Category: Egypt

Posted on

Who were the Ancient Danites & Danaan? Part II

 

The Danaan and Danites are a mystery people for many historians. Speculated to have been Greek seafarers in the late Bronze Age, they are also closely associated with the Sea Peoples who ravaged the Eastern Mediterranean during the same period. Whoever the Danaan or Danites were, they left a conflicting legacy. Looking to the Bible and its description of ancient events leads to Greek myth, and the truth behind hidden identities.

Notice the similarities between the two names Aikupitiyo and Yakubher? Now compare that to the name Jacob found in New Testament Greek in the book of Matthew 1:2, that is rendered as “Iakob,” thus the plausibility that the name Aegyptus is a variation of the name Jacob found in the Bible becomes potentially clearer in our search of the Danaan identity.

For one name is Mycenaean with Semitic influence while the other is Egyptian with Semitic influence, and when we look to the New Testament Greek, we find a link between the two names. Thus, it is possible that both names are related due to the Semitic influence that both the Mycenaean and Egyptian cultures inherited.

The Song of Deborah

The question we must ask is did the tribe of Dan have a falling out with Jacob? The answer to that question is yes! However, before going further, understand that if we are to look at the story of two brothers, the story is partially false and partially true. The false part of the story is that Dan and Jacob were brothers; according to the Bible, Jacob was Dan’s father. However, and with that said, Dan and Jacob could be considered brothers. In other words, the tribes of Israel were all brothers to one another including the tribe of Dan.

Symbol of the Tribe of Dan (Serpent in the center) (Public Domain)

This is where the story of Danaus and Aegyptus are in relation to the Biblical account of Dan and Jacob/Israel. However, we must ask ourselves what story in the Bible can be related to Danaus and Aegyptus? For that answer, one must look to the book of Judges and focus on the famed “song of Deborah.”

A statue of prophetess Deborah in Aix-en-Provence, France. She was the only female judge mentioned in the Bible.

A statue of prophetess Deborah in Aix-en-Provence, France. She was the only female judge mentioned in the Bible. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The song of Deborah states, “Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships?” Judges 5:17. The answer to this verse is due to a man named Sisera, found in the book of Judges 5:20, whom the Israelites were at war with. Dan refused to fight and remained in his ships. Dan could either care less or was being cautious as to what was going on and the same can be said for a portion of the Manassehites living in Gilead, according to the verse.

This is where we get the story of Danaus fleeing with his daughters from his brother Aegyptus and sons. As for why Dan fled, one must look to the story of Hypermnestra and her husband Lynceus to find the answer. In this story, one will notice a similar law between the Hebrews and Greeks, and that the names Hypermnestra and Lynceus are a metaphor for places connected to the Bible.

‘The Danaides’ (1903) by John William Waterhouse.

‘The Danaides’ (1903) by John William Waterhouse. (Public Domain)

Law and Marriage

The story of how Hypermnestra allowed her husband to live may be connected to Biblical events that took place. According to Greek law, if a woman had no brothers then the next of kin was obliged to marry her so that the land her father left her stayed in the family. Aegyptus, according to Greek legend, was the brother of Danaus. Aegyptus had fifty sons, Danaus had fifty daughters. If Danaus refused to marry his daughters to his brother’s sons, the inheritance would have gone to someone else, not of the tribe. This Greek law bears great resemblance to the Hebrew law wherein if a woman had no brothers to take over the family’s lands, then she had to marry someone of her kin in order to keep the land within the family. This was also the case with Zelophehad and his five daughters found in the book of Numbers (26:33, 27:3), and in the book of Joshua (17:3).

The Daughters of Zelophehad

The Daughters of Zelophehad (Public Domain)

These five daughters were not married when Joshua presided over Israel and the land was being divided up among the chieftains. The men of Israel were concerned over this, that if these daughters did not marry, then there was a possibility that other men may take them and thus divide up the inheritance. Like the Greek story, one will notice that not only did the daughters of Danaus marry their kin, so did the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 36:11).

Besides the similarities in the law, the Greeks and Hebrews seemed to share their stories. We now focus on the names Hypermnestra and Lynceus. Hypermnestra, according to the story, was the daughter of Danaus. However, her name may be in relation to the name or place known as Gilead. The word “hyper” in Greek means over, above, or exceeding, which is similar to and may have originated from the Hebrew word Gilead. In Hebrew, Gilead can mean, hill, mound, or rugged, you could say. The word Gilead can also be considered “upper Manasseh”, and is the reason is that the land the tribe of Manasseh is allotted extends far north when one looks at a map as to where the twelve tribes of Israel were located.

Mosaic of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Mosaic of the 12 Tribes of Israel. (Public Domain) Tribe of Dan is top row, third from right.

 

Map of the twelve tribes of Israel, before the move of Dan to the North.

Map of the twelve tribes of Israel, before the move of Dan to the North. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

One will notice that part of the tribe of Manasseh dwells on the east side of Jordan River where you will find the land of Gilead if you look north. When you compare the two names’ definitions, you see that Hyper means over, as in over a river, as in the Jordan River, and above, as in hilly or mountainous region, like the region of Gilead which means hill, mound, or rugged.

Now the name Lynceus is also interesting, for the name Lynceus in Greek may be derived from lynx or leopard in association with a lion, just as the Hebrew word Laish, which is also a city of the tribe of Dan, and is said to mean “lion,”; “for Dan is a lions whelp,” (Deuteronomy 33:22). It becomes possible that the story of Hypermnestra and Lynceus is a story not about two people, but about how the tribe of Dan refused to join his brothers Jacob/Israel in their fight against Sisera. In addition, it also shows how a part of Manasseh living in Gilead near the Danite city of Laish refused to follow Jacob/Israel and thus allowed the city of Laish to live as it may. This event may have served as the story or background for the famed story of Hypermnestra and Lynceus—that Hypermnestra and Lynceus were tribal brothers and tribal allies who shared interests in opposing Jacob/Israel against Sisera. The Greeks may have viewed the alliance as a marriage, but through tribal relations, and over time the story went from two tribes related through marriage as in terms of having the same founding father, to just two people related.

With that said, it should also be noted that the story concerning Zelophehad and his daughters may have been used as a backdrop in explaining the law when the Danites made it to Greece, and over time that story transformed into the story we have today. Whatever the case maybe, it is plausible that the events and stories that took place in Israel during the time of Judges could have been passed unto the Greeks through the tribe of Dan.

Betrayal and Murder

Let us focus on the other part of the story that many find horrendous, and that is the forty-nine daughters of Danaus murdering their forty-nine husbands on the night of their wedding.

Danaus’ 49 Daughters, the Danaid.

