posted
Personally, I think that AE civilization is still smoldering rather than extinguished, just awaiting a new "unification" to bloom again...
But--what do you think was the root cause of the downfall of ancient Egypt? And what do you consider the final downfall? (...e.g. The Ptolemaic period? The rise of Christianity?)
Of course, the influx of foreign conquerors was the main cause -- but what made the Kemetans vulnerable?
Any opinions?
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 11 July 2004).]
Posts: 237 | From: New York, NY, USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite what damage was done to the Kemetians during the Christain era, the culture of AE never vanished into thin air. The writting only vanished but the pratices still remained amung the peasents in Upper Egypt. Much like today things have seldom changed in Upper Egypt and still continue many partices that go back to pharoanic times. The culture just went underground and transformed into what it is today.
Despite the fact the temples are no longer used for whorship,hieroglypic writting is gone,and what remains is synchrionized with Islamic pratices. The borders of modern and ancient Egypt have stayed fairly the same.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a cultural/political & national system Kemet was one of the longest lasting in history from Menes to Cleopatra, a good 3000 years.
Perhaps cultures and nations are like individuals and even species...mortal, and not meant to last forever. What lives is Kemet's gifts to world civilization and that will last as long as human beings do.
Or, I suppose you can give simple answers.... Rome conquered Egypt, turn the page....the Germans conquered Rome....turn the page. And so on.
posted
Even when the Greco-Romans conquerored the massaes they never interupted with traditional pratices. Pharoanic traditions continued on and still do even to this day in rural areas. By the time of the New Kingdom most of the whorship by commoners were private insitutions.
You can also say that the Sufi sheikh in modern Egypt took the place of the priest in the temple.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote: Originally posted by sunstorm2004: But--what do you think was the root cause of the downfall of ancient Egypt? And what do you consider the final downfall? (...e.g. The Ptolemaic period? The rise of Christianity?)
Egypt Pharaonic system, was such that the power was up for grabs for whomever had the strength to seize it. Some rulers where able to keep the dynasty going longer than others. The stability of each dynasty also depended on the sentiment of ordinary Egyptians, and notably the Priests. While there had been brief interruptions (e.g. Hyksos) in the "native" Egyptian rule, Egyptian/Nubian rule continued successfully from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period. In the late periods, as other civilizations namely, the Persians, Greeks and Romans, developed their military strength, Egypt was constantly attacked by these foreigners. In fact there was a time, particularly the 30th dynasty when the Egyptians were attacked by both the Greeks and Persians at the same time. However, the Egyptian Pharaohs of that dynasty, were stable enough and strong enough to defeat the foreigners. The final true Egyptian Pharaoh came about with the death of Nectanebo II. Given the nature of the Pharaonic rule, this was when the Persians were able to grab power. After that, Egypt saw a relatively "dark" period. It is noteworthy, that most of the Egyptian ruled periods marked stability and progressiveness in art, technology, etc. Various foreign rule have threatened these developments. Nevertheless, the foreign rulers adopted the "tried and proven" Egyptian political system, which was well organized. So the root cause of decline of Egyptian domination was the rivalry between the Egyptians and other empires which increasingly became a menace as they developed their military strength. While Egypt was still independent, the foreign rule after the 30th dynasty marked the decline of Dynastic Egypt. The Persian rule, was the beginning of the downfall, with the way they stirred up revolts and strikes by ordinary Egyptians and lack of progressiveness with their "iron-fist" type of rule. The social upheaval that followed, made it easier for the Greek to take power. Again, pretty much like today, social sentiment and internal administrative measures was key to stability of any ruling dynasty.
quote: Posted by keino: Of course, the influx of foreign conquerors was the main cause -- but what made the Kemetans vulnerable?
You are right about the influx of foreign conquerors being the main cause, and I have pointed this out in detail above. This ties to question of what made the Kemetians vulnerable. The Kemetians were vulnerable by simply being powerful. As other civilizations grew, they wanted to expand their territories to have monopoly over trade and resources. This would only come about, if the territories under Egyptian domination were taken, and then to make sure the Egyptians (dominant power then) were no longer powerful enough to reclaim those lost territories. From there, one could expand to other regions, and at same time keep potential rivals on check. This was the case when the Greeks took over, and when they were taken over by the Romans. This is still true in our modern society, where powerful nations do everything in their power to keep other nations under their spheres of influence, and at the same time keep an eye on potential rivals. In some cases, they even resort to outright territorial occupation or colonialism. For example, the U.S never directly went to war with Soviet Union, but kept an eye on that nation. The U.S. and Soviet Union had their spheres of influence, and in certain cases maintained colonial occupation. The social upheaval in Soviet Union eventually put an end to this rivalry, but the situation is still the same. The U.S. is keeping an eye on it's potential rivals in West Europe and Asia (China, Japan, Iran, N. Korea), while maintaining occupation in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Like the Egyptians, and others that followed, the U.S. is vulnerable because of its power, and its quest to maintain that power. If history proves anything, no empire remains forever. But I think that the next empire will be of a different nature, and not one of "single or two nation" domination. Only time will tell!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 11 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by sunstorm2004: Personally, I think that AE civilization is still smoldering rather than extinguished, just awaiting a new "unification" to bloom again...
