This week you learned about artists, laborers, craftsmen, and soldiers. The primary source material includes the Satire of the Trades, the PDFs of McDowell, the Kamose Texts, Capture of Joppa, Victory Stela of Piye, and PDFs of the solider autobiographies.
Since there is so much material to cover for Tuesday I want to make sure you all have at least one text you know very, very well. This also means that we can hear many voices in class on Tuesday as at least a few of you will be experts on one of the texts.
With this in mind...please pick one of these texts (for McDowell you can look at several of the shorter texts if you wish) and provide some commentary on what you think are the main aspects of the Egyptian cultural identity embedded in them.
This will involve a close reading of the text and some critical thought to how these texts fit with information you have gathered so far in other readings and the lectures.
I find the satirical texts written by scribes to be particularly amusing. As with all cultures, literacy denotes intellectual superiority and typically correlates with where one is placed within the social class system. However, the disparity between the literate population and the illiterate population seems to be more significant. As Professor Morris said in lecture, only 10% of Egypt was literate, and other than elites and royalty, the rest were most likely scribes.
ReplyDeleteWhile the text itself might seem hyperbolic and overly dramatic, it actually does make much sense why one would prefer to be a scribe over any other profession in Egypt. For one, being few in number, scribes were most likely valuable to society and therefore probably had higher status over most commoners. However, one could argue that any profession has its downsides, although from my perspective (especially having read the Satire on the Trades) it is difficult to find that negative aspect for scribe.
I think that most of the pains and toils portrayed in the Satire on the Trades were probably true to some extent. Professor Morris said in class that many craftsmen undertook moonlighting in order to make extra profits. For this reason alone, it is sensible to believe that "at nighttime [the carpenter] still must light (his lamp) and "[the jeweler] sits until the arrival of the sun".Some of the horrible-ness seemed reasonable and still prevalent to today's equivalent professions, but one I did find incredibly appalling. According to the scribes, the weaver must weave every single day of his life and that he is beaten with 50 whip lashes if he misses a day. On top of that, he also must share his profits with the doorkeeper just so that he can get to and leave work. The rest though, to me, did seem too awful. I imagine that unlike the scribes, craftsmen got much satisfaction out of their own work as they inherited the trade from their fathers and thus their work was meaningful to them. I think if the roles were reversed and the craftsmen were to write a satire on the profession of scribes, they would say that scribes' jobs were meaningless as they have lost their individuality and only copied down the diction or writing of others and recording numbers for taxation purposes only as opposed to anything valuable (material-wise).
In Donadoni's book, Sheikh 'Ibada Al-Nubi describes the Egyptian military and war endeavors and emphasizes the omnipresence of professionalism in anything they do. The first-person accounts "depict a swift, energetic professional soldier" and present the success of the subject. In describing large forces of troops, it is said that "the Egyptian army was still based on unpaid military service, or corvees, [but] a professional element was clearly developing".
ReplyDeleteArmies are moved swiftly from area to area to eliminate "marauders" or "foreigners" and in battle highly successful strategies of attack were used. It is surprising to think that at such a primitive time in history the Egyptians were able to form such a structured and well-enforced system. It is said that "the characteristic feature of the Egyptian army-a punctilious attention to logistics-were established at that time". They were able to create "disciplined and structured groups of men" to provide basic safety or to embark on full-fledged territory acquisitions.
There is also emphasis on the king. In an earlier time, the king had a "limited" role in the "feudal world" and some princes opposed the king while others "recognized the king as their superior". Later, during the reunification during the "Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties" some princes "praised" their king as "a god...without peer..a champion who acts with his own arms...[who] is well favored and very gentle". The monarchy as a form of government seems to strengthen due to military allegiance and "autonomous strength".
