I hope this answer is allowed; the question is hypothetical so answering it will obviously also involve some reference to hypothetical events.

Establishing and maintaining colonies is hard. This is obviously not a surprise but it is a deceptively simple statement, as the following is only a partial view of what exactly is required for a successful colonial enterprise:

1-A maritime infrastructure and tradition capable of supporting an initial expedition and maintaining a future colony, as well as one capable of extracting some sort of profit from the endeavour.

2-Financial frameworks suitable for organising and maintaining a colony: as a tool for either governments or private backers (or in most cases, a mixture of both) as well as the hard capital to fund and maintain the colony.

3-A military capable of securing and then holding territory not only from the local peoples, but then from colonial rivals.

4-The political will to exert and maintain all of the above without stretching the nation dangerously thin.

Greece would struggle on essentially all of these. A young nation which spent centuries under the rule of an imperialistic power, causing long term economic stagnation relative to much of Europe, with an often-antagonistic neighbour looming over it. Even if Greece was absolutely assured in its independence and had some money to burn, there were still issues to face. Mustering a force capable of controlling Egypt would be nation ruining for such a small country, and the great powers of Europe had their own designs on Egypt, especially Great Britain, as it was vital to communication with India. There was little reason for the great powers to allow a hypothetical upstart Greece to start slicing chunks off of nations they had an interest in, further disrupting an already delicate balance of power. By the nineteenth century the large Europeans were increasingly establishing bigger zones of influence in Africa even before the ‘scramble’ began, not just in Egypt but across the continent. Greece lacked diplomatic capital to really tangle with these nations, especially when they might at any point need them to counter balance actions from the Ottoman empire.

Colonial ventures could be potentially ruinous to even established European states (for example, Scotland’s attempts to colonise Panama led to debts substantial enough to force the country under England’s thumb), even before the technological and political advances that made the scramble for Africa possible. Add this to a relatively under-developed economy and military, and a less than secure situation at home, and it really is hard to envision circumstances where Greece can become a colonial power in the nineteenth century.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!