Talk:List of pharaohs

Why do Dedumose I & II appear TWICE on this list? In the 14th and then again the 16th dynasties?

If there really are two sets of father/son pharaoh's... why do they the SAME artifact images appear next to their names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-42329-94 (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

They are in fact the same people in both spots in the list but that is intentional. The order of succession of the second intermediate period (13th-17th dynasty) is often vague and uncertain and multiple dynasty sometimes co-existed in different parts of the country and thus some rulers such as Dedumose I and II have bean proposed to have reigned in multiple dynasty's and so are included in both places they have been placed in. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 12:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The transliteration system used here seems to be fairly inconsistent (but this is Egyptology, so I'm not surprised) – cf. Ra vs. Re, User vs. Weser etc.
Perhaps we should add the transliterations of the original Egyptian names, to make it more clear what the originals would have been (except maybe the Ptolemies and the Persians, who have names that aren't in Egyptian at all - but this could get inconsistent in the Late Period fast).
If anyone has a reputable source reconstructing names, I'm happpy to do the slogging myself.Zenzic-Eváristos (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Two websites (dictionary.sensagent.com and creationwiki.org) list a king Aba that reigned for 4 years and 2 m0nths. the websites king lists are almost identical (sensagent separates thamphthis from djedefpta for some reason). They both even list a lost king after him. 'Aba' and the unnamed king are both before merenre II and after nefer. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Over time it seems the article has accrued rather a few issues. It would benefit from a structured approach to improvement.

Since this article is listed as one of high-importance to several Wikiprojects, I think an appeal for a consensus is the best way forward. I have spent some time identifying what I feel are the main concerns and proposed some ways that they might be handled, and I've compiled them here, because it's pretty long to clog up the talk page with.

I can testify my willingness to work on any/all of the issues, but I would rather wait to see if there is any strength of feeling surrounding the future of the article.

Please, feel free to contest proposals or suggest additional ones. Neatly95 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal updated. A template ({{Dynasty table}}) has been created. Please feel free to offer suggestions/feedback. Neatly95 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, great work! Yes, the list needs serious rework. I was thinking of working on this some time later, although it will certainly require quite the research and time. Tintero21 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To the user '83.29.13.243', you deleted only Cleopatra IV from the list of Pharaohs.

Cleopatra IV was added to the list of deified Ptolemies as the Qea FiladelfoV. ( see -> https://www.instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_iv_fr.htm )

Cleopatra IV was included in the Dynastic Cult Lists, representing the rulers.( read this -> https://www.instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/background/sequence.htm )

The reference you showed me also say that Arsinoe II, Berenice II, and Cleopatra I were just basilissa-consorts or basilissa-regents and Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV were just basileus-consorts. (see the pages 16 and 19 of https://www.academia.edu/43290689 )

Do you think basileus/basilissa and Pharaoh are the same title? The reference only refers to their title of basileus/basilissa, not the title of Pharaoh.

Do you think other basileus/basilissa -consorts should be removed from this list too? Why did you only delete Cleopatra IV? Acolex2 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I already told you - being deified is not the same as being ruling Pharaoh. Imhotep was deified also - that does NOT make him Pharaoh.

Basileus means King, but Basilissa means any Royal female. (Page 14 of "Becoming Kleopatra"). 'Pharaoh' is anachronistic title, which means 'ruler of Egypt in their own right'. Cleopatra IV did not rule in her own right, she did not date her reign and she did not have any know Pharaonic titulary.

'The reference you showed me also say that Arsinoe II, Berenice II, and Cleopatra I were just basilissa-consorts or basilissa-regents and Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV were just basileus-consorts.' - It's true the author does refferes few times Ptolemy XIII and XIV and 'consorts', but ultimately she does include them as nominal co-rulers (page 442). Ptolemy XIII and XIV were included in dating protocols alongside their co-queen, Cleopatra VII, which makes them Pharaohs/rulers in their own right. Cleopatar IV was not

'Do you think other basileus/basilissa -consorts should be removed from this list too? Why did you only delete Cleopatra IV?' - I think Arsinoe II, Berenike II, Arsinoe III should be labelled as 'disputed' or 'possible' Pharaohs. They did not date their reign like Pharaohs, however they did have Egyptian Royal titulary and they were ceremonially equal to their spouses which ultimately make position of queen so high that eventually Cleopatra II become formal co-ruler in her own right.

Cleopatra I also should be disputed, because while she is mentioned in protocols, that happens only after her husband death, when she was guardian of minor son, which is why Sewell-Lasater considers her basilissa-regent, not in her own right. (However she did have titles of hk3.t and female Horus since beggining of her marriages, so I can acknowledge this is matter of interpretation and thing that needs more research.)

I left many 'bassilissa consorts' on Pharaohs list, because even if they were not mention by protocols, they had Egyptian Royal titulary and some egyptologists do consider them Pharaohs, as I already explaine dto you on your own discussion page.

Cleopatra IV is not known to have title of female Horus or hk3.t. She was not mention in dating protocols. On what basis you consider her a Pharaoh? Source you cited did not treat her as ruler in her own right.

Listing other queens as possible/dipsuted need some work, I currently don't have time. But there is no question about Cleopatra - she never was in dating protocols and she does not have Egyptian titulary, hence she should not be counted as joint ruler. Sobek2000 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I deleted only Cleopatra IV: "Arsinoe II was posthumously allocated a Horus name and

birth name (which were usually the names allocated to the

pharaoh), but Berenike II was given full kingly titles during her

lifetime. Holbl notes that in Demotic dating formulae Berenike

was called ‘the pharaoh (with the feminine “t” at the end o f the

word) Berenike’, thus illustrating her status as a female pharaoh

rather than queen and consort. This accords with her appearance

on temples receiving from the gods and accompanying her con

sort. On the temple o f Khonsu at Karnak, Berenike II is called

the ‘ruler’, thus directly linking her to the role o f pharaoh. This

title was also taken by Arsinoe III at the temple o f Horus at Edfu,

Cleopatra I in the Philae decree, Cleopatra III and Cleopatra V

at the Edfu temple, Berenike III and Cleopatra VII at the temple

o f Montu at Armant and by either Cleopatra V or Cleopatra VII

at Kom Ombo (Troy allocates this use to Cleopatra VI). Berenike II is also called the 'female Horus’ in the Philae and

Canopus decrees and at the temple o f Khonsu at Karnak.

Cleopatra I adopts this title at the Edfu temple, Cleopatra III at

the Philae temple and Cleopatra VII at the temple of Montu,

Armant. Perhaps the most powerful title that was in fact adopted

by Arsinoe II, Arsinoe III, Berenike II, Cleopatra I, Cleopatra V,

Berenike III and Cleopatra VII: that of the female ‘ruler’. These

titles are important for our understanding o f the developing role

of the royal women because they indicate that, in addition to

being deified and worshipped, they were promoted to the office

of Pharaoh." - Sally Ann Ashton, Last Queens of Egypt, Routledge 2014, p. 112-113

Since actual egyptologist does classify Berenike II and Arsinoe III as Pharaohs/queens regnant, then I remain careful with excluding them. However she does not name Cleopatra IV there, as Cleopatra IV was not granted this tutilary. Without known Egyptian titulary for Cleopatra IV and with her absence from dating protocols there is no basis to consider her Pharaoh. Sobek2000 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's just your criteria. They are not the conditions of Pharaoh.

Ptolemy VII (Ptolemy Memphites) is considered a pharaoh, although he never actually reigned. because he was included in the Dynastic Cult Lists .( read this -> https://www.instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/background/sequence.htm )

The reference you showed me says that Berenice IV and Arsinoe IV also had no Titulary (see the page 457 of https://www.academia.edu/43290689 )

Do you think them should be removed from this list too? Why did you only delete Cleopatra IV?

The reference you showed me says that "For example, in temple reliefs, where the basilissa was usually shown alongside her husband and consort, Kleopatra IV and Kleopatra Selene were left out,"

(see the page 416 of https://www.academia.edu/43290689 )

But look at this -> https://the-past.com/feature/the-cleopatras-part-3-cleopatra-iii-the-female-king/

"A drawing of a scene from the Temple of Philae showing Ptolemy IX preceding two Cleopatras, probably his mother Cleopatra III and sister Cleopatra IV. Image: K R Lepsius (1849) Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, vol.IV pl.42c"

Scholarly opinions vary, so don't rely on just one reference.

If you want to remove Cleopatra IV from this list,

Arsinoe II

Berenice II

Cleopatra I

Ptolemy XIII

Ptolemy XIV

Ptolemy VII

Berenice IV

Arsinoe IV

You must remove all of these as well. Acolex2 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not my criteria. Please, explain what makes someone Pharaoh. Being deified does not - or you have to include Imhotep as Pharaoh too.

"Similarly, the identity of the Qea FiladelfoV has recently been reevaluated. She was supposed by Lepsius to be Cleopatra the niece and wife of Ptolemy Euergetes II, but she is never elsewhere attested under this title. Chauveau has plausibly argued that she was Cleopatra [IV], the sister and wife of Ptolemy Soter II [Ptolemy IX], who was certainly never a ruling queen.

In other words, these lesser honorees were included for political reasons and not necessarily because they had actually been rulers or coregents. "

Are you able to read? Beacuse each source you bring agrees with me. Being deified is not the same as being nominal Pharaoh!!!!

"A drawing of a scene from the Temple of Philae showing Ptolemy IX preceding two Cleopatras, probably his mother Cleopatra III and sister Cleopatra IV." - So just because Cleopatra IV is present in one scene makes her co-Pharaoh? Many queen consorts were presented alongside their husbands during Pharaonic history.

'You must remove all of these as well' - No, I do not and I already explained to you why: Arsinoe II, Berenike II and Cleopatra I held Egyptian Royal Titulary. Cleopatra is also mentioned in dating protocols from her son's reign. Berenike IV is mentioned in protocols, so were Ptolemy XIII and XIV. Arsinoe is already labelled as disputed so I don't see any problem in her case.

If you insist Cleopatra IV was Pharaoh find me ONE source - that names her co-ruler of her husband. Not 'deified'. Co-ruler. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course I've already read it. That's why I mentioned Ptolemy VII.

Ptolemy VII (Ptolemy Memphites) is considered a pharaoh, although he never actually reigned. Because he was included in the Dynastical Cult Lists. Do you think Ptolemy VII should be removed from this list too? Acolex2 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I know there was confusion which son on Cleopatra II is Ptolemy VII, and it seems both were intended heirs at some point. He never ruled as sole Pharaoh, but I don't know if he never held title of co-ruler. I won't change status of Ptolemy VII. You are free to do with him what you want according research you do - this discussion is about Cleopatra IV and she definitely was neither co-ruler, or sole queen. Ptolemy VII has his number but most historians do agree he didn't rule. Maybe he was co-ruler, maybe not - do your research and tell me. Cleopatra IV CERTAINLY did not rule on her own and your source agrees. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Look at this book -> https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=I7UUAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Cleopatra+IV%22

This book is on the page List of pharaohs

This is the reference you deleted -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pharaohs&diff=prev&oldid=1261929600 Acolex2 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I know there was confusion which son on Cleopatra II is Ptolemy VII, and it seems both were intended heirs at some point. He never ruled as sole Pharaoh, but I don't know if he never held title of co-ruler. I won't change status of Ptolemy VII. You are free to do with him what you want according research you do - this discussion is about Cleopatra IV and she definitely was neither co-ruler, or sole queen. Ptolemy VII has his number but most historians do agree he didn't rule. Maybe he was co-ruler, mayeb not - do your research and tell me. Cleopatra IV CERTAINLY did not rule on her own and your source agrees. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Page of the book "African States" shows only index and dates can simply means she was queen conosrt in this time. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this book only mentions rulers. See all pages of this book. This book is used as a reference on many pages about rulers on Wikipedia. Acolex2 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Then apparently this book made one mistake. That happens - especially in such big and confusing family as Ptolemies and numbers of Cleopatras and co-regencies. I quoted you two sources that do not include Cleopatra IV as co-ruler and page about dynastic cult you sent to me, also tells she was never a ruling queen. Moreover work you linked me yesterday - The Religious Deification - also do not count her as Pharaoh. You are truly in minority there. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You have edited many pages without completing this discussion..... I see. Michał Sobiechowski, edit them as you wish. I am tired. Acolex2 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how 'completing duscussion' looks like. I am new here. I provided multiple sources and balance approach, whereas you failed provide any arguments beside 'she was deified' which is - as I mentioned multiple times - not the same as being Pharaoh. I do not understand what exactly you expected from me - I said one thing and explained my side, but you kept reverting my edits to this nonsens state where Cleopatra IV figured as Pharaoh that she was not. I wanted have dialogue, but you ignored all my arguments and all sources I provided, and your own sources were agreeing with me.

Thank you for publication about Ptolemaic Deification you provided, I think I will have interesting lecture about Egyptian queenship. Sobek2000 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A detail I’ve recently noticed whilst looking through early-lived Pharaohs is that following Pharaohs appear to be missing from the English Wikipedia.

These are on the Portuguese Wikipedia, in order of their rule:

• Oryx
• Conch
• Taurus I
• Bull I
• Canidus
• Falcon I
• Mim
• Falcon II
• Lion

And this one, I wasn’t able to find on any Wikipedia at all, only some articles; Shemsu-Hor

I wish to state, too; that these people appear to meet the same criteria standards as many of the other predynastic pharaohs (A, Finger Snail, Fish, Stork, and Elephant). Newaccount33333 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You'd be wrong—take a look at Taurus (ruler) to get an idea why these aren't listed. Remsense ‥ 论 05:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I may have found a source for some of these pharaohs, "Dynasty 00" on Francesco Raffaele's website, citing the Koptos Colossi (Min Statues), Tomb U-j, and the Tehenw Palette, listing the following pharaohs:

Oryx Standard (mirroring Oryx), Shell (mirroring Conch, a type of shell), Fish (who is already on the article), Elephant (already on the article), Bull (or Taurus, already on the article), Canid (mirroring Canidus), Bucranium Standard (not mirrored nor on the article, but could also be the same person as Stork), Falcon I (mirroring Falcon I), Min Standard +plant (mirroring Mim), Falcon II (mirroring Falcon II), Lion (mirroring Lion), and the next ones (Double Falcon, Iry-Hor, Ka, Scorpion II, and Narmer) are already listed on the article.

However, it is possible that these could be refering to place names, at least up to Double Falcon. AzaiStats (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The Palermo Stone, from circa 2338 BCE, Lists more than just nine pharaohs - the Stone's article itself points this out, stating there was fourteen total pharaohs mentioned. It also shows this image of the Palermo Stone, giving one pharaoh before Pu and at least five after Mekh - They should be mentioned on the list.

AzaiStats (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Koopinator (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How does this even happen. Of the three kings listed with dates (A, 3180 BC, Bull, 3280 BC, and Scorpion I, 3255 BC) they are not listed in chronological order. More kings exist in this region too, Dreyer in 1995 listed about a dozen and a third kings who reigned from Abydos, and we know from the Siege of Naqada that Taurus was the predecessor to Scorpion I in Naqada, but this Taurus is not the same person as Bull, the successor to Elephant. Finger Snail was probably another name for Shell/Conch. Veristune (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Another issue I've noticed is that the dates for these kings prior to Narmer have not been cited. Could the original sources be tracked down and cited? Veristune (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The personal name and throne name are not the praenomen and horus names respectively, it is the other way around. The praenomen and cartouche names are the same, and those names are what is listed as regnal names on all lists. The columns should be fixed. Veristune (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Recently user @Sobek2000 removd the epithets from the names of many ruler stating the most books do not use there epithets. I disagree though and re-added them because these epithets aren't really epithets in a traditional sense but straight up part of there names written in the same cartouche and impossible to separate using hieroglyphs but Sobek2000 eventually removed them again bringing up the point in a previous edit that the numeration was not part of the original name but I don't see how that matters given that numeration is never part of any rulers name even if they are adopted and used during there lifetime, for intense Charles III's real name is still just Charles even though numeration is often used and I believe most readers know that and will not interpret the numeration as part of the name so I'm don't think it has much to do with epithets. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

My point is about being consistent and straight-to-the-point. You either list the ruler how their are referred to to in modern sources (Thutmose I) or as in ancient Egyptian language - (which in that case is "Djehutymes Khamyre", not "Thutmose I Khamyre" as you have listed; same with every other ruler - Amenhotep I, II, III & IV would not put their number within personal name, yet youc hoose to keep it). The way you recorded names was subjectively chosen mix of modern recording of the name with Egyptian epitepths, that I never saw used in any source on the topic.

While you are definitely correct that epitepths were part of personal name in ancient Egypt, most researchers who write on the topic choose to refer a ruler by main name plus number. This list is brief overview of pharaohs and the best way to keep it is by using common names of pharaohs - same way egyptologists and historians put them in their works. Details of each pharaohnic names - just like details of reign and personal life - can be found on each ruler's page.

If I would start now write in each pharaoh's section about alternative ways to spell their names (for example Hatshepsut was also called Hatasu, and Cleopatra's original spelling is Kleopadra) that would be correct informations too, but I feel this is not the goal of this page. If I change ever ruler with name "Thutmose" and "Djehutymes" this too would be correct - but I believe page should use the most common form used currently in reliable sources, and this form is "Thutmose" (plus number and without epitepth). Sobek2000 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this page was recently reworked by @Tintero21 with some assistance by me but this has created a disagreement between me and Tintero21 over whether the 9th and 10th dynasty were truly separate or not. the traditional view has been that they are indeed separate and the 9th dynasty was founded when nomarchs from Heracleopolis who gained enough power to overthrow the 8th dynasty in Memphis and 10th dynasty was another Heracleopolis family that overthrow the 9th dynasty but Tintero21 has another interpretation that instead believes that they were the same family and were accidentally duplicated by Manetho to create 2 dynasty's where there was only one. this is not an unfounded claim Tintero21 and his sources do have evidence such as the fact that both dynasties come from Heracleopolis and are said to have 19 kings but to me this is not conclusive. I see no reason why one of the most impotent cities of the era could not produce to different lines and it is not unreasonably that they could have the same amount of kings and it is also possible that certain details were copied for one dynasty from the other and it should be noted that Eusebius in his translation of Manetho claims the 9th dynasty only had 4 kings. the dynasty system in general is also quite outdated and does not neatly correspond well with actual family relations and because Meryhathor is often seen as first king of the 10th dynasty he forms a new dynasty even if he is found to be the direct son of the previous king do the to convention. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I could not find any real argument for placing Maryhathor as the first king of the 10th dynasty. As noted in his entry, the division of 5 kings for the 10th dynasty is based on the claim that there is a break in the Turin king list, but this seem to be based on an older reconstruction because there is no division there. The list just follows the Turin king list in recording 18 total kings, because we don’t known when the dynastic break actually happened. Tintero21 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

im not entirely sure why Meryhathor is seen as the first. the source for it seems to be The Cambridge Ancient History, volume 1, part 2 page 996 but I do not have access to that book PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 14:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

An observation. Manetho's texts survive in summary form in works provided by Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and George Syncellus, but their summaries are notoriously contradictory and may have been altered in various ways to fit the biases of these writers.:

• "While Josephus had explicit apologetic aims in bolstering Jewish history against Greek and Egyptian claims of greater antiquity, the Christian writers Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus sought to establish the historical grounding and timeline of their faith. This led to attempts to synchronize Manetho's version of Egyptian history with the chronology of the Bible, all within the context of competing claims to primacy. Their epitomes exhibit discrepancies.^[1][2]"
• "What remains of these fragments is not the original Aegyptiaca itself, but rather a collection of summaries of dynasties and reigns, transliterated names of kings, occasional anecdotes or myths embedded within later putative quotations, and chronological data such as lengths of individual and dynastic reigns. While some of this material likely reflects Manetho's original text, other parts may represent later additions, errors introduced during transmission, or the interpretations of those who transmitted the fragments.^[3][4]"
• Does Eusebius' interpretation of the 9th and 10th dynasties agree with other surviving summaries or fragments? Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

at several points during the 670s and 660s BCE the Neo-Assyrian Empire first under Esarhaddon and later under Ashurbanipal conquered Egypt. while they were never considered pharaoh and mostly ruled through client kings they still were the ultimate ruler over the country for a time so I think there is a convincing argument to include then especially given that the high priest of Amun during the period where the controlled upper Egypt are all included even though only a few were actually consider pharaoh but im curious to see what other editors think of this. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 23:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. Tintero21 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It actually doesn't (and to be honest I also don't see as necessary to have there High Priests, except those 3 who actually took Royal titulary). If we gonna include Assyrian kings, then by analogy we should also include Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony as they were protectors and official authorities over Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra.
This is list of pharaohs "de iure" and those who claimed at least partial titulary or some semblence of kingship, like name in the cartouche, if we gonna leave High Priests. Assyrian kings did not. Neither Mark Anthony, even when he sat on the throne beside Cleopatra during Donations of Alexandria.Sobek2000 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel like there's a difference between that and the Assyrian kings though, Ptolemaic Egypt was not part of the Roman Republic it was just a client state until it was annexed by Octavian but Egypt was part of the Neo-Assyrian empire during that period not just a client state or vassal, it somewhat similar to feudal Europe where noble ruled there duchy or county or whatever but there realm was still part of a greater kingdom, it just so happens that we call the Egyptian noble here kings. An even better comparison would be Egyptian rule over the Levant during the new Kingdom where there were several states that were simultaneously part of the Egyptian empire while still being ruled by someone who we give the title of king. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Egypt was vassal under Assyria, or at least that how it is reffered to in modern coverage. "[Psametik I] was able to assert himself over other vassal rulers in the country"(Dodson & Hilton (2004), The Complete Royal Family, pp. 234-235),
"Psamtek had inherited control of Memphis and Sais from his father seven years later. These four key dominions gave him jurisdiction over a vast, contiguous swath of territory and made him the unquestioned leader among Assyria’s delta vassals.(...) While stil theoretically an Assyrian vassal, he set about building up his own forces.", (Wilkinson, Toby (2010), The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, Random House, pp. 396-397 (PDF))
Neiher of those position - nor any secondary or teritary sources I have seen - is including Assyrian rulers as pharaohs on their lists. As far I know, they were also not given pharaonic titulary. None question they had authority over Egypt, but were they legally recognized as pharaohs? Secondary sources and tertiary appear not to count them. They are also absent from dynasties list by Manetho
"it somewhat similar to feudal Europe where noble ruled there duchy or county or whatever but there realm was still part of a greater kingdom" Errr, kind of, but not exactly. Duchy of Poland technically was subordinate to German emperor during reign of Mieszko I and Boleslaus I until the latter coronation in 1025, but I never saw those German emperors counted among Polish rulers. Here is similar situation - Necho I is like 'Duke' and is claiming pharaonic titulary, and Esarhaddoon and Ashurbanipal are 'Emperors' to whom he is vassal. Asyrian kings were ultimate authority, but this doesn't necessary means they claimed pharaonic position
Now, what about primary sources from their times? Is there any royal discription that is dating Egyptian time to their reign (Year 1 of Esarhaddon, etc.)? Or is there any Egyptian royal title that was bestowed upon them? If there is, I think point can be made about listing them with colour 'status disputed', similarly to some Ptolemaic queens who have titles but are not recognized as pharaohs by most historians. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

that last part is actually kind of what I am proposing, include them but make as clear as possible that they were not pharaoh even though they ruled egypt, you can see a draft on my sandbox of how I think they should be included and you will see I make clear that they are not pharoah. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but questions is: does it really belong to "List of pharaohs"? To me adding informal rulers (protectorate and regents) on list of formal one, is kind like adding royal mistresses on the list of royal consorts. Another person will think that adding Mark Antony is good, since he was patron of Cleopatra. But Mark Antony was not formally pharaoh and Otto III was not King of Poland. If list would be called "List of rulers of ancient Egypt" or "List of haed of states of ancient Egypt", maybe regents would belong, but I do not think we should place Assyrian kings on the pharaohs list. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I also oppose adding the Assyrian kings to the list for the reasons above. UWMKEgypt (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)