Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Kushite Nubians - A powerful empire
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Nubia
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KENNDO
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:13 pm    Post subject: The Kushite Nubians - A powerful empire Reply with quote

Archeological findings have shown that the founding of Kerma (first capital of Nubia) dates back to 5,000 BC The Nubian Empire pre-dates Egyptian civilization and its lifespan outlasted Egypt, Greece and Rome combined. The African army had defeated both Egyptian, Greek and Roman enemies. At the height of its power, Nubia was the center of the ancient world. The Kingdom of Kush, with its alphabet, commerce and architectural triumphs was the equal of its ancient world counterparts. As royal tombs for their rulers they built pyramids which numbered more than all those of Egypt. In the modern world, the memory of this once great empire refuses to fade into history. - Courtesy of Wysinger


"The Nubians were constantly raiding their Egyptian neighbors. On one of these journeys, the Kandace Amanirenas went along. When confronted, she led her armies into battle and defeated three Roman cohorts. In addition, the Kandace defaced a statue of Emperor Augustus Ceasar; bringing the head back to Nubia as a prize. This head was buried in the doorway of an important building as a final act of disrespect (31). During battle, the Kandace lost an eye; but this only made her more courageous (32). "One Eyed Candace," as then Roman governor Gaius Petronius referred to her, was chased by the Romans far into her own territory to Pselkis (Dakka) (33). After a three day truce, the Romans struck back. The Kandace and her armies made another stand at Primis (Kasr/Brim), but there were soundly defeated. Although Rome destroyed the religious capital of Napata, there was still the danger of retaliation by the Kandace's armies. At this point, the leaders negotiated a treaty that she was to break in a few years (34). A historian of the period remarked "This Queen had courage above her sex" (35). On a broader level, this is a telling example of a European civilization unprepared for the "fierce, unyielding resistance of a queen whose determined struggle symbolized the national pride of a people who, until then, had commanded others" (36).


Furthermore, these queens of the Nubian/Kushite Empire were given the special distinction of assuming a priestly role in the divine succession of kings (37). In other societies of the period, the divine right of the king passed from god to ruler, there was no room for a maternal figure. However, Nubian queens are often portrayed at the event of the divine birth. A fine example of this is the representation of Queen Amanishakheto appearing before Amun...


Meroitic-Kush never became part of the Roman empire – although the Romans tried to make it part. In 24 B.C., the Romans were planning a campaign against both Meroitic-Kush (Meroë) and Arabia.

Augustus (31 BC-14 AD), when he defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra, got control of Egypt. He made it a Roman province, governed by an equestrian prefect under his own control. Kush – just to Egypt’s south – was outside the empire.

In 24 B.C. Roman forces were sent to fight in Arabia. According to Pliny and Strabo the Meroite-Kushites sacked Aswan and destroyed the Roman statues at Philae (Török, 1998; Welsby, 1996).

In response to the Kushite expedition, Gaius Petronius with a force of 10,000 infantry and 800 horses pushed the Kushites back to Pselchis. Strabo (17.1.53) mentions the fact that the Meroites were led by a Candace and her son Akinidad.


The Romans and Kushites, according to Strabo began peace negotiations at Dakka in 24 B.C.. The negotiations failed, and the Romans pushed their forces deeper into Meroitic-Kushite territory as far as Sara. They also established forts at Qasr Ibrim (Török, 1998; Welsby, 1996).


Akinidad was probably killed in 24 B.C. Strabo (17.1.54) mentions that the Candace's son was killed during this campaign. This son of the Candance was probably Akinidad.


We know that Akinidad was in Dakka on two occasions, once with Teriteqas, and later only with Amanirenas. In Dakka 2, we discover that Akinidad died at Dakka. This is most interesting because, the Romans pushed the Meroites back to Dakka in 24 B.C.


If Akinidad had been wounded outside Dakka, Amanirenas may have stopped in the town to obtain medical treatment for her son. After Akinidad died in the town, Amanirenas may have withdrawn from peace talks and continued the War.