Danaus’ 49 Daughters, the Danaid. (Public Domain)

According to myth, on the wedding night Danaus give instructions to his fifty daughters to murder their husbands. As you have already read, one daughter spared her husband’s life. However, the question that needs addressing is, is there a connection to another story found in the Bible concerning both the forty-nine daughters murdering their forty-nine husbands? According to the book of Judges and during the same time that the tribe of Dan and a part of the tribe of Manasseh turned their backs on their kin, there lived a woman named Jael. In the book of Judges 4:17-22, Jael is not a Hebrew but a Kenite. The name Kenite comes from the Hebrew word qayin, which means smith or metalworker. The Kenites were well-known metalworkers and their craftsmanship was acknowledged from the lands as far south as Arad in Negreb and as far north as Kedesh near Elon-bezaanannim in Naphtali. The Kenites were friends with those of Sisera.

As the story goes, Sisera fled, probably from a lost battle, until he reached an area were the Kenites lived, such as Jael. It was there that she offered him a place to rest his head. Once asleep, Jael killed him with a tent peg through his temple, till it came out the other side and into the ground, as the story says.

The gruesome death of Sisera at the hands of Jael.

The gruesome death of Sisera at the hands of Jael. (Public Domain)

What is fascinating about this story is that the act parallels that of the Greek myth. The only difference between the two is that the Biblical story praises Jael for a job well done and she is showered with blessings, while the Greek story paints the women who murdered their husbands at night as villains and castaways for such an act. What else becomes evident, and something already discussed, is that Dan refused to fight when Sisera arrived, but once Jael ended Sisera’s life the war ended, and the same goes for when the forty-nine daughters of Danaus murdered their husbands while they were asleep; the war between the Danaus and Aegyptus had been settled.

In conclusion, it seems fair to say that there is a possible connection to the Biblical accounts mentioned. So, let us back track briefly. Danaus=Dan, Aegyptius=Jacob, Greek law and Hebrew law on marriage and land grants are nearly the same, Hypermnestra and Lynceus are a metaphor for a people and a city allowed to live, and the women who murdered their husbands are a metaphor for Jael and her actions. It is worth looking into further as there are more scraps and tidbits of information throughout the famed Greek story. However, it will require further investigation, but what has been presented should be considered and weighed – for behind ever myth is a general truth.

If interested in such proposals concerning the Greek-Hebrew connections, see the writings of John R. Salverda.

Top Image: A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites (CC BY 2.0) and Danaus’ 49 Daughters, the Danaid. (Public Domain); Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Anonymous. The Wesleyan Sunday-School Magazine [Afterw.] the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday School Magazine. London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1873.

Cairns, Ian. Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. Black, John Sutherland. Encyclopaedia biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary political and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899-1903.

Davidiy, Yair. Lost Israelite Identity: The Hebrew Ancestory of Celtic Races. Shiloh-Hebron-Susia-Jerusalem: Russel-Davis Publishers, 1996.

—. The Tribes. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis, 2004.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Hard, Robin. he Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose’s Handbook of Greek Mythology. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hathom, Richmond Yancey. Greek Mythology. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977.

Haubrich, William S. Medical meanings: a glossary of word origins. Philadelphia: American College Of Physicians, 2003.

Killebrew, Ann and Gunnar Lehmann, The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East Vol 1: An Anthology of Text and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Rose, Herbert Jennings. A Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2005.

Salverda, John R. “The Danaans” [Online] Available at: http://ensignmessage.com/articles/the-danaans/ (accessed 3 March 2010).

Posted on

Who were the Ancient Danites & Danaan? Part I

 

The Danaan and Danites are a mystery people for many historians. Speculated to have been Greek seafarers in the late Bronze Age, they are also closely associated with the Sea Peoples who ravaged the Eastern Mediterranean during the same period. Other evidence suggests they originated somewhere along the coast of the Levant, or they were an Israelite tribe that fled with Moses during the biblical Exodus from Egypt. Whoever the Danaan or Danites were, they left a conflicting legacy.

The warriors who sacked Egypt for its spoils, or Homer’s Troy may explain the mysterious identity and origins of these people, along with the use of Greek mythologies and the Bible itself. Let us first look at the Bible and its description of the events that took place before delving into the Greek story about Danaus and Aegyptus.

Who are the Danites?

According to the Book of Genesis, Dan was the fifth son of Jacob and was mother Bilhah’s first son. He was the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Dan. In the biblical account, Dan’s mother is described as Rachel’s handmaid, who becomes one of Jacob’s wives. (Genesis 30:1-6). The tribe of Dan fled Egypt with the rest of the Israelites led by Moses during the Exodus.

The Dan tribe's serpent plate

The Dan tribe’s serpent plate (CC BY 2.0)

Afterwards, the Danites along with their Israelite brethren fought and defeated many foes, such as the Canaanites, Ammonites, Moabites and the most troublesome: the Philistines. Dan’s territorial allotment, recorded in Joshua 19:40-46, only gives a list of towns:

The seventh lot came out for the tribe of Dan according to its clans. The territory of their inheritance included:

Zorah, Eshtaol, Ir Shemesh, Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah, Elon, Timnah, Ekron, Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath, Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon, Me Jarkon and Rakkon, with the area facing Joppa.

While verses 42-46 describe settlements, verses 47-48 mention that the Danites left and “went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.” However, verses 40-48 were likely added later. The reason the author of Joshua did not describe borders but provided a list of settlements and a quick mention of their move to the north is that the borders of Dan were constantly changing due to the rift they had with the Philistines, which caused them to pack up and migrate north. However, Dan’s relationship with the Philistines may not have always been hostile.

When the Danites had settled between the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, a problem arose; their territory was too small. They could not expand north, south, or east, for that was their brethren’s territory. Therefore, they looked west but ran into another problem. Further expansion west was not possible due to the powerful city-states along the coast of southern Canaan. Because of this, the Danites were landlocked.

A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites

A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites (CC BY 2.0)

The elders of Dan sought a means to acquire more territory. However, Joshua 19:47 suggests that they were not militarily capable on their own to push out the Canaanites along the coast. While the elders probably considered asking their kin to assist them in their endeavor to expand further, the Israelite tribes around Dan had problems of their own. Because of this, they understandably refrained from any military action that could jeopardize their holdings. This would change when the Philistines arrived.

Philistines, or Peleset, captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. Circa 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III.

Philistines, or Peleset, captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu. Circa 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III. (Public Domain)

Who are the Sea Peoples?

The Philistines were of Aegean origin, possibly originating from Cyprus or Crete. They were known in Egyptian inscriptions as the Peleset, and were a part of a conjectured conglomerate of sea raiders that Egyptologist Gaston Maspero came to call Sea Peoples. They took part in a large migration/invasion towards the end of the Bronze Age.

The Danites may have joined this conglomerate. While there is no proof that they ever did, the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramses III, mention a group known as the Denyen who were defeated by his forces at the Battle of the Djahy (1179):

The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from Hatti, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa and Alashiya on, being cut off at one time. A camp was set up in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: ‘Our plans will succeed!’