In reading about the soldiers, I was intrigued about how romanticized the stories seemed. In the first person narrative accounts, the soldier was not afraid to brag about his own accomplishments, how much land he acquired, how many people he slew, how many rewards he received (both money, land and female slaves) ect. They were not afraid to brag and take all the credit. Because of all this, I had no idea how much of the story was even true. The soldiers were receiving bountiful amounts of gold and easily defeating all their enemies. I think all this exaggeration was because not only their own greed and need for respect but also to prove themselves to the Gods. After battle they thanked the gods and have them sacrifices. They had such a desire to please the gods because Egyptians put such emphasis on the afterlife. Therefor if the gods were pleased with their accomplishments, they would receive a place with Osiris. Ahmose is a prime example of this. He continually brags about how many times he has received gold, land, and women. He clearly wanted his accomplishments to be known.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting how Amenemhab brought back so many people the he captured. He is constantly bringing back people for the king, and is also being rewarded with female slaves. This exchange of people is immoral, but certainly helped contribute to the knowledge of Egypt. Egypt was able to expand it's wealth of knowledge due to the knowledge of other countries. In this way, taking captives was beneficial.
The biography of Ahmose provides a unique glimpse into the life of a soldier in ancient Egypt. Through his biography we learn that he is a crew commander, he grew up in Nekheb, he is young, and his father was also a soldier. Throughout the biography, Ahmose repeats. “I was given the gold of valor” multiple times. This leaves me to believe soldiers, or more specifically soldiers of high ranks, were well off in Egyptian society. With this success I believe also came a great source of pride and glory. Ahmose writes, I followed the sovereign on foot when he rode about on his chariot. When the town of Avaris was besieged, I fought bravely on foot in his majesty's presence. Thereupon I was appointed to the ship khaemmennefer.” Because Egypt is a society that places such high value on its kings and afterlife, it must have been such an honor for the soldiers to protect them.
ReplyDeleteThere was one line of this biography that I found to be particularly disturbing. Ahmose writes multiple times, “I made a seizure and carried off a hand.” The side notes reveal that this common saying refers to captors cutting off their prisoner’s hands or genitals as poof of a kill. While I think this is absolutely disgusting, I think it provides further proof of the honor and pride Egyptians feel serving in the army. They are physically bringing a piece of their enemy (sort of like a trophy) to prove their valiance and loyalty towards Egypt.
It’s clear that the military was an essential part of Egyptian life. They were respected by all classes and regarded as heroes. They received gold, land, and slaves for their work. However, like Kira said, soldiers (like Ahmose) wanted their achievements to be known, and it definitely seems like soldiers carried an elitist attitude.
The Capture of Joppa, Kamose Texts, and Victory of Stela Piye all give an interesting glimpse into Egyptian army structure and soldiers’ mentality. Soldiers take their duty to follow the ‘divine one’s’ orders quite seriously. In all three texts, citizens of conquered areas are either slain or taken captive to eventually serve as serfs/slaves. Men of the army think of these tasks as duties and show no sympathy for the enemy. The Capture of Joppa ‘concludes happily’ once the king has set up the area for complete destruction. The struggle in the Kamose Texts isn’t quite this simple; it really evidences the army’s dedication to the King’s cause. ‘No man can rest’ is a statement that truly embodies the mindset of these men. They believed that they were under divine orders, from the command of Amun. This goes back to the belief that the King was truly a god. The King definitely utilized this position, convincing his armies to examine and take everything in sight during a conquer. Young women and ships full of precious goods (gold, lapis, silver, turquoise, copper…) were taken in all of the battles and the King ultimately decided what to do with them. Other than the dedication of the soldiers and the King’s immense authority over them, I found one other similarity amongst the three texts. The King was repeatedly (to the point of excess) compared to an animal. Like a panther, like a bull, and like a falcon were phrases I found upwards of twenty times in one form or another. The falcon comparison has obvious divine connotations, but the panther comparison was only used to describe a raging King. The bull was generally used to denote the King’s strength. Either way, these comparisons tie back to the Egyptians’ immense respect (and perhaps fear) of the King.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude, these three texts evidenced the army’s devotion to their King’s orders. Most of this time this meant fighting till death for Egyptian soldiers. While conquered areas were treated quite poorly, men, and most certainly the King, justified this by claiming the King’s orders were definitely divine.
