posted
I trust most ES users have encountered the story of the Kushite Kentake (queen) Amanirenas fighting a war with the nascent Roman Empire, beginning with Amanirenas attacking a Roman garrison in Egypt in 25 BC. However, what jumps out to me about this story is that it happened only five years after the Romans had annexed Egypt from the Ptolemaic Cleopatra VII, aka the famous Cleopatra. This would make Amanirenas a probable contemporary of Cleopatra.
quote:It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of [Cleopatra's] voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian.
This makes me wonder how likely it is that Cleo and Amani might have known about each other, maybe even interacting at least on a diplomatic. And it also makes me wonder if the history of Egypt could have turned out differently had the Egyptians under Cleopatra and the Kushites under Amanirenas could have teamed up against the Romans under Octavian. What if Cleopatra, upon seeing her country stand on the brink of conquest, had called upon her kingdom's southern neighbor for reinforcements? Could the combined forces of Ptolemaic Egypt and Meroitic Kush have pushed the Romans back and prevented them from expanding Roman control into the Nile basin?
NOTE TO MODS: Maybe move this to the Deshret or Kemet board if it doesn't fit Egyptology?
posted
^ Such a proposal for a Kushite alliance would have been a pretty large gamble. One main reason why the Romans lost to the Kushites was because the latter had the home advantage. The Kushites controlled all the desert territories as well as their area of the Nile and the only supply and man power for the Romans came from down river. The river itself being a narrow corridor that can funnel the armies. Travelling through the Nile was of course faster and safer than travelling on land.
On the other hand Egypt did not have that option because by then, the Roman forces had already set up shop all around the Mediterranean surrounding Egypt or at least the Delta from which Cleopatra ruled. If the Kushites joined her they too would have been at a disadvantage. Perhaps if Cleo had allied herself not only with Amanirenas but also all the other peoples listed in the passage, then she would have stood a better chance but that would take time and a lot of spycraft to evade Roman authorities. She probably thought it would be a safer and easier bet to just become an ally of Rome while still maintaining independence.
Posts: 26404 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Such a proposal for a Kushite alliance would have been a pretty large gamble. One main reason why the Romans lost to the Kushites was because the latter had the home advantage. The Kushites controlled all the desert territories as well as their area of the Nile and the only supply and man power for the Romans came from down river. The river itself being a narrow corridor that can funnel the armies. Travelling through the Nile was of course faster and safer than travelling on land.
On the other hand Egypt did not have that option because by then, the Roman forces had already set up shop all around the Mediterranean surrounding Egypt or at least the Delta from which Cleopatra ruled. If the Kushites joined her they too would have been at a disadvantage. Perhaps if Cleo had allied herself not only with Amanirenas but also all the other peoples listed in the passage, then she would have stood a better chance but that would take time and a lot of spycraft to evade Roman authorities. She probably thought it would be a safer and easier bet to just become an ally of Rome while still maintaining independence.
Fair enough, I just thought a potential Cleo/Amani team-up against Rome sounded like a cool alternate-history scenario.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I trust most ES users have encountered the story of the Kushite Kentake (queen) Amanirenas fighting a war with the nascent Roman Empire, beginning with Amanirenas attacking a Roman garrison in Egypt in 25 BC. However, what jumps out to me about this story is that it happened only five years after the Romans had annexed Egypt from the Ptolemaic Cleopatra VII, aka the famous Cleopatra. This would make Amanirenas a probable contemporary of Cleopatra.
quote:It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of [Cleopatra's] voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising because most of the kings, her predecessors, scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian.
This makes me wonder how likely it is that Cleo and Amani might have known about each other, maybe even interacting at least on a diplomatic. And it also makes me wonder if the history of Egypt could have turned out differently had the Egyptians under Cleopatra and the Kushites under Amanirenas could have teamed up against the Romans under Octavian. What if Cleopatra, upon seeing her country stand on the brink of conquest, had called upon her kingdom's southern neighbor for reinforcements? Could the combined forces of Ptolemaic Egypt and Meroitic Kush have pushed the Romans back and prevented them from expanding Roman control into the Nile basin?
NOTE TO MODS: Maybe move this to the Deshret or Kemet board if it doesn't fit Egyptology?
