Ancient Egyptian Government › Late Period of Ancient Egypt » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Ancient Egyptian Government › Antique Origins
- Late Period of Ancient Egypt › Ancient History
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
Ancient Egyptian Government › Antique Origins
Definition and Origins
The government of ancient Egypt was a theocratic monarchy as the king ruled by a mandate from the gods, initially was seen as an intermediary between human beings and the divine, and was supposed to represent the gods' will through the laws passed and policies approved. A central government in Egypt is evident by c. 3150 BCE when King Narmer unified the country, but some form of government existed prior to this date. The Scorpion Kings of the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000-3150 BCE) obviously had a form of monarchial government, but exactly how it operated is not known.
Egyptologists of the 19th century CE divided the country's history into periods in order to clarify and manage their field of study.Periods in which there was a strong central government are called 'kingdoms' while those in which there was disunity or no central government are called 'intermediate periods.' In examining Egyptian history one needs to understand that these are modern designations; the ancient Egyptians did not recognize any demarcations between time periods by these terms. Scribes of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040-1782 BCE) might look back on the time of the First Intermediate Period (2181-2040 BCE) as a "time of woe" but the period had no official name.
EGYPT'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT LASTED, WITH LITTLE MODIFICATION, FROM C. 3150 BCE TO 30 BCE.
The way in which the government worked changed slightly over the centuries, but the basic pattern was set in the First Dynasty of Egypt (c. 3150 - c. 2890 BCE). The king ruled over the country with a vizier as second-in-command, government officials, scribes, regional governors (known as nomarchs ), mayors of the town, and, following the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE), a police force. From his palace at the capital, the king would make his pronouncements, decree laws, and commission building projects, and his word would then be implemented by the bureaucracy which became necessary to administer rule in the country. Egypt's form of government lasted, with little modification, from c. 3150 BCE to 30 BCE when the country was annexed by Rome.
EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD & OLD KINGDOM
The ruler was known as a 'king' up until the New Kingdom of Egypt (1570-1069 BCE) when the term ' pharaoh ' (meaning 'Great House,' a reference to the royal residence) came into use. The first king was Narmer (also known as Menes ) who established a central government after uniting the country, probably by military means. The economy of Egypt was based on agriculture and used a barter system. The lower-class peasants farmed the land, gave the wheat and other produce to the noble landowner (keeping a modest portion for themselves), and the land owner then turned the produce over to the government to be used in trade or in distribution to the wider community.
Under the reign of Narmer's successor, Hor-Aha (c. 3100-3050 BCE) an event was initiated known as Shemsu Hor (Following of Horus ) which would become standard practice for later kings. The king and his retinue would travel through the country and thus make the king's presence and power visible to his subjects. Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson comments:
The Shemsu Hor would have served several purposes at once. It allowed the monarch to be a visible presence in the life of his subjects, enabled his officials to keep a close eye on everything that was happening in the country at large, implementing policies, resolving disputes, and dispensing justice; defrayed the costs of maintaining the court and removed the burden of supporting it year-round in one location; and, last but by no means least, facilitated the systematic assessment and levying of taxes. A little later, in the Second Dynasty, the court explicitly recognized the actuarial potential of the Following of Horus. Thereafter, the event was combined with a formal census of the country's agricultural wealth. (44-45)
The Shemsu Hor (better known today as the Egyptian Cattle Count) became the means whereby the government assessed individual wealth and levied taxes. Each district ( nome ) was divided into provinces with a nomarch administering overall operation of the nome, and then lesser provincial officials, and then mayors of the towns. Rather than trust a nomarch to accurately report his wealth to the king, he and his court would travel to assess that wealth personally. The Shemsu Hor thus became an important annual (later bi-annual) event in the lives of the Egyptians and, much later, would provide Egyptologists with at least approximate reigns of the kings since the Shemsu Hor was always recorded by reign and year.
Tax collectors would follow the appraisal of the officials in the king's retinue and collect a certain amount of produce from each nome, province, and town, which went to the central government. The government, then, would use that produce in trade.Throughout the Early Dynastic Period this system worked so well that by the time of the Third Dynasty of Egypt (c. 2670-2613 BCE) building projects requiring substantial costs and an efficient labor force were initiated, the best-known and longest-lasting being The Step Pyramid of king Djoser. During the Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2613-2181 BCE) the government was wealthy enough to build even larger monuments such as the pyramids at Giza.
The most powerful person in the country after the king was the vizier. There were sometimes two viziers, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt. The vizier was the voice of the king and his representative and was usually a relative or someone very close to the monarch. The vizier managed the bureaucracy of the government and delegated the responsibilities as per the orders of the king. During the Old Kingdom, the viziers would have been in charge of the building projects as well as managing other affairs.
