Lo, the Nobles Lament, the Poor Rejoice

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

Well, the best OTL parallel would be the behaviour of the Cult of Amun during the Third Intermediate Period. My understanding of that situation is that the priesthood in Waset seized de facto (and in some cases ALSO de jure) authority and essentially ruled Upper Egypt as a theocracy. Meanwhile, Libyan dynasties were ruling out of Djanet (primarily) in the delta, and while the kings would occasionally pay lip service to the cult centre in Waset, they would simultaneously try to boost the prestige of Djanet in order to elevate that city to the top position in the Cult of Amun (largely by building/embellishing temples and awarding titles and estates to the local priests).

I assume that part of the reason for doing this would be to make sure the priests were loyal to them and not to the de facto rival dynasty. Would the Libyan kings actually take over the appointment of priests, or would they just try to buy off the existing hierarchy?

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

It's possible that in TTL something similar could happen. Local kings could nod ceremonially to the old cult centres while all the while attempting to undermine them. Local temples in seput outside the control of cult centres would likely act as autonomous entities in practice, while still pretending that the old centres still hold transcendent authority. In republican areas, however, it could go either way. The local temples might go the aforementioned route, or they might fall entirely in line with the local government and come to be ruled by a kenbet of priests promoting "religion for the public, by the public", or something of the sort.

That sounds reasonable - the local kings or princes could undermine, bribe or co-opt the priesthoods according to the dictates of politics, and the temple estates could evolve into independent fiefdoms, pillars of the throne, or mini-republics.

BTW, one of the other potential republican models I mentioned in my reply to Daztur is one based on the priesthood, where the local kenbet is dominated by priests rather than craftsmen but where the priesthood develops some degree of internal democracy and is open to a broader cross-section of society. This would essentially be a process of mutual assimilation between the priests and the kenbets, in which the theocracy evolves into a meritocratic civil service and a route of social mobility. I'm not sure about this, though, and it may or may not happen.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

Anyway, superb update, Jonathan. Hapuseneb may be a stuffy, old guard reactionary, but he certainly knows how to write an entertaining and nuanced allegory. The fact that Horus was the one coming down and smashing the Nubian and his invading animals raised my eyebrows when I first read it, and then you were kind enough to confirm my suspicions in the analysis

Well, you've got your Westcar Papyrus inspirations, and I've got mine.

Hapuseneb will figure in the story, BTW. My tentative plan is for the next update to be set in Henen-nesut and to give the viewpoint of the declining Ninth Dynasty, so you may get to see what inspired the Tales of the Nubian in the first place.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

By the way, is the use of Arabic site names intentional for the sake of familiarity? The Egyptian name for Akhmim was actually Khent-Min, and likewise the ancient name of Edfu was actually Beh(e)det. It just seems odd to mix modern names in with the ancient Mennufer/Men-nefer, Waset, and Henen-nesut.

No, that was just me not checking my sources before I wrote. I'll probably keep using "Akhmim" for continuity's sake, but Edfu will be called Behedet in future episodes.

[NikoZnate]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

I assume that part of the reason for doing this would be to make sure the priests were loyal to them and not to the de facto rival dynasty. Would the Libyan kings actually take over the appointment of priests, or would they just try to buy off the existing hierarchy?

My impression is that it was primarily the latter. The Libyan kings, with the possible exception of Sheshonq I, were never really powerful enough to challenge the authority of the priests (who were by that point an already entrenched power that had been manipulating the throne for centuries and ruled Upper Egypt outright), but they certainly had enough free reign to try bribing them over to their side. It seems to have gone the other way on occasion, too. Grave goods of the Libyan kings from Djanet appear to have largely been pillaged from tombs in the Valley of the Kings, suggesting that the priests of Waset were using the tombs there as reserve vaults for the reciprocal gift-giving that went on between the power bases rather than delving into their own already deep coffers.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

That sounds reasonable - the local kings or princes could undermine, bribe or co-opt the priesthoods according to the dictates of politics, and the temple estates could evolve into independent fiefdoms, pillars of the throne, or mini-republics.

BTW, one of the other potential republican models I mentioned in my reply to Daztur is one based on the priesthood, where the local kenbet is dominated by priests rather than craftsmen but where the priesthood develops some degree of internal democracy and is open to a broader cross-section of society. This would essentially be a process of mutual assimilation between the priests and the kenbets, in which the theocracy evolves into a meritocratic civil service and a route of social mobility. I'm not sure about this, though, and it may or may not happen.

Many temples in the Third Intermediate DID operate as independent fiefdoms, though in Upper Egypt that was within the framework of a hierarchy with Waset at the centre. I'm woefully ignorant of which cults were dominant in the Old Kingdom, so I'm not sure who the major players would be in this alternate First Intermediate (for obvious reasons, I've got New Kingdom on the brain, so to speak; most everything else has been shoved into the back of the ol' cerebral filing cabinets ).

If cults and temples do start operating independently with republic kenbet-based institutions as a framework, I could see things getting potentially messy. Cults may start claiming divine truth exclusively for themselves (or they might not) as a means of further legitimizing their rule. Different cults doing this could start coming to blows. Or, maybe I'm just really over thinking things... Do what you will! I'm enjoying the ride!

(BTW, would you mind if I used kenbut as a vector for similar social changes further down the road - I'm talking hundreds of years here - in "The Realm of Millions of Years"? As I said, a similar idea to this had occurred to me, though in a different historical context, and in TRoMoY Atenism will open a whole can of worms regarding the relationship between the people and the religious and political powers that be - a perfect environment for new ideas to emerge.)

