I need some help with New Kingdom Egypt! (2 Viewers)

[xeuyrawp]

Yeah, like

YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS! enter credit card to apply.

emails.

 

[fishy89sg]

no.... why?

but i do get a LOT of emails from people 'asking' me to sign up to some bebo or zeppo or somethin

 

[xeuyrawp]

no.... why?

but i do get a LOT of emails from people 'asking' me to sign up to some bebo or zeppo or somethin

Lucky, I get heaps... Anyway, the moral to the story is that simply because someone says something doesn't make it true.

Everything that a few people in this thread have been saying is pretty much what the kings themselves said. For some reason, the TOMAC stuff that was taught in year 11 has been forgotten... The bottom line is that, like every other ruler in history, the Egyptian kings had significant propaganda machines.

 

[fishy89sg]

yeh, to make themselves look more powerful than they really are..................



can i write an essay and show you on egyptian "imperialism"?

(lol im gonna use some of the stuff you wrote)

 

[fishy89sg]

Sorry for the double post...

The problem is generally kids who aren't in the top schools don't have access to these resources which clearly outline historical debates regarding imperialism in Egypt.

I go to a priority funded school who is ranked about 400th in the state. i know what you mean!

There was a very complicated relationship between Egypt and the north, but all you need to do in the essay is talk about the military aspects for maybe 80% of your essay

What do you mean by this?

And didn't Egypt expand its borders?

I have so far written up the beginning to a possible question in the exam:

"Discuss the nature of Egyptian imperialism in this period." Tell me what you guys think so far plz


Imperialism is the act of expanding and homogenising territories and people. As for Egypt, they did not imperialise their neighbouring territories in Nubia, Syria-Palestine and Mitanni, rather, expanded their ‘sphere of influence’ through intensive trade and diplomacy and military activities, even though some archaeological and written evidence suggests otherwise.

There was an extensive amount of military activity during this period, but was by no means imperialistic. For instance, the establishment of the 18th Dynasty with the removal of the Hyksos was for economic, technological and political reasons. A schoolboy’s writing tablet found in Thebes states that Kamose expressed his anger to a council of nobles at the limitations of his small domain, caught between the Hyksos kingdom on the north and Nubian-occupied territory on the south. Although at first glance sounds imperialistic (in terms of expansion), it by no means suggests the homogenising of territories and people.

and now im stuck lol

 

[xeuyrawp]

Sorry for the double post...



I go to a priority funded school who is ranked about 400th in the state. i know what you mean!



What do you mean by this?

And didn't Egypt expand its borders?

I have so far written up the beginning to a possible question in the exam:

"Discuss the nature of Egyptian imperialism in this period." Tell me what you guys think so far plz


Imperialism is the act of expanding and homogenising territories and people. As for Egypt, they did not imperialise their neighbouring territories in Nubia, Syria-Palestine and Mitanni, rather, expanded their ‘sphere of influence’ through intensive trade and diplomacy and military activities, even though some archaeological and written evidence suggests otherwise.

There was an extensive amount of military activity during this period, but was by no means imperialistic. For instance, the establishment of the 18th Dynasty with the removal of the Hyksos was for economic, technological and political reasons. A schoolboy’s writing tablet found in Thebes states that Kamose expressed his anger to a council of nobles at the limitations of his small domain, caught between the Hyksos kingdom on the north and Nubian-occupied territory on the south. Although at first glance sounds imperialistic (in terms of expansion), it by no means suggests the homogenising of territories and people.

and now im stuck lol

There was an extensive amount of military activity during this period, but it was not entirely imperialistic.

Definitely still talk about as much military stuff as much as you can (it's what the markers want), but don't act like it was all military, if that makes sense. Maybe do a normal military essay with a paragraph on the 'nature of imperialism' issue as well as diplomacy.

 

[fishy89sg]

thanks a lot for putting up with me, but how do i relate the military stuff to the question on the nature of imperialism?

EDIT: unfortunately ive only been exposed to the non-'empire' part of the topic thus far, i.e. "Role of the Queens" (Trials) and "Development of the Cult of Amun" (Assessment Task)

 

[bento]

That's pretty interesting, because in Egypt of the Pharaohs, Gardiner is undoubtedly pro-imperial model. Which page did you find the debate on?