Imhotep
Toward the end of the Old Kingdom, the viziers became less vigilant as their position became more comfortable. The enormous wealth of the government was going out to these massive building projects at Giza, at Abusir, Saqqara, and Abydos and the priests who administered the temple complexes at these sites, as well as the nomarchs and provincial governors, were becoming more and more wealthy. As their wealth grew, so did their power, and as their power grew, they were less and less inclined to care very much what the king thought or what his vizier may or may not have demanded of them. The rise in the power of the priests and nomarchs meant a decline in that of the central government which, combined with other factors, brought about the collapse of the Old Kingdom.
FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD & MIDDLE KINGDOM
The kings still ruled from their capital of Memphis at the beginning of the First Intermediate Period, but they had very little actual power. The nomarchs administered their own regions, collected their own taxes, built their own temples and monuments in their honor, and commissioned their own tombs. The early kings of the First Intermediate Period (7th-10th dynasties) were so ineffectual that their names are hardly remembered and their dates are often confused. The nomarchs, on the other hand, grew steadily in power. Historian Margaret Bunson explains their traditional role prior to the First Intermediate Period:
The power of such local rulers was modified in times of strong pharaohs, but generally they served the central government, accepting the traditional role of being First Under The King. This rank denoted an official's right to administer a particular nome or province on behalf of the pharaoh. Such officials were in charge of the region's courts, treasury, land offices, conservation programs, militia, archives, and store-houses. They reported to the vizier and to the royal treasury on affairs within their jurisdiction. (103)
During the First Intermediate Period, however, the nomarchs used their growing resources to serve themselves and their communities. The kings of Memphis, perhaps in an attempt to regain some of their lost prestige, moved the capital to the cityof Herakleopolis but were no more successful there than at the old capital.
C. 2125 BCE an overlord known as Intef I rose to power at a provincial city called Thebes in Upper Egypt and inspired his community to rebel against the kings of Memphis. His actions would inspire those who succeeded him and finally result in the victory of Mentuhotep II over the kings of Herakleopolis c. 2040 BCE, initiating the Middle Kingdom.
C. 2125 BCE an overlord known as Intef I rose to power at a provincial city called Thebes in Upper Egypt and inspired his community to rebel against the kings of Memphis. His actions would inspire those who succeeded him and finally result in the victory of Mentuhotep II over the kings of Herakleopolis c. 2040 BCE, initiating the Middle Kingdom.
Mentuhotep II reigned from Thebes. Although he had ousted the old kings and begun a new dynasty, he patterned his rule on that of the Old Kingdom. The Old Kingdom was looked back on as a great age in Egypt's history, and the pyramids and expansive complexes at Giza and elsewhere were potent reminders of the glory of the past. One of the old patterns he kept, which had been neglected during the latter part of the Old Kingdom, was duplication of agencies for Upper and Lower Egypt as Bunson explains:
In general, the administrative offices of the central government were exact duplicates of the traditional provincial agencies, with one significant difference. In most periods the offices were doubled, one for Upper Egypt and one for Lower Egypt. This duality was carried out in architecture as well, providing palaces with two entrances, two throne rooms, etc. The nation viewed itself as a whole, but there were certain traditions dating back to the legendary northern and southern ancestors, the semi-divine kings of the predynastic period, and to the concept of symmetry. (103)
Mentuhotep II
When it came to collecting taxes, in the form of a proportion of farm produce, we must assume a network of officials operated on behalf of the state throughout Egypt. There can be no doubt that their efforts were backed up by coercive measures. The inscriptions left by some of these government officials, mostly in the form of seal impressions, allow us to re-create the workings of the treasury, which was by far the most important department from the very beginning of Egyptian history. Agricultural produce collected as a government revenue was treated in one of two ways. A certain proportion went directly to state workshops for the manufacture of secondary products - for example, tallow and leather from cattle; pork from pigs; linen from flax; bread, beer, and basketry from grain. Some of these value-added products were then traded and exchanged at a profit, producing further government income; other were redistributed as payment to state employees, thereby funding the court and its projects. The remaining portion of agricultural produce (mostly grain) was put into storage in government granaries, probably located throughout Egypt in important regional centers. Some of the stored grain was used in its raw state to finance court activities, but a significant share was put aside as emergency stock, to be used in the event of a poor harvest to help prevent wide-spread famine. (45-46)
The nomarchs of the Middle Kingdom cooperated fully with the king in sending resources, and this was largely because their autonomy was now respected by the throne in a way it had not been previously. Art during the Middle Kingdom period shows a much greater variation than that of the Old Kingdom which suggests a greater value placed on regional tastes and distinct styles rather than only court approved and regulated expression. Further, letters from the time make clear that the nomarchswere accorded a respect by the 12th Dynasty kings, which they had not known during the Old Kingdom. Under the reign of Senusret III (c. 1878-1860 BCE) the power of the nomarchs was decreased and the nomes were reorganized. The title of nomarch disappears completely from the official records during Senusret III's reign suggesting that it was abolished. Provincial rulers no longer had the freedoms they had enjoyed earlier but still benefitted from their position; they were now just more firmly under the control of the central government.
The 12th Dynasty of Egypt's Middle Kingdom (c. 2040-1802 BCE) is considered the 'golden age' of Egyptian government, art, and culture, when some of the most significant literary and artistic works were created, the economy was robust, and a strong central government empowered trade and production. Mass production of artifacts such as statuary (shabti dolls, for example) and jewelry during the First Intermediate Period had led to the rise of mass consumerism which continued during this time of the Middle Kingdom but with greater skill producing works of higher quality. The 13th Dynasty (c. 1802-c. 1782 BCE) was weaker than the 12th. The comfort and high standard of living of the Middle Kingdom declined as regional governors again assumed more power, priests amassed more wealth, and the central government became increasingly ineffective. In the far north of Egypt, at Avaris, a Semitic people had settled around a trading center and, during the 13th Dynasty, these people grew in power until they were able to assert their own autonomy and then expand their control of the region. These were the Hyksos ('foreign kings') whose rise signals the end of the Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt.
SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD & NEW KINGDOM
The later Egyptian writers characterized the time of the Hyksos as chaotic and claimed they invaded and destroyed the country. Actually, the Hyksos admired Egyptian culture and adopted it as their own. Although they did conduct raids on Egyptian cities such as Memphis, carrying statuary and monuments back to Avaris, they dressed as Egyptians, worshiped Egyptian gods, and incorporated elements of Egyptian government in their own.
The Egyptian government at Itj-tawi near Lisht could no longer control the region and abandoned Lower Egypt to the Hyksos, moving the capital back to Thebes. As the Hyksos gained power in the north, the Kushites advanced in the south and took back lands Egypt had conquered under Senusret III. The Egyptians at Thebes tolerated this situation until c. 1580 BCE when the Egyptian king Seqenenra Taa (also known as Ta'O) felt he had been insulted and challenged by the Hyksos king Apepi and attacked. This initiative was picked up and furthered by his son Kamose (c. 1575 BCE) and finally by his brother Ahmose I (c. 1570-c. 1544 BCE), who defeated the Hyksos and drove them out of Egypt.
The victory of Ahmose I begins the period known as the New Kingdom of Egypt, the best-known and most well-documented era in Egyptian history. At this time, the Egyptian government was reorganized and reformed slightly so that now the hierarchy ran from the pharaoh at the top, to the vizier, the royal treasurer, the general of the military, overseers (supervisors of government locations like work sites) and scribes who kept the records and relayed correspondence.
Stela of Ptahmay
The New Kingdom also saw the institutionalization of the police force which was begun under Amenemhet I. His early police units were members of the Bedouin tribes who guarded the borders but had little to do with keeping domestic peace. The New Kingdom police were Medjay, Nubian warriors who had fought the Hyksos with Ahmose I and were rewarded with the new position. The police were organized by the vizier under the direction of the pharaoh. The vizier would then delegate authority to lower officials who managed the various patrols of State Police. Police guarded temples and mortuary complexes, secured the borders and monitored immigration, stood watch outside royal tombs and cemeteries, and oversaw the workers and slaves at the mines and rock quarries. Under the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) the Medjay were his personal bodyguards. For most of their tenure, though, they kept the peace along the borders and intervened in citizen's affairs at the direction of a higher official. In time, some of these positions came to be held by priests as Bunson explains:
The temple police units were normally composed of priests who were charged with maintaining the sanctity of the temple complexes. The regulations concerning sex, behavior, and attitude during and before all ritual ceremonies demanded a certain vigilance and the temples kept their own people available to ensure a harmonious spirit. (207)
The temple police would have been kept especially busy during religious festivals, many of which (such as that of Bastet or Hathor ) encouraged drinking to excess and letting go of one's inhibitions.
The New Kingdom also saw the reformation and expansion of the military. Egypt's experience with the Hyksos had shown them how easily a foreign power could dominate their country, and they were not interested in experiencing that a second time.Ahmose I had first conceived the idea of buffer zones around Egypt's borders to keep the country secure, but this idea was taken further by his son and successor Amenhotep I (c. 1541-1520 BCE).
The army Ahmose I led against the Hyksos was made up of Egyptian regulars, conscripts, and foreign mercenaries like the Medjay. Amenhotep I trained an Egyptian army of professionals and led them into Nubia to complete his father's campaigns and regain the lands lost during the 13th Dynasty. His successors continued the expansion of Egypt's borders but none more than Tuthmosis III (1458-1425 BCE), who established the Egyptian Empire conquering lands from Syria to Libya and down through Nubia.
By the time of Amenhotep III (1386-1353 BCE) Egypt was a vast empire with diplomatic and trade agreements with other great nations such as the Hittites, the Mitanni, the Assyrian Empire, and the Kingdom of Babylon. Amenhotep III ruled over so vast and secure a country that he was able to occupy himself primarily with building monuments. He built so many in fact that early Egyptologists credited him with an exceptionally long reign.