[Faeelin]

You know, it occurs to me the other place for good analogies might be both Ancient Greece, where there were some democracies under Persian rule, and in India.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

Many temples in the Third Intermediate DID operate as independent fiefdoms, though in Upper Egypt that was within the framework of a hierarchy with Waset at the centre. I'm woefully ignorant of which cults were dominant in the Old Kingdom, so I'm not sure who the major players would be in this alternate First Intermediate (for obvious reasons, I've got New Kingdom on the brain, so to speak; most everything else has been shoved into the back of the ol' cerebral filing cabinets ).

The Ninth and Tenth Dynasties was at Henen-nesut, and the dominant cult there during the Middle Kingdom was that of Herishef, who was syncretized with Osiris and Ra. I'd assume that during the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate, both the older cults and the newer syncretic one would exist. The nomarchs at Waset who formed the OTL Eleventh Dynasty (and who will form one of several competing dynasties in this timeline) would of course support the cults of Montu and Amun, and the dynasty at Mennufer would support the Ptah cult. Presumably there would also be some major Old Kingdom cults which would be "orphaned" by the severance of their cult center from the monarchy, and which might become independent theocracies or theocratic republics, but I'll have to look into which cults they would be.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

If cults and temples do start operating independently with republic kenbet-based institutions as a framework, I could see things getting potentially messy. Cults may start claiming divine truth exclusively for themselves (or they might not) as a means of further legitimizing their rule. Different cults doing this could start coming to blows. Or, maybe I'm just really over thinking things... Do what you will! I'm enjoying the ride!

I'm not sure that a claim of exclusivity would occur to a First Intermediate priesthood; more likely, the cults would claim legitimacy from their god's role as patron of the city and/or nome. But we'll see how things develop.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

(BTW, would you mind if I used kenbut as a vector for similar social changes further down the road - I'm talking hundreds of years here - in "The Realm of Millions of Years"? As I said, a similar idea to this had occurred to me, though in a different historical context, and in TRoMoY Atenism will open a whole can of worms regarding the relationship between the people and the religious and political powers that be - a perfect environment for new ideas to emerge.)

Not at all. Anything that happens in your timeline will be different enough in time and political/religious environment to be a completely different story, even if the concept is similar. I'd actually like to see what you do with the idea.

Originally Posted by Faeelin

You know, it occurs to me the other place for good analogies might be both Ancient Greece, where there were some democracies under Persian rule, and in India.

The Seleucids too - a semi-divine monarchy which included many Hellenistic subject cities which had democratic or republican governments. Some of the Seleucid subject states were republics, others not. They're actually one of my main models for this timeline's Middle Kingdom - a monarchy that includes both republican and non-republican provinces and cities - but the differences between Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures will make the analogy a loose one.

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

....
The Seleucids too - a semi-divine monarchy which included many Hellenistic subject cities which had democratic or republican governments. Some of the Seleucid subject states were republics, others not. They're actually one of my main models for this timeline's Middle Kingdom - a monarchy that includes both republican and non-republican provinces and cities - but the differences between Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures will make the analogy a loose one.

I'd think the fact that all these diversely run polities emerge from essentially one unified culture that was historically unified, and exist in a pretty homogeneous environment, would tend to make the competition between different models of governance more pointed and tend to favor a drive toward uniformity.

I'm saying this in contrast to the Seleucid realm, which was vast, certainly by Classical standards, and spanned a great many different ethnicities in a great diversity of ecological zones, regions where the only republican elements would be Hellenistic and as pointed out above, Hellenic democracy was itself an aristocratic/rentier institution rather than truly plebeian. So it would be relatively natural and easy for a Hellenistic over-tyrant to incorporate democratic (as the Hellenes understood it) regimes here and there within his crazy-quilt patchwork of an empire.

Of course I am ignorant of all but the broadest generalities of this period and place and that includes the possibility I'm glossing over considerable diversities the Old Kingdom did not manage to steamroller into one uniform culture. Of course Upper and Lower Egypt are somewhat different places; we could very plausibly have one model predominate in one and the other in the other, I suppose. And this being the Bronze Age, communications between separate locations won't be as intense as a modern, even one grounded in the realities of the Iron Age, would tend to imagine.

Still, insofar as the analogy of the USA could possibly apply, it is striking how the various states began with quite diverse institutions, and the Constitution was written to allow them great leeway in adopting different laws to accommodate different societies, but the overwhelming trend has been homogenization. Long before the USA became an industrial giant and its communications were developed to the sorts of speeds and volumes typical of the later 19th century, populist movements that won victories in one state--extending the franchise, abolishing debtor's prisons, eventually enfranchising women, and so forth--tended to be quickly emulated in the majority of other states, and all this diversity quickly converged toward a national standard we tended to take for granted as the normal and only reasonable way to structure things.

So in Egypt, or at least in its greater subdivisions, townspeople and villagers in one district will learn of "privileges" eventually assumed as rights that Egyptians very like themselves enjoy in other districts and will start wondering pointedly why they can't have the same. If a more aristocratic model prevails, it will tend to do so by undercutting and suppressing the democratic "extremes."

I'm talking here about adopting more populist ways that are proven to work tolerably well over a few generations, not sudden wild enthusiasms in a matter of years after someone adopts some innovation that may or may not work out. Sheer chance will play a role; a polity that happens to be a sort of republic may do especially well or especially poorly by sheer contingent circumstance but both sides will be quick to claim credit for successes of their favored model and lay blame for failures on its opposite. A cold-blooded analysis might suppose that in this ancient time frame the time is not yet ripe for republicanism, but they might luck out and dodge some of the more predictable bullets and gain momentum. They might overwhelm aristocracy completely in a Nile-long confederation.

