: Thank you very much A. Parrot. I appreciate all the help you have given us regarding this dispute. I am satisfied with the end result. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot and EdwardElric2016: Thank you very much A. Parrot. Thank you very much EdwardElric. I am also satisfied with the end result. JMCC1 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Very Small and Needs to be Greatly Expanded![edit]

Well I don't see a reason for removing my copies (You may think they are unessential but they're, as I would point to that later). This article is very small for such a topic and must be greatly expanded. It's not all about me. If you refer to Recentism, WW2?, Expand!, This article must exist!, scope and "The history of Egypt is the longest of any country.", you would see that it's not only my opinion to expand this page. This issue has been discussed long before I started editing in Wikipedia. If I didn't know anything about the history of Egypt and then read this article, It won't help me to learn anything. I should always go to even more articles to understand the history of Egypt properly and that's the reason that made me copy some content from other articles, to make this article independent from them and is able to provide readers with essential information about the history of Egypt without referring to any other article. If you read The History of France (37,341 words) or The History of Germany (38,814), you may get a detailed view of what's the history of France or Germany is like. I would also point to the histories of Australia (39,249 words), U.S. (27,226 words), Canada (17,048 words), South Africa (19,985 words) and even Liberia (8,413 words) are larger than that of Egypt on Wikipedia, Which is unreasonable. They all give a detailed history of their countries. so please, stop removing my copies from this article, I'm trying to help making this article better.

written by Mark Wagdy El-Magrisy 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Strik3: The article does need expansion, but it should still be a summary, not an agglomeration of all the articles on each sub-topic. The accepted practice on Wikipedia is to limit the length of articles on broad topics, such as this one, no matter how broad they may be. That way, it's possible to read the entire article in one sitting, and anyone seeking more detail on a particular sub-topic can look at the article on that sub-topic. There's no firm length limit, but it's generally considered unwise to greatly exceed 10,000 words.
This approach means that this article will be rather cursory—if you're already familiar with the history of Egypt, you won't learn anything new. But an article this broad will mainly be for those who need an introduction to the topic, or who need to find the sub-article on a topic they aren't familiar with and don't know how to search for. Even that cursory text, though, needs a certain level of cohesion, which is why pasting in text from other articles isn't an ideal solution. A. Parrot (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sort of a taster article - it should give readers the flavor of each period and make them hungry for more. This is covered in WP:Summary style which should give you an idea of what such an article should look like. WP:TOOBIG discusses the size of articles - sadly the French article must be very difficult to load in many areas due to all the images. A reader should be able to get a broad outline of the history of Egypt in just a few minutes, and can then drill down to more detailed articles. I'll also emphasise the need for cohesion, which isn't accomplished by large chunks of copy and paste. In many cases most of the material if not all could come from the lead. And while I'm on leads, this one is too large - see WP:LEAD. I'm sure the first paragraph could be rewritten, maybe incorporate some material from others, and there's too much detail Of course leads in summary articles are bound to be difficult to write. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History the Nile River and how it influenced settlements[edit]

It because it would not make it easier than to do u and pay me to do the work I did for my kids this Alfred (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate?[edit]

According to the text, after the Arab Islamic conquest in the 7th century, 'Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate remained in control of Egypt for the next six centuries, with Cairo as the seat of the Caliphate under the Fatimids. '

I don't see how this makes sense. The Fatimids, who took control of Egypt as early as the 10th century and ruled until the mid-12th century, were not 'rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate', they rebelled against the Sunni Caliphate and established their own rival Shia Caliphate. So Egypt was controlled by the original Caliphate for only approximately three centuries, not six as the text says, and was then independent from it for about two centuries. Also, Egypt was de facto independent for a period before that, under the Tulunids (868–905), making the period of true Caliphate control even shorter. And even after the Fatimids, from the 12th to the 16th century, the Ayyubids and the Mamluks may have recognised Abbasid rule nominally, but in practice these were independent states and the rulers weren't actually chosen by the caliph or controlled by him. (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]