Greatest Ancient Ruler?
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Porphyrogenitos
Γένοιος Όιος έσαι μαθών
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
"Just some (lengthy) thoughts..."
Alright, I'll post some thoughts on him too...
"1. His conversion to a purely monotheistic faith was a landmark innovation in iteslf and highly contentious (a thing his successors pointed out by destroying everything that had anything remotely to do with him). He faced the combined wrath of the Amun (Amon) priesthood which had grown incredibly powerful and thus influential. His religious policy, in a political sense, was thus aimed at shifting the power balance back into the pharaoh's court. He could only achieve this by ceasing to fund the preisthoods which stood in his way (all rulers were required to contribute to religious buildings and so on). Because of their large nature he chose the revolutionary step of disregarding them in total by raising one god- the Aten- (a minor attribute of Ra till then)above all else. This way he circumvented the need to fund the priesthoods as they were no longer officially recognized."
Conversion to monotheism in my opinion is nothing to be proud of. Certainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam are nothing more than differing versions of his bizarre religion he created. You have with a doubt skipped over the part where his people were worse of for it. There was a decrease in construction jobs due to the closure of temples and the barring of construction of more. More on this a bit later. The artisans who used to make small Egyptian religious icons, a thriving business which employed many, many people from those who carved them, to those who sold them, to those who got the materials in the first place, were suddenly out of a job. And the reasons for doing it was less than what you have stated. He was born with a genetic disease making him incredibly ugly (I forgot what it is called, but the body is very distorted) so he was shunned by his father who gave all the important places (mayor of Memphis, mayor of Thebes, high priest of this god, high priestess of this goddess, etc) to his siblings. Akhenaton was kept out of sight to keep him from tainting his fathers reign. He was banned from all religious festivals and temples (which would crush a persons spirit considering how important they were), so he inherited a personal hatred of the gods. When Amenemhet III died, his mother had him crowned pharoah, but he was the last in line to succession as he was the youngest child. Of course in those circumstances you would get rid of the religious institutions.
"It enabled him to pour the saved resources into other projects. This included the construction of his new capital city of Akhetaten (Tel-el-Amarna) which was another strategic move to distance the court (and people) from the traditional power bases of the dominant priesthoods."
So he built an over-rated city on one of the most arid places along the Egyptian Nile. By building this city, he distanced himself from the people and the foreigners because all he saw here was what he wanted to see. There was no plague or war, which was wreaking havoc elsewhere throughout the Egyptian Empire.
"Had he lived longer who knows what could have become of this policy."
The only thing he could accomplish by living longer was to let the rotting of the empire continue.
"The heirs to the throne were all influenced by his policies but his immediate children died before him. Even the pharaoh who took over after his death (Tutankamun) was influenced by Akhenaton's policies as can be clearly seen by some of the items found in his tomb (the royal chair and walls of the tomb for example display the Aten sun disk). Alas he was too young to be able to resist the powerful priesthoods which, although weakened, had not been destroyed. Akhenaton just didn't live long enough for this to come about. Of course the successors all of which (bar Tut) had no right to the throne (Ay, Horemheb etc) did their best to win over the presthoods influence and power by avenging their closures. Hence the smash up which followed his reign."
He was hated by all for a reason, not because the priests didn't like him much. He created his religion for himself, everyone knew it, and he grew complacent and ignorant of what the world really was like. In el-Amarna, he would have to literally buy the people to like him (by throwing gold onto the ground by the gates of the city). Of course you'd see some of those items in his tomb, the whole palace would have been full of the crap he filled it with.
"In another more important way Akhenaton's reign made a giant leap forward in terms of artistic achievement. Traditional artistic styles (the rigid, lifeless and air-brushed techniques of past) gave way to the natural style. His are the only depictions in which affection between royal members is displayed, or people are shown in their true guises (warts and all). Plants, animals etc all have a new vibarncy and life unseen until the ascendence of the Hellenistic Age and later Renaissance. This in itself is a major achievement which most people dismiss as insignificant. Sure he didn't go out conquering others and building pyramids and so on but is that the only worth of a ruler?"