I'm not sure whether you fully understand the definition of an empire, or the evidence. Ancient borders are not like modern ones, where military control, administration, cultural and technological hegemony, etc, exists.

During the New Kingdom, Egypt did expand its influence. However, you cannot say that it it expanded its borders due to imperialism. If you say that, you will not go well. The Ancient Near East did not have borders as we now do - Km.t, the word for Egypt represents only the Nile valley from Aswan to the Delta. Anything beyond the valley (eg the Valley of the Kings, Deir el Bahri, the Oases, etc) was considered outside of Egypt. Therefore, the Egyptian 'borders' was the Nile valley which cannot be expanded no matter how hard one tries.


Your advice has been really good, I'm just nitpicking on semantics.


The underlined bit is the bit I have a problem with, that's all. They didn't expand their borders, they didn't control any cities, and they didn't create an empire.

Look at the syllabus, they put 'empire' in quotation marks because it is not a correct term, but rather something that has too much baggage and is convenient. They also refer to the boundaries of the 'empire', namely the furthest reaches of Egypts influence, not imperialistic movements.

Okay first of all, the main book that I get my info from is 'Ancient Egypt Reconstructing the Past' by Pamela Bradley'. The Chapter on the Empire is Chapter 15 page 499, titled "Egyptian Expansion and its effects on New Kingdom Society"...
Second paragraph: "The Egyptian armies, led by a number of warrior-kings, brought Syria, Palestine and Nubia under Egyptian influence and control."
Fifth Paragraph (your argument): "Although the territories under Egyptian Control are referred to as an empire (a modern concept), some scholars such as Gardiner doubt whether the vast are under Egyptian influence could ever have been called an empire." That's the only point in the whole chapter about the definition of an empire, the rest is all pro-empire, such as:
Page 500, heading: 'The Growth and organisation of the Egyptian empire'.


If we were to get a question on the major effects of the empire on Egyptian society, we would have to agree that it was an empire anyway. Would they put it as 'empire' because it is not an empire in a modern concept, but at the time it would have been considered an empire??? Past HSC questions have been:

I understand that im basing my argument on what the pharaohs also wanted everyone to think (as you mentioned) but also the fact that I go to a public school without university resources, why would I even begin to consider that when they say 'Egypt became an empire' that it may not be true and that I should doubt this? Even though the syllabus has it as 'empire' it also has 'warrior pharaoh' in inverted commas, so I never even considered that there was contention about the definition of the empire and whether they actually where imperialistic. On the same token, does that mean the pharaoh was not necessarily a warrior pharaoh, merely portrayed as one? I can understand this more since people such as Thut III wrote that he killed 120 elephants etc in only moments, but I still thought these pharaohs did go on miliary campaigns, despite exaggeration about their skills.

Your argument about how Eygpt could not have expanded their borders seems too technical. Just because they called Egypt the area around the Nile, doesn't mean they didn't have great influence and control in areas beyond this.

Considering we only have info on what the pharaohs tell us from propaganda inscriptions, do you think we would do well if we did write all we knew about Egypt becoming an empire, as long as we acknowledge that this evidence is based on pharaohs and officials only? I think that would be okay at least. It would take a long time to talk only about the debate, thats all. Also, with all the evidence we have (maybe you have contradictory evidence lol) about the growth and development of the army, doesn't that also hint at the fact that they were imperialists? why would they need such a large scale army just for border protection?

So do you agree that they set up a similar administration in Nubia as they had in Egypt? or do you believe that also to be propaganda? Or do you think they did set up a similar admin but essentially did not control Nubia? because the latter I can agree with. I didn't mean that they controlled these areas as in they put Egyptian people into Nubia and SYria and made the whole of these areas under one government system, I meant that they 'Egyptianised' (that term comes from the same book) as in made it very similar...they still engaged with trade etc therefore they could not have controlled it completely. By 'control' I meant they subdue the revolts and made these cities loyal through constant communications, constant watch by governers to prevent revolt, oaths of loyalty, hostages and so on.

