Amenhotep III got rich, then reigned a long time, relied on ineffective diplomacy to avoid defending the country, and wasted a fortune on stuff like this. His successor was another self-aggrandizing nutjob who decided he’d build a new city and never leave its confines, while simultaneously sending his henchmen out to vandalize temples the length and breadth, including those built by his father.
OK, Thanks. But I still don’t get the sarcasm part. I mean, why do Egyptologists say they are puzzled if the cause of the decline is understood. I’m trying to understand the point of your comment rather than the history.