Then I do suppose that any ancient republic, even a federal one laid out with great care and shrewdness, will shift over to being a de facto aristocracy and eventually tyranny.

It is not hard to conceive of a basically aristocratic/royal/theocratic autocracy incorporating subordinate republican subunits, though I think these would seem much more "corrosive" from the aristocratic point of view in Egyptian context, for the reasons I mentioned above, than the relatively genteel Greek democracies, with an eye cast down the social ladder at the majorities even within their cities completely shut out of politics, would seem to the post-Alexandrian overlords. For a strong Pharaoh, by any name, to be comfortable with these Egyptian sub-republics they'd have to be pretty well neutered as democracies. It is much harder to see how, if one can conceive of federal republican institutions overarching a confederation of republican city-states, how that structure could comfortably accommodate aristocratic enclaves here or there; one would think that unless these were quite peculiar, the democratic influences seeping in not only from the sides but from above would destabilize anything that didn't resemble a standard-issue quasi-republican city-state. Isolated temples, at Siwah for instance, might coexist, but not some town-village complex that just happened not opt for an ad hoc democracy during this time of troubles.

The deck is stacked in favor of aristocracy ultimately. After all the Greeks never solved the problem of federal democracy--though I take some hope here from the distinction we've drawn between the essentially plebeian-rooted tradition evolving here versus the democracy of landlord/slaveowners typical of Greece. Also, that unlike the Greek cities whose fierce independence reflected in part the dissected geography of Greece and dated back to the very foundation of the Greek towns, here the many districts emerge from a unified culture that was politically unified, in a region with strong geographic unity, so once a majority of towns and their countrysides have achieved consensus as to the form of a normal Egyptian republic, forming a confederation with certain powers strongly centralized might seem much more natural to them, and conceivably might involve an extension of the logic of democratic oversight over the executive rather than mere submission to some president-for-life.

So, in the sport of this timeline's politics I'm rooting for radical republicanism, hoping that they can plausibly and successfully form something like a Bronze Age United Districts of Egypt. In the long run, over centuries and millennia (and what civilization has more of that than Egypt?) the federal republic will of course converge back on something like the Pharaonic tradition and eventually, rule by foreign dynasties like the Persians and the Ptolemies. But while the reality might be much as OTL by Classical times, the titles and rhetoric may forever be tinged with something like the symbolism of something like the United States.

I can dream anyway.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I'd think the fact that all these diversely run polities emerge from essentially one unified culture that was historically unified, and exist in a pretty homogeneous environment, would tend to make the competition between different models of governance more pointed and tend to favor a drive toward uniformity.

I'm saying this in contrast to the Seleucid realm, which was vast, certainly by Classical standards, and spanned a great many different ethnicities in a great diversity of ecological zones, regions where the only republican elements would be Hellenistic and as pointed out above, Hellenic democracy was itself an aristocratic/rentier institution rather than truly plebeian. So it would be relatively natural and easy for a Hellenistic over-tyrant to incorporate democratic (as the Hellenes understood it) regimes here and there within his crazy-quilt patchwork of an empire.

Fair point. As you also say, however, this is an age when communication was more difficult than in modern times, when few people left the village or city where they were born, and where there could be cultural differences not only between regions but between cities. Egypt was culturally united to a considerable extent, but there were still regional distinctions - every town had a different patron cult, for instance, and ritual or custom could vary from Upper Egypt to Lower Egypt.

Possibly a better example than the Seleucids might be medieval France, where, from what I understand, the quasi-republican "consulate" form of government (see, see also) existed largely in southern French cities. Of course, France was a feudal monarchy rather than a centralized one, and there were linguistic differences between north and south, but this timeline's Middle Kingdom will also be somewhat more feudal than ours.

In any event, I'm planning for the First Intermediate's republics to arise primarily in Upper Egypt, where they will eventually be co-opted by the dynasty at Waset, and they will initially be seen as an Upper Egyptian institution. There will, of course, be those in Lower Egypt who want similar rights, and provincial republics will eventually exist there, but in different forms. The formative process will, however, be incomplete when Egypt is reunited into the Middle Kingdom, and at that point, the nature of the republics will change, and there will be reasons why certain provinces retain or adopt republican institutions while others don't.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I'm talking here about adopting more populist ways that are proven to work tolerably well over a few generations, not sudden wild enthusiasms in a matter of years after someone adopts some innovation that may or may not work out. Sheer chance will play a role; a polity that happens to be a sort of republic may do especially well or especially poorly by sheer contingent circumstance but both sides will be quick to claim credit for successes of their favored model and lay blame for failures on its opposite. A cold-blooded analysis might suppose that in this ancient time frame the time is not yet ripe for republicanism, but they might luck out and dodge some of the more predictable bullets and gain momentum. They might overwhelm aristocracy completely in a Nile-long confederation.

Then I do suppose that any ancient republic, even a federal one laid out with great care and shrewdness, will shift over to being a de facto aristocracy and eventually tyranny.

It is not hard to conceive of a basically aristocratic/royal/theocratic autocracy incorporating subordinate republican subunits, though I think these would seem much more "corrosive" from the aristocratic point of view in Egyptian context, for the reasons I mentioned above, than the relatively genteel Greek democracies, with an eye cast down the social ladder at the majorities even within their cities completely shut out of politics, would seem to the post-Alexandrian overlords. For a strong Pharaoh, by any name, to be comfortable with these Egyptian sub-republics they'd have to be pretty well neutered as democracies.

I did say in the introductory post that "as with other ancient democracies, [Egyptian republicanism] will eventually be subverted and subordinated to empire. However, as with Greek democracy in OTL, it will continue to exist as an idea, and will become part of the collective memory conveyed by the Egyptian chronicles." What will also happen is that (a) republican forms and titles as well as religious rituals will continue to exist (shades of the Principate), providing a continued platform for the middle classes to participate in government even if no longer as sovereigns; and (b) popular institutions will continue to exercise some limited judicial and administrative functions.

Also, the subordination of republicanism will take time, and the process will change the nature of Egyptian kingship as well, so there will be some assimilation of republican ideas (such as the notion that the king must heed the outcry of the people) into the monarchy. I'll grant that this is nowhere near as satisfying as the United Districts of the Nile, but it will provide something to build on later, when the next dynasty falls and the time of republics comes around again.

In any event, if you're rooting for radical republicanism, it will exist for a while. There will be a radical phase followed by a conservative phase followed by an imperial phase. And following that... who knows? The initial cycle will take a century to a century and a half, but I may throw in a few epilogues in later centuries showing how it is that popular government rises again.

[NikoZnate]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

... So, in the sport of this timeline's politics I'm rooting for radical republicanism, hoping that they can plausibly and successfully form something like a Bronze Age United Districts of Egypt...

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

... I'll grant that this is nowhere near as satisfying as the United Districts of the Nile...

Alright, so I got a sudden itch to figure out what that would actually be in Middle Egyptian

I came up with two results:



The first says "United Districts (Sepats) of the River" (or more accurately: "United Districts on the River" - the Egyptians simply called the Nile "the River").

The second says "United Districts of the Two Banks", with "The Two Banks" being a common term for the land of Egypt itself that manages to allude to both the Nile and the traditional "Two Lands" dichotomy (though the division is East-West rather than North-South).

Either way, the USA-evoking acronym ends up being "SSI" If you wanted to call it "The United Districts of Egypt" using the better known "Kemet" name, then obviously that would change to "SSK" [Sp3wt Sm3wt n(yw)t Kmt].

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Henen-nesut
Akhet, 2146 BC

From Intef son of Iku, prince at Waset, to his royal brother Wakhare-Khety, Lord of Half a Land…

The under-scribe Merenre stopped reading and looked up abruptly. “Not much chance he’ll agree to the king’s demands with a greeting like that, is there?”

Hapuseneb, Deputy to the Chief Scribe, Chancellor of the Two Lands, Hereditary Noble and High Priest, silenced him with a raised hand. “Read,” he said.

… From Intef son of Iku, prince at Waset, to his royal brother Wakhare-Khety, Lord of Half a Land, may Amun send greeting. Hear the words of the prince at Waset: By what right do you demand submission from me? By what right do you demand tribute of me? By what right to you seek to control traffic through my domains? By what right do you seek to command my armies, and to tell me where I may make war and where I must make peace?

I have committed no wrong against you and owe you no redress. Rather it is you who have committed wrongs against me. You have sent soldiers to harass my loyal servant in Iunet. You have arrested my merchants on their journeys down the River, and have released them only when they paid exorbitant fees. You have paid disrespect to the gods of Waset and encouraged rebellion in my domains. You have suborned the lord of Nekhen and caused him to make war on me…

“Enough,” said Hapuseneb, raising his hand again and letting a note of resignation creep into his voice. He didn’t need to hear more; the import of what Merenre had already read was obvious. Intef would not allow free passage of goods from Wakhare-Khety’s lands to Nubia, and would refuse to give over his attacks against the king’s vassal in Nekhen. No doubt he would even...

"There will be war now, won't there?" Merenre broke in. "Surely the king will crush Intef for his insolence."

"There will be war if the king wills it." Hapuseneb fixed his eyes on Merenre's until the younger man looked down, making sure he understood that it wasn't his place to speak for the king. But the Chancellor also knew that even if the king had the will to make war, he might not have the capacity. Intef's greeting had been contemptuous - a taunt, nothing less - but it was also correct. Wakhare-Khety was lord of half a land: he might be the greatest of the men who called themselves kings of Kemet, but only eleven of the forty-two seput answered to his command, and several of those were scattered. Which meant that a jumped-up country nobleman with three districts at his call, whose father had managed the god Amun's estates, could call himself a prince and defy Wakhare-Khety to his face.

If the king wills it, Hapuseneb said again to himself. He imagined a great king’s army marching to war, spearmen and archers in their thousands, mowing the enemy down before them; he imagined Wakhare-Khety standing like Narmer above the fallen Intef, preparing to smite the rebel with his mace. But the king’s army now was a shadow. Now it was the sepat-lords who had the armies, and the district of Siut, which guarded Henen-nesut’s southern marches, had lost much of its force when its old lord had marched out to conquer Akhmim. How could the king order the new sepat-lord to succor Nekhen when doing so would put his own homeland – Wakhare-Khety’s own domain – in danger?

What kind of time was this, that kings had to make such choices?

He shook his head to clear it, and looked down at what Merenre was copying. It was a proclamation of the king: hear now Wakhare-Khety, lord of the Two Lands, great and beneficient, who gives bread to the hungry and tools to the craftsmen, who digs canals that his people may not starve…

“A disgrace,” he muttered.

Merenre heard him and looked up, with an expression not at all appropriate to one so recently rebuked. “What disgrace? Is it wrong for the king to dig irrigation canals? Is it wrong for him to feed and clothe the poor?”

"Of course it is right for a king to do such things, if he wills it! But he shouldn't boast of them."

"Why not, if he does them? Why shouldn't he boast of succoring the poor as he does of the countries he conquers?"

“Because he is justifying himself! A king is a god. If he must justify his rule, then the gods must justify theirs. And if he boasts of giving bread to the hungry, and people die of hunger anyway, then he is confessing that the gods can fail! He’s confessing that he is no better than any other man – that the people can demand justice of him, rather than accepting that he is just because he is king!

