Not sure if this is the right forum for this but......
Alastair McBeath's Transjordanian Tales article in Slingshot 287 prompted me to look at the DBA/DBM lists to see which covered the Egyptian armies of some of the pharaohs mentioned - Siamun, Amenemope, and Osochor (so about 993 BC to about 959 BC). However, as far as I can see these pharaohs seem to fall into a gap in the lists, with the NKE list ending at 1069 BC and the Libyan Egyptian list resuming the story from 946 BC.
Was this 'gap' plugged by the DBMM lists, or is there some reason why the years are (intentionally?) uncovered?
Martin
not at all my area, but wasn't Egypt governed by foreigners for a couple of periods?
I am of course talking about pre Persian Egypt.
Quote from: Martin Smith on August 15, 2013, 05:59:52 AM
Not sure if this is the right forum for this but......
Martin
I fear you may be opening a can of worms here Martin. Exits stage left before appearance of Patrick :)
Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2013, 08:12:50 AM
I fear you may be opening a can of worms here Martin. Exits stage left before appearance of Patrick :)
Fie, sir! ;D I shall answer the gentleman's question.
The standard chronology (on which the lists are based) has the so-called '21st Dynasty', a succession of priests, ruling Egypt during the period in question. One noteworthy feature about these priests is their almost total lack of armies. Hence no list.
Quote from: Mark G on August 15, 2013, 07:31:36 AM
not at all my area, but wasn't Egypt governed by foreigners for a couple of periods?
I am of course talking about pre Persian Egypt.
Correct. In addition to the periods between the Old and Middle Kingdoms (unidentified invaders) and between the Middle and New Kingdoms (Hyksos domination), we have two periods of foreign rule during the New Kingdom itself: Libyan (traditionally c.946-720) and Ethiopian (c.720-663). Most historians end the New Kingdom prior to the Libyan dominion.
For those interested, the period between the Old (1st-6th Dynasties) and Middle (11th to 13th Dynasties) Kingdoms is referred to as the First Intermediate Period. That between the Middle and New (18th-20th) Dynasties is referred to as the Second Intermediate Period. Following the New Kingdom, prior to the reassertion of Egyptian rule following 663 BC (Esarhaddon finally defeated the Ethiopians), is what historians call the Third Intermediate Period, when Egypt was under the Libyans and Ethiopians.
Hence:
Old Kingdom (1st to 6th Dynasties)
First Intermediate Period ('7th' to '10th' Dynasties)
Middle Kingdom (11th to 13th Dynasties)
Second Intermediate Period (14th to 17th Dynasties)
New Kingdom (18th to 20th Dynasties)
Priests ('21st Dynasty')Third Intermediate Period ('22nd' to '25th' Dynasties)
Late or Saitic Period (663-525 BC)
Persian Period (525 - c.395 BC)
Sebennytic Period (c.395-335 BC) [Persia then held Egypt for 3 years]
Hellenistic Period (332-30 BC)
The '21st Dynasty' succession of priests (who gave themselves double crown titles and hence are assumed to have ruled Egypt) is generally placed in the 11th-10th millennium BC. This timing was a godsend to Egyptologists trying to make the Sothic chronology work, but that - and the mistake they made - is another story.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 15, 2013, 10:57:53 AM
The standard chronology (on which the lists are based) has the so-called '21st Dynasty', a succession of priests, ruling Egypt during the period in question. One noteworthy feature about these priests is their almost total lack of armies. Hence no list.
That's more than 120 years without any military. How did they hold the place together? Or were their neighbours in a sufficiently acute state of internal disorder not to pose a problem?
Astutely observed. Perhaps an adherent of the standard chronology would like to attempt an answer.
The neighbours were so scared of walking into a squabble to the death between Long (or Standard) chronology adherents and Short chronology adherents that no-one visited for over 100 years...
Is this indeed the best answer the standard chronology can give?
I'll put away my tin opener, and the can of worms too :)
Thanks all for the replies. I had a sneaking suspicion this might be one of those 'vague' periods where there's little evidence to base a list on. Just going back to the original posting, did the DBMM lists continue with the time periods as specified in the DBA/DBM lists, or was there a rethink. Any other list writers for other rule sets do it differently/use different time periods for their armies?
Martin
WRG 6th has New Kingdom Egyptians from 1580-1050 BC, and then a gap until the Libyan Egyptians pick up from 950-750 BC. Same gap, same reason.
Quote from: Martin Smith on August 16, 2013, 10:43:58 AM
I'll put away my tin opener, and the can of worms too :)
As long as Anthony feels he has had his money's worth. I shall omit the customary reference to 'it does what it says on the tin'. ;)
As an ad hoc filler, why not try chanting priests a la RTW? They sing their superstitious adversaries into total demoralisation - "How can we fight the gods?" - who finally break and run. The priests with better voices are classed as veteran, those who sing flat as levy (their opponents are irritated by their singing and break into a charge). I'm guessing it would give a very quick game.
Now that would make a Battle Day worth remembering ... an alternative is to attempt divine, or at least muridian, intervention:
The next king was the priest of Hephaestus [Ptah] whose name was Sethos. He despised and had no regard for the warrior Egyptians, thinking he would never need them; besides otherwise dishonoring them, he took away the chosen lands which had been given to them, twelve fields to each man, in the reign of former kings. [2] So when presently king Sanacharib [Sin-ahi-ariba, 'Sennacherib'] came against Egypt, with a great force of Arabians and Assyrians, the warrior Egyptians would not march against him. [3] The priest, in this quandary, went into the temple shrine and there before the god's image bitterly lamented over what he expected to suffer. Sleep came on him while he was lamenting, and it seemed to him the god stood over him and told him to take heart, that he would come to no harm encountering the power of Arabia: "I shall send you champions," said the god. [4] So he trusted the vision, and together with those Egyptians who would follow him camped at Pelusium, where the road comes into Egypt; and none of the warriors would go with him, but only merchants and craftsmen and traders. [5] Their enemies came there, too, and during the night were overrun by a horde of field mice [mus arouraious = mice of the country] that gnawed quivers and bows and the handles of shields, with the result that many were killed fleeing unarmed the next day. [6] And to this day a stone statue of the Egyptian king stands in Hephaestus' temple, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect: "Look at me, and believe." - Herodotus II.141
'Sethos' was in fact the Ethiopian pharaoh Tirharka (Taharqa). The event dates to 687 BC (in case anyone wondered).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 15, 2013, 10:57:53 AMThe '21st Dynasty' succession of priests (who gave themselves double crown titles and hence are assumed to have ruled Egypt) is generally placed in the 11th-10th millennium BC.
Patrick, I know you're a chronological revisionist, but isn't a 9,000 year shift a bit excessive? :)
Well spotted, Duncan - yes, it was meant to be 'century'.
I bet we have a few people kicking themselves for missing that ... ;)
I'm not much of an expert on anything, but the 'gap years' (1069-946) discussed herein coincide with the Hebrew United Kingdom period from Saul (ruled 1050 to 1010) to Solomon (ruled 970-930). Coincidence? The Israelite kingdom was arguably the result of the Philistine threat and many think the Philistines were the 'Sea Peoples' defeated by Ramesses III. Saul's entire reign was spent at war against the Philistines, Amalek, and the Gibeonite confederacy. Once David had secured his throne against Eshbaal and defeated the Philistines before Jerusalem he broke their power and occupied the coastal plain south to Joppa but apparently refrained from moving into Gaza perhaps because Egypt still claimed that area and David did not wish to antagonize the Egyptians (see O. Eissfeld, Kleine Schriften, 1963). Philistine mercenaries appear in David's army after 990. We hear little of Egypt until Solomon weds the Pharaoh Siamun's daughter. In 1 Kings 9:16 we are told that the Pharaoh conquered Gezer and gave it to his daughter as her dowry. So I would suggest that Egypt did indeed have an army in the 21st Dynasty, it was just not very strong - certainly not strong enough to defeat the Philistines and the Israelites, but strong enough to capture the Philistine city of Gezer. Note also that this is when the Phoenicians were expanding to the west into Spain and North Africa. Also remember that Egypt was in the midst of a bit of a split during this time, with in essence two kingdoms (Tanis and Thebes) and although the dual-capital period appears to have been a peaceful one, this struggle surely impacted Egyptian foreign policy. HOWEVER.... some of the rulers of Thebes (at least) bear military titles equivalent to general so surely the Egyptian army of the 21st dynasty was strong enough to prevent incursions by the Philistines, Israelites, Libyans, Phoenicians and Nubians.... but obviously not strong enough to extend Egyptian power back into Canaan. LASTLY, the gap in the army lists goes waaaaay back.... at least to WRG 6th edition and probably further. It would be an interesting excursion into wargaming history if anyone can recall why that gap appeared in the first place.
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.
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. ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 26, 2013, 10:35:32 PM
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
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?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 27, 2013, 09:54:44 AM
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
Which answers the point about the DBMM2 Palaiologian list but not the one about the original wargame lists '21st Dynasty gap' ... ;)
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
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".
Google knows not only the colour of your underwear, but also what Phil said back in 2009:
QuoteThe reason for the original ommision was that no one knows much about them
and they didn't fight any major foreign wars.
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.
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
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.
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 :) )
Quote from: Dave Beatty on October 28, 2013, 06:56:30 PM
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.