If these events occurned , Amanirenas probably had the Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela erected in Qasr Ibrim, to honor Akinidad who had served as the Chief of the city during the Meroitic-Roman War. The Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela was probably defaced and broken during the Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim to show their contempt for the Meroites.


The Meroites resisted Roman occupation. By 22 B.C., the Meroites retook Qasr Ibrim from the Romans. In 21 B.C., a peace treaty was concluded between Augustus, and Meroite envoys on the Island of Samos.


The textual evidence makes it clear that Akinidad remained a paqar (prince) until his death at Dakka in 24 B.C.


The evidence of the Dakka 2 inscription and Hamadab 2 indicate that Akinidad probably died during Amanirenas rule of Merotic-Kush. After Teriteqas was killed during the Meroitic-Roman War, Akinidad may have become recognized as King, but without official succession, and his untimely death at Dakka, he remained until his death officially Crown Prince. This would explain our inability to find any evidence of Akinidad being recognized as anything more than a paqar, rather than a qore (king).
Two large stela bearing the name Akinidad from the Hamdab temple, is the funerary stela of Kharapkhael, the older brother of Akinidad. In this stela Akinidad described as a paqar (prince). This suggest that Kharapkhael was the original crown prince, not Akinidad of King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas.


It has usually been considered that Amanirenas was Greek geographer Strabo's "Candace".


During battle, the Candace lost an eye; but this only made her more courageous. "One Eyed Candace," as then Roman governor Gaius Petronius referred to her.


The Meroitic-Kush kingdom would last as long as the western Roman empire did – until the fifth century, when a new kingdom
(Aksum) conquered Meroë. - C. A. Winters, Meroitic Funerary Text: Stelae and Funerary Tables, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt and Courtesy of Wysinger

NUBIAN QUEEN AND SON SEES DESTRUCTON OF ROMAN FORT AT ASWAN BY NUBIAN SOLDIERS

A number of Nubian-Cushite queens called Ka'andakes (Candaces) ruled Nubia-Cush just before the birth of Christ. This queen and her son along with the Nubian-Cushite Army kept the Romans out of Nubia-Cush. In this scene, they are witnessing the burning of the Roman Garrison in Aswan. The Roman army were defeated in Nubia and never attempted to invade that nation again. - Courtesy of Community-2.webtv.net


"In 24 BC, soon after Rome had wrested Egypt from Anthony and Cleopatra, the Kushites invaded Lower Nubia, attacked and plundered Aswan, and seized the statues of the emperor Augustus to test the new northern power. This is the only incident in which Mero‘ appears directly on the stage of Roman history. Following this challenge to Augustus' authority, the Roman general Petronius was immediately dispatched to Nubia. He met and defeated a Meroitic army and drove on to Napata, which he is said to have captured and destroyed, enslaving its inhabitants. The Meroites and Romans ultimately made a peace treaty, however, which endured for three centuries.


The Romans claimed a victory, but so apparently did the Meroites. A victory stela, now in the British Museum, was set up in the capital by Amanirenas, the ruling queen of the time, and although it is inscribed in Meroitic, the name of Rome can clearly be read. In one of the temples in the city, a bronze head of Augustus was found buried beneath the entrance steps so that all who entered would step on this foreign ruler, who was only dimly known to Kush. Figures of Roman soldiers pierced with swords or arrows also adorned numerous magical objects and appeared in painted frescoes….


Classical writers were so impressed with the presence of queens at Meroe that they often assumed that Mero‘ was ruled exclusively by women, whom they thought always bore the name "Candace." This name, the origin of our modern female name, was in fact a Meroitic queenly title. As was explained by the Christian theologian Oecumenius in the 6th century (probably quoting one of the early Greek travelers to Mero‘ of the second century BC), "Candace is what the Aithiopians call every mother of a king, since they do not refer to the fatherÉ (Her son) is traditionally regarded as a son of the sun god." In Meroitic texts the title "Candace" appears as "Kedeke."
In the Roman account of the war with Kush in 24 BC, it was noted that the Kushites were led by a queen who was "a very masculine sort of woman and blind in one eye." This strange description is given substance by the even stranger portrayals of these ladies that appear in reliefs in their tomb chapels and temples. The successive queens Amanirenas, Amanishakheto and Amanitore, for example, all of whom are nearly contemporary with Petronius' campaign, are depicted as massive, powerful figures, enormously fat, covered with jewels and ornament and elaborate fringed and tasseled robes." - Nubianet.org