Caroline Miller
I found that The Satire on the Trades, once I was able to look past the humorously negative portrayal of individual professions, was actually very revealing about not only the practices of various trades, but also particular aspects that were looked down upon in Egyptian culture. For example, in 5 not only do we discover that carpenters used adzes and axes for their trade, but also that having to work for many hours (“excessively” (433)) was considered to be a negative aspect by society. This aversion to long working hours is repeated throughout the text, along with the suggestion that such hard work leads to a an early death.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a sense that uncleanliness is noticed and derided. In 10, the mason-bricklayer “kneading all his excrement. He eats bread with his fingers, although he washes himself but once a day” (434). Perhaps these aspects are highlighted specifically because they contrast dramatically with the life of a scribe: they involve hard labor and working outdoors.
I also found it interesting that the Satire ends in specific tips for the addressee, about how to work well as a scribe: it seems that the scribal community was both trying to put potential scribes off of working in any of the trades, but also offering help to allow these new scribes to be more successful.
Catie Brown
The soldier’s biographies are a true testament to the obstinate social hierarchy upheld by ancient Egyptians. Ahmose, son of Abana and "Warrior of the Ruler,” narrates his own battles and successes throughout his telling memoir. Using adjectives likes “brave and valorous” to describe his feats, Ahmose relentlessly validates his own public supremacy. He aims to “crush rebellion throughout the lands,” smiting those that do not recognize his cause and cutting off the hands and genitals of rebels “as proof of a kill.” Removing these particular appendages seems to me, in part, a way to strip the radicals of their most human features: the hand that experiences human life and the genitalia that produces it. To Ahmose [and the bulk of Egyptians], fame, gold, land and the amassing of slaves are the sole markers of military accomplishment; leaving little space for social decency.
ReplyDeleteAmenemhab, the second soldier, begins his memoir: “As for me, I was the very faithful [instrument] of the sovereign, the half of the heart of the king of the south, the light of the heart of the king of the north, while I followed my master in his … for I was as the companion of his feet, and that in the midst of his valour and his power, in order to give testimony.” In this short text, Amenemhab manages to applaud his own authority while dually recognizing the influence of his master; thus reinforcing the social power structure. His master is described as having the supernatural ability to breath life into whomever he chooses, while slaves and rebels are treated worse than wild animals. Both narratives feature living prisoners as gifts for acts of bravery, an endowment that proves the diverging values placed on human life in the Egyptian hierarchy of dominion (sorry that this is so wordy).
-Cassandra Seidor
When reading Satire on the Trades, I wasn’t surprised at the way scribes were shown as the best, and having the most prestige out of all the trades in Egypt’s working class. The laborers and craftsmen had a hard life, and the Father in the source wants his son to have a life of status and success. This shows how honor and social status are an important and life altering thing in Egyptian culture. The father talks, using satirical elements, of other professions and the sorry life one leads because of it. “The potter is covered with earth, although his lifetime is still among the living. He burrows in the field more than swine to bake his cooking vessels” (Simpson 433). He describes harshness and anguish filling a lifetime, but a scribe will live a life of honor. “See I have placed you on the path of God” (436). “See, there is no scribe lacking sustenance, the provisions of the royal house” (436). These quotes show the importance of social status. Using the words “god” and “royal” show how rank, power, and position are of the utmost priority to Egyptians, and if you are stuck in the lower lots in life, you always strive to climb higher on the social ladder.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the lives of the soldiers, rank and honor also are of importance. Looking at the texts, the Biography of Amenemhab and Ahmose would continually say what they were rewarded and where their heroic actions got them on the social ladder. Therefore, when dealing with a rigid social order, a soldier could advance if marked as a brave and heroic warrior. Sometimes, they would even be promoted to guardians of the king, and even be rewarded with land and with the prisoners they had captured.
