The kingdom of the Ptolomies was the most typical of the Hellenistic kingdoms because of its intense bureaucratic and economical organisation. On the other hands is it different from the other kingdoms thanks to this organisation. The start of this evolution took place in the preceding era of pharaohs. The land had been systematically exploited for as long as people could remember, and there were numerous local writers available for the lower classes who could not read and write. The Ptolomies only had to gain control over the upper class to control the country. The organisator of this was the dioketes Appolonius of Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus (285-246). His policy was continued under the leadership of Ptolemeaus II Euergetes (246-221).

Organisation of the kingdom.

Egypt was not very much urbanised, and the Ptolomies did not change very much about this. They were different from the other Hellenistic rulers when it came to urbanisation policy. The only urban conglomeration founded by them was Ptolemais, in the hard to control south of Egypt. The biggest city of Egypt was Alexandria was also the residence of the dynasty. The city was exceptionally well situated and grew into a flourishing harbour and trade-centre with connections in the Aegean via Rhodes, south-west Arabia, the east coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean. The citizens of Alexandria consisted of people who could speak Greek. Of the groups who did not speak were the Jews the most numerous, at least one third of the city was Jewish. Each non-Greek group had its own form of organisation, while the city in its whole was ruled by an governor who was assigned by the king.

In Egypt the royal administration was larger and more elaborate as the Ptolomies had, unlike the Seleucids, only three Greek cities to provide a basic administrative framework. At the top of the government was of course the kind who was assisted by secretaries for military issues and for communications, but the head of the whole administration was the dioiketes (= manager of the domain), who was assisted by oikonomoi. Egypt was traditional divided into 40 districts which were called nomen. Each of these nomen was ruled by a nomarches, but slowly the military governor, or strategos, gained more power at the cost of these nomarches.

Each nomen furthermore had a civil servant who had to deal with financial issues, and one who was concerned with juridical issues. Locally the head of a town had the power and responsibilities, but everything was planned and arranged in Alexandria. The Ptolomies added to this administrative pharaonic system a new military organization with soldiers stationed throughout Egypt, and a more complex taxation system. Like every Hellenistic kingdom was the administration staffed largely by Greeks.

The position of the dioiketes shows that the first priority was the exploitation of the domain. In principle was all the land possession of the king, and were the people who worked at the land the kings farmers, but in fact was there also holy land for the temples, and small areas were given to soldiers who had proved themselves on the battlefield. These military colonies were small, with only a few hundred men, and they had few autonomous institutions and little independence from the king. Their purpose was to act as a safeguard against disaffection and their inhabitants were obliged to serve in the king's army. Finally, could the king give estates, or profits from estates, to high civil servants.

Main goal of the system.

The exploitation of the land was characterised by planning. The farmers got their sowing-seed annually from a central council and they were only allowed to keep as much as they needed. The profits of the land were already estimated. There were many state-monopolies like beer, olives, salt, papyrus. In the industries of these monopolies were the workers civil servants: they got the needed things and had to give the products to the king. The trade was also a state-monopoly, and the king treated the exports of the country as his personal possessions, and thus personal profits.

The system of exploitation only worked well for a short time. Already at the end of the third century the bureaucratic system worked less smooth. From the side of he farmers there was passive resistance against the burdens which were determined by the upper classes, and they often moved to the temple-economies, and later on completely fled from the by the king controlled land. After a while they also started to resist the king actively by forming bands of robbers, and at the beginning of the second century a separation movement among the local leaders erupted.