Amenhotep III
His son would largely undo all the great accomplishments of the New Kingdom through religious reform which undercut the authority of the pharaoh, destroyed the economy, and soured relationships with other nations. Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE), perhaps in an attempt to neutralize the political power of the priests of Amun, banned all religious cults in the country except that of his personal god Aten. He closed the temples and moved the capital from Thebes to a new city he built in the Amarnaregion called Akhetaten where he sequestered himself with his wife Nefertiti and his family and neglected affairs of state.
The position of the pharaoh was legitimized by his adherence to the will of the gods. The temples throughout Egypt were not just places of worship but factories, dispensaries, workshops, counseling centers, houses of healing, educational and cultural centers. In closing them down, Akhenaten brought the forward momentum of the New Kingdom to a halt while he commissioned new temples and shrines built according to his monotheistic belief in the one god Aten. His successor, Tutankhamun (1336-1327 BCE) reversed his policies, returned the capital to Thebes, and reopened the temples but did not live long enough to complete the process. This was accomplished by the pharaoh Horemheb (1320-1295 BCE) who tried to erase any evidence that Akhenaten had ever existed. Horemheb brought Egypt back some social standing with other nations, improved the economy, and rebuilt the temples that had been destroyed, but the country never reached the heights it had known under Amenhotep III.
The government of the New Kingdom began at Thebes, but Ramesses II moved it north to a new city he built on the site of ancient Avaris, Per Ramesses. Thebes continued as an important religious center primarily because of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak to which every pharaoh of the New Kingdom contributed. The reasons for Ramesses II's move are unclear but one of the results was that, with the capital of the government far away in Per Ramesses, the priests of Amun at Thebes were free to do as they pleased. These priests increased their power to the point where they rivaled the pharaoh and the New Kingdom ended when the high priests of Thebes ruled from that city while the last of the New Kingdom pharaohs struggled to maintain control from Per Ramesses.
Egyptian King-list
LATE PERIOD OF ANCIENT EGYPT & PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY
Egypt was again divided as it now entered the Third Intermediate Period (1069-525 BCE). The government at Thebes claimed supremacy while recognizing the legitimacy of the rulers at Per Ramesses and intermarrying with them. The division of the government weakened Egypt which began to degenerate into civil wars during the Late Period (c. 664-332 BCE). At this time, the would-be rulers of Egypt fought each other using Greek mercenaries who, in time, lost interest in the fight and started their own communities in the Nile River Valley.
In 671 and 666 BCE the Assyrians invaded and took control of the country, and in 525 BCE the Persians invaded. Under Persian rule Egypt became a satrapy with the capital at Memphis and, like the Assyrians before them, Persians were placed in all positions of power. When Alexander the Great conquered Persia, he took Egypt in 331 BCE, had himself crowned pharaoh at Memphis, and placed his Macedonians in power.
After Alexander 's death, his general Ptolemy (323-285 BCE) founded the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt which lasted from 323-30 BCE. The Ptolemies, like the Hyksos before them, greatly admired Egyptian culture and incorporated it into their rule.Ptolemy I tried to blend the cultures of Greece and Egypt together to create a harmonious, multinational country - and he succeeded - but it did not last long beyond the reign of Ptolemy V (204-181 BCE). Under Ptolemy V's reign, the country was again in rebellion and the central government was weak. The last Ptolemaic pharaoh of Egypt was Cleopatra VII (69-30 BCE), and after her death the country was annexed by Rome.
LEGACY
The monarchial theocracy of Egypt lasted over 3,000 years, creating and maintaining one of the world's greatest ancient cultures. Many of the devices, artifacts, and practices of the modern day originated in Egypt's more stable periods of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms when there was a strong central government which provided the stability necessary for the creation of art and culture.
Egpytian Scribe's Palette
The Egyptians invented paper and colored ink, advanced the art of writing, were the first people to widely use cosmetics, invented the toothbrush, toothpaste, and breath mints, advanced medical knowledge and practices such as fixing broken bones and performing surgery, created water clocks and calendars (originating the 365-day calendar in use today), as well as perfecting the art of brewing beer, agricultural advances like the ox-drawn plough, and even the practice of wearing wigs.
The kings and later pharaohs of ancient Egypt began their reigns by offering themselves to the service of the goddess of truth, Ma'at, who personified universal harmony and balance and embodied the concept of ma'at which was so important to Egyptian culture. By maintaining harmony, the king of Egypt provided the people with a culture that encouraged creativity and innovation. Each king would begin his reign by 'presenting Ma'at' to the other gods of the Egyptian pantheon as a way of assuring them that he would follow her precepts and encourage his people to do likewise during his reign. The government of ancient Egypt, for the most part, kept to this divine bargain with their gods and the result was the grand civilization of ancient Egypt.
