Egyptian Dreams

Lutz · Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:46 am Post subject: Tutankhamun A Warrior King?

A so far little noticed object from KV 62, a Leather Harness (Cairo JE 62628, Carter No. 587a) with clear signs of usage, seems to support the in the past already voiced conjectures (see among other, Raymond Johnson in 2004) about a possible participation of Tutankhamun in military conflicts:

" Tutankhamun Was A Warrior King Not A Feeble Boy, Northampton Academics Claim " (Northampton Chronicle - Nick Spoors, 23.03.2018)

" King Tut, The Boy Soldier? Here's What Other Stories Aren't Telling You. " (Live Science - Owen Jarus, 29.03.2018).
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)

Ikon · Scribe Joined: 09 Jul 2012 Posts: 311

A few weeks ago there was a very good documentary about this on TV with information that was completely new, particularly about Tutankhamun's cuirass and how it was constructed.

I would debate their findings that he was a warrior pharaoh though as they ignored the physical issues that his mummy shows. His left foot rather mitigates against a very active lifestyle. Then there is the scene on a box of him and Akhesenamun, where he is sitting down to shoot an arrow, why sit down if you are a fit young warrior pharaoh? Why have so many walking sticks as well.

I suspect that what we see is perhaps an ancient example of the tricks used to hide the incapacity of FDR from the public. Who knows, maybe Tutankhamun did ride in a chariot, but held in place by some type of harness as he would have had a bit of difficulty with that pesky left foot in maintaining balance in a chariot bouncing about.

panther42 · Citizen Joined: 02 Nov 2018 Posts: 1

Lutz,
from seeing you as a very fact based individual, I find it hard to believe anything found in tut's tomb would encourage you to post something which is not proved?
Tut's tomb is basically a cache of objects thrown together. How do we know this is from anything to do with Tut?

Lutz · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:05 pm Post subject:

neseret · Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:30 pm Post subject:

Montuhotep88 · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:19 am Post subject:

A cuirass was signs of wear doesn't seem to me to be very convincing evidence of its wear in a specific environment, such as battle-- it could just as easily have been in a controlled 'training' environment, on a hunt, or during a 'show the pharaoh to the troops tour,' as it were.

I'm inevitably reminded of King Gama's son Arac singing about removing his cuirass to go into battle (after having worn it the entire play). Laughing

Lutz · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:52 am Post subject:

karnsculpture · Scribe Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 314

An Egyptian defeat with the king killed would explain an awful lot -

Tut's body

Horemheb and Ay - the latter taking the throne; was the former either occupied with a crisis situation or perhaps *seen as* responsible somehow - the king killed while under his protection?

The reliefs being taken down by Horemheb at a later date.

Montuhotep88 · Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:38 pm Post subject:

Lutz · Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:21 pm Post subject:

Raymond Johnson : An Asiatic Battle Scene of Tutankhamun from Thebes - A Late Amarna Antecedent of the Ramesside Battle-Narrative Tradition (PhD, Chicago, 1992), page 138 :

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)

maat · Scribe Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Posts: 128

Examination of Tutankhamun's mummy found he had a club foot that would have hobbled him.

Tutankhamun could not have actively engaged in military combat as he would have been a liability to his troops.

The military equipment found in KV62 did not belong to Tut.

karnsculpture · Scribe Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 314

He was the king, he won’t have actually been in the front line as a foot soldier. He had chariots, horses and men to support and protect him. The items in the tomb were definitely his, that’s fact, they were buried with him and in many cases have his name on. What we can’t say, with any king except possibly Sequenere Tao, is what happened on the battlefield. Likely Horemheb and Seti I did fight as they were from a military background with careers prior to being kings, but they were in the elite and well protected.

maat · Scribe Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Posts: 128

Karns, I have a only a few minutes left before I leave this session but I can demonstrate almost nothing in the tomb belongs to Tutankhamun. He is not principal in the tomb.

Just a quick note: consider the items found in niches in his burial chamber.

The flame that was to be in the west wall at his head was missing and the Osiris figure in wall at his feet did not face toward his feet (per Carter's journal).

Proper placement would have identified him as principal in the tomb. Those are only two of many references. Tutankhamun is a representative but the tomb is not properly his own.

maat · Scribe Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Posts: 128

As for his military participation. I agree that he would not have to have been directly in the battle but that would have diminished him in the eyes of his troops as a military leader.

There is ample evidence in the tomb (KV62) that Tutankhamun is not the principal figure (owner?) of the tomb. Although, he was indeed king.

maat · Scribe Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Posts: 128

Wear to armor found in the tomb cannot have been from its use by Tutankhamun in combat because of his impairment.
Wear is not likely from practice because he still had a disabled foot.
Either the armor is his and was actively used in combat or it was used by someone else.
Evidence in the tomb indicates the armor was not his.