Please tell me I'm on the right track...I don't want to get a bad essay mark if this question comes in the HSC lol

 

[bento]

Oops I forgot to put the past HSC question in: 'To what extent did NKE establish an 'empire' in this period?'. What extent do you believe they established an empire? A brief answer/thesis would be helpful so I can start rethinking my essays lol.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Okay first of all, the main book that I get my info from is 'Ancient Egypt Reconstructing the Past' by Pamela Bradley'. The Chapter on the Empire is Chapter 15 page 499, titled "Egyptian Expansion and its effects on New Kingdom Society"...
Second paragraph: "The Egyptian armies, led by a number of warrior-kings, brought Syria, Palestine and Nubia under Egyptian influence and control."
Fifth Paragraph (your argument): "Although the territories under Egyptian Control are referred to as an empire (a modern concept), some scholars such as Gardiner doubt whether the vast are under Egyptian influence could ever have been called an empire." That's the only point in the whole chapter about the definition of an empire, the rest is all pro-empire, such as:
Page 500, heading: 'The Growth and organisation of the Egyptian empire'.


If we were to get a question on the major effects of the empire on Egyptian society, we would have to agree that it was an empire anyway. Would they put it as 'empire' because it is not an empire in a modern concept, but at the time it would have been considered an empire??? Past HSC questions have been:

I understand that im basing my argument on what the pharaohs also wanted everyone to think (as you mentioned) but also the fact that I go to a public school without university resources, why would I even begin to consider that when they say 'Egypt became an empire' that it may not be true and that I should doubt this? Even though the syllabus has it as 'empire' it also has 'warrior pharaoh' in inverted commas, so I never even considered that there was contention about the definition of the empire and whether they actually where imperialistic. On the same token, does that mean the pharaoh was not necessarily a warrior pharaoh, merely portrayed as one? I can understand this more since people such as Thut III wrote that he killed 120 elephants etc in only moments, but I still thought these pharaohs did go on miliary campaigns, despite exaggeration about their skills.

Your argument about how Eygpt could not have expanded their borders seems too technical. Just because they called Egypt the area around the Nile, doesn't mean they didn't have great influence and control in areas beyond this.

Considering we only have info on what the pharaohs tell us from propaganda inscriptions, do you think we would do well if we did write all we knew about Egypt becoming an empire, as long as we acknowledge that this evidence is based on pharaohs and officials only? I think that would be okay at least. It would take a long time to talk only about the debate, thats all. Also, with all the evidence we have (maybe you have contradictory evidence lol) about the growth and development of the army, doesn't that also hint at the fact that they were imperialists? why would they need such a large scale army just for border protection?

So do you agree that they set up a similar administration in Nubia as they had in Egypt? or do you believe that also to be propaganda? Or do you think they did set up a similar admin but essentially did not control Nubia? because the latter I can agree with. I didn't mean that they controlled these areas as in they put Egyptian people into Nubia and SYria and made the whole of these areas under one government system, I meant that they 'Egyptianised' (that term comes from the same book) as in made it very similar...they still engaged with trade etc therefore they could not have controlled it completely. By 'control' I meant they subdue the revolts and made these cities loyal through constant communications, constant watch by governers to prevent revolt, oaths of loyalty, hostages and so on.

Please tell me I'm on the right track...I don't want to get a bad essay mark if this question comes in the HSC lol

That's really weird about Gardiner - all of the stuff I've read from him indicate that he thought Egypt was an empire. Maybe I've missed this.

With your argument, I think you've pretty much hit the spot when you say that the only reason that the Board of Studies uses the word 'empire' is because there's nothing else except maybe for 'influence'.

Anyway, I think you're definitely on the right track. I just hope you understand that whilst it's not necessary to go into the debate too much (if at all), it is necessary to be careful with the word empire, as with all assumptions.

 

[bento]

Imperialism is the act of expanding and homogenising territories and people.

I don't think that's what imperialism means...not the homogenising part. It just means to have the characteristics of an empire, and am empire is a group of nations or people ruled over by an emperor.