Whether the Denyen were, in fact, the Biblical tribe of Dan will remain disputed. However, one could argue from a military and political perspective that the Danites did aid the Philistines against the Egyptians.

Philistine Bichrome pottery, theorized to be of Sea Peoples origin.

Philistine Bichrome pottery, theorized to be of Sea Peoples origin. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

As mentioned, the Danites allotted territory was too small. Their desire to expand was cut short because they had not the military means to go it alone. When the Philistines and company were making their way south, the Danites saw an opportunity. They joined this coalition of marauders, who were possibly led by the Philistines, in an attempt to expand territorially along the coast of southern Canaan around 1179 BCE. However, as this conglomerate made their way south, they attacked the Canaanite city-states subject to the Egyptians and took them. Afterwards, they continued south, where they engaged the Egyptian army at Djahy and were defeated.

One would think that the Egyptians would have executed or enslaved the defeated forces. Even though the Philistines lost the battle, they won the spoils. Instead, Ramses III decided that since he lost his garrison in southern Canaan, he would use the Philistines to regarrison the coastal fortified cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza—not only to secure the land but also to secure the trade route. The Philistines were assigned to govern and protect a stretch of land along the coast 40 miles long (64 km) and roughly 15 miles (24 km) wide.

Outer gate wall at Ashkelon. Original mud bricks of the outer gate structure of Philistine Ashkelon. The bricks are from the middle bronze age, roughly 4000 years ago.

Outer gate wall at Ashkelon. Original mud bricks of the outer gate structure of Philistine Ashkelon. The bricks are from the middle bronze age, roughly 4000 years ago. (Ian Scott/CC BY-SA 2.0)

While the Philistines won the land grab, the tribe of Dan during this ordeal was thwarted twice. Dan’s first setback was the defeat at Djahy (1179 BCE) by the Egyptians.

Sea Peoples in conflict with the Egyptians in the battle of Djahy.

Sea Peoples in conflict with the Egyptians in the battle of Djahy. (Public Domain)

Their second setback was that after the defeat, their allies, the Philistines, were given land and were now the allies of Egypt. With Egyptian backing, the Philistine occupation of southern Canaan denied the tribe of Dan and that of Judah any hopes to expand. Besides the Biblical account, we can look at the Greek account regarding another people who have a similar name.

Who are the Danaan?

According to the Greeks, the Danaan were a branch of what would become the Greek people over time. In Greek mythology, the Danaan originally dwelt next to the Nile River in Egypt. Their founder was a man by the name of Danaus, who was a descendant of Io.

Zeus and Io

Zeus and Io (Public Domain)

Danaus had fifty daughters, and his brother Aegyptus had fifty sons. Aegyptus wanted to marry off his fifty sons to the daughters of Danaus. Danaus gathered his daughters and fled by ship from the marriage proposal offered by his brother, and settled in a place called Argos where they found safety among the Argives. Aegyptus, furious that Danaus had fled, gathered his fifty sons and followed suit only to be repulsed by the Argives once they landed. It is said that eventually, the daughters of Danaus married their cousins—how this happened is unknown.

According to the tale, Danaus gave his daughters daggers at the wedding feast and instructed them to kill their husbands the night of the wedding.

The Danaides kill their husbands.

The Danaides kill their husbands. (Public Domain)

The daughters agreed to this very act— all except one. Her name was Hypermnestra, she was moved by pity, and thus let her husband Lynceus live. She was the only daughter to marry and have a child within her own family, and thus by Greek law, which will discuss shortly, their child inherited not only the spoils of Aegyptus but also the spoils of Danaus.

Woodcut of 49 of the Danaids killing their husbands, while Hypermnestra tells Lynceus to flee.

Woodcut of 49 of the Danaids killing their husbands, while Hypermnestra tells Lynceus to flee. (CC BY 2.0)

What is striking about this story is that it may be three stories made into one, and possibly of Hebrew origin. Let us first begin with the names Danaus and Aegyptus.

The Possible Connection

The name Danaus, which the Danaan tribes are named after, bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew tribe of Dan, and may possibly be associated with the tribe of Dan due to name and phonetic similarities. The name Aegyptus is of great interest also.

First, one must understand that the Pharaohs of Egypt did not use the term Egypt, it was the Greeks who called them Egypt or in Greek “Aigyptos”. However, it seems that the name Aigyptos was used in reference to the Nile country from which our story first takes place between Danaus and Aegyptus and not Egypt as a whole, which opens another possibility that will be discussed shortly. In addition, many of the near eastern kingdoms and small nations never used the name “Aigyptos” when referring to Egypt, either. instead, nations like Assyria/Babylonia used the terms “Mutsri,” “Musur,” and “Misir” when referring to Egypt, while the Hebrews referred to them as “Mitsrayim” or “Mizraim.” However, the Mycenaean Linear B text mentions the name Egypt/Egyptian twice: the first name is Misirayo, while the second in the text is Aikupitiyo — two names considered by modern scholars to mean the same thing. Both names have major differences, and yet no modern scholar can tell us why Egypt is referred to by these two vastly different renderings of the name.

The first name mentioned in the Linear B text, “Misiryo” is very similar and connected to the Semitic variations of the name already mentioned. However, it is the second name, Aikupitiyo, which is in dispute, since it has no connection to Egypt. Both names seem to be personal names that point to an identity. If Misiryo means “The Egyptian” then the name Aikupitiyo is alien to the land of Egypt and does not indicate that this person is Egyptian. Another solution to this person’s identity can be demonstrated.

Remember the story of Danaus and Aegyptus, both are said to be brothers, and both dwelt by the Nile; both could escape by sea as well, as in the case of Danaus fleeing with his fifty daughters, and evidently so could Aegyptius when he pursued Danaus. With that said, it seems plausible to suspect that both Danaus and Aegyptus lived in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelt. Thus, Danaus represents the Danites, and Aegyptus represents the Israelite as a whole, including the tribe of Dan, for the name Aikupitiyo could very well be a rendering of the name “Jacob”, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.

For further consideration, that the name Aikupitiyo is a rendering of Jacob, one must take notice that the name Jacob is “Ya’aqov” in Hebrew. In Ancient Egypt, a certain Hyksos ruler bears a very similar name, and that name is “Yakubher” also rendered as “Yak-Baal,” and “Yakeb-Baal”.  Notice the similarities between the two names Aikupitiyo and Yakubher? Now compare that to the name Jacob found in New Testament Greek in the book of Matthew 1:2, that is rendered as “Iakob,” thus the plausibility that the name Aegyptus is a variation of the name Jacob found in the Bible becomes potentially clearer in our search of the Danaan identity.