Late Period of Ancient Egypt › Ancient History
Definition and Origins
The Late Period of Egypt (525-332 BCE) is the era following the Third Intermediate Period (1069-525) and preceding the brief Hellenistic Period (332-323 BCE) when Egypt was ruled by the Argead officials installed by Alexander the Great prior to the rise of the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasty (323-30 BCE). This era is often ignored or sometimes combined with the Third Intermediate Period because, as with that period, it is interpreted as the final decline of Egyptian culture following the first Persian invasion of 525 BCE. While it is true that Persians ruled Egypt during the 27th and 31st dynasties, Egyptian culture was kept very much alive, and the 30th Dynasty of Egyptian rulers gave Egypt back a brief time of its former glory before the Persians came again.
This era comprises the 27th-31st dynasties of Egypt, but that designation is contested. Some scholars date the beginning of the Late Period to the middle of the 25th Dynasty or the beginning of the 26th for various reasons. Those who choose the mid-25th claim a distinct similarity between the social and political conditions of that time with the earlier Third Intermediate Period of Egypt, while those who cite the 26th Dynasty as beginning the Late Period point to Psammeticus I and his unification of Egypt following the Assyrian conquest. The Third Intermediate Period was a time of disunity lacking a central government, and so these scholars claim that Psammeticus I's reign ends that period and begins the next.
These claims, however, ignore the clear demarcation of the end of the 26th Dynasty with the first Persian invasion under Cambyses II (525-522 BCE) and the significant role the Persian rulers then played in Egyptian history until their empire was conquered and Egypt taken by Alexander the Great. Dating the beginning of the Late Period earlier than 525 BCE makes little sense when one considers the uniformity of other designations of Egyptian history. The names of these eras ( Predynastic Period in Egypt, Early Dynastic Period, Old Kingdom, First Intermediate Period, Middle Kingdom, etc.) were created by Egyptologists in the 19th and 20th centuries CE to help clarify the study of the country's long history and they were not chosen arbitrarily. There are clear reasons why one era of a strong central government (the 'kingdoms') is separated from a time of disunity ('intermediate periods'). In every case, a very clear political, social, and cultural entity prevailed which differed from that which preceded or followed. This same paradigm should be observed when considering the Late Period, and the only reason it is not is because the Third Intermediate Period is so often considered the epilogue to Egyptian history and the Late Period merely a sad extension of a long decline ending with Alexander's conquest of Persia.
THE LATE PERIOD WAS AN ERA OF GREAT ACHIEVEMENT & SAW A RENEWAL OF EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM & PRIDE IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO THROW OFF PERSIAN RULE & REGAIN AUTONOMY.
Egyptian resistance to Persian rule, however, is evident throughout the period, and, further, Egypt prospered under Persian rule because the Persian Shahs admired the culture. Egyptian leaders like Amyrtaeus (404-398 BCE) of the 28th Dynasty, Nectanabo I (380-362 BCE), and Nectanabo II (360-343 BCE) all ruled the country, commanded their armies, and engaged in building projects in keeping with the great pharaohs of the past. Egyptian architecture of the Late Period purposefully recalled Egypt's great past, and as in the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, allowed for individual expression of the artist and the particular region instead of a state-mandated vision of a work. Although the Late Period cannot boast the number of monuments or buildings of Egypt's past, there are still some impressive works left behind and the pharaohs of the 30th Dynasty could hold their own in comparison to almost any dynasty of Egypt's past except perhaps the 4th, 12th, and 18th.
Art of the Late Period took inspiration from earlier eras such as the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, but the artists were allowed freer expression. More realistic statuary was created and fine work was done in metals, gold, silver, and bronze. Mortuary rituals continued to be observed in more or less the same way they always had been, and the religious beliefs of Egypt were maintained. Even under Persian rule, there was no disruption in Egyptian religion - contrary to the claims made by Herodotus and other Greek writers - and the Persians, in fact, encouraged Egyptian culture and religion. Far from a dark period of oppression and decline, the Late Period was an era of great achievement and saw a renewal of Egyptian nationalism and pride in their attempts to throw off Persian rule and regain autonomy.
THE PERSIAN INVASION OF 525 BCE
According to Herodotus, Cambyses II of Persia invaded Egypt because of an insult by the Egyptian pharaoh Amassis of the 26th Dynasty. Cambyses wrote to Amassis asking for one of his daughters as a wife, but Amassis, not wishing to comply, sent the daughter of his predecessor Apries. The young woman was insulted by this decision - especially since it was tradition that Egyptian women were not given to foreign kings - and, when she arrived at Cambyses' court, she revealed her true identity.Cambyses accused Amassis of sending him a 'fake wife' and mobilized his troops to invade Egypt.
Whether this story is true, the Persian Empire would have eventually attacked Egypt anyway. The Assyrians had already conquered the country in the late 7th century BCE, and the Egyptian army had proven itself no match for the superior weapons and tactics of the Mesopotamian forces. The Persians, who were expanding their empire, would have known of the earlier conquest, known of Egyptian culture, and had little hesitation in launching an army of conquest. It was, in fact, Cambyses' knowledge of Egyptian culture that handed him the victory.
