Egyptian "gap years" (?)

[Jim Webster]

I rather assumed that the 'gap' was because the Egyptians were too weak to field a proper army (A bit like those armies that are strong enough to be allies but cannot actually provide their own army for the period)
What troops they had would be adequate for revenue collection/assisting the civil power and for defence marriage alliances with petty states on the perimeter (for example Solomon in all his glory) could well have been enough.

[Patrick Waterson]

Being too weak to field a proper army does not seem to have put gaps in other army lists; the final Byzantine army lists do not end prior to 1453, although the Empire had ceased to be able to field a credible army for over a century.  I would suggest that is not the reason - we might be inclined to ask instead whether there are any campaign records/reliefs from the '21st Dynasty' that might hint at the organisation, employment or even existence of an army under these (presumed) rulers.

Therein might lie the clue. 

[Jim Webster]

Being too weak to field a proper army does not seem to have put gaps in other army lists; the final Byzantine army lists do not end prior to 1453, although the Empire had ceased to be able to field a credible army for over a century.  I would suggest that is not the reason - we might be inclined to ask instead whether there are any campaign records/reliefs from the '21st Dynasty' that might hint at the organisation, employment or even existence of an army under these (presumed) rulers.

Therein might lie the clue. 

Actually it does Patrick, Palaiologan Byzantine in DBMM2 is 1261 -1384 because there wasn't an army big enough to be called a field army.
Morean Byzantine goes up to 1460 but that was because they did field armies which were quite reasonably sized for Medieval

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I stand corrected, Jim, although this terminus for Constantinople-based Byzantine armies was not in the WRG lists whereas the '21st Dynasty' gap was.

So what might the reasoning have been back then?

[Jim Webster]

I stand corrected, Jim, although this terminus for Constantinople-based Byzantine armies was not in the WRG lists whereas the '21st Dynasty' gap was.

So what might the reasoning have been back then?

My guess is that it's more to do with the understanding of the Palaiologans than of the 21st Dynasty.
Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Which answers the point about the DBMM2 Palaiologian list but not the one about the original wargame lists '21st Dynasty gap' ... 

[Jim Webster]

I'd say that from a wargames point of view there was no military action to justify a list, and that what military they had was 'internal security'. After all there seems to have been a shortage of threat from the East (where their literate opponents are) and a ring of bickering mutually antagonistic petty kingdoms who can be kept sweet with the occasional Egyptian bride were probably defence enough :-)

Jim

[Duncan Head]

IIRC, part of Phil's justification for retaining the "gap" this time was that as far as we knew, the Egyptians didn't fight anybody in the "missing years".

[Andreas Johansson]

Google knows not only the colour of your underwear, but also what Phil said back in 2009:

The reason for the original ommision was that no one knows much about them
and they didn't fight any major foreign wars.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Andreas: that gives two reasons.  Not knowing much about them is quite understandable since the priest-princes did not leave military records, and no major foreign wars meant no army list opponents.

I Kings 9:16 records that the king of Egypt 'went up and captured Gezer and burnt it with fire and slew the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife'.  It even records the name of the king of Egypt.

Pharaoh.

[Dave Beatty]

For an excellent overview of the 21st Dynasty (including the names of the "northern Pharaohs based in the north" and the "High Priests of Thebes") see http://emhotep.net/dynasties/twenty-first-dynasty/  quoted below:


Twenty-First Dynasty
The Tanite Dynasty and the Amun Priesthood 1069 to 945 BC
Period                         Seat of Power        Factions                                        Dating System
Third Intermediate      Tanis                      Tanite, High Priests of Amun        Shaw and Nicholson

The infighting of the Ramesside Period and the growing influence of local leaders, particularly in the northern delta region, again results in a decentralization of power as Egypt enters its Third Intermediate Period.  The primary factions at this point are the line of northern pharaohs based at the city of Tanis and the Amun Priesthood based at Thebes.  However, the growing influence of the Nubians and Libyan immigrants would come to play a significant role in shaping the political, cultural, and demographic profiles of Egypt.  It is worth noting that despite the decentralization of power and the designation of "intermediate," the Twenty First through Twenty Fourth Dynasties were a period of relative stability, and many of the changes that occurred became permanent aspects of Egyptian identity.

Name of Ruler         Years of Reign       Capitol
Smendes                  1069 to 1043 BC   Tanis
Amenemnisu          1043 to 1039 BC   Tanis
Psusennes I          1339 to 991 BC     Tanis
Amenemope          993 to 984 BC       Tanis
Osorkon the Elder   984 to 978 BC       Tanis
Siamun                  978 to 959 BC       Tanis
Psusennes II          959 to 945 BC       Tanis

The High Priests of Thebes, while not accorded their own dynasty, per se, were effectively the rulers of southern Egypt during the Twenty-First Dynasty.  While obviously not a part of the Twenty-First Dynasty, they are listed here for reference purposes.

Name of Ruler           Years of Reign        Capitol
Pinedjem I            1070 to 1054 BC    Thebes
Masaharta            1054 to 1046 BC    Thebes
Djedkhonsuefankh   1046 to 1045 BC     Thebes
Menkheperre            1045 to 992 BC      Thebes
Smendes II             992 to 990 BC       Thebes
Pinedjem II             990 to 969 BC       Thebes

[Dave Beatty]

http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty21.html also has an excellent discussion of the 21st Dynasty.

Pharoah Siamun is commonly identified as the Egyptian ruler who allied with Solomon and conquered Gezer (although some believe that Shishak/Shishonq, the first ruler of the 22nd dynasty is the one who destroyed Gezer).

Quoting now from the link above:

One fragmentary but well known surviving triumphal relief scene from the Temple of Amun at Tanis depicts an Egyptian pharaoh smiting his enemies with a mace. The king's name is explicitly given as Neterkheperre Setepenamun) Siamun, beloved of Amun in the relief and there can be no doubt that this person was Siamun as the eminent British Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen stresses in his book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament.
Siamun appears here "in typical pose brandishing a mace to strike down prisoners now lost at the right except for two arms and hands, one of which grasps a remarkable double-bladed ax by its socket." The writer observes that this double bladed axe or 'halbread' has a flared crescent shaped blade which is close in form to the Aegean influenced double axe but is quite distinct from the Palestinian/Canaanite double headed axe which has a different shape that resembles an X.
Thus, Kitchen concludes Siamun's foes were the Philistines who were descendants of the Aegean based Sea Peoples and that Siamun was commemorating his recent victory over them at Gezer by depicting himself in a formal battle scene relief at the Temple in Tanis. More recently Paul S Ash has put forward a detailed argument that Siamun's relief portrays a fictitious battle. He points out that in Egyptian reliefs Philistines are never shown holding an axe, and that there is no archaeological evidence for Philistines using axes. He also argues that there is nothing in the relief to connect it with Philistia or the Levant.

[Dave Beatty]

There apparently is some evidence that there was civil war during the very early 21st Dynasty (circa 1069) and again from 1043 to 1039 when the priests of Thebes put down a revolt, forcing the surviving revolutionaries into the Western Desert (don't recall where I read that, somebody help me out here). 

Of note, apparently the priests ruling from Thebes described themselves as 'Great Commander of the Army' or even 'Great Commander of the Army of the entire land' (http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn21.htm not an erudite source I'll admit).

So I think there is ample evidence for the inclusion of the 21st dynasty in an army list.  Which one I'll leave to those smarter than me (which is most everyone reading this  )

[Patrick Waterson]

So I think there is ample evidence for the inclusion of the 21st dynasty in an army list.  Which one I'll leave to those smarter than me ...

Do not underrate yourself, David. 

In answer to the suggestion, you cannot go far wrong with a 20th Dynasty army, so use any list that covers the 20th Dynasty.