Top Image: A mosaic in the Jewish Quarter representing the 12 Tribes of Israel, including the Danites (CC BY 2.0)  and Philistines (Public Domain); Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Anonymous. The Wesleyan Sunday-School Magazine [Afterw.] the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday School Magazine. London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1873.

Cairns, Ian. Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. Black, John Sutherland. Encyclopaedia biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary political and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899-1903.

Davidiy, Yair. Lost Israelite Identity: The Hebrew Ancestory of Celtic Races. Shiloh-Hebron-Susia-Jerusalem: Russel-Davis Publishers, 1996.

—. The Tribes. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis, 2004.

Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Hard, Robin. he Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose’s Handbook of Greek Mythology. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hathom, Richmond Yancey. Greek Mythology. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977.

Haubrich, William S. Medical meanings: a glossary of word origins. Philadelphia: American College Of Physicians, 2003.

Killebrew, Ann and Gunnar Lehmann, The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East Vol 1: An Anthology of Text and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Rose, Herbert Jennings. A Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2005.

Salverda, John R. “The Danaans” [Online] Available at: http://ensignmessage.com/articles/the-danaans/ (accessed 3 March 2010).

Posted on

The Battle of Kadesh, a Clash of Titans (1274 BCE) – Part 2

 

The stage is set for a showdown between two giant armies – the Egyptians, with the greatest pharaoh of history, Ramses II, and the Hittites, with their impressive army and persuasive king, Muwatalli II. The bloody Battle of Kadesh would go down in history as the largest chariot battle ever fought!

The Egyptian Army and their Gods

The Egyptian army under Ramses II during the New Kingdom was a professional fighting force. The Egyptian army, like most, consisted of chariots, infantry, and archers. The Egyptians made sure that one man in ten was liable for military service. As for Egyptian units, they were named after their gods.

[Read Part I]

Each Egyptian division numbered 5,000 men subdivided into 250-man companies and 50-man platoons. The chariot, used by both the Egyptians and Hittites, was the tank of the ancient world and could not function properly upon the field of battle without infantry support. The Egyptian infantry provided the brunt of the main fighting body. The foot archers provided missile support. Chariots had a driver and an archer. Unlike a foot archer, the archer in the chariot was mobile and had a 360-degree platform to fire from, just like the Hittite chariots. A difference between the two armies was that the Egypt was much more suited for open warfare, unlike their Hittite counterparts.

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh (relief at Abu Simbel)

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh (relief at Abu Simbel) (Public Domain)

The size of the army Ramses led to Kadesh numbered 20,000, of which 16,000 were foot soldiers while the other 4,000 manned the chariots. There were two men to a chariot and the number of chariots the Egyptians brought to the battle was 2,000, requiring 4,000 horses, not to mention that additional horses and chariots were readily available. Unlike the Hittite chariots, which were built to taxi infantry around the battlefield, the Egyptian chariots were suited for speed and maneuverability. The Egyptians took the design of the Hyksos chariot and improved upon it by positioning the axle to the rear of the carrying platform, expanding the spokes in the wheel from four to six, and connecting the U-shaped joint to the yoke pole under the chariot was designed to slide left and right allowing the driver smooth rotation when on the move.

Hyksos chariot painting

Hyksos chariot painting (Public Domain)

The Battle of Kadesh

After many days, Ramses led his army to Usermare-Meriamon, the city of cedar. From here, he proceeded northward and arrived at the highland of Kadesh. Ramses, like his father, crossed over the channel of the Orontes, with the first division of Amon named: “Victory-of-King-Usermare-Setepnere.”

When Ramses reached the city, he states in the battle of Kadesh account:

Behold, the wretched, vanquished chief of Kheta (Hittites) had come, having gathered together all countries from the ends of the sea to the land of Kheta, which came entire: the Naharin likewise, and Arvad, Mesa, Keshkesh, Kelekesh, Luka, Kezweden, Carchemish, Ekereth, Kode, the entire land of Nuges, Mesheneth, and Kadesh. He left not a country which was not brought together with their chiefs who were with him, every man bringing his chariotry, an exceeding great multitude, without its like. They covered the mountains and the valleys; they were like grasshoppers with their multitudes. He left not silver nor gold in his land but he plundered it of all its possessions and gave to every country, in order to bring them with him to battle. Behold, the wretched, vanquished chief of Kheta, together with numerous allied countries, were stationed in battle array, concealed on the northwest of the city of Kadesh.

Statue of Ramses II at Luxor Temple

Statue of Ramses II at Luxor Temple (CC BY-SA 2.0)

While Ramses was alone with his bodyguard, the division of Amon was marching behind him. The division of Ra crossed over the river-bed on the south side of the town of Shabtuna, at the distance of an iter (assuming that 1 iter = 5,000 royal cubits = 2618 meters or 1.6 miles) from the division of Amon; the division of Ptah was on the south of the city of Aranami; and the division of Sutekh was marching upon the road.

Egyptian relief dating to Ramesses II's reign, depicting Kadesh garrisoned by Hittites and surrounded by the Orontes River.

Egyptian relief dating to Ramesses II’s reign, depicting Kadesh garrisoned by Hittites and surrounded by the Orontes River. (Public Domain)

According to the account:

Ramses had formed the first rank of all the leaders of his army, while they were on the shore in the land of the Amor. Behold, the wretched vanquished chief of Kheta (Hittites) was stationed in the midst of the infantry which was with him, and he came not out to fight, for fear of his majesty. Then he made to go the people of the chariotry, an exceedingly numerous multitude like the sand, being three people to each span. Now, they had made their combinations thus: among every three youths was one man of the vanquished of Kheta, equipped with all the weapons of battle. Lo, they had stationed them in battle array, concealed on the northwest the city of Kadesh.

The Hittite forces rushed forth from the tree line on the southern side of Kadesh, and cut right through the division of Ra, exposing the Egyptian right flank. This caused many of the Egyptian infantry and chariotry to retreat in panic and slam right into the Amon division led by Ramses, which he had halted on the north of the city of Kadesh, on the western side of the Orontes. After the Hittite chariots had punched their way through the Ra division, they swung back towards the plains of Kadesh from which they headed northeast to attack Ramses’ encampment. Even though some Hittite units were able to penetrate the camp, many were knocked off their chariots and slain by Ramses’ bodyguard. While Ramses and his men put up a valiant effort, they had to abandon the camp/fort. The Hittite soldiers had a field day looting the camp.

While the Hittites were busy looting the camp, Ramses rushed to his chariot and quickly took off without his bodyguard. It is said that when he rushed in he defeated the thousands of chariots that surrounded him:

His majesty (Ramses) halted in the rout; then he charged into the foe, the vanquished of Kheta, being alone by himself and none other with him. When his majesty went to look behind him, he found 2,500 chariotry surrounding him, in his way out, being all the youth of the wretched Kheta, together with its numerous allied countries.