Egyptian Cat
The Persians struck at the entrance point of the city of Pelusium in 525 BCE and were repelled by forces under the pharaoh Psammeticus III. Cambyses, however, knew of the Egyptian's love for animals and, in particular, the cat and so had stray animals and cats rounded up, which he drove in front of his advancing army. He also had his soldiers paint the image of the Egyptian goddess Bastet, closely associated with cats, on their shields. Cambyses demanded the surrender of Pelusium and the Egyptians, not wishing to have the animals injured or incurring the wrath of Bastet, complied.
PERSIAN RULE OF EGYPT
Cambyses II is regularly depicted as a half-mad tyrant by Herodotus who claims he destroyed Egyptian temples, killed the sacred Apis bull, and led his troops on futile and destructive campaigns. The autobiography of the Egyptian admiral Wedjahor-Resne, who served under Cambyses, paints a very different picture. According to Wedjahor-Resne, Cambyses admired Egyptian culture and the admiral assisted his new king in proper observance of tradition and respect for religious sensibilities.He persuaded Cambyses to move a garrison of Persian soldiers away from the Temple of Neith in Sais, for example, because their presence was considered offensive to the goddess and instructed him in other areas as well.
Even though Cambyses seems to have accepted his admiral's counsel, Wedjahor-Resne also recounts the suffering of the Egyptians under Cambyses' reign. Many Egyptians were enslaved by upper-class Persians, and others were conscripted into the army. According to Herodotus, Cambyses sent an expedition toward Libya which was swallowed whole in a sandstorm.This event, often referred to in the modern day as the "Lost Army of Cambyses", is most likely one of Herodotus' fictions intended to show how paltry a king Cambyses was. The Greek writers, on the whole, tend toward highly unflattering portrayals of the Persian kings. The story has long been accepted as authentic history, however, and expeditions are still funded and launched to find the remains of the lost Persian army.
There is no doubt, though, that Cambyses launched a campaign against Nubia as he founded a trade center at the first cataract of the Nile, garrisoned with troops, which became an important point of cultural exchange between Egyptian, Nubian, and Persian merchants and soldiers. It seems Cambyses' goal was to conquer the wealthy Nubian city of Meroe, but having reached Nubia, he turned around and headed back for Egypt.
Herodotus reports that Cambyses died from an accidental self-inflicted wound to his thigh. Allegedly, the king pierced himself in the exact spot on his leg where he had stabbed and killed the Apis bull. This story is also considered fiction by most modern-day scholars as Herodotus enjoyed making moral points in his histories and the theme of the god avenging himself on a presumptive mortal appears a number of times in his works. This is not to say that Cambyses was a model pharaoh or kind ruler, only that he was perhaps not the lunatic Herodotus portrays him as.
Cambyses died in 522 BCE, probably en route to put down a rebellion back home. A pretender to the throne claimed to be Cambyses' brother Smerdis, which was actually impossible as Cambyses had already secretly murdered Smerdis years before. The pretender, a Magian named Gaumata, was killed by a member of the court named Darius who then took the throne. He is best known as Darius I the Great (522-486 BCE) who launched the First Persian Invasion of Greece in 490 BCE, which was routed at the Battle of Marathon.
Darius I as Pharaoh of Egypt
Unlike Cambyses, Darius preferred to rule Egypt in absentia. He came to the throne of the Achaemenid Empire in 522 BCE and visited Egypt at least twice but preferred Egypt at a distance. Still, he also admired the culture and directed funds for the rebuilding of damaged temples and the dedication of new ones. In keeping with the Persian tradition of religious tolerance, Darius honored the gods of Egypt with gifts and monuments. He is generally regarded as affecting a gentler touch with Egypt than Cambyses had.
His son, Xerxes I (486-465 BCE), drew on all the resources of the Achaemenid Empire for the Second Persian Invasion of Greece in 480 BCE, and Egypt was no exception. The early part of Xerxes ' reign was almost wholly focused on avenging the insult of the Greeks at Marathon by subjugating the country completely. When the Persians were defeated at Salamis in 480 BCE and Plataea in 479 BCE, Xerxes lost interest in foreign affairs and concentrated on building projects and various affairs with women of the court. He was succeeded by Artaxerxes I (465-424 BCE) who struggled for six years to put down the first major Egyptian revolt, encouraged and aided by Athens, in 460-454 BCE.
This revolt was led by Inaros II (c. 460-454 BCE) the Libyan royal son of Psamtik (Psammeticus IV) of the old Saite Dynasty.Psamtik may have plotted a rebellion to regain control of Egypt but nothing came of it. Inaros II, with the help of the Athenians and allied with Amyrtaeus of Sais, almost succeeded in driving the Persians from the country but was finally defeated. He was brought in chains back to Susa where he was executed.
