Egyptian "gap years" (?)

[Martin Smith]

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

[Mark G]

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.

[Erpingham]

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 

[Patrick Waterson]

I fear you may be opening a can of worms here Martin. Exits stage left before appearance of Patrick 

Fie, sir!   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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

Astutely observed.  Perhaps an adherent of the standard chronology would like to attempt an answer.

[Tim]

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...

[Patrick Waterson]

Is this indeed the best answer the standard chronology can give?

[Martin Smith]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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'.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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).

[Duncan Head]

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.

Patrick, I know you're a chronological revisionist, but isn't a 9,000 year shift a bit excessive? 

[Patrick Waterson]

Well spotted, Duncan - yes, it was meant to be 'century'.

I bet we have a few people kicking themselves for missing that ... 

[Dave Beatty]

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.