 

[fishy89sg]

:rofl:

can i ask a few more Qs?

1. where is (was) avaris?
2. where (what) is retennu?
3. where is levant?

4. i hardly have any sources for the dot point of "development and role of the army"

and for "nature of egyptian imperialism", what military stuff do i talk about?

(im so sorry for wasting your times but im so stressed that theres only 1x days left to the HSC [not for ancient, phew])

 

[fishy89sg]

I don't think that's what imperialism means...not the homogenising part. It just means to have the characteristics of an empire, and am empire is a group of nations or people ruled over by an emperor.

but [FONT=&quot]PwarYuex[/FONT] said it was

 

[bento]

:rofl:

can i ask a few more Qs?

1. where is (was) avaris?
2. where (what) is retennu?
3. where is levant?

4. i hardly have any sources for the dot point of "development and role of the army"

and for "nature of egyptian imperialism", what military stuff do i talk about?

(im so sorry for wasting your times but im so stressed that theres only 1x days left to the HSC [not for ancient, phew])

Avaris was the old Hyksos capital, north part of Egypt, above Thebes. i know how you feel, I constantly get confused about where everything is, because not all of the maps we're given say all the names.

Development and role of the army, briefly (but I'll probably get contradicted lol, oh well): In earlier Egyptian history, each province had its own militia which was comprised of conscripted men only when needed. in times of national emergencies these local militia were organised under a commander chosen to meet the emergency and were provided with weapons from the royal armoury.

Then, development of weaponry from Hyksos: composite bow, chariots (really important), bronze swords, daggers, bronze and leather armour. They used these to expel hyksos, ironically.

The campaigns against western Asiatics in early 18th Dynasty and the need to leave garrisons to control conquered territory led to the development of a permanent professional army by time of Thut III. This was based on continuos levying and training program. There were two divisions developed: the Division of Amun from Thebes and the Division of Re from Heliopolis.

The pharaoh was the commander-in-chief of the army, the leader (esp cos of warrior pharaoh image),
Organisation of army:
* division, approx 5000 ppl
* host, approx 500
* company, 250
* platoon, 50
* squadron, 10

composition and tactics:
the core of the army was the infantry, which included archers and rank-and-file foot soldiers. The archers formed the front line. The massed ranks of infantry followed using their close-range weapons, including the khepresh and the axe.

(theres more on tactics but I can't be bothered cos I won't even remember it)

Mercenaries were also incorporated into the army as the wars of expansion widened.

Role:
the Egyptian army operated largely as a means of transporting soldiers and equipment in the campaigns of the early New Kingdom and as such was part of the army. The navy was involveed in the campaigns against the Hyksos transporting the king and his soldiers from Thebes in the south to battle sites such as Avaris in the north.

Look at Ahmose, son of Ebana's tomb biography and how he rised in ranks.

lol i don't have a lot of evidence btw...can't find much in my books.

ooh they received some of the booty recovered, evidence in Thutmose III's Annals.
I guess part of their role was to take captives, and to kill people-hands.

Okay that's pretty much all the important stuff i have lol...you may need to ask someone else about evidence though...


Don't worry, you're certainly not wasting my time, it's helping me study!

 

[samuel slack]

Retennu, retinu... and all other spellings- is the ancient name of Syria-Palestine. I'm unsure about levant...
Some stuff people have missed when talking about Egyptian imperialism...

First- define imperialism as whatever you want (make sure it makes sense)

Second- Discuss the nature of Egyptian imperialism. e.g- the fact that the concept of an empire didn't exist during the time of Egypt, and therefore did not operate as a modern "empire" might- also discuss the difference in imperialism in the north and the south. Syria-Palestine- garrisons, vassal princes, hostages, no permanent settlements etc. Nubia- colonies, continued residence here, temples and forts like those at Buhen, etc.

Third- Discuss the changing nature of imperialism- before Thutmose III- no empire just raids into Nubia and Syria-Palestine... Thut, due to prosperity and unification of Egypt as well as nationalistic sentiment engaged in aggressive expansion... made "empire"... After Thut III consolidation of the empire- Thutmose IV married Mitanni princess. Also, you might have to discuss the reasons for the creation of an "empire" if its asked in the question... I'm pretty sure you can only say it was both politically and economically motivated- made Thut look like traditional warrior pharaoh and boosted economy (feel free to correct me).