PERSIAN INVASIONS & THE 28TH/29TH DYNASTIES
His revolt inspired the grandson of Amyrtaeus of Sais, also known as Amyrtaeus, to revolt against the rule of Darius II (424-404 BCE) in 411 BCE. This Amyrtaeus is the founder and only king of the 28th Dynasty of Egypt and, although he is remembered as the Egyptian king who drove the Persians out of the country, he actually only controlled the Delta region of Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt remained in the hands of the Persians.
Darius II was succeeded by Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE) who continued to hold Upper Egypt. Artaxerxes largely concerned himself with pitting Greek city-states against each other and ignored his Egyptian problem until 373 BCE when he sent an army to regain control but was defeated. While Artaxerxes was involved with the Greeks, Amyrtaeus had been killed in battle by a rival king from the city of Mendes named Nepherites I (c. 398-393 BCE) who took control of the Delta region and founded the 29th Dynasty.
The 29th Dynasty is one of the shortest in Egyptian history and, although it struggled to redeem the past and make Egypt a great power again, it never had the resources to succeed. Nepherites I, ruling from his capital at Mendes, engaged in a number of building projects in Lower Egypt but nothing as impressive as past pharaohs. He was succeeded by Psammuthes (c. 393-392 BCE) about whom little is known who was succeeded by Hakor (better known as Achoris, 392-379 BCE).
Hakor achieved what his predecessors had failed to accomplish in building projects and additions to the Temple of Amun at Karnak. In 385 BCE the Persians launched another invasion to recapture Egypt and, under Hakor's generals, were repulsed.Hakor then returned to his building projects and various negotiations with foreign powers. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Nepherites II (c. 380 BCE) who ruled for only four months until he was killed by the rival king Kheperkare Nakhtnebef, better known as Nectanebo I (c. 379-363 BCE) who founded the 30th Dynasty.
THE 30TH DYNASTY: LAST OF THE EGYPTIANS
Philae Temple, Aswan
In all things, Nectanebo I comported himself as a great pharaoh of Egypt. He honored the gods with gifts, temples, obelisks, and other monuments; contributed to the development of Karnak; built up the Egyptian army; and formed alliances with various Greek city-states. C. 374 BCE the Persians again tried to retake Egypt, but Nectanebo I was prepared for them and heavily fortified Pelusium and the shores of the Nile near the city. This measure forced the Persian invasion into the more difficult branch of the river near the city of Mendes.
The Mendesian branch of the Nile was purposefully left unguarded to allow the Persian force easy access knowing that it would then take them longer to reach Memphis, their presumed goal. Although Memphis was no longer the capital of Egypt it remained an important religious and cultural center and its capture would have demoralized the Egyptians. The Persians were commanded by the Greek general Iphicrates and Persian commander Pharnabazus who each had different ideas on how to conduct the campaign. Their longer journey by way of the Mendesian branch of the Nile exacerbated the differences between them so that, once they finally arrived, they were in conflict. Nectanebo I had, meanwhile, fortified Memphis against them, and the Nile River itself cooperated at an opportune moment to flood the land; thus handing a total victory to Nectanebo I and sending the Persian forces back home.
Nectanebo I, again emulating the pharaohs of old, instituted the practice of co-regency with his son Djedhor in order to prevent problems of succession. Upon his death, Djedhor took the throne name Teos (362-360 BCE) and instantly began planning a campaign to punish the Persians. Nectanebo I had encouraged other regions to rebel against Persian rule and Teos believed the Persians were distracted enough by these rebellions that he could easily take their satrapy of Syria - Palestine for Egypt.
Screen Slab of King Nectanebo I
Teos allied himself with the Athenian general Chabrias and Spartan king Agesilaus II for this campaign but, requiring more money, raised taxes on the Egyptian people and, more significantly, on the priesthood and temples. These taxes were extremely unpopular, and the priesthood objected to the appropriation of their wealth for a military campaign which seemed unnecessary. Teos' brother, Tjahapimu, saw this dissent as an opportunity to raise his own son, Nakhthorheb, to power and encouraged him to betray Teos. Nakhthorheb complied eagerly; the campaign failed when Nakhthorheb drove a wedge between Teos and Agesilaus II, rallied the people to his cause, and proclaimed himself pharaoh, taking the name Nectanebo II (360-343 BCE). Teos fled for safety to his former enemies at Susa but was brought back to Egypt by command of Nectanebo II and, most likely, executed.
Nectanebo II, the last native of ancient Egypt to rule over the country, outdid Nectanebo I in building projects and shows of piety to the gods, commissioning work at over 100 sites during his reign. He maintained good relations with Sparta and employed Greek mercenaries in his army. Like his earlier predecessor, he strengthened the military, secured his borders, and improved the economy through trade. Given more time, and better circumstances, Nectanebo II could have been one of the greatest of Egyptian pharaohs, but he had neither time nor fortune on his side.