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit (CC BY 2.0); Deriv

While this is obviously dismissed as legend and exaggeration, there may be some truth to this. Understand that Ramses’ men panicked and fled. After seeing him take on the Hittites, his troops regained their courage and the remaining chariot reserves in the camp rallied and pressed on the attack. The Egyptian chariots left the east gate before turning northwest and nailed the Hittite flank that was busy looting. Ramses’ attack on the heavy Hittite chariots dislodged and threw many of them into confusion, because not only did the remaining Egyptian charioteer units rejoin the battle, so did the infantry.

Model of chariots at the Battle of Kadesh.

Model of chariots at the Battle of Kadesh. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Seeing Ramses and his forces pressing a counter-attack, Muwatalli took up his remaining forces, which were roughly 1,000 chariots. They forded the Orontes River north of Kadesh and swung south in an attempt to flank Ramses.

Illustration, The great Ramses II in the Battle of Khadesh

Illustration, The great Ramses II in the Battle of Khadesh (Public Domain)

However, Muwatalli had an unforeseen problem. As he was making his way towards Ramses’ forces, the reformed Egyptian forces (perhaps allied mercenary forces summoned by Ramses) and the third Egyptian division, the Sutekh, approaching from the south. If Muwatalli could not regain control of his men and the battle, he would soon face the hammer and anvil and it sure seemed that way, for Ramses decide to cease further pursuit of the fleeing Hittites and join up with the Sutekh division. Ramses had no worries about the fleeing Hittites, for they were between his forces and the river. Muwatalli saw that Ramses and his forces turned north towards his relief force. The Hittite relief force had no chance. They were cut down and destroyed. Muwatalli and his remaining forces fled the field of battle and headed south past Kadesh and crossed the Orontes. Of all the Egyptian divisions that fought, one arrived late to the battle and that was the Ptah division.

The Aftermath – Victory For All?

The casualties and losses at the battle of Kadesh remain unknown. As for the victor, Ramses states:

His majesty being powerful, his heart stout, none could stand before him. All his territory was ablaze with fire, and he burned every foreign country with his hot breath, his eyes savage when he saw them, and his might flared up like fore against them. He took no note of millions of foreigners, he regarded them as chaff. Then His majesty entered into the host of the Hatti enemies….and His Majesty killed the entire host of the Wretched Fallen One of Hatti, together with his great chiefs and all his brothers, as well as all the chiefs of all the countries who had come with him, their infantry and their chariotry being fallen upon their faces, one upon another, and His Majesty slaughtered and slew them in their places, they sprawling before his horse and His Majesty being along, none other with him. (Kadesh)

It is understandable that Ramses saw Kadesh as a victory. But Muwatalli also saw Kadesh as a victory. The Hittite records state, “Muwatalli took the field against the king of Egypt and the country of Amurru and…defeated the king of Egypt and the country of Amurru.”

Western outer wall: showing Qadesh battle, Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos, Egypt.

Western outer wall: showing Qadesh battle, Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos, Egypt. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

So, who won the battle? The answer is no one. Kadesh was a stalemate. But if one wants to be technical, one could argue that Egypt had a moral victory only possible due to their new military technology in charioteering. However, while the battle was a draw, Muwatalli may have been the true victor even in defeat. Muwatalli was long-term victor due to his territorial acquisition at Egypt’s expense. The reason for this is that Muwatalli was able to confiscate more land south and extend his sphere of influence further. In doing so, the Hittite sphere of influence had left Egypt only in control of Canaan.

Overall, the battle of Kadesh from a military point of view was an Egyptian victory, as they displayed for future readers Egypt’s new military technology (a new type of chariot) but one can also find the personal bravery of Ramses II. If Ramses had a “Go to Hell Plan to Survive the Next Crises”, he used it that day at Kadesh. While Muwatalli and his force were defeated, he did win in the game of “go” by using the fewest number of pieces to acquire the most amount of territory at Egypt’s expense. However one looks at it, Kadesh provided the first detailed account of a battle in recorded history. Because of this, one can learn much from this battle and compare the tactics, strategies, logistics, and international relations.

The victory at Kadesh is left to the eye of the beholder.

 

Top Image: Ramses II at his chariot falls upon the Nubians (CC BY 2.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East

Brian Todd Carey, Warfare in the Ancient World

Carolyn R. Higginbotham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine

John Coleman Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest During Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty

Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age

Richard A. Gabriel , The Great Armies of Antiquity

Thomas Harrison, The Great Empires of the Ancient World

Posted on

The Battle of Kadesh, a Clash of Titans (1274 BCE) – Part I

 

Many believe Ramses II (1303-1213 BCE) is the most celebrated, powerful, and greatest pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire. It is not hard to see why. The battle of Kadesh would immortalize Ramses II in our history books.

A Patient Warrior

Ramses was born in a very successful and well trained military family. His grandfather, Ramses I and his great-grandfather, Seti, had both been commanders in the field. Ramses first taste of action began as a teenager when he accompanied his father Seti I on a military campaign against Libya.

Pharaoh Ramesses II. Statue in the Torino Museum.

Pharaoh Ramesses II. Statue in the Torino Museum. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Ramses II took the throne in 1279 BCE, and just two years into his reign a sea people known as the Sherden started attacking Egyptian cargo ships. Ramses, understanding that it was useless to go after them in the open sea with his own ships, decided to lay out a trap by placing lucrative items along strategic areas along the coast. By enticing them, he hoped to lure them in before striking. When they took the bait, Ramses forces struck and decisively defeated the enemy. This battle shows Ramses used patience and stealth as his strategic and tactical weapons—both of which he would demonstrate at the battle of Kadesh.

Kadesh was a city located in the northern Levant (Syria) near or on the Orontes River. The Battle of Kadesh is regarded as the earliest battle recorded in great detail. The battle of Kadesh pitted two great empires against each other: Egypt, led by Ramses II, and the Hittite Empire, led by Muwatalli II. The reason for this soon-to-be confrontation was due to Thutmose III’s victory over Megiddo in 1457 BCE which also included the taking of Kadesh. This gave Egypt a sphere of influence that stretched far into northern Levant and Mesopotamia, giving the Egyptians access to the lucrative trade routes.

Politicking and New Kings

A century later, the Hittite King Suppiluliuma (1344-1322) continued the honor the agreement with Egypt as to where the line was drawn. But when the king of Kadesh by the name of Shuttarna (Shutatarra) decided to attack him, Suppiluliuma had no choice but to retaliate. The result was a Hittite victory. The king and the leading citizens were sent into captivity. It is interesting that the Egyptians showed little interest. Suppiluliuma placed the defeated king’s son, Aitakkama on the throne of Kadesh. Aitakkama swore his allegiance to Suppiluliuma and became a Hittite vassal.

Statue attributed as Suppiluliuma.

