For myself,
I believe the unidentified pronoun "he" in verses 16 to 39, always points back to the last identification -- namely the title, "king of the North", way back in verse 15. The title King of the North moves on to the next strong northern power (not necessarily the exact geographic site) that wars against God's saints, even though the author, Daniel, doesn't repeat that title again till verse 40.

The title, king of the south, likewise moves on to the next strong southern power that wars against God's saints.
But we see in the early verses of Daniel 11 when the KON conquers some of the KOS's territory, he is not called the KOS. And when the KOS conquers some of the KON's territory, he is not called the KON, simply because the two kingdoms are still very much in existence, though they may have lost territory to the other.

In this way of thinking, the pronouns point back to last identified title.

So I read verse 40
11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south (the southern Muslim power which includes Egypt) push at him (the "him" refers back to the papal power that was being described in the previous verses):

But the papacy has achieved politically and military. (Just like Revelation 17 shows a combination of powers to form the last papal led charge.
The king of the north (is still the "he" or papacy yet he has changed into a formidable power with massive political and military backing thanks to countries like America) thus he can come against him (the king of the south) like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships;
The papal Christian coalition is attacked by Muslims from the south and he the Papal Christian coalition will fight back and shall enter into the countries, (subdue them) and shall overflow and pass over.

Keep going.

Don't stop here.

The king of the North is always that Babylonian Power revealed in Daniel.

Babylon is the head, Media Persia supplied the arms (and bear feet) to carry it on, Greece was the body that developed all the philosophies and traditions and combined them into both the Jewish religion and Christianity. Rome was the power that enforced them upon the world. The papacy carried it all forward in the name of Christ even though Rome was divided, the papacy was the clay power that held the Roman pieces together.

The Greek Seleucids (king of the north) were called kings of Babylonia. They ruled all of Babylonia in the east as well as Syria and parts of Turkey.

The apostles seemed to have called Rome, by the code name of Babylon! (See 1 Peter 5:13)

And revelation calls the last religious/political power Babylon.

Here is another good study on this I came across...

"What is true of God's relation with man in history also holds for His relation with man in prophecy. In the prophecies of Daniel God projects an active divine participation in human affairs from the time of His encounter with the prophet, through all the seeming disorder created by human attempts to gain power and force the subservience of others, until Michael at last stands up and brings such efforts to an unsuccessful conclusion. God's act of initially willing such a result did not "destroy human freedom; rather it set the context in which man's freedom would appear and mature, and what its ultimate 2 destiny would be." Thus, prophecy is an expression, not of coercion, but of the divine will to be involved with and close to mankind. It is the natural counterpart of God's involvement in human history, from which He is never absent. Therefore, if God is constantly with His people in history one would expect the fact to be reflected in prophecy, and in the nature of prophecy's fulfillment generally. To say merely that prophecy exists and is capable of accurate fulfillment is not enough. Different parts of Daniel's prophecy, in some facet of their bearing on the plan of salvation, have been in process of fulfillment? in their primary significance? in every era of history since Daniel.


The broader context of God's ongoing involvement with mankind in history and in prophecy suggests that it would be incongruous to apply Dan 11:2-35 to one very limited span of past time in myopically close detail, and then to apply the remaining verses to another very limited span of future time.1 It might be felt that the history of the mid-second century B.C. is so accurately described in Dan II that no other serious historical explanation is available? that history demands the former island of fulfillment and belief demands the latter. This is not the case, and it is a point to be made with emphasis. An alternative does exist, and it is one that corresponds to the breadth and level of significance one might expect from an inspired perspective on history. Details of minor importance are not allowed to 2 take on major importance in the prophet's thinking. A corollary is that items of major importance are given major emphasis. And here is a matter that demands the most careful attention. A condensed summary of history, inspired by the God who actively works in history to save mankind, would be expected to contain at least some reference to the Saviour, through whom that work is effected. Indeed, it could be expected that such an analysis of history would revolve directly around the Savior's activity and be saturated with implications concerning Him. This is in fact the case. In Dan 11:22, at the very center of a narrative spanning all of Dan 10-12, is a reference to Christ on the cross as the "prince of the covenant"? swept away, along with an overwhelming army of others, through a process of judicial murder, on falsified charges of disloyalty to Caesar.1 This reference to Christ in 11:22 is pivotal to the entire narrative which surrounds it, and to our discussion of that narrative. It takes more than human insight to recognize the significance of Christ's life, or His place in human history. When Peter stated, "'you are the Christ, the Son of the living God[,] Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by 2 man, but by my Father in heaven.'" In the same way, Daniel's references to Christ match Him too closely to have been merely the product of human speculation.3 More than any scholarly argument the accuracy of these references confirms the inspiration of his prophecies....


Definition of Terms "North and "South"

The most conspicuous and frequently recurring of the technical terms used in Dan 11 are "king of the North" and "king of the South."

In each section where the terms occur North and South are rival factions within a larger single entity. Thus in w . 5-15 North is Seleucid Syria and South is Ptolemaic Egypt, but both were Greek. In w . 23-28 North is represented by Octavian based in Rome and South by Mark Antony based in Egypt, but both men were Romans. In w . 29-45 the problem is more complex, but the same principle continues to apply. The exilic context Elsewhere in Scripture North and South do not represent rival factions of any identifiable larger entity. Such a relationship is unique to Dan 11. North in the exilic prophets is used to refer to oppressive powers in general ? especially Babylon, but also Assyria. Occasionally the northern oppressor comes against Babylon rather than a from within it. Egypt, on the other hand, is consistently depicted as a country that holds out the false prospect of security as an alternative to seeking help from God.3 In all of this North and South are poised for conflict, and so the theme of superpowers engaged in an ongoing rivalry that must inevitably involve God's people is consistent with Daniel's usage. A second significance associated with Egypt is based on Exodus 5:2. Here Egypt in the person of Pharaoh refuses to recognize Yahweh's existence or authority: "Pharaoh said, 'Who is the Lord, that I should obey him and let Israel go? T do not know the Lord and I will not let Israel go.'" Pharaoh's open, intelligent denial of and opposition to the true God may be taken as an appropriate symbol for such opposition generally. Atheism would be one extreme form of such an attitude. Notice that if a long span of time is involved m the prophecy of Dan. 11, which is a fundamental claim of the historicist interpretation,6 it will be necessary for the terms "North" and "South" to apply during more than one era of history. Since no single world empire was dominant during the entire course of the prophecy, under this model, the terms must be taken to have different historical referents during different periods.^- And one must expect changes that go beyond the matter of one nation following another in time. As the prophecy of Dan 11 passes 2 3 into the Christian centuries God's people are no longer localized. Thus, while North and South remain agents of opposition, they begin to take less of their significance from the compass and more from the roles established for them in the exilic prophets and elsewhere in 4 Scripture, as cited above. The usage of the exilic prophets? which describe events that Daniel himself lived through? remains a consideration of the greatest importance in determining the extra-geographical significance of North and South in Dan 11."



Then he goes into his study on Daniel 11, with Ptolemaic Egypt facing Seleucid Syria in verses 5-15, Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) and Mark Antony in verses 23-28, and then symbolic of the direction from which oppressive powers come, Spiritual "Babylon/Egypt" in verses 29-45, which he considers merge against Gods people....

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=theses