But--what do you think was the root cause of the downfall of ancient Egypt? And what do you consider the final downfall? (...e.g. The Ptolemaic period? The rise of Christianity?)
Of course, the influx of foreign conquerors was the main cause -- but what made the Kemetans vulnerable?
Any opinions?
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 11 July 2004).]
Old age!!! The poor girl just went to sleep. She'll come back. She always has... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, already by the 21st dyansty political division was held between Upper and Lower Egypt. The Upper Egyptians were almost strictly ruled by Amun priest;while the Delta area was ruled by a series of rulers that were somehow connected back to the Ramesseside era. In the Egyptian story The Tales of Wenamun we see that Amun priest had much more control over Byblos than did the offical of Wenamun in the north. Apparently the authority of Egypt by this time was no longer respected by their foregin provinces.
Fragmentation already existed in Egypt before the series of foregin invasions. As I mentioned before the assorted rulers when conquering Egypt intergrated the culture into their own. Not untill the Roman era we see blatant disrepect of traditional Egyptian pratices which is mainly due to the advent of Christainty.
Contrary to what history books on Egypt say,the last pharoah was not Nectanebo II,but actually a series of pharoahs after ruled from Upper Egypt. During the Ptolomeic period a great series of wars happened in Upper Egypt with indigenous Upper Egyptians resisting the rulership. Each of these people are ruled by an independent pharoah. Not untill much later do we see such insitution vanish.
In conclusion,what seemed to bring downfall fo AE soceity was the lack of balance with priests and commoners. Egyptian would have also lasted much longer if they had a standing military besides the pressence of foregin mercenaries. Another contributing downfall might have been limitied education which was reserved only for the elite Egyptians instead of the commoners.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Actually, already by the 21st dyansty political division was held between Upper and Lower Egypt. The Upper Egyptians were almost strictly ruled by Amun priest;while the Delta area was ruled by a series of rulers that were somehow connected back to the Ramesseside era. In the Egyptian story The Tales of Wenamun we see that Amun priest had much more control over Byblos than did the offical of Wenamun in the north. Apparently the authority of Egypt by this time was no longer respected by their foregin provinces.
Fragmentation already existed in Egypt before the series of foregin invasions. As I mentioned before the assorted rulers when conquering Egypt intergrated the culture into their own. Not untill the Roman era we see blatant disrepect of traditional Egyptian pratices which is mainly due to the advent of Christainty.
Contrary to what history books on Egypt say,the last pharoah was not Nectanebo II,but actually a series of pharoahs after ruled from Upper Egypt. During the Ptolomeic period a great series of wars happened in Upper Egypt with indigenous Upper Egyptians resisting the rulership. Each of these people are ruled by an independent pharoah. Not untill much later do we see such insitution vanish.
In conclusion,what seemed to bring downfall fo AE soceity was the lack of balance with priests and commoners. Egyptian would have also lasted much longer if they had a standing military besides the pressence of foregin mercenaries. Another contributing downfall might have been limitied education which was reserved only for the elite Egyptians instead of the commoners.
How about a Nectanebo II being the ruler of a somewhat unified Egypt? I believe that it is this context that he is considered the last Pharaoh. I have always thought that something was missing, when there is no mention of other internal struggles going on shortly before and during the foreign rule. Your mentioning of the resistance in Upper Egypt explains this. This brings me back to the point I made, that social upheaval and internal administrative measures have played a role in the stability of rule in the empire.