Danielle Snyder
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the McDowell reading about Daily Life, I found the section on the Guarantee of Quiet Enjoyment (88) to be quite interesting. To a modern reader, such a guarantee, let alone the fact that it pertains to the purchase of donkeys, seems a little outlandish. If there were any "outstanding claims" on the donkey, the person who gave away or sold the donkey was liable either to be fined, beaten, or both (88). It is important to notice that the Guarantee of Quiet Enjoyment was applicable only to transactions involving donkeys, and not any other kind of valuable or priceless goods. McDowell claims that the need for the Guarantee may have been the result of donkeys mostly being sold by foreigners, or other Egyptians who were not from the same village as the buyer or borrower.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even if this were the case, it does not seem to me that this is the only, or even primary reason for the Guarantee. The next section, entitled 'Why the Guarantee was Necessary' brings in a third party: the middleman. In the case of Nefer-senut, it is reasonable to conclude that the middleman would be punished for lending out something that was not his to lend. However, it was Nefer-senut who seemed to be in trouble for this mix up. This can tell us a lot about the bartering system in Ancient Egypt, especially because at this point there was no money, per se, rather only the exchange of good that equal one another in arbitrary value.
Not only does this tell us that donkeys were a highly valuable commodity in Egypt, but it also tells us just how valuable they were. Donkeys were of such importance to those who both lent and borrowed them, that there was an imperative to set up the Guarantee of Quiet Enjoyment. And, rightfully so. Donkeys would have been of much help to farmers, merchants (during later periods of Egyptian history) and even soldiers. For farmers, they help to sow the land and stomp in the seeds during pre-harvest, and they help during the actual harvest as well, not only being used for farming purposes, but for transport.
It would seem also that donkeys would be of much help for the soldiers, as today in lecture Professor Morris mentioned that soldiers had to walk about 15 miles per day, on campaign, with their weapons, and enough food and water for three days. At the least, this would amount to twenty pounds. Donkeys that carried food and water would most likely be equal in their detriment and value to soldiers, as the soldiers could literally take a load off their backs, but then have their food and water supplies liable to attack. --Melanie Zelikovsky
Upon reading, “Satire of the Trades: The Instruction of Dua-Khety” I found myself being pulled into the trap of the author. I thought to myself, “Wow, those jobs really do sound terrible. If I lived in Ancient Egypt, I would want to be a scribe hands down”. The speaker makes his compelling argument for being a scribe by means of description after description of clearly exaggerated, yet still repellent, images of what laboring or being a craftsman for a living entails: “It is miserable for the carpenter…” “The field hand cries out forever…” “The sandalmaker is utterly wretched carrying his tubs forever…” “The washerman launders at the riverbank in the vicinity of the crocodile…” and so on. It seems as though the speaker will go on forever vetoing any and every job there is. Ultimately, however, he says, “But if you understand writings, then it will be better for you than the professionals which I have set before you”. In other words, being a scribe is the best thing and can spare you a lot of grief and hardships.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker is a father who is trying to convey to his son how important it is to stay in scribal school. “A day at school is advantageous to you”, he tells his son. Throughout the rest of the document the father gives his son other words of advice to further succeed while staying in school such as, “See, it is good if you write frequently” and “One values a scribe for (his) understanding”. It is at this point where the speaker loses his hold on me as a reader. In fact, I would go as far as to say the document should be renamed “The Irony of the Scribe”. One would think that after the father described all of the outlandishly terrible conditions of all of the other professions, the child would go running for scribal school and never look back. However, that is clearly not the case. The implication that I get from this document in it’s entirety is that scribal school was so difficult and dreaded that children needed to be coaxed into attending. If conditions were truly as bad as the father describes then there would not even be a need to try to convince his son to attend in the first place. Rather than conveying the horror of not being a scribe, for me, “The Satire of the Trades” ultimately does nothing more than show how unpleasant scribal school must have been.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stuck out to me was the way the soldiers almost seemed to be pawns in a chess game. The soldiers of ancient Egypt didn't seem to question the pharaoh's ideas on what was the best plan of attack. This definitely is due to the fact that the king is looked upon as a god on earth. They merely heard and then fulfilled. For some reason, they also reminded me of little children wanting to please their parental figure no matter what it took. I can't seem to find the page (it's most likely to be in one of Simpson's writings) but I remember in a part of the passages, the king was described as never "appeased" although the soldiers continued to win battles, etc. until a certain point later on in the chapter. What all of the stories regarding soldiers held in common was the fact that they all bragged on their successes, to the point in which one might even say it was hyperbole. A way of measuring this was counting how many hands they had cut off, slaves they now held captive, or how much gold they gained as a reward. The status of soldier must have been an honor. Not only did they serve for their country and the king but also gained riches from every town they took over.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the Satire on the Trades I really could feel how much the laborers and other 'low ranked', or 'low class' people felt and what they thought. As quoted by some of the classmates below, all of those quotes convey the hardship of laborers experienced throughout their life, until death. On the other hand, there are the scribes, described in such a contrast to the laborers. A high position and an honorable position whose lives were so much easier than those of the laborers who had to work excessively when others (and is still the same today) hated to work for long hours.
ReplyDeleteI also found the reading by Mcdowell to be very interesting, because it not only mentioned the fact of borrowing and lending but also provided a explicit list of those items and their worths. I found it interesting how the their life with all the gift-giving, renting and such are so similar to that of ours today. For example, they gave gifts in special occasions, but ‘they were not mere tokens of affection but of economic significance’ (78). This is the same today, where the quality and quantity of gifts do represent one’s economic status and affection. Also, I found the part ‘The duration of the lease varied from a few days up to three months, with an average of about a month’ (86) to be funny, because it very much sounds like a car-rental today. And it is states that donkeys were borrowed by many people, merchants and even the police, making donkeys look more like cars today. Also, the lack of property right is clearly depicted in the text where the man who found a donkey ‘wandering about’ just wants to give him something else instead of returning the donkey itself to the owner. Lastly, I was kind of surprised to know that there was not a clear word for a market, because when I thought of Egypt, I also pictured a busy and crowded market.
I do agree to the comment below that says that every profession would have had their own disadvantages, but I would not try to make it sound that the weight of disadvantage of a scribe and that of a laborer sound the same. I am sure the advantages as a scribe could cover all of the disadvantages as a scribe. But not a laborer.
To me, the Capture of Joppa in the Simpsons book seems like a typical glorifying war story, commemorating the soldiers' (of Menkheperre Thutmose III) smart war tactics and victory in Joppa. It stresses the strong connection between the king and the divine gods as they all did in other propaganda-like Egyptian texts: "Look at me, O Rebel of Joppa! Here is King Menkheppere, the fierce lion, Sakhmet's son, to whom Amon has given his strength" (Simpsons 73) and "you may fill the Estate of your father Amon-Re, King of the Gods, with male and female slaves, who have fallen beneath your feet forever and ever" (Simpsons 74). Egyptians honored and thanked their gods for every victory.
ReplyDeleteThey also praise the great tactic of putting their soldiers inside baskets (which, according to Simpson, resemble the later Trojan horse). An interesting point which kind of confuses me is the part where someone mentions that "Seth has delivered Djehuty along with his wife and children" (Simpson 74). I am wondering if Seth here is depicted as a demon, or as the complementary force of Horus (hence not that bad).
The scribes’ Satire on the Trades provides an exaggerated and humorous view on the other professions available to people in Ancient Egypt aside from becoming a scribe. This text was written by scribes, in one aspect, to provide a window for those who were indecisive about whether or not to become a scribe to see how the lifestyles of professions would be like, and in another aspect, to ultimately persuade these young men that their best bet is by becoming a scribe. The scribes play on and blow up the negative aspects of each profession in order to make their own profession seem like it is the best. One example of this is in their description of messy professions such as a coppersmith, whose fingers are apparently “like the claws of the crocodile, and he stank more than fish eggs” (Simpson 433) and a washerman whose “food is mixed with filth, and there is no part of him which is clean” (Simpson 435). They even threw in the fact that launderers need to clean the dirty clothes of women in menstruation to make the job seem even more unappealing. Another way that scribes made other professions seem undesirable was by maximizing the potential dangers that involved the job, such as fishermen who need to work “in a river infested with crocodiles”, making his job “more miserable than any (other) profession” (Simpson 435).
ReplyDeleteWhile these depictions of other professions are not exactly inaccurate, at the same time, they are not to be taken literally, as one needs to keep in mind that the goal of this text was to persuade young men to believe that a scribe is the best profession out there. This is evident in how praises such as “there is no office free from supervisors, except the scribe’s. He is the supervisor!” (Simpson 435) and “there is nothing that surpasses writings!” (Simpson 432) can be seen in several parts of the text. Although there are no negative aspects of being a scribe that is written clearly on the text, if read carefully, one can see that there is a down side to becoming a scribe too. In the text, Dua-Khety gives his son Pepy warnings, such as how he should not “walk to the rear of officials”, but rather to “approach from a distance behind the last” (Simpson 436). This suggests that danger comes with being a scribe, as it does with any other profession. Furthermore, becoming a scribe is no easy feat – it must take a lot of hard work and concentration to learn the ancient Egyptian writing system if the scribes deemed it necessary to write this satire on the trades in order to persuade people who wanted to back out of becoming a scribe.
From lectures alone, we find that Egyptian cultural identity was very much based around hierarchical structure, wherein each class of people knew their place within Egyptian society. An example of this is seen in the fact that there were few revolts; so long as each person did his or her part, order could be maintained. In this sense, the Egyptians were quite the civilized people with an affinity for discipline and loyalty. (Of course, we must also note that the Egyptians were very keen on reputation as well, so if there were, in fact, revolts, chances are, they weren't documented out of consideration for upholding the king's dignity.) In today's lecture on Egyptian warfare, too, we see that the king is respected and protected beyond all means. "A slaughter was made among [the foes]," and "[I was] favoured as before, and loved [by my lord]" says Ahmose in his biography (4,5). The soldier Amenemhab, too, claims his king above all else: "I was as the companion of his feet...in the midst of his valour and his power" (1).
ReplyDeleteFrom the McDowell texts, we get the sense that Egyptian culture was very much societal and, despite instituting a kingship, they were considerably economically liberal. Despite class distinctions, within each class, different groups helped one another. For instance, there was "opportunity for cooperation between the two main groups of craftsmen in the village"--that is, the carpenters and the painters (McDowell 81). The idea of economic prosperity on the societal level is also present in the Egyptian practice of gift-giving, wherein the gifts were not "mere tokens of affection but [also] of economic significance" (McDowell 78). Perhaps one of the more interesting points in ancient Egyptian identity was the identity of the woman and her place amongst men. Even among sailors at sea, women could be found assisting them, even if it were to be a task as small as "holding drinks of some sort" (McDowell 84). Much of our study of ancient civilizations shows the futility of a woman's presence, but from lectures alone, we can again deduce that women in Egyptian society had more rights than did most of their contemporaries.
Another interesting aspect to Egyptian society is the treatment of personal privacy. "Donkey rentals are interesting from a legal point of view because they provide only our information about leasehold arrangements in the village" (McDowell 86). Essentially, then, property law was undocumented, and the residences of the citizens therefore remained inexact. This raises the question of how exactly Egyptian rulers and tax collectors were so adept at maintaining order and revenue collection, but as Professor Morris spoke of, mayors eventually replaced governors as local administrators and were therefore in a better position to oversee business within districts. Nonetheless, as McDowell continues, there must have been "some other source of income about which we are ignorant" for the donkey business to be so successful (86); we know that Egyptian society was largely agrarian, but beyond that, there are many unknown factors with regards to why the Egyptians valued certain things more highly than others. For instance, "it is not clear why we encounter these [lease] guarantees only in connection with donkeys" (McDowell 88). As discussed in lecture, there were many symbols among Egyptian artifacts, such as the fly necklace given to soldiers of high honor, but we are not sure as to what significance the fly had over the commemoration of a soldier, or over any other animal for that matter. We can say, however, that the Egyptians were very much rooted in their natural surroundings, and this is further evidenced in the Egyptians' sense of cyclical time and how they understood the seasons (e.g., Nile floods and droughts) to be the cause of it.
It is my second time writing after I lost my original one by refreshing it...
ReplyDeleteAmong this week's readings, I was particularly intrigued by the donkey business that Egyptians had introduced in McDowell's chapters. Because the donkey rental "provide ... only information about leasehold arrangements in the village," it must have been a crucial fact to explore Egyptian laws in common lives (McDowell 85). The owner only had a record of borrowers and a price for renting was set. I think this shows authority of the rich and aspects of the organized society. However, I wondered if the owners had considered status of donkeys such as their age and health when renting them. As I wondered, the text provided me with an answer that if a donkey dies, the owner has to repenstate the borrowers because it is their duty to take care of donkeys well. Both owners and borrowers had a vital responsibiity over donkeys, and for me, it seems that Egyptians did value the credibility between each other. Also, the fact that borrowers were not allowed to "terminate the lease early" shows a strict rule between Egyptians (McDowell 90).
What surprised me about the Donadoni reading was the organization of soldiers during the Eighteenth and Nineteen Dynasties. As rulers reclaimed the Egyptian territory and unified the regions, the military became an exceedingly important aspect of ancient society. Accordingly, a hierarchical system was created to differentiate soldiers of varying statuses. Similar to military operations of today, the Egyptian armies had superiors (chiefs), generals, general officers, superior officers, and simple soldiers. They also had three divisions of their military: the infantry, the charioteers, and the navy. It also appears that the Egyptian military wasn’t only used for protecting the land from invaders, but they were also a means for keeping order in the kingdom, much like modern day police. They regulated life along the Nile by making sure the citizens were following the laws and safe from local crime.
ReplyDeleteAside from an organized power system, the Egyptian soldiers of this time were esteemed members of society. Veterans were recognized for their courage and bravery and, in a military sense, seen as brothers with the king. Military positions were also hereditary, handed down from father to son, where upon the son would also receive land and any slaves his father possessed.
This is a strong contrast to military life of the earlier dynasties where, “Military service was one of many kinds of corvee, or unpaid labor.” Soldiers of this time seem to have had less on their plate. They mainly protected workers from nomadic attacks, obtained valuable materials from foreign locations, and helped with “technical operations”. The Eighteenth dynasty soldiers, however, seemed to have been more preoccupied with unifying the kingdom and fighting off serious foreign attacks.
I find it interesting the Superior Soldiers find so much valor in becoming close with the Pharaoh. They were commonly rewarded with gold, slaves and land upon the successful return of cut off hands or genitals - often enough for them to avoid having to work again - yet they still bear the burden of the military with the hopes of becoming "Warrior of the Ruler" or similar title. Their motivation is completely outside themselves, simply to please the king: "My master began again to reward me because of this with every sort of good thing, for it was pleasing to the king that I had made this capture" (Amenemhab 4).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vanessa's post earlier which stated that soldiers often seemed to treat their kings like paternal figures, constantly striving to appease them (which seems impossible) and entering battle in an almost heroic way, with the intention of emphasizing their successes. This coincides with what Professor Morris told us about the famous Battle of Kidesh, where Ramses exaggerates his "win" when in fact the Egyptians barely escaped an ambushing Hyksos army. Although this could simply be chalked up to Ramses' particularly high level of self-confidence, it seems that most generals adopted this kind of behavior.
However, this presentation of the soldiers cannot be totally accurate. Life was rough; they were forced to carry 3 days worth of food and trek over 15 miles a day. Although this was more common of the lower ranked soldiers, generals still had to accompany these arduous journeys. Still, as long as there was a king to be pleased, the army was happy to be the ones to win his favor.