Talk:Ptolemaic dynasty

message: it would be helpful to have the reigning dates and birth/death dates of each Ptolemy...
----
OK, I guess this would be a sensible place to ask about these recent Cleopatra articles: What the heck is with the multi-millenium lifespans?!? -- John Owens 01:43 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
:Even better, this might be a good place to ask Ponyf2t to stop making things up and putting them in the Wikipedia.  They won't stay around: it's a waste of his time, and it's a waste of everyone else's. -- Someone else 01:27 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)
----
phew. I've got this article & talk page synchronized on the SAME capitalization. ... -- Tarquin 20:41 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
---- 
Why, exactly, are the Ptolemaic consorts listed together with their husbands?  That makes it very difficult to put dates to the list, which would be useful.  Wouldn't it be a better idea to list the reigning monarch, and then list any consorts subordinately? That would allow for putting the dates of the various Ptolemies, which would be useful, and would make the page less cluttered and more organized. john 02:18 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
----
why Cleopatra VII is said to be the last pharaoh when there is an other after her in the list and still an other more in the french wiki ? Koxinga
:Arsinoe IV never actually ruled, she just opposed Cleopatra, and Ptolemy XIV and Ptolemy XV were her co-rulers, though Cleo took most of the power. So, really, she was the last Pharaoh. Matjlav 16:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As with everything from ancient times, we don't have sufficient DNA samples to prove family relationships, but everybody at the time thought they were related, and certainly the later Ptolemies seem lacking in the brains department. It's also quite possible that some of the queens brought in fresh genetic material, heh-heh. :-) Stan 14:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: It seems to me that it would be preferable to name articles on the Ptolemies as Ptolemy I Soter, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Ptolemy III Euergetes, and so forth, rather than the current names.  Anyone agree? john k 14:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. We should have a title that has a little bit about who they were, and not their second names. If it's "Ptolemy I Soter," all the reader could know is that he was a king of some sort, probably. If it's Ptolemy I of Egypt, the reader knows he was probably a King of Egypt. Matjlav 16:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  Ancient rulers do not have to have "of Placename" in their article titles, and these monarchs are generally known by their later names. At any rate, anybody who knows anything about the name "Ptolemy" will recognize that a Ptolemy with a number after his name was "probably a King of Egypt."  Those who don't will likely not be looking for anything about Ptolemies, anyway. john k 23:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I think I should list some of the reasons I objected to Matjlav’s genealogy.
1) Since Matjlav removed the word “Simplified” from the section heading, I concluded that this tree is meant to be comprehensive.  It is anything but.  Just to take the most obvious point, many children of Ptolemy I, II, III, VI, VIII and IX are omitted, as are the children of Berenice I by her first husband.  
2) It is completely unclear why some individuals are included and others are not.  Why an ancestry for Eurydice and Berenice I but not for Arsinoe I or Cleopatra I?  How can you omit Ptolemy the Son, coregent for 8 years?
3) Matjlav’s tree is riddled with errors.  Not controversial reconstructions, flat out errors.  Berenice I was the daughter of Magas not Lagus (this fiction was conclusively knocked on the head by Grace Macurdy in 1932!).  Berenice II was not the daughter of Arsinoe I and Ptolemy II, she was the daughter of Magas of Cyrene and Apama.  Ptolemy Memphites (not “Memphitis”) was the son of Cleopatra II not Cleopatra III.  Ptolemy XI was not the biological son of Berenice III (this was always doubtful, the papyrus that was once thought to say so has been reexamined and shown to be naming Ptolemy X and his “sister” Berenice III).  Cleopatra V may have been the sister of Ptolemy XII or his niece, or his cousin, but she certainly wasn’t his aunt.  And, while the point may still be regarded as marginally controversial, I don’t know of any modern scholar who has actually studied the issue who regards “Cleopatra VI” as having existed. 
Now, the tree I’ve restored isn’t perfect.  It has spelling errors (“Ptolomy” the Son) and numbering errors (Ptolemy “XIV” and “XV” for Cleopatra’s bothers).  Neither tree differentiates what is known from what is conjectured and controversial.  I’m not sure that I would include Antony’s children or the paternity of Cleopatra I, but I would definitely show the marriage of Arsinoe II and Ptolemy II.  But this tree doesn’t imply that it is comprehensive, it includes all the rulers and coregents of Egypt (except Ptolemy Eupator, who is omitted in both trees, and is certainly the least important), it doesn’t include obscurities like the ancestries of Eurydice and Berenice, and it doesn’t have any actual genealogical errors.  Its deficiencies are comparatively minor.  Until I or someone with access to the source file gets around to fixing it, it is clearly the better starting point. -- --Chris Bennett 20:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of family trees 

message: To Carcharoth:  It's not clear why this section is a good idea, since you haven't actually said anything about any of these people.  
If it's just meant to be a set of cross-links, what are the selection criteria?  E.g. why Apion but not Magas, also king of Cyrene, or Ptolemy, king of Cyprus?  Why Keraunos king of Macedon but not his brother Meleager, also king of Macedon?  Why not Ptolemy the Son?  Why Ptolemy Philadephus but not Alexander Helios or Cleopatra Selene?  
--Chris Bennett 02:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. That section was a hangover from when I was looking for somewhere to put the list I had made of other members of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were not rulers but were named Ptolemy. It kind of spun off from the Ptolemy (disambiguation) thing before the Ptolemy (name) article was created. The criteria were (a) named Ptolemy and (b) not a ruler of Egypt. You are absolutely correct that the section should either be dropped as not very relevant, or expanded to include the other (known) members of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Personally, I think it would be nice to have a section about what the other, non-ruling, members of the dynasty got up to in and outside Egypt. It gives the dynasty a bit of context within the area and history of the times. Carcharoth 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "other members of the dynasty" 

message: I noted that Lagid and Lagids redirect to this page. I am puzzled with the origin of the name Lagid to refer to this dinasty? -- Pichote 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Lagids, dinasty founded by general of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, son of Lagus. -- Pichote 11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lagids

message: The intro now contains the sentences "They were the 32nd and last dynasty of ancient Egypt. The Ptolemaic dynasty is sometimes called the Thirty-fourth dynasty of Egypt too." If the "34th" designation is to be mentioned here, it would helpful to know why. --Haruo (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't quite figure it out. The system of numbering dynasties was developed by Manetho in the Thirtieth Dynasty, so it isn't often applied to later dynasties. But it looks like the second period of Achamenid rule, following the Thirtieth Dynasty, is sometimes called the Thirty-first Dynasty. One might count the Ptolemies as the Thirty-second Dynasty, but I don't know if any reliable sources do so. They're either called "the Ptolemaic dynasty" or "the Ptolemies" or "the Lagides". And counting them as number 32 instead of 33 would ignore the Argead Dynasty (Alexander the Great, his son Alexander IV of Macedon, and Philip III Arrhidaeus), which ruled briefly but probably as long as some of the minor numbered dynasties. I can't see any reason for counting the Ptolemies as number 34. Unless sources address the issue, I think attempts to give the Ptolemies a number should be left out of the article. A. Parrot (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the circumstances I agree that leaving the numbering of dynasties altogether out makes more sense. --Haruo (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I've removed that text. A. Parrot (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 32nd or 34th? why?

message: Do we know what languages did they spoke?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotaro97 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the Ptolemaic dynasty often adopted ancient Egyptian regalia, its members generally spoke Greek as a first language. However, Cleopatra was bilingual in Greek and Egyptian, and she presented herself as the embodiment of the goddess Isis. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their language? 

message: Ptolemy XV (last ruler of Ptolemic Egypt) & Cleopatra VIII (ruler of Cyrenaica & Libya) can 'both' be listed. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that Ptolemy XV reigned jointly with his mother, while Cleopatra VII of Egypt and Roman triumvir Mark Antony, upon their deaths, marked the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Cleopatra VIII, the ruler of Cyrenaica & Libya, was the daughter of Cleopatra VII, and she did NOT rule in Egypt - where the other Ptolemies had their seat of government, but in Cyrenaica and in Libya.Davidbena (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last ruler. 

message: I don't think this is a good idea. There is already a gallery in the article. Adding a second gallery means another editor will most likely come in here later on and just delete it on the grounds that there are one too many galleries. I think it was better before, when the images were just lined up to the right of the text. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I will leave it the way it was before. Векочел (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for understanding! The new gallery you made in the article for Berenice II of Egypt is fine, though, because it is the only gallery in the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second gallery

message: Below is all of the Ptolemaic Dynasty plates from Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Might be helpful if anyone was to add illustrations to this page. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemaic Dynasty as catalogued by Lepsius 

message: Some of the sources simply lead back to Encyclopedia Britannica and others are as academic as I am from Mars. Will be looking into this more and come back with an update. Yefv (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources