Ancient Egypt survives to this day

robertp6165

DominusNovus said:
Wow. Thats good. But Egypt's doing almost too well... :D
Of course, they have plenty of advantages to ensure their dominance...
Click to expand...

Thank you! :) Yes, they are doing very well...I am assuming they have a good long run of reasonably competent Pharaohs, for one thing, probably a much longer run than they ever had in their actual history. LOL I am also assuming that the flow of gold from Ophir and the profits made from trading and tolls on ships passing through their Suez Canal are such that they are able to buy themselves out of a lot of potentially dangerous situations.

The next few centuries ought to be interesting...I am still trying to puzzle out how they deal with Christianity and still keep their old religion more or less intact (as per the requirments of the original challenge)...
 

Tom_B

All gods are local

Something to bear in mind about the Egyptian relgion is that the different localities had their own set of gods--there was the Triad of Thebes while Memphis had an Ogdoad and Heliopolis had its own gods and the Elephantine had some local gods, etc. The state relgion was heavily influenced by whatever city was dominant. If there was an alliance gods became a hyphenated composite. There was syncretisitic intermixing but local gods were never declared heretical or otherwise forbidden. Now the question is whether the Egyptian religion is going to be able to create a syncretistic blend along the lines of Hinduism.
 

DuQuense

1-If the Eygptians are sailing back and forth in the red sea someonee is going to settle on the North shore, Maybe in the Oasises of Mecca and Medina, There also were Small Citystates in Yemen :)

2- IOTL Persia Controlled the south shore of the Persian Gulf, ITTL I Suppose it would be the Parthian Gulf.

3- If poeple are sailing north and south around the South Africa Storm Belt, they will be Blown to Madasgascar sooner or late.

4- If Rome is not involvoved with Peace keeping in the East Med, they will have more troops to stricke north & East in Europe.
 

Duncan

DuQuense said:
1-If the Eygptians are sailing back and forth in the red sea someonee is going to settle on the North shore, Maybe in the Oasises of Mecca and Medina, There also were Small Citystates in Yemen :)

2- IOTL Persia Controlled the south shore of the Persian Gulf, ITTL I Suppose it would be the Parthian Gulf.
Click to expand...

Actually there were quite large kingdoms in Yemen... the Egyptians are bound to control these by now, but maybe as vassal-allies rather than direct rule. Ditto Parthian control in the Gulf. There's probably a informal frontier between "spheres of influence" running through the Empty Quarter.

I'm not sure how early Mecca and the other Hijazi commercial cities became important in OTL.

DuQuense said:
4- If Rome is not involved with Peace keeping in the East Med, they will have more troops to strike north & East in Europe.
Click to expand...

To balance this, they can't recruit in the eastern provinces they don't have, and they will need to maintain a much larger fleet than in OTL with the Parthians across the Aegean, even if the Egyptian fleet isn't hostile. Ancient oared fleets need huge amounts of manpower; so on balance I'm not sure the Romans will have troops spare to push further north.
 

Duncan

Egyptian trade and shipping

Of course in OTL it was an Egyptian Greek, Hippalos of Alexandria, who discovered the monsoons (around 40 BC?) and pioneered direct sailing from Roman Egypt to India... if the neo-Saitics manage this, they'll outflank Parthian trade and control luxury imports to Rome. Rather like the mediaeval Mamluks sitting across the spice routes. They stand to make an awful lot of money...
 

carlton_bach

Nonny said:
Why does Napoleon 14 say Egyptian records don't talk about the 10 Plagues? Hasn't he heard of the Ipuwer Payrus?
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838
Click to expand...

Ipuwer is usually dated to the end of the Old Kingdom while the most common datings of Exodus are grouped around the end of the New Kingdom, with Ramesses II and III being favorites. That's a pretty big gap to reconcile. Like using the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's reports of Viking raids to illustrate Spanish naval acvtivity against England in 1588.
 

MerryPrankster

Perhaps Christianity can be absorbed into the Egyptian faith somehow...in OTL, Egyptian Christians turned the Isis-with-baby-Horus motif into the Madonna-and-Child thing; perhaps some Egyptian priests decide that Jesus is the incarnation of Horus and Mary is Isis or something weird like that.

The end result is an "Egyptified" mutation Christianity developing in Egypt that is viewed as heretical by other Christians (or perhaps overtly non-Christian--"another Jesus" and presumably "another gospel"). Aren't there Hindu sects that hold Jesus to be a low-level deity or avatar? They aren't recognized as Christian by most Christians. That could become the majority faith of Egypt--for a few centuries in OTL, Egypt was majority-Christian, so we've got a nice little spin for the ATL.

Heck, if we want to take it VERY far, this Egypto-Christianity could become decadent and repressive and a young scholar discovers suppressed histories of the the early Church and reveals them in this TL's version of the Reformation; "Egypto-Protestantism" is basically orthodox Christianity, though I assume there'll be some Egyptian culture stuff.
 

MerryPrankster

Thing with Egypt is that Egypt was ruled by an all-powerful god-king...theoretically, if the Pharaoh was a real putz, he could remove all records of anyone or anything.

However, pre-industrial true totalitarianism is a bit hard to pull off, so one might think that a record here or there might survive.
 

robertp6165

DuQuense said:
1-If the Eygptians are sailing back and forth in the red sea someonee is going to settle on the North shore, Maybe in the Oasises of Mecca and Medina, There also were Small Citystates in Yemen :)

2- IOTL Persia Controlled the south shore of the Persian Gulf, ITTL I Suppose it would be the Parthian Gulf.

3- If poeple are sailing north and south around the South Africa Storm Belt, they will be Blown to Madasgascar sooner or late.

4- If Rome is not involvoved with Peace keeping in the East Med, they will have more troops to stricke north & East in Europe.
Click to expand...

1) The various states on the north shore of the Red Sea (Sabaean, Minaean, etc) are independent, but are tributaries of Egypt. Egypt has decided it will be cheaper and more profitable to exploit them economically while not paying to garrison them militarily.

2) Parthia does have a sphere of influence over the city states on the south shore of the Gulf. Again, like Egypt, it exploits them economically without incurring the cost of placing garrisons there.

3) Rome does have somewhat more troops to use in advancing the frontier of it's empire northward, but not a great deal more. The ongoing conflict with Parthia (Rome will be invading Asia Minor or repelling invasions of the Balkans, and the Parthian and Roman fleets will be skirmishing and clashing almost constantly. All of these drain off a very large portion of potential Roman manpower.
 

robertp6165

Duncan said:
Of course in OTL it was an Egyptian Greek, Hippalos of Alexandria, who discovered the monsoons (around 40 BC?) and pioneered direct sailing from Roman Egypt to India... if the neo-Saitics manage this, they'll outflank Parthian trade and control luxury imports to Rome. Rather like the mediaeval Mamluks sitting across the spice routes. They stand to make an awful lot of money...
Click to expand...

yes, the Egyptians have probably discovered this. I mentioned in my first installment of the scenario that Egypt, once it gained ports on the Horn of Africa, would be trading with India. And indeed, Egypt is extremely wealthy in this scenario, due not only to its possession of the gold mines of Ophir, but also because of its position astride the trade routes.
 

robertp6165

Matt Quinn said:
Perhaps Christianity can be absorbed into the Egyptian faith somehow...in OTL, Egyptian Christians turned the Isis-with-baby-Horus motif into the Madonna-and-Child thing; perhaps some Egyptian priests decide that Jesus is the incarnation of Horus and Mary is Isis or something weird like that.

The end result is an "Egyptified" mutation Christianity developing in Egypt that is viewed as heretical by other Christians (or perhaps overtly non-Christian--"another Jesus" and presumably "another gospel"). Aren't there Hindu sects that hold Jesus to be a low-level deity or avatar? They aren't recognized as Christian by most Christians. That could become the majority faith of Egypt--for a few centuries in OTL, Egypt was majority-Christian, so we've got a nice little spin for the ATL.

Heck, if we want to take it VERY far, this Egypto-Christianity could become decadent and repressive and a young scholar discovers suppressed histories of the the early Church and reveals them in this TL's version of the Reformation; "Egypto-Protestantism" is basically orthodox Christianity, though I assume there'll be some Egyptian culture stuff.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along similar lines. My thoughts are that the Egyptians might actually identify Jesus with Osiris...both of whom were slain, and then raised from the dead, thus providing their people with a vehicle for salvation. Perhaps (kind of like the Mormons believe Jesus did) they will hold that Osiris visited the earth twice to save different groups of people...the first time thousands of years ago to save the Egyptian people, then a second time (in the form of Jesus) to save everyone else. Or perhaps, along the lines you suggest, Osiris visited first to save the Egyptians, then his son Horus (Jesus) vists to save everyone else. I can see the version of "Christianity" which thus results in Egypt as being very, very strange.
 

MerryPrankster

Robert,

Thanks for liking my idea. Perhaps, since Isis is an important Egyptian goddess, we might end up with some sort of bizarre Trinity of Osiris/the Father, Horus/Jesus, and Isis/Mary. The evil god Set can be conglomerated with Satan somehow.

I had forgotten that Osiris died and rose again...having Jesus as the "second coming of Osiris" instead of Horus is an interesting idea.
 

carlton_bach

Nonny said:
Unlike other areas of history, Ancient Egyptian dating is fraught with different views and controversy, for the obvious reason that it might mean that the OT record is true! Shock, Horror! "Men will believe anything rather than believe the Bible!" (Queen Victoria)
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/23arch02.htm
Click to expand...

Velikovsky's dates only work if you dismiss stratigraphic evidence, linguistic variety in Mesopotamian documents, and radiocarbon dating. There is a relatively recent study on the various approaches to Egyptian chronology out (published 1997 by Jürgen von Beckerath) that addresses the many inconsistencies in our evidence. While I haven't read the whole thing (neither do I understand Hieratic, not do I have that kind of time - except maybe if I gave up posting on AH boards :)), I think I can trust its conclusions. They are, in short, that there is an accumulated total of several centuries of 'give' either way in Egyptian chronology, most of it in the periods between Kingdoms and that a number of rulers can not be dated with any certainty at all. However, various attempts at reversing the entire system and conflating the New Kingdom and the Saite dynasties, or the Old and Middle Kingdoms, do not hold water. There is, by now, too much evidence of the sequence of events.

Of course there's also the matter of lunar calendars and alignments in cultic sites all over ancient Europe that wouldn't work if Velikovsky were right. But that's another issue and belongs firmly on the ASB list.
 

carlton_bach

Matt Quinn said:
Carlton,

http://www.biblicalresources.info/pages/ot1/amenhotep2.html

This theory places the Exodus a bit earlier than the "Ramses" pharoahs; the "four hundred years since the Israelites came out of Egypt," according to some Biblical commentaries I've read, is a commonly-used metaphor for "a long time since the Exodus," not a literal statement of years. An idiom, sort of.
Click to expand...

But Amenhotep still doesn't put us much closer to Ipuwer.

Of course, the other issue is whether the Israelites ever were in Egypt, but there is simply too little evidence either way that I know of.
 

MerryPrankster

When did Amenhotep reign, and when was the Ipuwer manuscript written down? I looked for some Amenhotep II stuff and couldn't find exact dates.

According to some sources, various Canaanite groups took refuge in Egypt from famines. Some occupied privileged positions doing skilled labor and some were slaves doing drudge work. The Biblical record shows the Israelites going from being well-off (due to Joseph) to being enslaved; it could all depend on the whims of the Pharaoh, who was theoretically omnipotent.
 

robertp6165

Saite Egypt, continued...