Statue attributed as Suppiluliuma. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

King Aitakkama probably saw the Hittites as a much greater ally, since the Egyptians did not come to the aid of his father. Aitakkama took advantage of this situation (as Egypt appeared to be weak), by making alliances with the regional kings, particularly the King Aziru of the Amurru. He did so in order to expand his own territory. It would be naive to think the Egyptians brushed it off. Rather, they felt troubled, as it threatened their trade and security.

In his teens, Pharaoh Tutankhamen saw to it to restore Egyptian supremacy in the Levant by attacking Kadesh. Once Tutankhamen had taken Kadesh, Mursili wrote to his father Suppiluliuma, “Egyptian troops and chariots came to the land of Kinza, which my father had conquered, and attacked the land of Kinza (Kadesh)”. The Hittites were facing much pressure not from just Egypt, but also from the Mittani as well, not to mention that Assyria was becoming a much stronger entity in the region. Suppiluliuma sent troops to retake Kadesh and they reported back, “they went to attack Amka (the land where Kadesh is located) and brought civilian captives, cattle and sheep back to my father.”

The Pharaoh Tutankhamen destroying his enemies

‘The Pharaoh Tutankhamen destroying his enemies’ (Public Domain)

This military intelligence report does not sound like a victory. Moreover, no victory or defeat is mentioned, which leaves one wondering. What could be said is that even though the Egyptians did retake Kadesh— at what price? In other words, even though they now controlled Kadesh how much did they really control, not only territorially but more important politically throughout the regions? Just because they controlled a crucial city did not mean they had a firm grip to ward off any contenders or catch the ears of potential allies.

The Death of Tutankhamen Spells Disaster for Empires

While the division between Egypt and the Hittites remained, the Hittite King Suppiluliuma defeated the Hurrians, and he turned to besiege Carchemish. However, as if the gods favored the Hittites, Pharoah Tutankhamen died. The boy king was now dead and his wife/half-sister Ankhesenamen (Ankhesenamun) was still alive.

Statue of an unknown Amarna-era princess. New Kingdom, Amarna period, 18th dynasty, circa 1345 BC

Statue of an unknown Amarna-era princess. New Kingdom, Amarna period, 18th dynasty, circa 1345 BC (CC BY-SA 3.0)

According to Mursili II he states, “When the people of Egypt heard of the attack on Amka, they were afraid. And since their lord Nibhururiya (Tutankhamen) had just died, the Queen of Egypt who was the king’s wife sent a messenger to my father.”

Queen Ankhesenamen’s message to Suppiluliuma stated, “My husband had died, and I have no sons, he will become my husband. I do not wish to choose a subject of mine and make him my husband…I am afraid.” Suppiluliuma was beside himself after reading such a letter: “Nothing like this has happened to me in my entire life!” This is rather strange for both parties.

On the one hand, you have Egypt that views outsiders as inferior and on the other hand, you have Suppiluliuma whose family is about to inherit the Egyptian Empire. This was hard to believe. It is understandable that Suppiluliuma was cautious—who wouldn’t be? Therefore, he decided to question the envoys who brought the letters. In doing so, he lost the keys to the Egyptian Empire, because he took far too long with the investigation. He did send a son by the name of Zannanza. However, Zannanza died en route to Egypt. Some say he was murdered. With the death of Zannanza went the unification of empires. With no deal established the tensions continued throughout the Levant.

From the time that the possible unification of empires fell through until Ramses II took the throne, Egypt did have a phase where Pharaohs Ramesses I and Seti I campaigned in Levant with success by recapturing long-lost land of the Amurru –  and to do that one must control the city of Kadesh. However, much of this was lost again during this time, perhaps under the reign of Seti I. How much was ultimately lost remains unknown. What is known is that Egypt’s sphere of influence had backtracked enough to cause an alarm during Ramses II reign.

Calm before the Storm

In year four of Ramses II’s reign, he led men up the coast of the Levant where his troops were active in Byblos and Beirut. His forces never encountered the Hittites during this expedition. Afterwards, he had a stela created to commemorate the campaign in the region.

Stela of ramose. Ramesses II smites his enemies (limestone, deir el-Medineh) Representative image.

Stela of ramose. Ramesses II smites his enemies (limestone, deir el-Medineh) Representative image. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

However, Muwatalli II, king of the Hittite Empire, did not like this. Muwatalli did not see this as an act of “saber rattling” but an act of war. Even though Ramses did not break any treaties, the fact that he was willing to make his presence known so close to the Hittite sphere of influence was a cause for alarm. There is no doubt that some of the regional mini-kingdoms walked the fence between inaction and swearing allegiance to the stronger empire. Muwatalli felt that Ramses was seeking to reestablish Egyptian authority throughout the region.

It was possible—but it’s a stretch – that perhaps when Muwatalli was informed on the size of the Egyptian force, he may have felt that the Egyptians were weak and ripe for attack. In other words, if Ramses was seeking to intimidate the Hittites with the small number of troops accompanying him, maybe he was weak.  In the end, it may have been all of the above, but the likely reason is that Ramses made his presence known. Therefore, Muwatalli mustered his massive army during the winter.

Muwatalli made it known that war was on and that Kadesh would be the battle location. Remember, whoever controlled the city would have an easier time conquering the Amurru region, as mentioned. The following year, Ramses began to assemble his forces throughout March and April at the city of Pi Ramasses.

A Capable Hittite Military with their Influential Leader

The army Muwatalli led was rather large for a traditional Hittite force, which was roughly between 17,000-20,000 men. This indicates that Muwatalli was a fine politician in that he was able to convince so many of his vassals to contribute to the war effort, along with making treaties of mutual assistance with the city-states of Syria.

Depiction of Muwatalli II on a relief at Sirkeli Höyük, Turkey. (Public Domain)

When it came to the Hittite army organization, they relied on a decimal system, like most. They utilized chariots that received support from the infantry, and the archers supported the infantry; All of which shared the same organizational structure with squads of ten, companies of ten squads, and battalions of ten companies. Infantry deployed for battle in companies 10 men wide and 10 men deep, with battalions standing with 100-man fronts, 10 men deep.

Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian relief.

Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian relief. (Public Domain)

When it came to the dominant aspect of the Hittite army it was its massive phalanx formation of spearmen, who were supported by archers and light infantry. Besides using horses to pull the chariots, they did use them to deliver messages during the imperial period. As for the light infantry, they also were armed with bows and were known as “troops of Sutu.” They were used for quick maneuvering. In other words, speed was essential to hit and run, ambush and reconnaissance.

Unlike the Egyptians, which shall be discussed shortly, the Hittite infantry was much more flexible when it came to arms and equipment and tactical deployment. Understand that the Hittite warrior traversed and fought on Anatolian terrain that was rough, mountainous, and wooded. The commanders of these men understood what was and what was not needed when it came to weapons and armor due to the terrain and the enemy they were about to engage. If something changed among the enemy ranks, the commanders were able to reequip what men he thought would not only benefit from but also be most effective with weapons when confronting the enemy in question.