Its a tough call. I don't think an alliance could have beaten Rome in the long run. Rome wanted Egypt bad, it was a main breadbasket of their empire and strategically located. They put major forces on the ground to take over and kept at least 2-3 legions in place afterward, plus parallel auxiliary formations. The Kushite Realm did not have the wealth of Rome or Egypt or the strategic location. After the initial victories there were some setbacks against Rome, which had the massive resources of a major world power at the time to throw at problems. Also the forces of the Ptolemies when Rome appeared were not that strong, suffering from manpower problems. Against Rome long-term prospects were not that good, and Cleo coordinating with the distant Kushites over huge swathes of desert would have been difficult. Guerilla warfare was an option but this is essentially a costly war of attrition with the expensive end game mostly a stalemate. Rich Rome could just keep throwing more men and manpower at the problem as they did in Spain over 2 centuries. As said above- a better option was to become an allied kingdom of some sort. The Kushites negotiated an advantageous deal under this option and were important in securing the breadbasket's southern border against marauding nomads,
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was the political situation of Cleopatra.
Do you think she would have stood a chance if she had not only the Kushite queen Amanirenas but the Parthian emperor (Phraates IV?) as well as the Arabs (Nabateans?)??
Posts: 26404 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This was the political situation of Cleopatra.
Do you think she would have stood a chance if she had not only the Kushite queen Amanirenas but the Parthian emperor (Phraates IV?) as well as the Arabs (Nabateans?)??
I dunno about the Nabataeans, but the Parthians could present a real challenge for the Romans, whom I believe never managed to conquer them as a whole (although Trajan did seize control of some of their western provinces, but that's well after the time period we're discussing). So if Cleo and Amani could send diplomats across the Red Sea into Arabia and Mesopotamia, maybe they would have more of a chance against Rome?
posted
Rome like most empires including our own New Atlantic Empire (America, Britain, Israel etc.) is based on military control of settlements and using their roads for access. Notice the large areas of Europe Rome does not control including the Pyrenees area of northern Spain. That's because they areas have no roads and the natives are more mobile not having permanent settlements except in the most remote hard to access areas which was the case of the Euskadi (Basques) living on the Pyrenees Mountains itself while the surrounding Celtic tribes were subjugated. The Germanic tribes who lived in the forests of the region using the trees as cover did not even allow the Romans access to their territories without permission.
All imperialistic military states are prone to guerilla attacks. Look at how the peoples of Afghanistan were able to circumvent the rule of various empires from the Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union. This is one reason why the U.S. military was forced to leave Vietnam. Hit and run tactics on a massive is like death by a thousand cuts to all military forces.
Posts: 26404 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Rome like most empires including our own New Atlantic Empire (America, Britain, Israel etc.) is based on military control of settlements and using their roads for access. Notice the large areas of Europe Rome does not control including the Pyrenees area of northern Spain. That's because they areas have no roads and the natives are more mobile not having permanent settlements except in the most remote hard to access areas which was the case of the Euskadi (Basques) living on the Pyrenees Mountains itself while the surrounding Celtic tribes were subjugated. The Germanic tribes who lived in the forests of the region using the trees as cover did not even allow the Romans access to their territories without permission.
All imperialistic military states are prone to guerilla attacks. Look at how the peoples of Afghanistan were able to circumvent the rule of various empires from the Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union. This is one reason why the U.S. military was forced to leave Vietnam. Hit and run tactics on a massive is like death by a thousand cuts to all military forces.
Now there's an idea. Although I have the impression that guerilla attacks are more the specialty of small tribal societies than large empires like Ptolemaic Egypt, Kush, or Parthia. I don't know how organized the Nabataeans were doing this time period, but I can see them having Bedouins carrying out guerrilla attacks in the desert.
posted
^ Small tribal bands often comprised nations and even larger empires if they agreed to be part of the latter. Most of the inhabitants of the Parthian Empire were nomadic tribes for instance, and actually the Parthians themselves were a nomadic tribe that replaced the Persian rulers. This was the reason why they were more difficult to conquer by the Romans because their forces were more mobile and used repeated hit and run attacks on Roman forces who could only hold on to territories they encroached on for short periods.
Posts: 26404 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Rome would have definitely been crushed if Carthage teamed up with Egypt during the Punic Wars (264 BC – 146 BC) which was decades before Cleopatra VII's reign. Unfortunately, the Ptolemies were already friends of Rome by that time and were more concerned about their rivals in Greece while Rome dealt with its rival Carthage. If there was a southern alliance between Carthage, Egypt, and Persia, then history would have looked very different.
Posts: 26404 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Rome would have definitely been crushed if Carthage teamed up with Egypt during the Punic Wars (264 BC – 146 BC) which was decades before Cleopatra VII's reign. Unfortunately, the Ptolemies were already friends of Rome by that time and were more concerned about their rivals in Greece while Rome dealt with its rival Carthage. If there was a southern alliance between Carthage, Egypt, and Persia, then history would have looked very different.
Now that's also an interesting scenario, although like you said, it would require a different outlook for the Ptolemies who were contemporaneous with the Punic Wars.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic