The New Kingdom: Egypt as a military empire

The story of the New Kingdom begins with a country broken in two, and with a king whose skull was smashed. Around 1650 BCE, Egypt had split apart. Historians call this period the Second Intermediate Period. An "intermediate period" is a time when Egypt had no single strong government ruling the whole land, between the great stable eras that historians call kingdoms. This one lasted from about 1650 to 1550 BCE. In those years, Egypt had three rival powers. In the north, in the Nile Delta, ruled a dynasty called the Hyksos. The word comes from an Egyptian phrase meaning "rulers of foreign lands." The Hyksos kings came from families of Levantine origin. The Levant is the region along the eastern Mediterranean coast, today's Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine. The Hyksos ruled from a city called Avaris, whose ruins lie at a site now called Tell el-Dab'a. In the far south, beyond Egypt's border, lay Nubia, which is the Nile valley in what is now southern Egypt and northern Sudan. There a strong kingdom called Kerma held power. In between, at the city of Thebes, ruled Egyptian kings of the 17th Dynasty. They were squeezed from both sides. To understand what happened next, we need one idea first. A historian must always ask where knowledge comes from. A primary source is evidence created at the time of the events, such as an inscription, a letter or a tomb. A secondary source is a later account written by someone studying those events. Almost everything about the start of the New Kingdom comes from primary sources, and nearly all of them were written by Egyptians who wanted to look good. We must read them with care. The Theban kings began the fight back. One of them, Seqenenre Tao, has a mummy that survives. It shows severe wounds to the head. Many scholars think he died in battle, or was executed. Others point out that the exact cause is debated, and we cannot be sure who struck him, or when. His successor Kamose campaigned against the Hyksos in the north and against Kerma in the south. His own account survives in two places: the Carnarvon Tablet, a wooden writing board, and the Kamose Stela, a carved stone slab from the temple of Karnak. Kamose describes himself as a king who is tired of sharing Egypt with foreigners. We should remember that this is royal propaganda, meaning information designed to make a ruler look strong and righteous. Still, it shows the political mood. Egyptians were framing the war as a national liberation. The victory came under Kamose's successor Ahmose I, who ruled from about 1550 to 1525 BCE. He captured Avaris and drove the Hyksos out. He then pushed into southern Canaan and besieged a town called Sharuhen. He also campaigned in Nubia. We know many details because of an unusual source: the tomb inscription of a naval officer, Ahmose son of Ibana, at El-Kab. This is an autobiography carved on a tomb wall. The man tells us how he fought in boats and on land, and how the king rewarded him with gold and with captives who became his workers. It gives us a rare view from below, the view of a soldier rather than a king. Its limits are plain. A man writing his own tomb text wants to impress the gods and his family. Ahmose reunited Egypt. This marks the start of the New Kingdom, which lasted from about 1550 to 1070 BCE and covers the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties. A dynasty is a line of rulers from one family. It is worth saying that Egyptian dates are uncertain. Different schemes for counting reigns can differ by several years, and for some periods by decades. The dates in this lesson are the commonly used ones, but you should treat them as approximate. Why did this reunification turn into an empire? An empire is a state that rules over other peoples and lands, usually by force, and takes wealth from them. The answer begins with fear and memory. Egyptians had just been ruled by foreigners from the northeast. A strong view among historians is that this shock made Egyptian kings want a buffer, a protective zone, in Canaan and in Nubia. Another factor was opportunity. The kings now controlled a rich, united country and a new kind of army. That army deserves a closer look. Two weapons are central: the horse-drawn chariot and the composite bow. A composite bow is made from layers of wood, horn and sinew glued together. It is stronger and shoots farther than a simple wooden bow. The chariot was a light, two-wheeled cart pulled by horses, which carried an archer and a driver. Together they made a fast, mobile firing platform. Other changes mattered too. Bronze weapons improved, body armor became more common, and a curved sickle-shaped sword called the khopesh appeared widely. Who brought these tools to Egypt? The usual explanation is the Hyksos. According to this view, the invaders brought horses and chariots, and the Egyptians learned from their enemies. But scholars debate how much credit the Hyksos deserve. Some argue that these technologies spread slowly across the Near East through trade and contact, and that Egypt would have adopted them anyway. Both sides agree on the result. By Ahmose's time, Egypt was using the new tools, and soon used them better than anyone. The army also changed in its structure. Earlier armies had often been raised when needed. Now Egypt had standing forces, meaning soldiers kept ready all the time. There were chariot divisions and infantry units led by officers. Foreign troops became important. The Medjay, people from Nubia, served as scouts and later as police. Later in the New Kingdom, Sherden and Libyan soldiers also served Egypt. The Sherden were a seafaring people from somewhere in the Mediterranean world. An army that includes foreigners tells us something about Egyptian society: it needed manpower and was willing to recruit widely. The state rewarded soldiers well. Military careers brought land, a share of booty, and captives. A famous honor was the "gold of valor," a decoration