“And if that’s so, we are no more than the men of Akhmim, choosing a new lord every year and claiming the right to judge his laws, like oxen telling the farmer how to plow! What gods do they have? What hope of an afterlife waits for them?”

Merenre looked back at his superior as if he wanted to answer, and then realized he had already said and heard too much. He bent to his copying and pretended not to hear when Hapuseneb stalked from the room.

*******

Later that evening, Merenre was called to attend the rites at Re’s temple, where he was a junior lector-priest. He gathered with the other priests in the courtyard, looking west across the Nile to where Wakhare-Khety’s pyramid was rising. It had an earthen core, not like the pyramids of the past which were built of solid stone, and it would be just seventy feet in height when it was complete, but with the sun setting behind it, it seemed a powerful monument to the king’s majesty.

All the same, it was a struggle to keep his mind on the incantations he was reading. Was it true what Hapuseneb had said, that if a king must defend his rule by boasting of his justice, then a failure of justice was a failure of divine order? Could the gods fail?

And if they could…

He looked down to the Nile, and to the fields that were dry even in the middle of akhet, and to the channels dug by men – not gods – which were all that kept famine at bay.

Haven’t they?

[Jonathan Edelstein]

The base map is the Wikipedia map of the nomes of upper Egypt. The numbers (which represent the traditional ordering of the provinces) are from the base map, as are the names of cities - my GIMP skills are limited, and when I tried erasing them all, it looked very ugly. The city names are typically the Greek or Arabic names used today rather than the ancient Egyptian names used in the story.

Cities mentioned in the updates thus far are (north to south):

Mennufer - Memphis
Henen-nesut - Herakleopolis
Siut - Asyut
Waset - Thebes
Nekhen - Hierakonpolis

[Shevek23]

I trust the numbers are irrelevant to this thread and are keyed to a map that you have repurposed?

It isn't clear to me how different factions can hopscotch over each other like that. I guess the Nile is a broad river and it would be difficult to try to intercept every boat that courses up or down it. Except the post above the map has both rival pharaohs doing just that to each other's shipping. So how do units of the same faction communicate with each other? How could a vassal send tribute to an overlord when there is a rival stronghold between them that might try to steal it?

I'm guessing, even the biggest rival lords claim territory mainly for the prestige of it, and lesser lords agree to be named as vassals in return for the prospect of eventual retaliation from the greater lord to deter neighbors from rash ventures they otherwise might have a fair chance of winning. But in practice Egypt is shattered into a dozen separate pieces, and the separated parts of each coalition are in fact largely on their own, to feed themselves and to defend themselves. And the "greatest" power is mainly measured in terms of how much force the land the actual great lord controls directly and personally. The goal is to consolidate and gain direct access to more vassal lands; that would greatly increase the force a bigger king could concentrate at each end of their kingdom on the Nile, and this is why Egypt was united more often than not in its history. But that first step is a big one! In the course of beating a stubborn upriver neighbor into submission, a strong lord might be weakened to the point the downriver lot, formerly held in check, now attack the heartland...

[God-Eater of the Marshes]

Nice updates as per usual JE. I was also wondering how the factions can hopscotch around like that.

Also, in regards to the map, are the cities purposefully anachronous?

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I trust the numbers are irrelevant to this thread and are keyed to a map that you have repurposed?

It isn't clear to me how different factions can hopscotch over each other like that. I guess the Nile is a broad river and it would be difficult to try to intercept every boat that courses up or down it. Except the post above the map has both rival pharaohs doing just that to each other's shipping. So how do units of the same faction communicate with each other? How could a vassal send tribute to an overlord when there is a rival stronghold between them that might try to steal it?

I'm not sure about this, but I believe that the Nile was considered fairly sacred by all parties, and interfering with shipping on the Nile wasn't something they would really consider. But I could be completely wrong.

In any case, very nice update. I'm looking forward to seeing how the idea of republicanism spreads beyond merely the idea of enlightened monarchy, and monarchs owing something to the people. That's a radical step, but it's only a first step towards the concept of a republic. Keep up the great work, Jonathan!

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Daztur]

Yeesh, that's a strategic situation to give Sun Tzu migranes...

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I trust the numbers are irrelevant to this thread and are keyed to a map that you have repurposed?

Originally Posted by God-Eater of the Marshes

Also, in regards to the map, are the cities purposefully anachronous?

The base map is the Wikipedia map of the nomes (provinces, districts, seput) of Upper Egypt, and the numbers refer to their traditional ordering. The names of cities are also from the base map. I was originally planning to clean them up, but my skills weren't up to it: much of the text goes across regions, and when I tried to erase it, I ended up destroying the Nile beyond repair. Names in the story correspond to names on the map as follows: Mennufer - Memphis; Henen-nesut - Herakleopolis; Siut - Asyut; Waset - Thebes; Nekhen - Hierakonpolis.

I've added an explanatory note to the map itself.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

It isn't clear to me how different factions can hopscotch over each other like that. I guess the Nile is a broad river and it would be difficult to try to intercept every boat that courses up or down it. Except the post above the map has both rival pharaohs doing just that to each other's shipping. So how do units of the same faction communicate with each other? How could a vassal send tribute to an overlord when there is a rival stronghold between them that might try to steal it?

Originally Posted by God-Eater of the Marshes

I was also wondering how the factions can hopscotch around like that.

These are very logical objections - with the Nile the main, and virtually the only, highway, how can any king have vassals with hostile territory in between? And yet... it happened.

