25th Dynasty Survives

I've been reading this site for a while and finally decided to join.

When the Kushites first entered Egypt it was a fructure warring state with a failing economy. In just 70-100 years they turned it into a thriving sucessfull world power once more. They had returned egypt to its former culture and built and restored temples.

What if the Kushites had defeated the Assyrians in their second confrontation and signed a similar peace deal as that between the Hittites and Ramses.
 
Alodia said:
I've been reading this site for a while and finally decided to join.

When the Kushites first entered Egypt it was a fructure warring state with a failing economy. In just 70-100 years they turned it into a thriving sucessfull world power once more. They had returned egypt to its former culture and built and restored temples.

What if the Kushites had defeated the Assyrians in their second confrontation and signed a similar peace deal as that between the Hittites and Ramses.

First, the 25th Dynasty did not turn Egypt into a "thriving successful world power." It is true that they united Egypt, and that they built and restored temples. They also had some limited military success against the Assyrians. But they were never able to effectively extend their power outside of Egypt proper, and apparently did not make the international connections which the later 26th Dynasty managed (with the Greeks, for example) which enabled them to field a better army and bring in international trade.

The Kushite army was still basically at a bronze age level of technology (as, indeed, was Egypt itself at that time). So it is very unlikely they would have been able to defeat the Assyrians on a permanent basis. They also would have faced opposition from the native Egyptians, who tended to look on Nubians with disdain.

The 26th Dynasty would have been a much better candidate for making Egypt a world power (which is why I did my ancient Egypt timeline based on that Dynasty).
 
25th Dynesty

The 25th dynasty was very well connected and involved in near-eastern affairs during the period. They managed to form alliances with the kings of pheonicia and syria, they were also supporters of the Assyrian rebellions throughout their kingdom. The Kushites were also able to extend their rule over the levant at the end of Sennacherib rule.

The Kushite army was still basically at a bronze age level of technology (as, indeed, was Egypt itself at that time). So it is very unlikely they would have been able to defeat the Assyrians on a permanent basis.

This is the reason I compared their struggle against the Assyrians with that of Ramses II(against the Hittites). Their situations were very similar , since they both possed inferior weapons to those of their enemies. It's true that the Kushites would have never been able to defeat them indefinitely but(a major defeat like that in their first encounter) followed by a peace treaty could have bought them enough time to organize and modernize their forces(equip them with iron weapons) .

They also would have faced opposition from the native Egyptians, who tended to look on Nubians with disdain.

This would be hard to believe since it was the Egyptians themselves who invited the Kushites to rule over them(both before and after(an attempt) the assyrian invasions).


The 26th Dynasty would have been a much better candidate for making Egypt a world power

The reason I didn't choose the 26th dynasty was because their prosperity was very much based on what was done in the 25th.
 
Alodia said:
The 25th dynasty was very well connected and involved in near-eastern affairs during the period. They managed to form alliances with the kings of pheonicia and syria, they were also supporters of the Assyrian rebellions throughout their kingdom.

I never denied they were capable of stirring up trouble for Assyria. But they not build the kind of very useful international connections that the 26th Dynasty did. They did not engage in large-scale foreign trade, they had few if any connections with the Greeks, Lydians, or Phrygians, for example. The fact that they were able to meddle in the affairs of Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine does not mean they were "well connected" internationally.

Alodia said:
The Kushites were also able to extend their rule over the levant at the end of Sennacherib rule.

Not according to anything I've ever encountered in many years of reading. They may have briefly forayed into Palestine, but as Assyria was embroiled in a civil war between competing successors to the throne at the time, this is hardly a indicator of the prowess of the Kushites.

Alodia said:
This is the reason I compared their struggle against the Assyrians with that of Ramses II(against the Hittites). Their situations were very similar , since they both possed inferior weapons to those of their enemies.

Actually, the Egyptian army of Ramses II was quite the equal of the Hittite army of the time. The Hittites did have some iron weapons, but they were only used by very high-ranking noblemen as the techniques of mass-produced ironwork had not yet been invented and iron was VERY expensive. The Kushites, however, were not remotely equal to the Assyrians. They were about 400 years behind the times technologically. It was only with the 26th Dynasty that Egypt finally caught up to the rest of the near East in that respect.

Alodia said:
It's true that the Kushites would have never been able to defeat them indefinitely but(a major defeat like that in their first encounter) followed by a peace treaty could have bought them enough time to organize and modernize their forces(equip them with iron weapons).

The problem with that scenario is that the Kushite Kings did not have the money to modernize. The 26th Dynasty was able to do that by modernizing the Egyptian tax system and by engaging in large-scale overseas trade, which the Kushites did not do.

Alodia said:
This would be hard to believe since it was the Egyptians themselves who invited the Kushites to rule over them(both before and after(an attempt) the assyrian invasions).

Considering that the Kushites had to invade and displace several rival native Egyptian dynasties before assuming power in Egypt, it is hard to see how they were "invited" to rule over Egypt. It is true that some Egyptian nobility rallied to the standard of Taharka when he attempted to retake Egypt from Assyria, but many others stood by the Assyrians against him.

Alodia said:
The reason I didn't choose the 26th dynasty was because their prosperity was very much based on what was done in the 25th.

Untrue. The prosperity of the 26th Dynasty was because of improved governmental system which Necho I and Psamtik I instituted after being held hostage in Assyria (where they observed the Assyrian government in action and learned from it), as well as the international trade and military contacts which they forged. The Kushites had NOTHING to do with it.
 
They did not engage in large-scale foreign trade, they had few if any connections with the Greeks, Lydians, or Phrygians, for example.

Trade must have been a high priority for the Kushites since it was the main reason they went to war with the Assyrians(in the levant).

By the way the Pheonicians and Syrians were allies to the Kushites they were also major powers in the region during the time.

Not according to anything I've ever encountered in many years of reading.
This should help.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/gdc/ssea/vol31/kahn%20article.pdf

They may have briefly forayed into Palestine, but as Assyria was embroiled in a civil war between competing successors to the throne at the time, this is hardly a indicator of the prowess of the Kushites.
http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/NebuchadnezzarChapter4.htm

here are some important quotes

Taharka's army could conceivably have ventured to the northern edge of Babylonia, establishing a symbolic presence in the homeland of its former ally.
The presence of several statues of Taharka, found in 1955 in the ruins of Nineveh, argue strongly that Taharka actually set up a temporary base of operations in the former Assyrian capital.[FONT=&quot][12][/FONT] Further confirmation is provided by a fragment of a Babylonian religious text that records military activity involving an Egyptian army.

The nature and provenance of the activity is unknown but the inscription is consistent with the presence of Taharka in the upper Tigris/Euphrates area.[FONT=&quot][13][/FONT]
There has existed since classical times unequivocal testimony to Taharka's military prowess.
I don't blame you for doubting Kushite military power during the time, I myself am a little catious about it aswell. We still don't know enough about the period(we find out more every year) , but at the same time we can't discredit their achievements without reason.


Actually, the Egyptian army of Ramses II was quite the equal of the Hittite army of the time. The Hittites did have some iron weapons, but they were only used by very high-ranking noblemen
This is actually not true, iron weapons were used by the Hittites but the art of iron smelting had not yet been perfected. They were done in a poor fashion so in turn we haven't found many of them.



he Kushites, however, were not remotely equal to the Assyrians. They were about 400 years behind the times technologically.
If the Kushites weren't remotely equal to the Assyrians they wouldn't have had many allies. The fact that rebels in Assyria , the Kings of Pheonicia , Palestine and Syria all looked to the Kushites for military support(even the ones who later switched sides in support of the Assyrians) must have meant that the Kushites were formidable as well. If the Kushites were as you said 400 years behind technologically, how in the world did they achieve any victories at all?


The problem with that scenario is that the Kushite Kings did not have the money to modernize.
They had enough money to support their allies militarily, aswell as for massive reconstruction and contruction projects throughout their empire. As a matter of fact many scholars are unsure of how exactly they were able to sustain(and complete) such construction projects in the short amount of time they ruled.


Considering that the Kushites had to invade and displace several rival native Egyptian dynasties before assuming power in Egypt, it is hard to see how they were "invited" to rule over Egypt.
The Priests of Amun were the ones who invited them. With this request the Kushites then moved to invade Egypt, they had no confrantation in Upper Egypt but met resistance in Lower Egypt(mainly the delta region).

It is true that some Egyptian nobility rallied to the standard of Taharka when he attempted to retake Egypt from Assyria, but many others stood by the Assyrians against him.
Most of the nobility sided with Taharka, even though they(Kushites) had been badly defeated and Assyrian supremacy proven.



Untrue. The prosperity of the 26th Dynasty was because of improved governmental system which Necho I and Psamtik I instituted after being held hostage in Assyria (where they observed the Assyrian government in action and learned from it), as well as the international trade and military contacts which they forged. The Kushites had NOTHING to do with it.
The entire cultural revolution in Egypt begun in the 25th dynasty(including the use of demotic script), it was the kushites that saved egyptian culture from fading. I seriously doubt you will find any scholar who would agree with your position.
 
Hm, I wonder what the affects would be of the Kushite dynasty survivng would have on Egyptian culture? I know Egyptian and Kushite culture were quite similar, but I'm curious as to whether the two would combine.
 
Hm, I wonder what the affects would be of the Kushite dynasty survivng would have on Egyptian culture? I know Egyptian and Kushite culture were quite similar, but I'm curious as to whether the two would combine.

The population of Kush during the 25th dynasty was no more than 500k the population of Egypt was around 4 - 6 million. So given these numbers the most likely outcome would be the complete absorbtion of the Kushites by the Egyptians. Their cultures would combine but the Egyptian character would be more dominant(that's my opinion).
 
Just wanted to say, you kind of enlightened me Alodia. I knew about the alliance with Syriaand Phonecia, that there was a cultural revolution under the 25th dynasty, even though certain govenment reformds came from Psamtik's time in AsSyria. But the Kushites having the amount of military power you describe is rather hard to believe. I know they were in Palestine for a while, but like Robert said, they were in civil wars at the time. Obviously the Kushites were more poererful than are given credit, but theri probablity of scoring a victory seems rather slim. Unless you have more information that proves the Kushites could conceivably win agaisnt the Assyrians
 
Since this is basically the same thread I put a couple o days ago...Now what if during the Height of the 25th Dynasty we had one of the Kushite Pharoah's actually use the Phoenican Alliance for something other than war both expanding and revamping the kingdom's Navy for Trade to try to increase the coffers so they can work on the reorginazation of their army?
 
Top