Chattie, tell me again about the relationship between Persia and Old Egypt in ancient times
The relationship between ancient Persia and ancient Egypt was one of the great civilizational encounters of antiquity: admiration, conquest, cooperation, rebellion, and cultural exchange all mixed together over centuries.
Before the Persians: Egypt as an Ancient Giant
By the time the Persians emerged as an imperial power under Cyrus the Great in the 6th century BCE, Egypt was already unimaginably old.
The pyramids of Khufu were over 2,000 years ancient already. Egypt was one of the prestige civilizations of the world — rich, learned, sacred, and symbolically powerful.
The Persians knew this very well. To conquer Egypt was not merely territorial expansion; it meant inheriting one of the oldest crowns on Earth.
The Achaemenid Conquest of Egypt
The decisive moment came under Cambyses II, son of Cyrus.
In 525 BCE he invaded Egypt and defeated Pharaoh Psamtik III at the Battle of Pelusium.
Egypt then became a province — a satrapy — of the vast Achaemenid Empire.
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
This created the first direct political union between the Nile world and the Iranian plateau.
The Persian View of Egypt
The Persian kings did not simply destroy Egypt. They generally tried to rule it as legitimate pharaohs.
For example, Darius I presented himself in Egyptian style inscriptions as a lawful ruler chosen by Egyptian gods.
He:
restored temples,
supported priesthoods,
repaired canals,
encouraged trade between Egypt and Asia.
One fascinating project was the reopening of a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea — a precursor to the idea behind the modern Suez Canal.
Persian administration was highly sophisticated. Egypt became integrated into a gigantic imperial system stretching from:
the Indus Valley,
Mesopotamia,
Anatolia,
the Levant,
to the Nile.
Goods, soldiers, scribes, ideas, and religions moved across these regions more intensely than before.
Egyptian Resistance
But the relationship was never fully harmonious.
Many Egyptians viewed Persian rule as foreign domination. There were repeated revolts against the Persians.
Greek sources — especially Herodotus — often portray Persian rulers like Cambyses as impious or cruel toward Egyptian religion. Some of these stories were probably exaggerated Greek propaganda, but tensions certainly existed.
Egypt periodically regained independence, only to be reconquered later by Persia again.
So the relationship alternated between:
imperial integration,
local autonomy,
revolt,
reconquest.
Cultural Exchange
The contact between Persia and Egypt created enormous cultural blending.
Administration and Empire
The Persians learned from earlier Egyptian and Mesopotamian statecraft traditions, while Egypt absorbed Persian imperial methods:
taxation systems,
long-distance administration,
military organization,
road and communication networks.
Religion and Symbolism
Persian rulers adopted Egyptian royal imagery, while Egyptian elites interacted with Iranian religious concepts and imperial cosmopolitanism.
At the same time, both civilizations had a strong sacred kingship model:
the Pharaoh as divine mediator,
the Persian “King of Kings” as cosmic ruler under divine order.
These are not identical systems, but there is a structural resemblance in how both imagined universal order.
Then Came Alexander
In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great defeated the Persians and took Egypt.
This was another enormous turning point.
Interestingly, Alexander inherited BOTH:
the Persian imperial system,
and the Egyptian sacred kingship tradition.
That fusion later shaped the Hellenistic world under the Ptolemaic dynasty.
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
The Deeper Historical Pattern
What makes the Persia–Egypt relationship so important is that it was one of the first true “Old World integrations.”
Before Rome, before Islam, before modern globalization, the Achaemenid Persians created a political bridge linking:
Egypt,
Mesopotamia,
Iran,
Anatolia,
Central Asia.
In a way, they transformed separate ancient civilizations into parts of a connected continental system.
And Egypt — though conquered — remained spiritually prestigious throughout it all. Even Persian kings sought legitimacy through Egyptian symbolism because Egypt already represented immense antiquity and sacred authority.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@kaitlancollins.
@ErinBurnett.
@abbydphillip.
PASTE FROM CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT NOW
Chattie, what do you think about the following statement : Trump and Shi are both alpha males where each of them believes their country is the strongest here. They arrived at negotiation results where both of them believed they were positive for them. Reality will show.
There’s a plausible psychological and political dynamic in that statement, but it simplifies a much more complex situation.
Calling Donald Trump and Xi Jinping “alpha males” captures part of their public leadership style: both cultivate images of strength, national pride, and personal authority. Both also tend to frame negotiations not as technical compromises, but as demonstrations of strategic superiority.
That matters because leaders often need domestic victory narratives. In high-level diplomacy, especially between major powers like United States and China, an agreement can succeed politically only if both sides can present it at home as a win. So it is common for both governments to say:
“We defended our interests.”
“The other side made concessions.”
“This proves our strength.”
In that sense, your statement is probably accurate:
both leaders may genuinely believe the outcome favored them — or at least that they successfully protected core interests.
But whether the agreement was actually beneficial depends on longer-term realities:
trade balances,
industrial capacity,
technological competition,
financial stability,
military positioning,
public opinion,
and global alliances.
History is full of agreements where both sides declared victory initially, but later outcomes favored one side more strongly than expected.
Another subtle point: negotiations between superpowers are rarely zero-sum. Sometimes both sides really do gain something:
reduced uncertainty,
economic stability,
calmer markets,
time to prepare strategically,
or avoidance of escalation.
So the interesting question is not “Who won?” but:
What problem was each side trying to solve, and did the agreement help solve it?
That only becomes clear over years, not headlines.
@kaitlancollins @ErinBurnett @abbydphillip Do you think other global superpowers like Russia and Europe and countries like Persia and Mexico will benefit from that US-China relation.