PHARAOHS OF EGYPT 670 BC to 2004 AD

26th Dynasty (Saite)

Necho I 670-663 BC Assyrian Vassal
Psamtik I 663-609 BC Freed Egypt from Assyria
Necho II “Gold Finder” 609-594 BC Restored links with Ophir;
reorganized Egyptian Army on Greek model
Psamtik II 604-588 BC
Wahibre I “the Unlucky” 588-569 BC overthrown in Army revolt,
succeeded by son Ahmosi
Ahmosi II “the Wise” 569-525 BC drastically reduced proportion
of mercenaries in army, ending continual problem with army revolts; established income tax; absorbed priestly class and temples into the
royal administration,eliminating them as a threat to the monarchy
Psamtik III 525-510 BC killed in battle against the Persians; no heirs. Related family from Sais assumes throne as 27th Dynasty

27th Dynasty (Saite)

Rameses XIII 510-500 BC Cousin of Psamtik III, General in Army. Assumed throne upon death of Psamtik III in battle
Necho III 500-455 BC
Psamtik IV 455 BC
Ahmosi III 455-450 BC
Psamtik V 450-425 BC
Psamtik VI 425-415 BC
Necho IV 415-413 BC
Psamtik VII 413-390 BC
Ahmosi IV “Canal Builder” 390-365 BC Completed Suez Canal
Psamtik VIII 365-340 BC
Psamtik IX “the Great” 340-320 BC reorganized army on Macedonian model, allied with Alexander vs. Persia
Necho V 320 BC
Rameses XIV 320-305 BC
Necho VI 305 BC
Thutmoses V 305-303 BC
Necho VII 303-275 BC Necho VII died without heirs,throne passed to queen’s family, new dynasty

28th Dynasty (Saite)

Seti III 275-250 BC
Rameses XV 250-245 BC
Necho VIII 245-223 BC Made alliance with Hamilcar Barca vs. Rome; reorganized Egyptian Navy to meet Roman threat
Necho IX “Roman Slayer” 223-190 BC Joined with Hannibal Barca against Rome during 2nd Punic War.
Seti IV 190-165 BC
Rameses XVI “the Crafty” 165-138 BC Led Egypt during 3rd Punic
War vs. Rome, Seleucids and Ptolemies.
Psamtik X 138-95 BC bribed Mithridates II of Parthia to attack Ptolemies
Thutmoses VI 95-70 BC
Seti V 70-33 BC
Psamtik XI 33-10 BC
Necho X 10 BC-12 AD
Ahmosi V 12-40 AD Died childless, throne passes to related family in Thebes. New dynasty.

29th Dynasty (Theban)

Wahibre II “the Usurper” 40-90 AD General in Army, head of junior line of royal family, usurps throne, passing over senior line of family.

28th Dynasty (Saite)--Restored

Rameses XVII 90-128 AD Head of senior line of family which was usurped by Wahibre II; overthrows Wahibre in a civil war.
Rameses XVIII 128-142 AD
Necho XI 142-150 AD
Seti VI 150-191 AD
Thutmoses VII 191-203 AD
Psamtik XII 203-230 AD
Ahmosi VI 230-275 AD
Ahmosi VII 275-290 AD
Necho XII 290-304 AD
Thutmoses VIII 304-333 AD Overthrown by descendant of Wahibre “the Usurper”, restoring the 29th Dynasty.

29th Dynasty (Theban)--Restored

Wahibre III “Bloody Hand” 333-350 AD Overthrew Thutmoses VIII,
murdered all remaining descendants of the 28th Dynasty.
Ahmosi VIII 350 AD
Wahibre IV 350-396 AD Overthrown by family that is distantly related to the former Saite 28th Dynasty which was overthrown by Wahibre
III. New dynasty.

30th Dynasty (Saite)

Necho XII 396-408 AD
Necho XIII 408-420 AD
Necho XIV 420-437 AD
Seti VII 437-500 AD
Thutmoses IX 500-533 AD
Rameses XIX 533-552 AD
Psamtik XIII 552-570 AD
Psamtik XIV 570-596 AD
Rameses XX 596-615 AD
Ahmosi IX 615-651 AD
Necho XV 651-677 AD Necho died childless. No male heirs in any closely related branch of royal family. Throne passes to family of Necho’s queen. New dynasty.

31st Dynasty (Theban)

Sesostris IV 677-702 AD nephew of Queen Neferhari, wife of Necho XV. Takes royal name from Middle Kingdom XIIth Dynasty, as he admires the literary achievements of that era. Moves capital to Thebes.
Amenemhet V 702-729 AD
Rameses XXI 729-753 AD
Sesostris V 753-777 AD
Sesostris VI 777-795 AD
Seti VIII 795-801 AD
Rameses XXII 801-840 AD
Amenemhet VI 840-861 AD
Amenemhet VII 861-869AD
Seti IX 869-888 AD
Rameses XXIII 888-913 AD
Sesostris VII 913-920 AD died in battle against the Byzantines, no heirs. Brief period of civil war follows before Royal Vizier usurps the throne. New dynasty.

32nd Dynasty (Memphite)

Khufu II 923-955 AD Royal Vizier of Sesostris VII, victor in 3-year civil war following death of previous king in battle. Since his family comes from Memphis (former capital under the Old Kingdom), he and his successors will take the names of Old Kingdom Pharaohs. Moves capital to Memphis.
Khafre II 955-965 AD
Pepi III 965-998 AD
Khufu III 998 AD Overthrown by army general who claims to be descended from the Saite 26th Dynasty. New dynasty.

33rd Dynasty (Saite)

Psamtik XV 998-1021 AD Overthrew Khufu III, moved capital back to Sais from Memphis.
Psamtik XVI 1021-1039 AD
Psamtik XVII 1039-1080 AD
Necho XV 1080-1104 AD
Ahmosi X 1104-1109 AD
Psamtik XVIII 1109-1141 AD
Necho XVI 1141-1157 AD died childless, no heirs, throne passes to distantly related family in Sais.

34rd Dynasty (Saite)

Rameses XXIV 1157-1190 AD
Seti X 1190-1201 AD
Psamtik XIX 1201-1225 AD
Necho XVII 1225-1290 AD
Ahmosi XI 1290-1315 AD
Ahmosi XII 1315-1338 AD
Seti XI 1338-1375 AD
Rameses XXV 1375-1396 AD
Rameses XXVI 1396-1401
Psamtik XX 1401-1418 AD
Necho XVIII 1418-1460 AD
Necho XIX “the Navigator” 1460-1501 AD Sent the first Egyptian ships
to the New World.
Thutmoses X 1501-1514 AD
Seti XII 1514-1544 AD
Necho XX 1544-1545 AD
Psamtik XXI 1545-1580 AD
Psamtik XXII 1580-1595 AD
Rameses XXVII 1595-1619 AD
Thutmoses XII 1619-1666 AD
Necho XXI 1666-1675 AD
Psamtik XXIII 1675-1701 AD Died without heirs, throne willed to eldest male heir of queen’s family. New dynasty.

35th Dynasty (Saite)

Ahmosi XIII 1701-1720 AD nephew of Psamtik XXIII’s
queen. Throne willed to him by Psamtik XXIII.
Ahmosi XIV 1720-1742 AD
Psamtik XXIV 1742-1770 AD
Necho XXII 1770-1792 AD
Psamtik XXV 1792-1812 AD
Ahmosi XV 1812-1850 AD
Thutmoses XIII 1850-1861 AD
Seti XIII 1861-1890 AD
Rameses XXVIII 1890-1914 AD
Psamtik XXVI 1914-1941 AD
Necho XXIII 1941-1950 AD
Necho XXIV 1950-1965 AD
Seti XIV 1965-present day
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top