of gold given for bravery. Ahmose son of Ibana says he received it several times. This created a class of professional soldiers who owed their rise to the king. Over time, this group gained political weight. That is one of the major themes of the whole period. Generals could become kings, as we will see with Horemheb. And soldiers who felt unpaid could become a threat. After Ahmose, kings pushed outward. Thutmose I, who ruled from about 1504 to 1492 BCE, led armies deep into Nubia, beyond the Third Cataract. A cataract is a stretch of rapids on the Nile where boats cannot easily pass, and the Egyptians counted them going south. Thutmose I also marched into Syria, toward the great river Euphrates. He set a pattern that later kings followed. Then comes a famous ruler, Hatshepsut. She was first regent, meaning she ruled on behalf of a young king, Thutmose III. Later she took the full title of king herself. She ruled from about 1479 to 1458 BCE. She is known mainly for trade. At her temple at Deir el-Bahari, reliefs show an expedition to a land called Punt, probably located somewhere along the Red Sea coast, which brought back incense trees, gold and other goods. The older idea that her reign was entirely peaceful is now considered overstated. Inscriptions mention some campaigning in Nubia. Still, trade and building were the heart of her rule. When Hatshepsut's reign ended, Thutmose III ruled alone, from about 1458 to 1425 BCE. He is often called the greatest conqueror of Egyptian history. Our main source is his Annals, carved on the walls of the temple at Karnak. These were compiled from the daily campaign records kept by army scribes. That makes them unusually detailed. They list about 17 campaigns in the Levant, along with captured towns, plunder and tribute. They are still royal monuments, so they are selective and flattering. Yet the detail suggests real records stand behind them. His most famous victory is the Battle of Megiddo, around 1457 BCE. A coalition of Canaanite rulers, led by the king of Kadesh, gathered at Megiddo, a fortified city in northern Canaan. The Annals say that Thutmose chose a narrow mountain road, against the advice of his officers, and surprised the enemy. His army won in open battle. The enemy fled into the city and shut the gates. The Egyptians then besieged it for several months until it surrendered. The lesson is that the siege, not the battle, brought the real result. Capturing a fortified town needed patience and supply lines. Thutmose did not stop at Canaan. His armies crossed the Euphrates to fight Mitanni, the main rival power of northern Syria. Mitanni was a kingdom of the Hurrian people, with strong chariot forces. In the south, Egyptian reach extended up the Nile as far as Napata, near the Fourth Cataract. At this point Egypt controlled an enormous area, from the upper Nile to the borders of Mesopotamia. One puzzling episode needs mention. Later in his reign, Hatshepsut's monuments were defaced, and her images were hacked out in places. People once assumed that Thutmose III did this out of hatred. Now scholars are more careful. The attacks seem to have come late in his reign, not at its start. Some think the motive was dynastic: he wanted to protect the succession of his son and his own line, and a female king did not fit the pattern. Others see political reasons. The truth is debated. How did the empire actually work? It did not use one single system. In Nubia, Egypt ruled directly. The king appointed an official called the Viceroy of Kush, whose title was "King's Son of Kush." He governed the region for the king. Egyptians built fortresses and temples there, and they exploited the gold mines. Gold was one of Egypt's great sources of wealth and power. Nubian gold funded temples, gifts and diplomacy. In the Levant, the system was looser. Egypt used vassals. A vassal is a local ruler who keeps his throne but accepts the authority of a stronger king, swears loyalty and pays tribute. Tribute means regular payments of goods or wealth to a more powerful ruler. The Egyptians also took the sons of vassal rulers to be raised at the Egyptian court. This had two purposes. The boys were hostages, and they were also educated in Egyptian ways, so that when they returned home as kings, they would be loyal. Egypt placed garrisons and administrators in key centers, such as Gaza. Officials called rabisu, an Akkadian word meaning "commissioners," supervised local rulers. Historians disagree about how strong this control was. Some stress exploitation: Egypt took grain, timber, metals and people, and enforced its will by force. Others stress that control was limited and pragmatic. Egypt left local politics mostly alone and intervened only when needed. Some even question whether "empire" is the right word. This is a good example of how a single word can carry an argument. For the empire's diplomatic world, we have a remarkable source: the Amarna letters. They were found at el-Amarna, the site of the capital city built in the mid-14th century BCE. They are clay tablets written in cuneiform, a wedge-shaped script pressed into clay, and in Akkadian, the common diplomatic language of the time. The letters show what scholars call the Great Powers' Club. Its members were Egypt, Mitanni, Babylonia, Hatti, the land of the Hittites in Anatolia, and later Assyria. Their kings addressed each other as "brothers." They exchanged gifts, and they sent daughters in marriage. They also complained loudly. One king grumbles that the gold he received was not as good as promised. Such letters show a world of prestige and bargaining, not just war. Before that period, Egypt had moved from fighting to diplomacy. Amenhotep II continued campaigns in Syria. Thutmose IV then made peace with Mitanni, sealed by a marriage alliance. Under Amenhotep III, who ruled from about 1390 to 1352 BCE, Egypt reached a peak of wealth. His foreign policy was largely diplomatic. Gold, gifts and marriages did more work than armies. This is a key point. A successful empire does not always fight. Often it wins by showing that it could fight. The Amarna letters also include appeals from vassals. Local rulers in Canaan wrote to the pharaoh asking for troops, and accusing each other of disloyalty. They mention groups called the Habiru, or apiru, who were unsettled people living outside normal society and sometimes raiding. The word looks similar to "Hebrew," but scholars warn that the link is unclear and debated. These letters date to the reign of Akhenaten, whose religious revolution is the subject of our paired lesson. Here we use him only as context. Did Egypt neglect the north under him? Many historians see weakness, because the vassals complain of no help. Others think the letters show normal, routine management, since vassals often exaggerated their dangers to get attention. We should hold both views. After Akhenaten and a few short reigns, a general named Horemheb took the throne. He restored order in the state and in the army. Then came the 19th Dynasty, founded by Ramesses I. His son Seti I campaigned to regain lost ground in Syria, and fought both Hittites and Libyans. The Hittites had grown strong under their king Suppiluliuma I, who had taken much of Mitanni's territory. The old balance of power had changed. Now Egypt faced Hatti directly. Seti's son Ramesses II ruled from about 1279 to 1213 BCE, one of the longest reigns in Egyptian history. Around 1274 BCE he fought the Battle of Kadesh against the Hittite king Muwatalli II. Our sources are Egyptian: temple reliefs, and two written accounts called the Poem and the Bulletin. They present a great triumph in which Ramesses, nearly abandoned, saves his army by personal courage. Yet most historians think the result was essentially inconclusive. The Egyptians did not capture Kadesh, and Hittite power in Syria continued. The Egyptian version is a masterpiece of propaganda. A rare problem for historians is that we lack a full Hittite narrative of the battle, so we must read the Egyptian account against the known outcome. Years later, around 1259 BCE, Egypt and Hatti made a treaty. It survives in both an Egyptian version and a Hittite version written in Akkadian. It is often called the earliest well-preserved international peace treaty. It promised peace and mutual help against enemies. A royal marriage followed, when Ramesses took a Hittite princess as a wife. The treaty shows how two great powers, after costly fighting, chose stability. Then the world began to shake. Ramesses II's successor Merneptah faced attacks from Libyans and from groups called the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples are a collective name Egyptians used for several seaborne groups who raided and moved around the eastern Mediterranean. Their exact origins are uncertain. Merneptah left a stele, a carved stone slab, dated to about 1208 BCE. It contains the earliest known mention of "Israel," listed among peoples in Canaan. It does not tell us much beyond that Israel was a recognized group. Ramesses III, who ruled from about 1186 to 1155 BCE, fought off new attacks. The walls of his temple at Medinet Habu show battles against Libyans and Sea Peoples, around 1177 BCE. Egypt survived. But all around it, powers fell. The Hittite kingdom collapsed, and cities across the eastern Mediterranean were destroyed. This is called the Late Bronze Age collapse. The Bronze Age is the period when bronze was the main metal for tools and weapons. Historians still debate the causes. Proposals include climate stress and drought, migrations, earthquakes, and a failure of linked trading systems. Most scholars now prefer a combination of causes rather than one single blow. Egypt's relative survival is also a puzzle. Its Nile farming and strong central state may have helped, but it did not escape damage. Inside Egypt, the pressures grew. Wars were costly. The economy was strained. Under Ramesses III, the workers at Deir el-Medina, the village of the craftsmen who built the royal tombs, went on strike because their food rations were late. This is the first recorded workers' strike in history. Their papyrus records show they sat down and demanded payment. There was also a harem conspiracy against Ramesses III, a plot within the royal household, and court records of the trial survive. Tomb robbery became a serious problem, which tells us that respect for royal power was weakening and times were hard. Meanwhile, the priests of Amun grew rich. Amun was the great god of Thebes, and his temples owned land, workers and treasure. The kings had given generously, partly to thank the god for victories. Over time, this made the priesthood a rival center of power. By the reign of Ramesses XI, the High Priest Herihor held real power in Thebes. The country was effectively divided again. The New Kingdom ended around 1070 BCE, followed by the Third Intermediate Period. One last source shows how far Egypt had fallen. The Report of Wenamun, from about 1075 BCE, tells of a temple official sent to buy cedar wood from the coast of the Levant. The local ruler treats him with little respect, and reminds him that Egypt no longer commands obedience. Some scholars debate whether this is a true report or a literary work based on real conditions. Either way, it shows a changed world. Three centuries earlier, Levantine rulers sent their sons to Egypt. Now an Egyptian envoy had to beg. So what should we take from this? The New Kingdom grew from fear of foreign rule and from new military tools. It built an empire through a professional army, direct rule in Nubia and loose vassalage in the Levant. It also developed a diplomatic network of equals. Its weaknesses grew from the same source as its strengths: expensive wars, powerful soldiers and wealthy temples. In the next lesson, we turn to one king who challenged the power of those temples directly. Akhenaten tried to change Egyptian religion itself, and we will ask why his revolution began, and why it failed.