Why are the Ptolemaioi such a hated faction?

[FinnishedBarbarian]

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.

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.

[Arjos]

The "line in the sand" episode is a nice tale and all, but one must put it into context: the Seleucid court was in a deep financial crisis, due to war indemnities and lost wars; Demetrios (the real heir and brother to Antiochos IV) was held hostage in Roma...

It was the wisest choice to make: taking on the Ptolemaioi as they were dealing with rebellions in the Thebai and Triakontaschoinos was feasible, facing the SPQR wasn't...
Not to mention at the same time the Pahlava were occupying Media...

Bottom line it wasn't an ultimatum, but the political equivalent of an adult holding a child by the forehead...

[MButcher]

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.

I'm afraid I should have been more clear. My comment wasn't an argument that the Ptolemies were somehow more brave, or less cowardly, than the Seleukids. I absolutely agree that certain actions taken by the Ptolemies can be called cowardly. My comment was merely meant to show that there was more to the episode than the original poster stated.

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.

This is precisely what I was calling into question. To say that "the AS were better than them (i.e. the Ptolemies)" is quite a broad statement. We cannot say that one kingdom was "better" than another, because "better" is too broad and subjective.