In 344 BCE Artaxerxes III (358-338 BCE) began courting allies and gathering a force to reclaim Egypt for Achaemenid Empire.La campaña se lanzó en 343 aC y Nectanebo II, al frente de su ejército, fue derrotado. Huyó al sur en Nubia y Artajerjes III reclamó Egipto para Persia. Con el tiempo, Nectanebo II se convirtió en una especie de figura legendaria que, en las historias que finalmente formaron parte de Alexander Romance, fue secretamente el padre de Alejandro Magno. Por supuesto, no existe una base histórica para ese reclamo.
PERSIAN EGIPTO Y ALEXANDER EL GRANDE
Artaxerxes III fue sucedido por Artaxerxes IV (338-336 BCE) que solo controló el Bajo Egipto. Fue sucedido por Darío III (336-332 a. C.) que conquistó el Alto Egipto, trayendo todo bajo el dominio persa. Al igual que los primeros reyes persas, Artajerjes III, Artajerjes IV y Darío III alentaron la cultura y las tradiciones de Egipto. Siendo esto así, la resistencia egipcia puede parecer injustificada. El historiador Marc van de Mieroop comenta sobre esto:
¿Por qué los egipcios lucharon tanto contra el dominio persa? Muchos historiadores han escrito que estas luchas fueron "movimientos nacionalistas" inspirados por una aversión del extranjero, xenofobia incluso... Varias preocupaciones probablemente inspiraron las revueltas, pero es probable que las clases altas que habían gobernado Egipto en el Tercer Nivel Intermedio y Tardío Los períodos los instigaron. Privados de sus oficinas por la llegada de una administración persa, algunos se asimilaron en las filas persa, pero probablemente se les negó esa oportunidad. Muchos de ellos tenían ascendencia libia y pueden haber mantenido conexiones cercanas con esa área. Algunos estudiosos incluso sugieren que no fueron los egipcios sino las personas del oeste quienes dirigieron las revueltas. Es posible que hayan encontrado apoyo porque los persas impusieron deberes opresivos a los egipcios. (310)
It is clear that the revolts of the Late Period were either encouraged or openly supported by Greek city-states and, by this time, there was a sizeable population of Greeks living in Egypt at Naucratis. Naucratis was an important trade center for the Greeks and it is easy to imagine they were not pleased with having to deal with their old enemy Persia when they were used to dealing directly with Egyptians.
Quien estaba detrás de las revueltas contra el dominio persa, la segunda ocupación de Egipto no duró mucho. En Europa, Felipe II de Macedonia (359-336 aC) había conquistado las ciudades-estado griegas y las había traído bajo dominio macedonio. Estaba planeando una gran campaña para conquistar Persia cuando fue asesinado en 336 a. Él ya tenía todos los recursos que necesitaría para la conquista y se los dejó a su hijo, Alexander.
Alexander the Great
Alejandro Magno se embarcó en su campaña en 334 aC, derrotó a Darío III en la batalla de Issus en 333 a. EC, tomó a Siria en 332 a. EC, y Egipto en 331 a. Fundó la ciudad de Alejandría en la antigua ciudad portuaria de Rhakotis, en el mar Mediterráneo, elaboró sus planes y la dejó para que se desarrollen sus administradores. Después de ser proclamado un dios en el Oasis de Siwa, Alejandro avanzó para completar su conquista de Persia y dejó Egipto en manos de los macedonios, quienes comenzaron la construcción de Alejandría y las mejoras en otras ciudades del Delta. Cuando Alejandro murió en 323 a. EC, Egipto fue tomado por su general Ptolomeo I Soter (323-285 a. C.) quien fundó la dinastía ptolemaica, el último en gobernar Egipto antes de la llegada de Roma..
El Período Tardío marca el final del gobierno egipcio del país, pero difícilmente el final de la cultura egipcia. Los persas, como se señaló, nunca trataron de suprimir las creencias egipcias, y la 30ª dinastía alentó un renacimiento de las glorias pasadas en el arte y la arquitectura. Los Ptolomeos continuaron observando los antiguos rituales y tradiciones, y la cultura egipcia se difundió por todo el mundo antiguo a través del comercio y las obras de griegos, y más tarde romanos., escritores que lo admiraban Los faraones de la 30ª dinastía, incluso los efímeros Teos, mantuvieron la dignidad de la monarquía egipcia de acuerdo con el pasado y dejaron sus propios monumentos impresionantes en línea con aquellos que habían venido antes que ellos. El Período Tardío, entonces, puede considerarse como el final de la autonomía egipcia, pero no debe considerarse como el último suspiro de la cultura egipcia. Incluso hasta el día de hoy, los logros culturales de Egipto siguen inspirando admiración, incluso asombro, y se mantienen entre los más populares y fascinantes de todos en el mundo antiguo.
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License