Quote Originally Posted by MButcher View Post
Let's be fair about whom we call a coward. Antiochus IV gave up on conquering Egypt because a single Roman envoy intimidated him in front of his own army.
That envoy had ultimatum directly from Roman senate, kind of like some modern country (not russia or china) would receive ultimatum from U.S senate, there aren't many rulers/countries who would go to ignore such threat.

And calling Ptolemies cowards due to their actions during sixth syrian war is valid afterall Ptolemy (or his advisors) started it by demanding return of coele-syria and after being rebuffed reacted by declaring war where they were totally defeated by Antiochus. Philometor then went to betray his uncle when he made peace with his brother after which they cryed for Rome's help. All in all sounds quite spineless to me.

Quote Originally Posted by MButcher View Post
As for the claim that the Seleukids were "better" than the Ptolemies - better in what way? Militarily? That's a valid claim, though it didn't help them in being conquered by the Parthians and Pompey.
Is there any other way to determine superiority than military strength? Organisation maybe,but both kingdoms suffered from dissent so it's hard to say which one was better governed.