posted
The vast majority of popular books on ancient Egypt say, if they deign to mention it at all, that the last "native" pharaoh was Nectinebo II of the XXX dynasty, who was deposed by the Persians in 343 BC. These vast majority of books are wrong. The reason for this is quite simple. Most Egyptophiles tend to think that Egyptian history came to an end with the Persian invasion of 343 BC. Alexandria BY Egypt wasn't Alexandria IN Egypt, the Ptolomies were ethnically Greeks anyway and with a few exceptions like Alexander the Great and Cleopatra VII, nothing afterwards really counts. Christine Hobson, in her book The World of the Paraohs, is typical of this attitude: "The succeeding generations of Ptolomies, and their sister-wives called Cleopatra were benevolent though patronizing towards the native Egyptians..." implying that Egyptian civilization died a slow but peaceful death. Slow it may have been, but the indigenous Egyptians did not go peacefully into cultural oblivion. They went kicking and screaming all the way to the very end. A series of native Pharaohs raised the flag of rebellion against Persian and Greek domination, and at one point succeeded in achieving independence for most of the country for about twenty years. Others lasted anywhere from a few weeks to a couple of years and liberated anywhere from a few villages to the entire country. Some of these leaders should be recognized as genuine pharaohs, and at least one or more new "dynasties" should be set up for them. Who were these people and why haven't you heard of them before? It's and interesting story... In the year 344 BC, the Persian army under the command of Shah Artaxerxes III Ochus, smashed into Egypt and after a year of heavy fighting emerged victorious. Pharaoh Nectenebo II grabbed all the treasure his slaves could carry and fled south, setting a rump stated in Edfu where he died in 341. The Persian Shah began his reign as Paraoh by stabbing to death the sarapis bull, and as one might expect, wasn't very popular among the natives. Ochus wasn't all that popular with the people back home either, and was murdered by his trusty aide Bagoas in 338. Shah-Pharaoh Arses tried to get revenge for his father's death but forgot which cup had the poison in it. His successor was Darius III, a third cousin who was the last male in the family left alive. The assassination of the hated foreign king inspired the Egyptians to revolt, and in 337, a mysterious prince named Khababash makes his appearance, and by January of 336 had reconquered Upper and Middle Egypt, and by the end of spring liberated the entire country. He was crowned Pharaoh in Memphis in the summer of that year. For a little under two years Egypt was free and independent, but it was not to last. For in late 335 the Persians under Darius were back and Khabbabash got the cabosh. The third Persian occupation of Egypt would last two and a half years. Alexander the Great was already King of Macedon. Khabbabash reigned over all of Egypt longer than many other recognized pharaohs did. His reign and decrees were recognized by Ptolemy I Soter in his famous "satrap" stele of 308, yet as far as we know, Manetho didn't. The reason for that has to do with Egyptian politics of the time, who's details we'll never know. Khabbabash is listed as a pharaoh of sorts by Alberto Carpececi and Nicolas Grimal in their recent books. I would place him in an ephemeral XXXII dynasty of his own lasting from 337 to 335, the Persians being the XXXIst. But Khabbabash isn't the last "native" pharaoh either. Alexander, his brother and son were the XXXIII dynasty and the Ptolomies the XXXIVth. The XXXV dynasty, which lasted from 207 to 186 BC is the most unloved, disrespected and ignored by egyptophiles of them all. When mentioned at all in popular literature, which is rare, Pharaohs Harmachis (207-199) and Ankmachis (199-186) are referred to in distasteful terms such as "usurper" or by putting the word pharaoh in quotes. But who were these guys? Where did they come from? How much of Egypt did they rule? How come they've been banished from most histories? What follows is the story of Egypt's forgotten civil war. It is generally agreed that the first of the bad Ptolomies was the fourth, Philopater (r.224-207). Philopater was a man of his time, the Hellenistic age, which was much like the early renaissance over two thousand years later. Both were ruled by men who were homicidal thugs with impeccable taste in art. This description fit Philopater to a "t". He'd bumped off much of his family, and was at war at all times with Meroë to the south and the Selucid empire to the east, and was very much into over consumption. The historian Polybius says that his reign was a "perpetual festival." "Perpetual festivals" are expensive things, and the ruling class never paid taxes if it could help it. This was the job of the indigenous Egyptian peasants, the Fellahin. The Greeks had little or no respect for the Fellahin, whom they considered to be filthy barbarians. The Fellahin themselves, after centuries of foreign rule, had little self-esteem. There was a revolutionary literature circulating, tales of Khabbabash and the heroes Inaros and Amyrtaes I, who fought the Persians centuries before and Amytrtaes II, who freed Egypt and founded the short-lived XXVIII dynasty, and the indigenous pharaohs who succeeded him. But those days were over. There was