WI: Upper Egypt beats Narmer?
- Thread starter KhanorYuan
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
I'm sorry, but W.T.H. is 'Narmer'?
First King of the 0th Dynasty of Egypt.
As for what happens, essentially OTL. Narmer is semi-mythological anyway, and the effects of the other Kingdom uniting Egypt will be cosmetic rather than structural (or because the documentary evidence is so poor for this period, it could be radically different in impossible to predict ways). Perhaps the Pyramids are built a century or so later than earlier, perhaps the gods have a slightly different heirarchy, but essentially there's no reason to suppose Egypt would turn out any different.
Upper egypt(ruled by Narmer who was certainly real) did unify Egypt. Lower egypt didn't have a real government except for a few petty chieftains.
Alex Richards
Donor
That's why I specified semi-mythological. We know of a king called Narmer who ruled Egypt about that time, but the Narmer of the unification legend may be a different man, a conflation, exagerration etc.
Narmer being considered the first king of a united egypt is based on evidence not a legend, the unification myth of Egypt involves a Pharaoh named Menes who may be Narmer, or he may just be a made-up king meant to represent the unification process of Egypt. Narmer is considered the first king of a united egypt because he is the first king of egypt shown wearing the red and white crowns of lower and upper egypt, and he is the first king with artefacts with his name on them found throughout all of egypt, and even as far as Israel. As far as I know there is no myth associated with Narmer.
In much the same way that Gilgamesh of Uruk, and his contemporaries Aga of Kish and Enmebaragesi, were real historical figures dating back to the 26th century BCE (maybe 600 years after Narmer), but their memory has been heavily overwritten with mythological accretions.
Also, Narmer (probably also called Menes) is usually considered the first pharaoh of the 1st Dynasty, unifying Upper and Lower Egypt, with the 0th Dynasty including his predecessors 'Scorpion' (Selk) and Ka ruling in Upper Egypt only.
Last edited:
Lower Egypt, as archaeology has shown, was at a considerably lower level of civilization and technology than Upper Egypt, and was little more than a bunch of disorganized city states. Upper Egypt was the world's first relatively centralized state. Lower Egypt really had no chance to survive as a separate entity. If the Lower Egyptians somehow defeat and kill Narmer, Upper Egypt will be back to finish the job in the very near future under a different king. Basically the glories of the Old Kingdom of Egyptian civilization are delayed for a few years, nothing more.
Fearless Leader
Donor
Though I agree with most of this statement, I disagree with the inevitability of Upper Egypt's victory over Lower Egypt. Though at a lower level of technology, Lower Egypt did have certain things going for it.
-It had/has a greater area of arable land than Upper Egypt. More land = more agricultural produce = more people. Even today the Delta (Lower Egypt) supports the bulk of Egypt's population and is the nation's cultural hub. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Lower Egypt sported a greater population than Upper Egypt in Narmer's day.
-Trade with the Mediterranean/Levant. Archaeology shows that later technological inventions (such as the advent of copper, and various pottery forms etc. IIRC) came through Lower Egypt.
Now, due to the severe paucity of actual historical evidence/records we are forced to speculate about the details of the "unification of Egypt". However, I think that had a figure managed to unite the populations of the Delta/Lower Egypt, this kingdom could very well have unified Egypt using it's ties with the Levant/Mediterranean world to defeat the relatively isolated Upper Egyptians during Egypt's formative years.
Now the ramifications of such an event are in many ways beyond our ability to fully comprehend due to the lack of historical source material. But here are some effects I can think of...
-Upper Egyptian Material Culture of OTL probably still dominates allo-Egypt due to it's previously mentioned superiority over Lower Egyptian pottery. However due to the political dominance of Lower Egypt I would expect to see more Semitic/Mediterranean influences over time.
-Egypt, especially the Old Kingdom, won't be as isolated as it was in OTL. This will have knock on effects in regards to religion and culture in addition to trade and geo-politics.
-Hieroglyphs might not develop in TTL as a less isolationist Egypt may adopt something similar to a Phoenician Script to facilitate trade.
-Without the guiding influences of Upper Egyptian Royal Culture the Pyramids may or may not make an appearance depending on how the dominant culture of Lower Egypt functions. If there are Pyramids in TTL they will undoubtedly be substantially different than OTL.
In Short an Egypt dominated by the Delta would be drastically different than our own Egypt and would change world history in numerous ways. Unfortunately due to our lack of knowledge about the details of the timeperiod we are limited to vague generalizations and unable to speculate further or with more accuracy.
I think, then, it would be interesting to find a way to unify the weak, divided city-states of Lower Egypt into a single entity that is strong enough to repel Upper Egypt. It would be interesting if ancient Egyptian history centered on two kingdoms instead of one, wouldn't it?
(Of course, there would likely be periods in which the two were ruled by a single dynasty, just as there were periods in which Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were divided in OTL. What I mean is making division the norm and unification the anomaly.)
(Of course, there would likely be periods in which the two were ruled by a single dynasty, just as there were periods in which Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were divided in OTL. What I mean is making division the norm and unification the anomaly.)
The population of Lower Egypt was actually very small compared to Upper Egypt up until the Ramesside period.
Upper Egypt had ties with the nubians cultures, and I think Lower Egypt would be more likely to use libyan mercenaries instead of levantine because how close the libyans are to egypt than levantines.
Old Kingdom Egypt wasn't really isolated, it had close relationships with Levantine cities, and pharaoh Sahure even married a princess from the city of Byblos.