Map of Syria in the second millennium BC, showing the location of Kadesh (Qadesh)

Map of Syria in the second millennium BC, showing the location of Kadesh (Qadesh). (Public Domain)

As noted, the size of the army Muwatalli led to Kadesh is suggested to have numbered roughly between 17,000-20,000 soldiers. However, some propose that Muwatalli led a much large force, numbering as great as 50,000. While this is possible, it is unlikely. Hittite chariots required three men to a chariot. If the Hittites had between 2,500-3,700 chariots at Kadesh then the number of men required to operate those chariots was 9,000-11,000 along with 5,000-7,400 horses.

Battle chariot, Carchemish, 9th century BC; Late Hittite style with Assyrian influence.

Battle chariot, Carchemish, 9th century BC; Late Hittite style with Assyrian influence. (CC BY 2.0)

If the numbers are correct, then Muwatalli had something between 9-11k foot soldiers. It seems difficult to believe, but understand that the Hittite chariots, unlike the Egyptian chariots, were not built for speed and maneuverability. Rather, they served as a battlefield taxi for mobile infantry, like a modern day armored personnel carrier. They had four spokes instead of six like the Egyptians. In addition, the axle was placed in the middle of the chariot in order to compensate for the weight of men which drastically reduced its speed.

This impressive force would be matched against he who is regarded as the greatest and most powerful pharaoh of the Egyptian Empire; Ramesses II and his professional fighting force.

Top Image: Relief, Ramses II among the Gods – Abydos 1275 BC (CC BY 2.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East

Brian Todd Carey, Warfare in the Ancient World

Carolyn R. Higginbotham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine

John Coleman Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest During Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty

Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age

Richard A. Gabriel , The Great Armies of Antiquity

Thomas Harrison, The Great Empires of the Ancient World

Posted on

The Battle of Megiddo—Part II

 

Pharaoh Thutmose III pushed his 12,000-strong army towards the banks of the Orontes River. His scribe, Tjaneni, kept a daily journal in order to have the Pharaoh’s military exploits inscribed by his artisans on the walls of Amun-Re’s temple at Karnak. The men lay siege to the coalition of Canaanites led by the King of Kadesh. What lay in store for the citizens of Megiddo?

Thutmose decided to take the direct route that the King of Kadesh would not expect—the main road. While Canaanite scouts waited to report back after seeing the Egyptian army, Thutmose knew that if he did not take these routes, the advisors of the King of Kadesh would think that he had gone on another road “because he is afraid of us?’ So they will say.”

Upholding Oaths and Leading Men into Danger

Some of the Egyptian officials became concerned with this. The direct route to Megiddo was not the best plan of action and his officers and men grew so wary of the endeavor that Thutmose stated: “Your valiant lord will guide your steps on this road which becomes narrow.” For his majesty had taken an oath, saying: “I shall not let my valiant army go before me from this place!”  Afterwards, Thutmose, before his army, showed strength by leading the forces himself for every “man was informed of his order of march, horse following horse, with his majesty at the head of his army.”

Bust of Thutmosis III

Bust of Thutmosis III (Public Domain)

On day 19, the Egyptian army came out of the pass. Thutmose was still leading the way at the head of his army, which was “grouped in many battalions, without meeting a single enemy”. Their southern wing was at Taanach, and their northern wing on the north side of the Qlna valley. Then his majesty called to them: “——— they are fallen!  The wretched enemy —— Amun——–.  Give praise to him, extol the might of his majesty, for his strength is greater than ——-.” There was much concern, and rightfully so, concerning the rear (since that is where much of the supplies are located) as it was slowly making its way forward with the army. After confirming that the rear was secured, the elite vanguard came into the Qina valley and stated: “Lo, his majesty has come out with his valiant troops and they fill the valley. May our valiant lord listen to us this time. May our lord watch for us the rearguard of his army with its people. When the rearguard has come out to us in the open, then we shall fight against those foreigners; then we shall not be concerned about the rearguard of our army!” Thutmose III halted in the open.

Afterwards, the Pharaoh watched his troops march into camp until all had arrived. Thutmose and his forces sat south of Megiddo, on the shore of the Qina brook. After the camp had been prepared, Thutmose sent word to his officers to inform the troops that they should prepare. “Make your weapons ready! For one will engage in combat with that wretched foe in the morning; for one ———.” He rested in the royal camp, giving provisions to the officers, rations to the attendants. He said to the watch of the army: “Steadfast, steadfast! Vigilant, vigilant!” Finally, one came to tell his majesty: “The region is safe, and so are the troops of the south and the north.”

The Fierce Battle: ‘The fear of his majesty had entered their bodies’

On day 21, the Egyptians were celebrating by feasting during the new moon. However, the feasting would soon end as Thutmose appeared and gave instruction. “An order was given to the whole army to pass —.  His majesty set out on a chariot of fine gold, decked in his shining armor like strong-armed Horus, lord of action, like Mont of Thebes, his father Amun strengthening his arm.”

Thutmose had the southern wing of his forces on a hill south of the Qina brook, and the northern wing to the northwest of Megiddo, while Thutmose himself was in the center.

What can be made of this battle from recorded details is that at dawn the Egyptian forces pushed out with the infantry on the right to stand their ground behind the steep banks of the Kina Brook, while the rest of the army struck the center and left. By doing this, Thutmose pinned the Canaanite forces against their own camp. One could say that he cut them in half in order to effectively deal with them.

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit

Egyptian driving chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit (CC BY 2.0)

Understand that when Thutmose attacked the center, he drove a wedge down the middle; this allowed his left wing to push that portion of the enemy’s left wing right into jaws of Thutmose’s center. This, in turn, allowed both the center and left wing to go ahead and push on into the right wing of the enemy, causing total mayhem throughout the ranks.

The Egyptians in their attack used a steady barrage of arrows as the left wing of the Egyptian infantry made their way in, being protected by archers and the devastating charge of Thutmose’s chariots. The Egyptian chariots during this battle acted as ancient tanks due to their weight, speed, and that they carried an archer who could fire arrows from a platform that gave him 360 degrees.

The enemy had stood at the most likely paths of attack, leaving their middle exposed. This led to a quick routing.

In the end, the Egyptian army did not pursue the fleeing Canaanite soldiers. Those who survived fled behind the safe walls of Megiddo. Thutmose and his forces decide that enough was enough and that it was time to celebrate on the enemy’s dime.