One character who will appear later in the story is Ankhtifi. He existed in OTL and was lord of Nekhen (the red nome numbered 3 on the map). He was loyal to the Tenth Dynasty and Henen-nesut, as he will be in this timeline, and an enemy of the dynasty at Waset/Thebes, even though he was surrounded by Waset-held provinces and there was a long stretch of hostile country between him and the royal seat.

We don't know much about him other than what's on his tomb inscription, so we don't know exactly why he was loyal to Henen-nesut. Maybe his family had always supported the dynasts there. Maybe his family were sworn enemies of Waset, and he figured that aligning with Henen-nesut might give them pause before invading (if they came after him in the south, they'd have trouble on their northern border too). Maybe there was prestige in associating with the biggest kids on the block, or maybe he believed in the ideal of a united Egypt and thought that the folks in Henen-nesut were best placed to accomplish that goal. We don't know. But we do know that he stayed loyal to the Tenth Dynasty all his life, and that he conquered Edfu/Behdet and Ombos in the name of his king.

I suspect that Shevek23 is right, and that the dynasties' control over their further-flung vassals was largely nominal, and that when lords like Ankhtifi went to war, they got little help from their kings. In practice, many of these vassals must have controlled semi-independent kingdoms, not much different from the independent "princely" nomes - maybe they paid a nominal tribute, maybe not even that. On the other hand, such vassals were valuable for prestige and could help put the squeeze on a rival coalition or on some stubbornly independent lord in between.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

The goal is to consolidate and gain direct access to more vassal lands; that would greatly increase the force a bigger king could concentrate at each end of their kingdom on the Nile, and this is why Egypt was united more often than not in its history. But that first step is a big one! In the course of beating a stubborn upriver neighbor into submission, a strong lord might be weakened to the point the downriver lot, formerly held in check, now attack the heartland...

Originally Posted by Daztur

Yeesh, that's a strategic situation to give Sun Tzu migranes...

Yup - dynastic wars were a tricky business, and will be an even trickier one with the republican factor added. It won't be the Eleventh Dynasty that reunites Egypt in this timeline; it will probably be the Thirteenth or Fourteenth.

Originally Posted by Ganesha

I'm not sure about this, but I believe that the Nile was considered fairly sacred by all parties, and interfering with shipping on the Nile wasn't something they would really consider. But I could be completely wrong.

There are some records of lords and princes interfering with shipping - but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to have been well regarded. I'm guessing that in times of chaos and civil war, many of the ostensible taboos would fall by the wayside.

Originally Posted by Ganesha

In any case, very nice update. I'm looking forward to seeing how the idea of republicanism spreads beyond merely the idea of enlightened monarchy, and monarchs owing something to the people. That's a radical step, but it's only a first step towards the concept of a republic. Keep up the great work, Jonathan!

Thanks! There are already republics at Akhmim and Edfu/Behdet, and the next update will return to them and discuss some of the internal developments. The ideas of enlightened monarchy and social justice did develop during OTL's First Intermediate (which in this timeline is called the "First Transitional," hint, hint), and in this timeline, will interact with the emerging notion of republicanism to further change the nature of kingship. As I've stated before, Egypt will eventually be reunited under a monarchy, but it will be a monarchy that maintains some republican forms, rituals and ideas, and in which there is a measure of democracy at the local level.

[Velasco]

Great concept and great writing - looking forward to more!

Is there any possibility of the emerging republicanism of Akhmim finding some legitimacy in Egyptian myth? Or actively promoting some new myths to legitimate itself? Maybe the council of Gods, which ultimately chose (elected?) Horus as a more competent ruler than Seth could provide legitimacy for earthly councils voting into power the most warlike/masculine/competent ruler.

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Great concept and great writing - looking forward to more!

Is there any possibility of the emerging republicanism of Akhmim finding some legitimacy in Egyptian myth? Or actively promoting some new myths to legitimate itself? Maybe the council of Gods, which ultimately chose (elected?) Horus as a more competent ruler than Seth could provide legitimacy for earthly councils voting into power the most warlike/masculine/competent ruler.

Don't forget that the republicans are already including demands for compassion for the poor and positive vision for the realm's welfare in their definition of "competence." And this is already affecting the more conventional autocrats, who hasten to put a benign spin on their propaganda, to the dismay of the conservatives.

I was going to speculate on possible mythological evolutions but fortunately did a tiny bit of Bloody Research first and now am more aware of the depths of my ignorance of the intricacies of Egyptian religion and its evolution over thousands of years! I am very confused as to which god was favored by which region, particularly in this very ancient period. It seems that Horus was favored in the delta but possibly both Horus and Set contended for dominance in upper Egypt; going by a straightforward interpretation of myth as allegory Horus prevailing implies the conquest of the south by the north, but that's the dead opposite of what happened historically. At least the first time round! I don't know how many subsequent reunifications of Egypt did indeed involve a Delta-based dynasty reabsorbing the breakaway south.

So I defer to those who understand it all more than I do speculation on which gods would be favored by whom and why.

As for more mundane politics--I suspect that Egyptian republics are going to find that by and large they won't want the same guy being their warlord and their peace lord; different people and factions would be better suited to different tasks. That might be very revolutionary in Egyptian political thought, to think that secular power is inherently plural, that they don't want one Pharaoh but a system of checks and balances.