no real hope. Then history intervened. In 221, Antiochus III, the Selucid King of Asia, decided that Coloe-Syria, (present-day Israel) was rightfully his and announced his intention to "repossess" it. After a year of peace talks had failed, Antiochis attacked. Philopater was in a fix. His crack troops were losing and pretty soon the Selucid army would be banging on the gates of Egypt proper. So he took the desperate chance of arming the Fellahin. In 217, the Selucids were indeed at the gates. The place was Raphia a few miles to the west of Gaza, and with a 55 thousand strong Greek-Fallahin mixed army and superb generalship, the Egyptians won the day. The Selucids were routed. The triumph a Raphia was to be an extrodinarily expensive victory. The Fallahin ceased to be passive and grumbled more audibly. Nationalism became more widespread. Philopater went back to his perpetual festival and spent the rest of his reign whooping it up. Tax rates soared. By 207, the Fallahin had had enough. In Edfu a fellow with the same name as the newly tonsured high priest at Memphis raised the flag of revolt. From Edfu, the revolution went north, and soon All upper Egypt was in Fallahin hands. Except a brief interval in 199, it was to remain so for twenty years. Very little is known about this kingdom. There are about 12 known documents and graffiti which survive from the Fallahin side, and a few stele on the Ptolomaic side(One of these latter you may have heard of, it's called the Rosetta Stone). From these and a few ancient historians, the history of the XXXV dynasty goes something like this: Harmachis (also known as Hugronaphor) raised the flag of revolt at the end of 207. In October of 205, Thebes is captured and he's immediately crowned pharaoh. Abydos, Coptos and several other cities join the new state, and Egypt is divided into two hostile states. Harmachis dies in 199 BC and there is a dispute over the succession. Ptolomaic troops use this termoil to press an attack and temporarily takes back upper Egypt and occupies Thebes. But they can't hold it. A close relative of Harmachis called Ankmachis takes control of Fallahin forces and is declared pharaoh by July or August and by the end of the year the status quo is revived. But not for long. The Fallahin pressed northwards gaining popular support and by 197 they controlled the east bank of the Nile as far north as the southernmost delta. What was Philopater doing about all this? He debauched himself to death in 205. His Sister-wife Arsinoe was murdered immediatly afterwards. The deaths were kept secret for about a year until too many people began asking too many questions. Five year old Ptolemy V Epiphanies became pharaoh in 204 with the late queen mother's killers as regents. They were lynched that year and a more legal regency set up. The OTHER Harmakis, High Priest of Memphis, and himself a Fellahin, knew that a baby king leading a crumbling, discredited monarchy was perfect landscape for a major power grab and that's what he did. The Memphis priesthood began demanding concessions, and they got them, lots and lots of them. They now were practically shadow kings, and as such had a stake in the northern dynasty. The coincidence of the Southern Pharaoh and the Memphite High priest having the same name has caused some, notably Daniel MacBride, head of the Canadian Institute in Egypt, to suggest that they were one and the same person. While this is a fascinating, especially noting that Dorothy Thompson says in her book Memphis Under the Ptolomies that High Priest Harmachis presided over Epiphanies' coronation. While the idea that the southern Pharaoh didn't die in 199 but was captured during the attack of that year and was later forced to preside over his enemy's 197 coronation is beautifally twisted, it would have been mentioned in all the accounts of the event and it wasn't in any. Pity. In 197 Lycopolis, in the delta was in Southern hands. Having given massive consessions to the Memphite priesthood and with their full support, the Northern army was able to get the manpower neccessary to defeat the South and save the kingdom. The 13-year-old Epiphanies was coronated at Memphis shortly afterwards Lower and much of Middle Egypt was in Ptolemaic hands, but Upper Egypt remained stubbernly independant for another nine years. In or around 188, Epiphanies appointed General Conanus generalissimo of Upper Egypt with extrodinary powers and the mission to get rid of Ankmachis and his state once and for all . This was done in August of 185, and the story of the conquest of Thebes and the arrest of the now ex-pharaoh is told on a stele that survives, but whose text I haven't found yet. The Fallahin would rebel again and again, most notably in 135 and 88, when the Ptolomies came within a whisker of being overthrown. They'd rebel against the Romans too, but that's another story. The main objections to giving dynastic status to Khabbabash, Harmachis and Ankmachis is that Manetho didn't mention the first, they didn't last long enough and latter two were too late and never actually controlled all of Egypt. All of these objections can be easily answered. As we all know, Manetho listed thirty dynasties in his history. Thirty is a round number with probably some mystical significance. In making up his system, he divided some dynasties, such as the IVth and Vth, which are really one and added a few, like the