Diorama of Egyptian in Chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit

Diorama of Egyptian in Chariot, Crossroads of Civilization exhibit (CC BY 2.0)

“Then his majesty overwhelmed them at the head of his army. When they saw his majesty overwhelming them, they fled headlong to Megiddo with faces of fear, abandoning their horses, their chariots of gold and silver, so as to be hoisted up into the town by pulling at their garments. For the people had shut the town behind them, and they now lowered garments to hoist them up into the town. Now if his majesty’s troops had not set their hearts to plundering the possessions of the enemies, they would have captured Megiddo at this moment, when the wretched foe of Kadesh and the wretched foe of this town were being pulled up hurriedly so as to admit them into their town. For the fear of his majesty had entered their bodies, and their arms sank as his diadem overwhelmed them.”

Egyptian chariot, accompanied by a cheetah and archer

Egyptian chariot, accompanied by a cheetah and archer (Public Domain)

“Then their horses were captured, and their chariots of gold and silver became an easy prey. Their ranks were lying stretched out on their backs like fish in the bight of a net, while his majesty’s valiant army counted their possessions. Captured was the tent of that wretched foe, which was worked with silver ——–. Then the entire army jubilated and gave praise to Amun for the victory he had given to his son on that day. They lauded his majesty and extolled his victory. Then they presented the plunder they had taken: hands, living prisoners, horses, chariots of gold and silver and of painted work.”

The Plunder of Megiddo

Aerial view of Megiddo (Tel Megiddo, Levant)

Aerial view of Megiddo (Tel Megiddo, Levant) (CC BY-SA 3.0)

While Thutmose and his forces celebrated, he knew that his opportunity to crush the Canaanite coalition was not going to happen unless he besieged and took Megiddo. After the drinking and eating were over, Thutmose surrounded Megiddo. Thutmose made it clear to his officers that “the capture of Megiddo is the capture of a thousand towns! Grasp firmly, firmly!” Thutmose understood the economic and military benefits that Megiddo would award the Egyptians. Once the siege began, Thutmose made it clear to his officers that they “provide for their soldiers and to let every man know his place. They measured the town, surrounded (it) with a ditch, and walled (it) up with fresh timber from all their fruit trees.” Not a sole could escape the wall built by the Egyptians. The siege lasted for seven months before the people of Megiddo surrendered.

While the city and citizens were spared, for the most part, it was open season on possessions— the spoils of war. The defeated enemy leaders were forced to send a son to Egypt, where they were raised and educated as Egyptians. Once they were returned, they governed with Egyptian background and sympathies. The victory at Megiddo was the beginning of several battles which crushed the rebellion.

Model of Megiddo, 1457 BCE

Model of Megiddo, 1457 BCE (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Now the princes of this foreign land came on their bellies to kiss the ground to the might of his majesty, and to beg breath for their nostrils, because of the greatness of his strength and the extent of the power of Amun over all foreign lands. ——–, all the princes captured by his majesty’s might bearing their tribute of silver, gold, lapis lazuli, and turquoise, and carrying grain, wine, and large and small cattle for his majesty’s army; one group among them bore tribute on the journey south. Then his majesty appointed the rulers anew for every town ——.

Replica of Canaanite Temple at Megiddo

Replica of Canaanite Temple at Megiddo (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The amount of booty brought forth to Thutmose was staggering. The Annals list:

Living prisoners: 340

Hands: 83

Horses: 2,041

Foals: 191

Stallions: 6. Colts: —

One chariot of that foe worked in gold, with a pole of gold

One fine chariot of the prince of Megiddo, worked in gold

Chariots of the allied princes: 30

Chariots of his wretched army: 892, Total: 924

One fine bronze coat of mail belonging to that enemy

One fine bronze coat of mail belonging to the prince of Megiddo

Leather-coats of mail belonging to his wretched army: 200

Bows: 502

Poles of mry-wood worked with silver from the tent of that enemy: 7

And the army of his majesty had captured cattle belonging to this town —— : 387

Cows: 1,929

Goats: 2,000

Sheep: 20,500

Victory stela of pharaoh Thutmose III, from Jebel Barkal, temple of Amen. Made of granite, from the 18th dynasty, circa 1490-1436 B.C. Erected during his 47th regnal year (roughly 1443 BC) marking his kingdom's southern boundary. 50 lines of hieroglyphs mark his campaigns in Naharin, the Battle of Megiddo, an elephant hunt, a royal speech, and more.

Victory stela of pharaoh Thutmose III, from Jebel Barkal, temple of Amen. Made of granite, from the 18th dynasty, circa 1490-1436 B.C. Erected during his 47th regnal year (roughly 1443 BC) marking his kingdom’s southern boundary. 50 lines of hieroglyphs mark his campaigns in Naharin, the Battle of Megiddo, an elephant hunt, a royal speech, and more. (CC BY 3.0)

But wait there’s more. Here’s a list of what was carried off afterward by Thutmose:

The household goods of the enemy of Yanoam, Inuges, and Herenkeru, together with the property of’the towns that had been loyal to him which were captured by the might of his majesty ——-

Maryan-warriors belonging to them: 38

Children of that enemy and of the princes with him: 84

Maryan-warriors belonging to them: 5

Male and female slaves and their children: 1,796

Pardoned persons who had come out from that enemy because of hunger: 103, Total: 2,503

As for the expensive bowls of costly stone and gold, and various vessels:

One large Jay of Syrian workmanship. Jars, bowls, plates, various drinking vessels, large kettles, knives: [x+] 17, making 1,784 deben

Gold in disks skillfully crafted, and many silver disks, making 966 deben and 1 kite

A silver statue ——. ——- with a head of gold

Walking sticks with human heads: 3

Carrying chairs of that enemy of ivory, ebony, and ssndm-wood worked with gold: 6

Footstools belonging to them: 6

Large tables of ivory and ssndm-wood: 6

One bed of ssndm-wood worked with gold and all costly stones in the manner of a krkr, belonging to that enemy, worked with gold throughout

A statue of ebony of that enemy worked with gold with a head of lapis lazuli. ——–, bronze vessels and much clothing of that enemy

Moreover, if that was not enough, many of the fields were “made into plots and assigned to royal inspectors in order to reap their harvest.”

Thutmose III’s exploits are recorded in the Annals, inscribed into stone at Karnak. Thutmose III smiting his enemies.

Thutmose III’s exploits are recorded in the Annals, inscribed into stone at Karnak. Thutmose III smiting his enemies. (Public Domain)

Overall, the Battle of Megiddo secured Egypt the right to control and dictate southern Canaan and extended its frontier to the Orontes River in Syria. Furthermore, they now had a safe passage from which their troops could run up and down the land bridge that connected Asia with Africa and control the flow of trade that was both being imported and exported.

Thutmose III was indeed Egypt’s Napoleon.

Top Image: Thutmosis III statue (Public Domain) and Ancient Egyptian military in battle (Public Domain); Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. 2013.

Gabriel, Richard A. Thutmose III: A Military Biography of Egypt’s Greatest Warrior King. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2009.

Pritchard, James B., and William Foxwell Albright. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. [Princeton]: Princeton University Press, 1958.