One thing that fascinates me in NikoZnate's "Realm of Millions of Years" is the apparent splitting of sacred from secular power represented by Tutankhamen being slapped by his sister, who isn't even the heiress to the title "Adoratrice" of Aten--that would be her older sister. But she's a Chantress, and in the name of Aten she stands up for restraint in war and a return to Egypt to oversee the keeping of peaceful order there. She's a woman; perhaps there in that timeline we are seeing the roots of a tendency for mystic aspects of the theocracy to become associated with women (the Adoratrice being the bride of the line of deceased Pharaohs leading back to Aten himself, and the second rank of the Atenist religious hierarchy being Chantresses who segue from being possible heiresses to the Adoratrice office (and therefore must be unmarried until that possibility becomes remote, because a respectable Egyptian woman can apparently only have one husband in her life and so marriage to anyone on Earth would disqualify her and might result in no suitable heiress being available) to a corps of high-ranking (or meritocratically promoted) women who go to the many places and fill the many important roles the Adoratrice herself cannot. These priestesses seem necessary to send along on military expeditions, will presumably serve in founding new Atenist temples and in securing new alliances with kingdoms converted to Atenism--it's convenient that they might wind up marrying these allied kings! That, and everything else I've written here in this paragraph, is just a speculation of mine not meant to prejudice the actual development of NikoZnate's timeline, I hasten to add. But I stand by my impression, the way Atenism seems to be evolving, it is becoming very much a religion run by, and presumably to some extent for, women. As women are generally not seen as warlords (though Hasheptut is I believe already legendary history in that timeline) it suggests an increasingly entrenched balance of power between the state as military power embodied in the Pharaoh and the state as agency of welfare, embodied in the Atenist priestesshood. And a Chantress, at least one who happens to also be the Pharaoh's sister, can slap a Pharaoh to remind him of his duties to the humane side of Aten!

So--this is much earlier in Egypt's history. We've already been told women will be heard from in the republics, that some guilds are for women and these will assert themselves. Could it be that in the republics, some of this division of labor by gender will evolve to parallel what seems to be happening in the other timeline centuries later? Perhaps many republics will find that putting a woman in charge of some central functions will nicely balance the warlord functions presumably falling mostly or entirely to men.

I doubt it can evolve that neatly here because we already know that eventually there will be unitary Pharaohs again; presumably the warlord function will once again trump the social welfare function and subsume it. Perhaps in the form of marriage; the Pharaoh's wives will assume the Isisian roles?

[NikoZnate]

Nice update! We get to meet Hapuseneb himself, and of course his under-scribe... Am I right in thinking that we may be seeing more of Merenre later? He seems pretty advanced already in the disillusionment department...

Anyway, if Ombos will be figuring into Ankhtifi's part of the story, its ancient Egyptian name was actually Nubt (the same goes for Kom Ombo, which was Nubt-Resit or "Southern Nubt").

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I was going to speculate on possible mythological evolutions but fortunately did a tiny bit of Bloody Research first and now am more aware of the depths of my ignorance of the intricacies of Egyptian religion and its evolution over thousands of years! I am very confused as to which god was favored by which region, particularly in this very ancient period. It seems that Horus was favored in the delta but possibly both Horus and Set contended for dominance in upper Egypt; going by a straightforward interpretation of myth as allegory Horus prevailing implies the conquest of the south by the north, but that's the dead opposite of what happened historically. At least the first time round! I don't know how many subsequent reunifications of Egypt did indeed involve a Delta-based dynasty reabsorbing the breakaway south.

So I defer to those who understand it all more than I do speculation on which gods would be favored by whom and why.

After refreshing myself on pre-Atenist Egyptian religion, I've actually developed a pet theory with regards to this: The Cult of Osiris.

Osiris is, in short, the Egyptian god of the dead, the lord of the Underworld, and the bearer of several awesome title (my personal favourite being "The Lord of Silence"). Osiris's central myth involves his murder (twice!) at the hands of his brother, Set, and his subsequent resurrections, once by his wife Isis, the next also by Isis but with the help of her sister, Nephthys, and his son (by Nephthys), Anubis. In dying and being resurrected, Osiris becomes associated not only with the afterlife but also with the seasonal cycle of death and rebirth.

In OTL, the Osiris Cult did become quite popular, especially during the First Intermediate Period. It was around this time in OTL that Osiris absorbed the persona of another funerary deity, Khenty-Imentiu ("The Foremost of the Westerners"), to the point of actually becoming the focus at Khenty-Imentiu's old cult centre at Abdju (Abydos) [1]. From the first intermediate period onward, there is evidence of massive pilgrimages being made to Abdju, usually with the intended purpose of erecting a small memorial or shrine to assure one's place in the afterlife (also, burying "fertility figurines" in the form of a mummified Osiris filled with seeds that would sprout), and also of participating in the Osiris Festival which involved an interactive "Passion Play" of the myth. Eventually, even pharaohs get in on the pilgrimage action, erecting their own memorial chapels alongside the shrines and cairns of mere merchants and peasants!

Now the Osiris myth appears to have appealed to ordinary Egyptians as it promised an afterlife in paradise. You, the "Average Djer" (to use an Egyptian name approximating "Joe" ), could be reborn just like Osiris and exist in eternal bliss in the Land of Iaru (a.k.a. Field of Reeds - Basically Egyptian Elysium). However, to enter the Land of Iaru you had to be judged on your good works and piety - your heart would be weighed against the feather of Ma'at, and if it was heavy enough with evil to tip the scales you would be consigned to oblivion - and you would have to make 42 negative confessions ("I have not done X") to a council of 42 gods (one might even say a kenbet of 42 gods, eh? ). Everyone, no matter their station in life, could have access to the same paradise in death. Is it any wonder that this cult took off in a period of apparently increased social mobility in OTL? I have a sneaking suspicion that in TTL Egyptian republicanism will only bolster its popularity further (though Jonathan is of course totally free to prove me wrong!).

I'll address your speculation regarding my TL in that thread, Shevek23, so as to not derail this one.

[1] Eventually "Khenty-Imentiu" would just become an epithet of Osiris; the old god disappeared entirely.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Is there any possibility of the emerging republicanism of Akhmim finding some legitimacy in Egyptian myth? Or actively promoting some new myths to legitimate itself? Maybe the council of Gods, which ultimately chose (elected?) Horus as a more competent ruler than Seth could provide legitimacy for earthly councils voting into power the most warlike/masculine/competent ruler.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

After refreshing myself on pre-Atenist Egyptian religion, I've actually developed a pet theory with regards to this: The Cult of Osiris [...] In OTL, the Osiris Cult did become quite popular, especially during the First Intermediate Period. It was around this time in OTL that Osiris absorbed the persona of another funerary deity, Khenty-Imentiu ("The Foremost of the Westerners"), to the point of actually becoming the focus at Khenty-Imentiu's old cult centre at Abdju (Abydos) [1]. From the first intermediate period onward, there is evidence of massive pilgrimages being made to Abdju, usually with the intended purpose of erecting a small memorial or shrine to assure one's place in the afterlife (also, burying "fertility figurines" in the form of a mummified Osiris filled with seeds that would sprout), and also of participating in the Osiris Festival which involved an interactive "Passion Play" of the myth. Eventually, even pharaohs get in on the pilgrimage action, erecting their own memorial chapels alongside the shrines and cairns of mere merchants and peasants!

Now the Osiris myth appears to have appealed to ordinary Egyptians as it promised an afterlife in paradise. You, the "Average Djer" (to use an Egyptian name approximating "Joe" ), could be reborn just like Osiris and exist in eternal bliss in the Land of Iaru (a.k.a. Field of Reeds - Basically Egyptian Elysium) [...] Everyone, no matter their station in life, could have access to the same paradise in death. Is it any wonder that this cult took off in a period of apparently increased social mobility in OTL?

You're both right. I do have plans for the Osiris cult; the important thing for this timeline's purposes is that the Osiris passion-play was a participatory ritual, and as such, one that could bind the lower and middle classes to the earthly community as well as the afterlife. NikoZnate has read another (non-AH but occasionally speculative) story of mine in which the Osiris pageant features, and will thus have some idea of what I intend to do with it.

The Min cult with its ritual games, which are also participatory, will play a similar role, especially since Min is the patron god of Akhmim. He'll be syncretized with Osiris in this timeline, not with Horus. The Osiris-Min cult will also, eventually, become decentralized; the biggest games and passion-plays will still be held at the ancient cult centers, and these will still be places of pilgrimage, but smaller-scale rituals will be held in most large towns, and the entire population (more or less) will have access to them.

The "council of gods" theme will also exist, but in a slightly different way; what I have in mind is for a conflict (either one in the past or one which will occur in the near future) to be mythologized as the patron gods of all the Egyptian cities uniting to protect the homeland. That may, in turn, be conflated with the council of the gods that judges the dead in the Osiris (or Osiris-Min) cult.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

So--this is much earlier in Egypt's history. We've already been told women will be heard from in the republics, that some guilds are for women and these will assert themselves. Could it be that in the republics, some of this division of labor by gender will evolve to parallel what seems to be happening in the other timeline centuries later? Perhaps many republics will find that putting a woman in charge of some central functions will nicely balance the warlord functions presumably falling mostly or entirely to men.

I doubt it can evolve that neatly here because we already know that eventually there will be unitary Pharaohs again; presumably the warlord function will once again trump the social welfare function and subsume it. Perhaps in the form of marriage; the Pharaoh's wives will assume the Isisian roles?

I haven't thought too much about this, but it's an interesting notion. Maybe it will happen. One of the things I'm planning is for the "caring professions" to be seen as primarily female, which will mean that medicine will be a woman's role (we know there was a guild of female physicians during the Old Kingdom in OTL, because we know the name of the noblewoman who was its superintendent), and possibly the queen or another noblewoman might have a role in both medical regulation/education and religious rituals relating to life and health.

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

Nice update! We get to meet Hapuseneb himself, and of course his under-scribe... Am I right in thinking that we may be seeing more of Merenre later? He seems pretty advanced already in the disillusionment department...

You'll see both of them again, on opposite sides of a political struggle within the court. At this point in the story, the Ninth Dynasty had about fifteen years to run according to the standard chronology; it will be replaced rather sooner in this timeline, and the Eleventh Dynasty (the one in Waset will be this timeline's Tenth) will be influenced by a somewhat different version of the Instruction of Merikare. Merenre will have a hand in writing those instructions; we already know what Hapuseneb will write.

[Samm]

In our timeline the first flowering of the idea of Democracy also produced the foundations of western philosophy. Will anything happen this time. Will our Egyptian animal farm become the equivilant of Plato's Republic?

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Samm

In our timeline the first flowering of the idea of Democracy also produced the foundations of western philosophy. Will anything happen this time. Will our Egyptian animal farm become the equivilant of Plato's Republic?

Well, in this case the Animal Farm was an allegory that worked against the idea of a republic. On the other hand, Samm does bring up a very interesting point. Will the cultural and political shift underway in the First Transitional also bring about a similar intellectual shift? And if so, what form will that intellectual shift take?

Incidentally, how did the Egyptians write at this point? Was it all wax tablets or stonecarving? I read a very interesting theory which said that the development of intermediate forms of information storage (not as temporary as wax, not as labor-intensive as carving) had a major role in fostering literature and intellectualism in pre-Mauryan India, not to mention beginning the exchange of ideas with letter writing.

Had they developed papyrus yet? Did they use vellum scrolls? And what was their ink?

Cheers,
Ganesha