Classical writers were so impressed with the presence of queens at Meroe that they often assumed that Mero‘ was ruled exclusively by women, whom they thought always bore the name "Candace." This name, the origin of our modern female name, was in fact a Meroitic queenly title. As was explained by the Christian theologian Oecumenius in the 6th century (probably quoting one of the early Greek travelers to Mero‘ of the second century BC), "Candace is what the Aithiopians call every mother of a king, since they do not refer to the fatherÉ (Her son) is traditionally regarded as a son of the sun god." In Meroitic texts the title "Candace" appears as "Kedeke."
In the Roman account of the war with Kush in 24 BC, it was noted that the Kushites were led by a queen who was "a very masculine sort of woman and blind in one eye." This strange description is given substance by the even stranger portrayals of these ladies that appear in reliefs in their tomb chapels and temples. The successive queens Amanirenas, Amanishakheto and Amanitore, for example, all of whom are nearly contemporary with Petronius' campaign, are depicted as massive, powerful figures, enormously fat, covered with jewels and ornament and elaborate fringed and tasseled robes." - Nubianet.org




my comments-
one correction for the above post or topic,kushites were directly in roman history again later many times during the 200 a.d.'s and later,and one period so far in the late 90's a.d.

later kushite fighters and later nubians were more effective against the romans.
the kushites and nubians later on too won ever war against the romans,because they they were better equipped and becoming more better equipped than they were before and had better training and getting better training than before.

i still think that the queen and her son that first fought the romans were equal rulers and her son was a really a king.

new research is saying now as well that nubian civiliztion really goes back to 8000 b.c.



[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 24 May 2005).]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KENNDO
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:58 pm    Post subject: BATTLES Reply with quote

NUBIA HAD ANOTHER BATTLE WITH ROME AND AT THE END OF THE FIRST CEN. RECENT FINDINGS SUGGEST.

THERE WAS MENTION OF A BATTLE AND KUSH(NUBIA)WON AGAIN AND NUBIA RETOOK ALL OF NORTHERN LOWER NUBIA ONCE AGAIN IN 253 A.D. AND IN A ANOTHER WAR IN 298 A.D.

AFTER MEROE FELL NEW NUBIAN KINGDOMS MORE STRONGER THAN BEFORE RAIDED ROMAN EGYPT AND LATER EGYPT MANY TIMES AND DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD AS WELL AND THERE THEY EVEN CONQURED EGYPT FROM THE ARABS AND LATER CONQURED UPPER EGYPT.

NEW NUBIAN KINGDOM WERE FORMED BUT THE CIVILIZATION STILL EXISTED AND STILL DOES UP UNTIL TODAY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nubia did not pre date egypt nore did there pyramids pre date ancient egyptpian pryamids,egypt influenced nubia alot more than nubia influenced egypt.nubia adopted alot of egyptian customs and gods after the egyptians accuppied nubia all the way down to the 4th cataract
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daughter_Of_SETI
Divine Adoratrice


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
Location: Hull, UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Pre-Dynastic times Kush was a lot more independant of Egypt and were very advanced in pottery making and the like. When Egypt first started to show a serious interest in the land of Kush, they unfortunately stifled the Kushites advancements and made them Egyptianised. Luckily, the Kushites were able to hold on to some of their own traditions, even during the Egyptian 25th Dynasty when they were ruling Egypt, so they were never completely over-ruled by the Egyptians.
_________________


In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this - Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The archaeological record is crystal clear on this issue. In late prehistoric times it's quite evident the Egyptians and the Nubians were about equal in their journey toward state formation. This is especially true by the Naqada III period (3150-3000 BCE). The evidence is ample in Lower Nubia for the A-Group culture of Qustul, where a sophisticated and stratified society was well developed by this time. However, there's no evidence to suggest Nubia (Lower or Upper) had launched a sophisticated civilization before Egypt did. Again, they were on roughly equal footing throughout most of Predynastic history.

The rulers of Qustul and the Egyptian city of Hierakonpolis maintained close ties in late prehistory. Qustul was the route for many of the luxury and prestige goods the Egyptian Predynastic rulers craved, and the Qustul rulers had dominion over this trade route. However, in the final stages of state formation in Naqada III Egypt, we see the ruling line of places like Hierakonpolis and This striking out to take control themselves. Labels and inscriptions express military raids into Lower Nubia, and by the start of Dynasty 1 in Egypt, the sophisticated Qustul culture simply vanishes. There is no more evidence to suggest further development for it, and so clearly the earliest leaders of dynastic Egypt wiped it out.

Thus began several thousand years of ambivalent and generally hostile relations between Egypt and Nubia. Whenever Egypt weakened the peoples of Nubia rose up, bespeaking their desire for autonomy, but no Nubian force could match the might of Egyptian kings like Senusret I, Senusret III, Tuthmosis I, and especially Tuthmosis III.

I am no expert on Nubian history but Dynasty 25 is particularly interesting to me. The Nubian pharaohs restored much of Egypt's lost glory, if for a short time before the Assyrians drove them out. I have read of the troubles Rome had in trying to subjugate Nubia but they never had the successes Egypt had in earlier times.

For those of you who subscribe to KMT or can buy a copy at your local bookstore, there's a great article in the latest issue on the Nubian pyramids and royal burials. Nubian pyramids were never the formidable and imposing monuments like those erected at Giza, Saqqara, and Dashur, but to me they have an elegence and style all their own. I have to wonder if the Old Kingdom Egyptians could've somehow seen the later Nubian pyramids and their beautifully dressed corners, would they have adopted a similar plan?
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daughter_Of_SETI wrote:
In Pre-Dynastic times Kush was a lot more independant of Egypt and were very advanced in pottery making and the like. When Egypt first started to show a serious interest in the land of Kush, they unfortunately stifled the Kushites advancements and made them Egyptianised. Luckily, the Kushites were able to hold on to some of their own traditions, even during the Egyptian 25th Dynasty when they were ruling Egypt, so they were never completely over-ruled by the Egyptians.


The people of Kush readily embraced egyptian culture it was not forced on them, because the culture of there own was not as sophisticated or civilized kush saw egypt something to be emulated. Remeber the kushites were the ones who chose the tallest of there tribe to be king. Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The people of Kush readily embraced egyptian culture it was not forced on them, because the culture of there own was not as sophisticated or civilized kush saw egypt something to be emulated.


That's not entirely fair, though. As I wrote in my previous post the peoples of Lower Nubia in late prehistory were developing their own distinct culture. Upper Nubia was still quite a ways back, technologically and culturally speaking, but the A-Group culture of Qustul in Lower Nubia was pretty much a match for the concurrent developing culture of Upper Egypt.

We don't know how much more advanced the peoples of Lower Nubia might have become had the Egyptians not wiped them out around the start of Dynasty 1. It all hinged on that. Had it not happened it's more than likely Lower Nubia would've become a much greater power in northern Africa. Indeed, the kingdom of Egypt may have been smaller.

Even through the dynastic period the Nubians were a distinct culture. We must never oversimplify it to the point that we refer to them in terms of a "copycat" of the Egyptians. Yes, the Egyptians dominated them through much of their history, and the Nubians acquired a great many of their cultural traits from the Egyptians, but influences went both ways. Certain hair and wig styles, deities such as Bes, the elite Medjay soldiers, the finer skills of archery--these and others were imports from Nubia.

On a final note, I would argue that much of the Egyptian-influenced culture practiced by the Nubians was indeed more or less forced on them. They were under the yoke of Egypt for many generations, and that can't help but damage the native culture. They ended up embracing many of the lifeways of the Egyptians, but not till after centuries of steady conquest. It's similar to the situation with Native Americans. They had their own traditions and cultures but were overwhelmed by the technology and sheer numbers of Europeans. Today most Native Americans are Christian and sadly those who practice their traditional ways are growing fewer by the years. And the same happened with the Egyptians themselves, after conquests particularly by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans--eventually the cultural identity of ancient Egypt was wiped out, too.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

when you talk assyrians,persians,greeks and romans dont forget to put kush in there to they were a foreign conquers also,and out that bunch it was the greeks who were celebrated has liberators after they had to live under the rule of there two most hated enemies the kushites and the assyrians and then to live under the persians who were not the most loving conquers, the greeks maintained the native egyptians idenity.The ptolmacic dynasty was one of the most prosperus times in ancient egypt since the new kingdom,and lasted for 300 years,but than the romans came and ruined it by making egypt a provence than they slowly lost there idenity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daughter_Of_SETI
Divine Adoratrice


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
Location: Hull, UK

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know that the Egyptians particularly hated the Persians ruling, but as for the other foreign kings - especially the Kushite and Libyans - I've never heard much to say that they hated them. These kings, for the most part, chose to live and rule from Egyptian soil and integrate themselves with the rest of the Egyptian society, so I don't know that they were that bothered that they were foreign most of the time (I could be wrong, though). One thing that should be remembered is that when Alexander the Great came to Egypt, Egypt was under Persian rule whom they did hate, so it's not surprising that the Greeks were initially considered liberaters. That impression doesn't seem to have lasted long, however. From the time of Ptolemy IV to Ptolemy XII they weren't looked upon by the Egyptians that favourably, as they spent all their time in Alexandria, seperating themselves from the Egyptians. Also the heavily taxed Egypt in order ally themselves with the Romans. I believe that only the begining of the Ptolemaic Dynasty can be seen in terms of prosperity. Idea
_________________


In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this - Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes the resentments took over a hundred years after the greeks took control for sentment to turn against them as well for the debts to rome to start soaring,in any event the demise of egypt started when the nubians t siezed control because that started really the the chain for the most part of one foreign rule to another and by the time of the nubians takeing over egypt was in steep decline
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daughter_Of_SETI
Divine Adoratrice


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
Location: Hull, UK

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally don't see the Kushites as the reason for the Egyptian decline as both the Kushites and the Libyans did a lot of positive things for Egypt. Egypt had already begun its long slip of decline before the Kushites ruled (it appears to have slowly slipped from Ramses III onwards), but at such a slow and steady rate that some dynasties had brief glories.

That's just my personal opinion, though. Very Happy
_________________


In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this - Terry Pratchett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daughter_Of_SETI wrote:
I personally don't see the Kushites as the reason for the Egyptian decline as both the Kushites and the Libyans did a lot of positive things for Egypt. Egypt had already begun its long slip of decline before the Kushites ruled (it appears to have slowly slipped from Ramses III onwards), but at such a slow and steady rate that some dynasties had brief glories.

That's just my personal opinion, though. Very Happy


it started the decline in the sence of going from one foreign rule to another ,but your right the decline started before the nubians ,that is why the nubians were even able to defeat a egypt,the nubians knew egypt was weak and seized the oppurtunity
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Kushites were foreign rulers, which probably didn't sit well with many Egyptians, but I didn't lump them in with the others because I don't see their dynasty as noticeably contributing to the decline of Egypt. Rather, they contributed to its cultural identity and integrity, if but for a short time. Egypt had long been in decline already, as Daughter_Of_SETI mentioned, and by the end of the Third Intermediate Period this former superpower was a fragmented and disjointed collection of diverging dynasties. The Nubian kings were able eventually to reunite Egypt and restore its sense of nationality, and the religion, artwork, and cultural identity flourished in Dynasty 25.

The Assyrian and Persian rulers were a different matter. Kings like Ashurbanipal and Darius didn't directly involve themselves too much with Egypt. They left behind their own governmental representatives and set up native Egyptian officals as their patsies in order to control the Two Lands. It didn't sit well with the Egyptian population and was very detrimental to the cultural identity of Egypt in the end.

But to me the true decay started rapidly with the Ptolemaic Period. I also agree with Daughter_Of_SETI on this issue. Alexander himself spent very little time in Egypt, and although he was proclaimed the king for forcing out the hated Persians, he gave Egypt little attention and left others to rule for him when he went off to kill a few more tens of thousands of people on his endless conquests. The first truly successful Ptolemaic ruler was Ptolemaios I Soter--so successful, in fact, that nearly all of the Macedonian/Greek rulers who followed him took his name for themselves. I kind of look at him as the Ramesses II of the Ptolemaic Period. But as Daughter_Of_SETI pointed out, much of the rest of the Greek dynasty did not go well and there were numerous uprisings among the native population.

We vividly see in the funerary artwork alone that the longer the Ptolemaic Period went on, the more the Egyptians lost their cultural identity. Egypt became a heavily Hellenized civilization in a little more than 300 years. The ultimate end came with Rome because Egypt was no longer a kingdom, and without a king, traditional Egypt could not meaningfully exist. Few Roman emperors cared the least bit about Egypt and even fewer even set foot there.

Most of the Egyptologists I know consider the Ptolemaic and Roman periods as an entirely different field of Egyptological study--Classical, not ancient.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ramesses II
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
The Kushites were foreign rulers, which probably didn't sit well with many Egyptians, but I didn't lump them in with the others because I don't see their dynasty as noticeably contributing to the decline of Egypt. Rather, they contributed to its cultural identity and integrity, if but for a short time. Egypt had long been in decline already, as Daughter_Of_SETI mentioned, and by the end of the Third Intermediate Period this former superpower was a fragmented and disjointed collection of diverging dynasties. The Nubian kings were able eventually to reunite Egypt and restore its sense of nationality, and the religion, artwork, and cultural identity flourished in Dynasty 25.

The Assyrian and Persian rulers were a different matter. Kings like Ashurbanipal and Darius didn't directly involve themselves too much with Egypt. They left behind their own governmental representatives and set up native Egyptian officals as their patsies in order to control the Two Lands. It didn't sit well with the Egyptian population and was very detrimental to the cultural identity of Egypt in the end.

But to me the true decay started rapidly with the Ptolemaic Period. I also agree with Daughter_Of_SETI on this issue. Alexander himself spent very little time in Egypt, and although he was proclaimed the king for forcing out the hated Persians, he gave Egypt little attention and left others to rule for him when he went off to kill a few more tens of thousands of people on his endless conquests. The first truly successful Ptolemaic ruler was Ptolemaios I Soter--so successful, in fact, that nearly all of the Macedonian/Greek rulers who followed him took his name for themselves. I kind of look at him as the Ramesses II of the Ptolemaic Period. But as Daughter_Of_SETI pointed out, much of the rest of the Greek dynasty did not go well and there were numerous uprisings among the native population.

We vividly see in the funerary artwork alone that the longer the Ptolemaic Period went on, the more the Egyptians lost their cultural identity. Egypt became a heavily Hellenized civilization in a little more than 300 years. The ultimate end came with Rome because Egypt was no longer a kingdom, and without a king, traditional Egypt could not meaningfully exist. Few Roman emperors cared the least bit about Egypt and even fewer even set foot there.

Most of the Egyptologists I know consider the Ptolemaic and Roman periods as an entirely different field of Egyptological study--Classical, not ancient.


its hard to say considering the length of there rule by foreign rulers the nubians had a relative short reigh around 60 years in comparison to others. im not sure on this point but they did not even have total control of egypt for the total 60 years,and the nubians were more readily had already incorperated egyptian culture do to the egyptian rule of nubian down to the 4 th cataract,many years pryor ,but none the less the nubian rule started the begining of the end of egyptian native rule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're correct. The Nubian dynasty was brief, so I can't fairly say that a longer period of control under Kush wouldn't have affected Egypt in negative terms. In my own opinion, however, in their short time as the kings of Egypt, the Nubians did more good than harm. I might also argue that technically the end of Egyptian autonomy began with the Libyan rulers in the Third Intermediate Period. Although neither the Libyans nor the Nubians had complete and smooth control over Egypt in their respective times, we see the steady decline of Egypt as an autonomous kingdom with the Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. It was a long and slow death.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Nubia All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group