If you're talking about military stuff in the nature of imperialism- talk about continued raids into Nubia by New Kingdom pharaohs (use evidence)... building of forts into Syria-Palestine and in Nubia (e.g Buhen).. the battle of Megiddo in taking over Syria-Palestine (the capture of Megiddo was the capture of "a thousand cities" according to Thut III)...ummm thats all i can think of at the moment. When i am less sleep deprived i'll have a bit more of a look on here.

Look, dont worry about going into detail about the contested nature of egyptian imperialism. Just make sure you make the point that IT IS CONTESTED at the start of your essay, and also say that the concept of an empire did not exist during the time of egypt, so it does not conform to the modern characteristics of an empire. All you have to do is argue your point using evidence and essay structure, dont get too caught up in worrying about whether what you're saying is correct. If you make it sound correct you get marks, whether it is or not. Having said that, dont claim that Egypt was the first country to expand into every nation on the globe, because you will fail miserably.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I don't think that's what imperialism means...not the homogenising part. It just means to have the characteristics of an empire, and am empire is a group of nations or people ruled over by an emperor.

Well we'll agree to disagree - if something is a 'group of nations', it cannot be part of an empire. The very basis of an empire is that it is one entity, which is always accompanied by - or, rather, precluded by homogenisation of people.

Name any empire, and you'll see that the first thing that happens after they take over is that they homogenise the place. Romans tried to make everyone speak Latin, Brits made people speak English, etc etc.

can i ask a few more Qs?

1. where is (was) avaris?
2. where (what) is retennu?
3. where is levant?

(im so sorry for wasting your times)

You're not wasting my time... I'm procrastinating from an exam on papyrus Westcar, the autobiography of Weni, and an assessment on Harkhuf.

1. Bento is right, except I wouldn't compare it to Thebes geographically. Yes, it's north of Thebes, but most important places in this time was.

See this map:

2. Retenu is a pretty generic name for Syria-Palestine. Pretty much anything north of Egypt, but south of Turkey was Retenu. It is a cultural/political term, not a geographic one - ie, it refers to a general group of people.

3. The Levant is exactly the same as above, but is a geographical term.

Stole this from wikipedia:

Hope that helps.

 

[fishy89sg]

lol thanks guys

it really really does help (seriously, it does)


but one thing doesnt make sense, when you guys say "north and south", what do you mean? thx

Oh and when i was reading the textbook we have, i only found around 1-2 sources on "development and role of the army"

 

[xeuyrawp]

lol thanks guys

it really really does help (seriously, it does)


but one thing doesnt make sense, when you guys say "north and south", what do you mean? thx

weh?

North, as in geographically above...? New Guinea is north of Australia, Antarctica is south?

Retenu/Asiatics were north of Egypt, Punt were to the south, Libyans to west, Kush/Nubians to the south-east.

 

[fishy89sg]

ohh ok thanks yet again!


i dunno its just hard for me to understand the topic when i don't know what's going on.


and you know how you said for the "nature of egyptian imperialism" Q, you talk about 80% military stuff, do we talk about the various pharaohs' (i.e. Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV) campaigns? if yes, how do we relate it back to the imperialism Question? thx

 

[xeuyrawp]

ohh ok thanks yet again!


i dunno its just hard for me to understand the topic when i don't know what's going on.


and you know how you said for the "nature of egyptian imperialism" Q, you talk about 80% military stuff, do we talk about the various pharaohs' (i.e. Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV) campaigns? if yes, how do we relate it back to the imperialism Question? thx

Well really armies are used for three purposes:

1. To establish peace (peace-keeping),
2. to permanently absorb land, resources, etc (imperialism),
3. to take goods, plunder, temporarily.

All of these, though, come under the Board of Studies dotpoint as 'imperialism' - with the quotation marks preserved. Anyway, you should relate all the military campaigns back to imperialism because that's what imperialism traditionally is; army campaigns.