XIVth and XXIVth, which were merely local potentates with good press agents, or the VIIth (seventy pharaohs for seventy days), which was largely an allegorical fiction. The XXIVth, for example, controlled only a part of the Nile delta for twelve years and existed completely within the timespan of the XXVth, which predated it by a good twenty years. The XXXVth and the Ptolomies had precisly the same situation, except that the XXXVth dynasty lasted two decades longer. The time objection is more substantial. Putting aside the VIIth, the shortest dynasty was the XXVIII which lasted only three and a half years, about a year longer than Kabbabash. Here the number thirty is important, because he was first in a series of four unrelated pharaohs (plus two children who reigned a total of a half a year) who succeded each other, Latin American style, between 404 and 380. In order to have an even thirty, instead of 29 or 32, Manetho created the artificial XXIX dynasty. Clearly, he didn't like the idea of minidynasties and was forced by athetics to place Amytrtaes II in a dynasty of his own. The Persian XXXI dyansty is a modern invention. Manetho put the second occupation of Egypt as part of the XXVIIth, completely ignoring the well documented fact (he had Darius' autobiography available, to him after all) that Cambysus and Darius were unrealated to each other. However, this "all foreigners look the same" idea could be used to make a "dynastic skeleton" of the last centuries of the preroman era which would fit the facts and do justice to all those heroic revolutionaries who failed to dislodge "foreign" rule:
XXXI: Persians 343-323 XXXII: Macedonians (Alexander's family, the Ptolomies, and the Selucid Antiochus IV Epiphanies, who was Pharaoh for a few months in 169-168) 323-30 XXXIII: Indegenes (Khabaabash, Harmachis, Ankmachis, Dionysius Peroserepis, who liberated much of upper Egypt in 165, Harsiesis, who did the same for a couple of years around 132, and other occasional rebels.) 337-80
Had they lived a couple of centuries earlier Harmakis and Ankmachis would have undoubtably have been recognized as legit. It's about time they were, for they were the last genuine indiginous rulers Egypt would have until Gamel Abdul Nasser, over two thousand years later. They were truly the last of their kind.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Keino
unregistered
posted
quote:
Another contributing downfall might have been limitied education which was reserved only for the elite Egyptians instead of the commoners.
[/B]
Good point! I never thought about this point before. I think this might have been a core issue that hindered the revival and sustaining power after a succession of attacks.
posted
Quite educational Ausur. I think it should be the Egyptians who should trumpet the heroism of the later indigeneous Pharaohs, and the armed Fellahin. The Fellahin did seem to have lost the Greek ruler's respect at one point, but admirably regained it. Egyptian scholars and Egyptologists, if they have any ethics, should write about these often overlooked historical facts and have them published. They often write about the Pyramids, but almost never about the true latter period Egyptian dynasties up to the final one. It is indeed a pity that only a few dedicated individuals have written about these later periods leading to the final moments of native Egyptian Pharaonic rule!
IP: Logged |
posted
Damn good posts, ausar. That's the kind of knowledge that casual Egyptologists (like myself) wouldn't come across in a million years...
---
Ausar wrote:
In conclusion,what seemed to bring downfall fo AE soceity was the lack of balance with priests and commoners.
I think I've read that as well: that one of the root causes of the weakening of AE culture was corruption, cynicism and political jockeying amongst the priestly castes.
Also, Rasol wrote:
As a cultural/political & national system Kemet was one of the longest lasting in history from Menes to Cleopatra, a good 3000 years.
Actually, even mainstream Egyptologists are starting to figure it more like 4,000 years. New discoveries (notably "proto" hieroglyphics refering to one really early pharaoh) predate the Narmer palette by about 800 years.
Given that no civilization simply springs up spontaneously (complete with writing yet), I'm of the opinion that AE goes back much further than even 4,000 b.c. (much as the Ancient Egyptians themselves believed... )
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 12 July 2004).]
Posts: 237 | From: New York, NY, USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
3,000 - 4,000 years, is longer than all other great powers combined! The US has only been a world power for what 200 years if that. We still have 2800 years to go, so I suggest you guys start leaving you mark now, or some futiristic generation is gonna think you were caucosoids. LMAO
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We still have 2800 years to go, so I suggest you guys start leaving you mark now, or some futiristic generation is gonna think you were caucosoids.
The way things are going now, 2,800 years from now there'll probably be no more black people...
Old age!!! The poor girl just went to sleep. She'll come back. She always has...
This is one helluva long "intermediate" period, though...
Posts: 237 | From: New York, NY, USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic