Unlike earlier times when Egypt's defense needs were more than adequately served by a series of local private armies and a national corvee system and her formidable geographic defenses, Egypt of the New Kingdom era demanded a far better organized and led military. The Egyptians had just pushed the Hyksos back to the East, and the neighbouring Nubians and Libyans had grown to be pesky, dangerous neighbours. A more professional, permanent army was needed, to defend Egypt and if need be, to expand her borders as well.

The process of development had begun well before the New Kingdom was reborn, in the days when the native Egyptians were only holding on to the South, centered on Thebes. Well-aware of Egypt's new military needs, the army now held the Pharaohs' approval and sanction. The soldier now rose in social standing and status, in Egyptian society. The army became a desired vehicle for career moves, by the upper classes; and a stepping stop to positions in the priesthood or bureaucracy.

Thus the conditions now existed for a formidable army to exist, in a traditionally non-militant society.

The Pharaoh remained as the head of the army. He was assisted by an experienced war cabinent, though he could overrule them. Below him was the commander-in-chief, often the heir to the throne.

The troops were divided between two corps - northern and southern. Each were further organized into divisions of 5000 men each, named after regional gods. The divisions were further broken down along battalion (500), company (250), platoon (50) and squad (10) lines. The army retained the traditional Egyptian fondness for bureaucratic payprus-work - with great attention spent on managerial aspects.

From the former Hyksos kings, the Egyptian New Kingdom army learned to fight with lighter, shorter shields than in former times, composite bows, metal daggers which eventually evolved into a type of short sword, and clad in body armor of small bronze leaves riveted onto jackets. This was in addition to traditional weopans like spears, cudgels and so on.

Furthermore, the Egyptians adopted the chariot for warfare, another new trick they learned from the Hyksos. The Egyptian chariots were two-wheeled and light and offered ill protection; their main purpose was to serve as agile mobile platforms for launching weopans and for chasing down and dispersing foot soldiers.

Each chariot was manned by a driver and a fighter equipped with a bow or a lance. While Tuthmosis III fought at Megiddo with mostly infantry, supported with some chariots, Ramesses II fought at Kadesh with an army more formally divided between an infantry and a chariotry arm. Thus the chariot gained a more important place in the Egyptian New Kingdom army with time.

The army also accepted mercenaries, or even whole defeated tribes. For example after Nubia was annexed effectively, whole contingents of Nubians signed up for service. Another example was the Medjay, hostile nomads in the Eastern Nubian desert; many mercenaries of whom served the Theban kings in their early push against the Hyksos of N Egypt.

Raw recruits, many still boys, started out in training camps where they were taught the basics of drilling and weopanry. Physical punishments were common. After being trained, and equipped with staff, sandals, clothing and weopans, the recruits would be posted to either an Egyptian garrison, or a foreign fort; of which there were many, in the Delta or in the Levantine coast.

The army supplied its fighting men as best as it could. Good food was considered important; within the fort, the soldier could expect to receive a decent ration of grain, augmented by other local produce, depending on the locale. On the campaign trail, the soldier would have to carry his own food, and hunting and foraging were encouraged too.

Life in the army was harsh, but no worse than in the quarries or mines, and there was a good chance for better rewards. As mentioned, the army was a good stepping stone for young nobles heading for better posts in the government and priesthood. Retired veterans could expect to receive a generous pension, for long service, or better. The general, Tuthmosis I, even eventually became Pharaoh.

Thus Egypt came to have the great military machine which would serve it well, for centuries,culminating in the great battles at Megiddo and Kadesh. :)

Egyptian bronze dagger.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/bronze_dagger.jpg

Egyptian scimitar-sword.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/scimitar.jpg

Egyptian pictorial of charioteer.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/defense.jpg

cool, i like it when the articles are about things we don't know ( non-roman or greek ):)

Hehehe, I know you all really expect me to only write about Chinese or Far Eastern history... :p

it did suprise me when i saw egypt and XIII on the same line:)

very good, the only prolems i see in it are there are no references to axes, the most used infantry weapon throught pre-Roman egyptian history (as opposed to a short swoard, egyptian phalangites carried axes, in a tradition stetching from the pre-dynastic era), and the armour- it was rare, very, very rare, only Pharaohs are shown conclusivley to have it, and representations of them are few, there are some description of Godlly armour, and those are just as rare- there is no evidence that egyptian foot troops had armour what so ever, this even includes officers

i thought egyptian infantry wore stiffened linien armour:egypt:

nope, that was the Greeks in the late classicle era :)

Great stuff XIII... BTW, I wrote a thread about their contemporaries (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61392) :mischief:

XIII could you perhaps do one of these about Poland?

Maybe Vrylakas; he's Polish. I know not much about Poland (or Egypt) actually. :)

i thought egyptian infantry wore stiffened linien armour:egypt:

they certainly did

they certainly did
The question is, whether a padded linen shirt deserves to be called "armor"?
However, the design of that sword strikes me as terribly impractical. Looks difficult to make, impossible to sheathe... what could be the reasons of smithing something like this?

they certainly did
Epic bump is epic? :dunno:

Epic bump is epic? :dunno:


your point being ? it was a dead thread but hey its alive now.

The question is, whether a padded linen shirt deserves to be called "armor"?
However, the design of that sword strikes me as terribly impractical. Looks difficult to make, impossible to sheathe... what could be the reasons of smithing something like this?

I don't know how effective the armor was - but that 'linen' was really coarse stuff. Enough of it could blunt or cushion a glancing blow from a bronze slashing weapon, which did not keep a very keen edge, especially if this linen was backed with some hardened leather, but not a spear point or iron weapon.

The weapons - well they did emphasize weight at the point of contact, good for cutting through other crude armor. The neat thing about bronze is it was not as brittle as early iron and even steel weapons, therefore it had basic strength even if it was softer and did not keep an edge.

Well, all I know is that no matter how many of my bedsheets I wrap around myself, I'm still not going to consider it armor. Fashionable? Perhaps. Armor? No.

Well, all I know is that no matter how many of my bedsheets I wrap around myself, I'm still not going to consider it armor. Fashionable? Perhaps. Armor? No.

Herodotus says Linen armour was up to 25 layers thick--little bit more than a bedsheet.

The material itself as I pointed out, was coarse and stiff (more like shellacked sack cloth than a bedsheet) but no one is trying to say this was armour on a par with Greek Hoplites, which were heavy infantry and a thousand years later, the Eqyptian Sherden also had bronze armor by the way. This type of armour was affordable and would have been useful for light troops where flexibility and light weight was important.

your point being ? it was a dead thread but hey its alive now.I will leave it as it is, but in future pls do not bump a long dead thread, unless you have a substantial point to make.

OK - now I understand - I'm still bewildered about the rules but I'll go along with it.

There's nothing strange about it... the key point here is a substantial update post.

1) the OP and respondents are probably long gone most of the time. Why resurrect the old argument, when they are no longer around to respond? Better to start a new thread on the subject.
2) I do not want to read thru a possibly 10+ pages long old thread, that someone bumps with one meaningless little post... :p Not everyone looks at the post date first before reading the thread.
3) I do not want to read thru a bunch of old threads that people bump with meaningless little posts that push the recent threads back to the 2nd page. Granted not likely to happen in this subforum, but there were people doing it elsewhere...
4) The OP, in this case me :lol:, has no further interest in his/her own ancient thread or to reply to it. Or worse, no recollection of ever starting it. So don't bring out my dirty old linen out to hang... (the way I post in ancient times is embarassing to show people these times :p).

And etc... ;)