The artistic change is over-looked for the simple reason that it was done only because he wanted it done that way. It didn't live past his death as no one else really liked to look at it. I guess seeing plague-ridden people and the reality of his reign is something everybody really wanted to see... of course not. Most people were disgusted by it, the old art style showed more of the after-life than the real-life, but Akhenaton erased the after-life (so what happened when people died when there was none? What incentive was there to be a good person as opposed to a murderer and a theif?) so all that was left was the world as it was which is all he could have shown.
"In terms of foreign policy the borders were never safer."
You have got to be kidding. You have lost most credability by even saying this. Syria was in revolt, the armies were scared adn could only wait to die if they were in these foreign lands, Nubia to the south was on the war path, the Hittites were mopping up the civilised north of Syria, the tribes in Israel had laid siege to many cities in the delta. And all is safe...
"His reign is one of incredible stability (precarious but stable nontheless) as Egypt was being threatened by the Hittites in Anatolia."
Huh? That is not stable. To lose land to the Hittites would have been an embarrassment as the Hittites were recently all but destroyed. The Mitanni (close Egyptian allies which ruled northeastern Syria, western Iraq and southeastern Turkey) were pleading for Egyptian help which was never to come.
"The Amarna letters (another great accomplishment - one of the oldest filing cabinet systems ever and a marvel of beaurocratic development) show the often intimate exchange between Hittite and Egyptian rulers (like the one discussing the gifts sent to Akhenaton)."
The Amarna letters might have been established the latter years of his reign. Either way, the Mitanni were forver crippled, and the good relations between Egypt and the Hittite Empire would not last beyond his death. The Egyptians were forced to recognise that the Hittite Emperor was more powerful than the pharoah and thus had a greater divine right. King Suppililiumas recieved a letter from an el-Amarna Egyptian queen urging him to send a son to marry her, but he was killed upon arrival in Egypt. That caused the major war to hit Syria since the war between Akkad and Ebla 1000 years previous.
"Of course the royal family knew it had no large support outside Akhenaton's immediate circle and was deeply troubled after his death (as the letters of his wife's show). There was no strong ruler who could keep them in check and eventually his legacy collapsed."
It was hardly a legacy to begin with. Akhenaton was only able to establish his religion with help from his mother, his first wife Nefertiti and his second wife. Without them he would have failed before he even started.
"As for his image...many have commenetd on his disease like state without satisfactorily answering anything. More than likely his depictions are closely linked with his theology and not some physical malady. His god (Aten) was the male version of the life/fertility god while he himself takes over the qualities of the mother earth (the curvy hips, large lips etc is a common way to depict earth gods/goddesses). His depictions highlight his fertility and as an extension his country's. We must remember that kings/queens were closely tied in with the land (Grail legend anyone?) and from time immemorial (Gilgamesh anyone?). The kings well being was mirrored in the land...if the king was ill so too was the land. Akhenaton annexxed the earth cult features into his person and thus hoped to convince his people that they were bountiful and prosperous (whether they were is not the point as we are talking symbolism)."
The fat belly is more Indian than Egyptian. He did have a distorting disease. Aton was the disc which reflected light fromthe sun to Earth and was not a fertility god. And such points you have made never had anything to do with Egypt in the first place. His people weren't prosperous they were suffering their worst since the civil war between the 9th and 11th Dynasties. They would have known that, no one could have convinced them differently, and they all blamed him.
Alright, I'll post some thoughts on him too...
"1. His conversion to a purely monotheistic faith was a landmark innovation in iteslf and highly contentious (a thing his successors pointed out by destroying everything that had anything remotely to do with him). He faced the combined wrath of the Amun (Amon) priesthood which had grown incredibly powerful and thus influential. His religious policy, in a political sense, was thus aimed at shifting the power balance back into the pharaoh's court. He could only achieve this by ceasing to fund the preisthoods which stood in his way (all rulers were required to contribute to religious buildings and so on). Because of their large nature he chose the revolutionary step of disregarding them in total by raising one god- the Aten- (a minor attribute of Ra till then)above all else. This way he circumvented the need to fund the priesthoods as they were no longer officially recognized."
Conversion to monotheism in my opinion is nothing to be proud of. Certainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam are nothing more than differing versions of his bizarre religion he created. You have with a doubt skipped over the part where his people were worse of for it. There was a decrease in construction jobs due to the closure of temples and the barring of construction of more. More on this a bit later. The artisans who used to make small Egyptian religious icons, a thriving business which employed many, many people from those who carved them, to those who sold them, to those who got the materials in the first place, were suddenly out of a job. And the reasons for doing it was less than what you have stated. He was born with a genetic disease making him incredibly ugly (I forgot what it is called, but the body is very distorted) so he was shunned by his father who gave all the important places (mayor of Memphis, mayor of Thebes, high priest of this god, high priestess of this goddess, etc) to his siblings. Akhenaton was kept out of sight to keep him from tainting his fathers reign. He was banned from all religious festivals and temples (which would crush a persons spirit considering how important they were), so he inherited a personal hatred of the gods. When Amenemhet III died, his mother had him crowned pharoah, but he was the last in line to succession as he was the youngest child. Of course in those circumstances you would get rid of the religious institutions.
"It enabled him to pour the saved resources into other projects. This included the construction of his new capital city of Akhetaten (Tel-el-Amarna) which was another strategic move to distance the court (and people) from the traditional power bases of the dominant priesthoods."
So he built an over-rated city on one of the most arid places along the Egyptian Nile. By building this city, he distanced himself from the people and the foreigners because all he saw here was what he wanted to see. There was no plague or war, which was wreaking havoc elsewhere throughout the Egyptian Empire.
"Had he lived longer who knows what could have become of this policy."
The only thing he could accomplish by living longer was to let the rotting of the empire continue.
"The heirs to the throne were all influenced by his policies but his immediate children died before him. Even the pharaoh who took over after his death (Tutankamun) was influenced by Akhenaton's policies as can be clearly seen by some of the items found in his tomb (the royal chair and walls of the tomb for example display the Aten sun disk). Alas he was too young to be able to resist the powerful priesthoods which, although weakened, had not been destroyed. Akhenaton just didn't live long enough for this to come about. Of course the successors all of which (bar Tut) had no right to the throne (Ay, Horemheb etc) did their best to win over the presthoods influence and power by avenging their closures. Hence the smash up which followed his reign."
He was hated by all for a reason, not because the priests didn't like him much. He created his religion for himself, everyone knew it, and he grew complacent and ignorant of what the world really was like. In el-Amarna, he would have to literally buy the people to like him (by throwing gold onto the ground by the gates of the city). Of course you'd see some of those items in his tomb, the whole palace would have been full of the crap he filled it with.
"In another more important way Akhenaton's reign made a giant leap forward in terms of artistic achievement. Traditional artistic styles (the rigid, lifeless and air-brushed techniques of past) gave way to the natural style. His are the only depictions in which affection between royal members is displayed, or people are shown in their true guises (warts and all). Plants, animals etc all have a new vibarncy and life unseen until the ascendence of the Hellenistic Age and later Renaissance. This in itself is a major achievement which most people dismiss as insignificant. Sure he didn't go out conquering others and building pyramids and so on but is that the only worth of a ruler?"
The artistic change is over-looked for the simple reason that it was done only because he wanted it done that way. It didn't live past his death as no one else really liked to look at it. I guess seeing plague-ridden people and the reality of his reign is something everybody really wanted to see... of course not. Most people were disgusted by it, the old art style showed more of the after-life than the real-life, but Akhenaton erased the after-life (so what happened when people died when there was none? What incentive was there to be a good person as opposed to a murderer and a theif?) so all that was left was the world as it was which is all he could have shown.
"In terms of foreign policy the borders were never safer."
You have got to be kidding. You have lost most credability by even saying this. Syria was in revolt, the armies were scared adn could only wait to die if they were in these foreign lands, Nubia to the south was on the war path, the Hittites were mopping up the civilised north of Syria, the tribes in Israel had laid siege to many cities in the delta. And all is safe...
"His reign is one of incredible stability (precarious but stable nontheless) as Egypt was being threatened by the Hittites in Anatolia."
Huh? That is not stable. To lose land to the Hittites would have been an embarrassment as the Hittites were recently all but destroyed. The Mitanni (close Egyptian allies which ruled northeastern Syria, western Iraq and southeastern Turkey) were pleading for Egyptian help which was never to come.
"The Amarna letters (another great accomplishment - one of the oldest filing cabinet systems ever and a marvel of beaurocratic development) show the often intimate exchange between Hittite and Egyptian rulers (like the one discussing the gifts sent to Akhenaton)."
The Amarna letters might have been established the latter years of his reign. Either way, the Mitanni were forver crippled, and the good relations between Egypt and the Hittite Empire would not last beyond his death. The Egyptians were forced to recognise that the Hittite Emperor was more powerful than the pharoah and thus had a greater divine right. King Suppililiumas recieved a letter from an el-Amarna Egyptian queen urging him to send a son to marry her, but he was killed upon arrival in Egypt. That caused the major war to hit Syria since the war between Akkad and Ebla 1000 years previous.
"Of course the royal family knew it had no large support outside Akhenaton's immediate circle and was deeply troubled after his death (as the letters of his wife's show). There was no strong ruler who could keep them in check and eventually his legacy collapsed."
It was hardly a legacy to begin with. Akhenaton was only able to establish his religion with help from his mother, his first wife Nefertiti and his second wife. Without them he would have failed before he even started.
"As for his image...many have commenetd on his disease like state without satisfactorily answering anything. More than likely his depictions are closely linked with his theology and not some physical malady. His god (Aten) was the male version of the life/fertility god while he himself takes over the qualities of the mother earth (the curvy hips, large lips etc is a common way to depict earth gods/goddesses). His depictions highlight his fertility and as an extension his country's. We must remember that kings/queens were closely tied in with the land (Grail legend anyone?) and from time immemorial (Gilgamesh anyone?). The kings well being was mirrored in the land...if the king was ill so too was the land. Akhenaton annexxed the earth cult features into his person and thus hoped to convince his people that they were bountiful and prosperous (whether they were is not the point as we are talking symbolism)."
The fat belly is more Indian than Egyptian. He did have a distorting disease. Aton was the disc which reflected light fromthe sun to Earth and was not a fertility god. And such points you have made never had anything to do with Egypt in the first place. His people weren't prosperous they were suffering their worst since the civil war between the 9th and 11th Dynasties. They would have known that, no one could have convinced them differently, and they all blamed him.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Hail Caesar!
There's a guy with so much popular support that the senators killed him for fear of their jobs.
There's a guy with so much popular support that the senators killed him for fear of their jobs.
Porphyrogenitos
Γένοιος Όιος έσαι μαθών
Nice rebuttal, but if I may offer some more insight.
Changing a nation's religious orientation is not an easy thing, nor something that is of no worth. Religion has played a life-shaping role (socially, culturally, artistically etc) since...well...forever. It was a HUGE step and not something to be taken lightly. His conversion was not a result of a Freudian hang-up caused because of his father's lack of paternal support but rather a carefully thought out plan to shift the power balance back into the court's favour. Pharaohs, just like most monarchs did not spend 'time' with their siblings in the sense that we understand the term today. More often than not, the sons vied for their fathers throne. There was hardly any love in these sorts of relationships. Children were necessary and family morals were practically unheard of (modern standards). There are countless examples of this right down to the present day. We can safely say that Akhenaton tried to reverse this trend (see his depictions). His father, Amenhotep III, furthermore, poured most all of Egypt's wealth into his grandiose building projects (Mortuary temple/Colossi of Memnon etc) all of which strengthened the Amun cult (preisthood). The people of Egypt didn't generally get much out of this bar work as labourers in the agricultural off-seasons (unless of course they were craftsmen or artisans by trade). Akhenaton's closure of temples did not cause the economic drought claimed, as these people found employment in Akhenaton's building projects (building a city from scratch is no simple feat and he built numerous temples so there is no lack of work as such). Unemployment hit the prietshood of Amun (and others) which was what Akhenaton intended to do so as to curtaill their strength and influence. It was shrewd political necessity, akin in many ways to Henry VIII's 'conversion' to Protestantism or Kemal Ataturk's termination of the sultanate/caliphate. These acts were not spurred on by repressed emotions/psychological hang-ups but carried out as part and parcel of an overall scheme to eliminate potential and existing political power bases. Mongoloid Cow (great name by the way) basis his argument on this much like many of Akhenaton's critics, based on his appearance...from which we draw X and Y psychological conclusions. This is often misleading (it reminds me of a children's book I once read on the subject of Akhenaton's oppressive reign - totally fictitious and hyperbolic). I will come back to this.
As for the city of Akhetaten, it was not built in an infertile area. In the 1300's BC that area was actually quite fertile as the excavations of the surrounds have proven (like Ephesus and Ostia, in antiquity they were quite prosperous and harbourside cities at that, now they both lie miles inland). Today it is a different situation as erosion and changing climate conditions have made Akhetaten fairly barren (good for preservation though but almost impossible to get to...had to do lots of bargaining with AK-47 wielding guards). The city, unlike other Egyptian cities, was actually planned (ala Roman style almost). It's eventual decline was due to it's subsequent abandonment by the following rulers, an act spurred on by political consideration rather than land inadequacy. We must also look at it in terms of trade and protection, built as it was mid way between the traditional Egyptian homeland. Also, as stressed before, the city was built to distance it from the other power bases where Akhenaton would have had to put up with stiff resistance (Thebes/Luxor/Karnak). Again political exigensies.
As for the Empire's condition. It was not exactly in its prime prosperity wise (compared to Thutmosis III or Seti I/Ramses II) but that hardly makes it rotting. Cities and temples to new deities do not go up in times of poverty/famine as the successors to Khufu found out (strike anyone?).
Turning to his personal status, he was not the unpopular selfish ruler Mongoloid Cow makes him to be. The Egyptian nobility, led by Nefertiti/Tiye and co lived quite well under his rule, as did his officials (Horemheb and Ay). Official tombs in Amarna resound of this kind of devotion (admittedly not an uncommon practice). The key though here lies in the wife of Amenhotep III, Tiye. She supported her grandson's 'vision/revolution' till the very end. How is this possible seeing as all her life she lived as an adherent to Amun (it was her support and later Nefertiti's which enabled him to make his changes). The answer is lucidly easy to surmise: politics. Like her grandson she saw the threat of the Amun priesthood and so supported it on this basis. In any change of power structures there is bound to be discontent from the dispossessed. So too, it came to pass in Akhenaton's life. Had he lived longer, or begotten a strong successor he may have pulled it off as has happened in other historic instances. As it turned out he didn't and the Amun preisthood re-established control, no doubt by bribing Akhenaton's officials with the throne (Ay, and Horemheb did the most damage as we all know).
Religion: Um...well he didn't do away with the afterlife...where did you get this one Mongoloid Cow? After all, the numerous tombs dotting the ridge behind Akehtaten prove this I would think?
As for his god Aten, he/it was a form of the age old fertility god. Have a look at Frazer's seminal work The Golden Bough, or Jane Harrison's book Themis. Or for the more popular spin on things, any book by Joseph Campbell. The fertility deity was not manifest in any single form but was rather an attribute (we don't say for example that X God was the god of fertility like we say Apollo was the god of music...fertility is a primary attribute). All gods have tried to acquiesce this attribute, right down to Jesus. The depiction of this attribute in early societies is a voluptuous and well-rounded figure. This is also not unique to India though it may have emerged from there. Look at Minoan earth figurines and you may get an idea. On this topic, it was during his father's reign that contact with the Minoans became a common thing. The Amarna art shares many things in common Minoan art (from the voluptuous figures to the naturalistic depictions of nature). Influence? Perhaps. Suffice to say it was not 'disgusting'. People may not like all of its products but you have to give credit where credit is due. I am referring to innovation and execution. If I have time I'll scan some images in so we can see. The above ones are admittedly not the best stuff to come out of Amarna.
As for the notion of fertility lying outside of Egypt's realm, I'm afraid Mongoloid Cow has got it wrong. Once again I refer him to the texts mentioned above. The fertility attribute lay in all Egyptians gods to a greater or lesser extent (Ptah who became Asclepius, Osiris who became Dionysos/Apollo, Isis & Hathor who became Artmemis/Hera/Demeter) all have fertility attributes and were worshipped as such. We must stop thinking of the Egyptian religion in conservative strict religious terms. As with all religions it was highly adaptive and fluid with a vast mythology stemming from notions of fertility (just examine their creation myth or the Osiris/Seth story). This was brought more to the fore with Akhenaton as his reign focused on one god (the sun is the masculine fertility symbol par excellence). Of course the revolution could not exist without the counterpart (the feminine) for it would render his Aten mythology senseless so he himself seems to have taken on those attributes. We must remember that before the sun, the MOTHER and her DARK WOMB reigned supreme. The Aten was a natural trend away from the dominant female powers (in religious terms) to the orderly male ones (I'm not being sexist). It had been tried before in the solar cults which followed the period of pyramid building and reached its apogee in the union of Amun with Ra. The mother was relegated to the position of servant, as she had been in the social sense. Matriarchy gave way to patriarchy in religion as in society. Aten was the male dominant god with Akhenaton playing the subservient 'female' part. A bold religious revolution in many ways then.
Military: The Nubians were always on the war path and the fact that they scored no major victories over Egypt for years after should indicate the adequacy of the southern garrisons set up by Amenhotep III. The Israelites had no conquests in Egypt bar the occasional raid which was soon repelled. The Mittani were used as a shield against the Hittites (albeit a bad one as it turned out). A necessity when dealing with a superior foe (they had iron weapons to name but one advantage). Not even Ramses could defeat the Hittites so I wouldn't expect Akhenaton to try. What he accomplished was peace diplomatically. We must understand that when we are talking peace in antiquity it must be understood in fluid terms. There was never 'peace' in antiquity in our understanding of the term. It was a period of constant camapigns and conquests, re-conquests and so on. The Akhenaton period though is not marked by any major conquest/campaign. The loss of Syria was not a loss to Egypt in geographical terms as that area always lay outside Egypt's boundaries. It was a sphere of influence, ruled by an obedient people (to the Egyptians at least). It is assumed that Nefertiti was a Mittanian princess which would indicate at cordial realtions between Egypt and the Mittani. The Hittite conquest made the two empires geographically neighbours but Akhenaton's diplomacy managed to keep the two in a period of peaceful co-existence (again relative as raids and such continued). And the Hittites were not almost conquered. They were actually at the height of their power with Supililiuma I. Their destruction is a mystery still but more than likely they fell to the combined threat of ascendent Assyria and the Sea Peoples.
The soldiers camped in some far away area hating Akhenaton..well this was not a novel thing. Nobody would have liked these kinds of assignments (the Romans hated north England, Parthia etc) but it doesn't prove much in terms of real populace feeling. All such things are highly figurative and hence of no historic value.
Now, I have forgotten other points mentioned but I'm sure astute people like Mongoloid Cow will bring them up.
PS I'm delighted to know that games like Civ3 can stir historic interest so. Let's hope more people will be willing to share their opinions. I am too haphazard so I may not make sense at times...apologies.
Changing a nation's religious orientation is not an easy thing, nor something that is of no worth. Religion has played a life-shaping role (socially, culturally, artistically etc) since...well...forever. It was a HUGE step and not something to be taken lightly. His conversion was not a result of a Freudian hang-up caused because of his father's lack of paternal support but rather a carefully thought out plan to shift the power balance back into the court's favour. Pharaohs, just like most monarchs did not spend 'time' with their siblings in the sense that we understand the term today. More often than not, the sons vied for their fathers throne. There was hardly any love in these sorts of relationships. Children were necessary and family morals were practically unheard of (modern standards). There are countless examples of this right down to the present day. We can safely say that Akhenaton tried to reverse this trend (see his depictions). His father, Amenhotep III, furthermore, poured most all of Egypt's wealth into his grandiose building projects (Mortuary temple/Colossi of Memnon etc) all of which strengthened the Amun cult (preisthood). The people of Egypt didn't generally get much out of this bar work as labourers in the agricultural off-seasons (unless of course they were craftsmen or artisans by trade). Akhenaton's closure of temples did not cause the economic drought claimed, as these people found employment in Akhenaton's building projects (building a city from scratch is no simple feat and he built numerous temples so there is no lack of work as such). Unemployment hit the prietshood of Amun (and others) which was what Akhenaton intended to do so as to curtaill their strength and influence. It was shrewd political necessity, akin in many ways to Henry VIII's 'conversion' to Protestantism or Kemal Ataturk's termination of the sultanate/caliphate. These acts were not spurred on by repressed emotions/psychological hang-ups but carried out as part and parcel of an overall scheme to eliminate potential and existing political power bases. Mongoloid Cow (great name by the way) basis his argument on this much like many of Akhenaton's critics, based on his appearance...from which we draw X and Y psychological conclusions. This is often misleading (it reminds me of a children's book I once read on the subject of Akhenaton's oppressive reign - totally fictitious and hyperbolic). I will come back to this.
As for the city of Akhetaten, it was not built in an infertile area. In the 1300's BC that area was actually quite fertile as the excavations of the surrounds have proven (like Ephesus and Ostia, in antiquity they were quite prosperous and harbourside cities at that, now they both lie miles inland). Today it is a different situation as erosion and changing climate conditions have made Akhetaten fairly barren (good for preservation though but almost impossible to get to...had to do lots of bargaining with AK-47 wielding guards). The city, unlike other Egyptian cities, was actually planned (ala Roman style almost). It's eventual decline was due to it's subsequent abandonment by the following rulers, an act spurred on by political consideration rather than land inadequacy. We must also look at it in terms of trade and protection, built as it was mid way between the traditional Egyptian homeland. Also, as stressed before, the city was built to distance it from the other power bases where Akhenaton would have had to put up with stiff resistance (Thebes/Luxor/Karnak). Again political exigensies.
As for the Empire's condition. It was not exactly in its prime prosperity wise (compared to Thutmosis III or Seti I/Ramses II) but that hardly makes it rotting. Cities and temples to new deities do not go up in times of poverty/famine as the successors to Khufu found out (strike anyone?).
Turning to his personal status, he was not the unpopular selfish ruler Mongoloid Cow makes him to be. The Egyptian nobility, led by Nefertiti/Tiye and co lived quite well under his rule, as did his officials (Horemheb and Ay). Official tombs in Amarna resound of this kind of devotion (admittedly not an uncommon practice). The key though here lies in the wife of Amenhotep III, Tiye. She supported her grandson's 'vision/revolution' till the very end. How is this possible seeing as all her life she lived as an adherent to Amun (it was her support and later Nefertiti's which enabled him to make his changes). The answer is lucidly easy to surmise: politics. Like her grandson she saw the threat of the Amun priesthood and so supported it on this basis. In any change of power structures there is bound to be discontent from the dispossessed. So too, it came to pass in Akhenaton's life. Had he lived longer, or begotten a strong successor he may have pulled it off as has happened in other historic instances. As it turned out he didn't and the Amun preisthood re-established control, no doubt by bribing Akhenaton's officials with the throne (Ay, and Horemheb did the most damage as we all know).
Religion: Um...well he didn't do away with the afterlife...where did you get this one Mongoloid Cow? After all, the numerous tombs dotting the ridge behind Akehtaten prove this I would think?
As for his god Aten, he/it was a form of the age old fertility god. Have a look at Frazer's seminal work The Golden Bough, or Jane Harrison's book Themis. Or for the more popular spin on things, any book by Joseph Campbell. The fertility deity was not manifest in any single form but was rather an attribute (we don't say for example that X God was the god of fertility like we say Apollo was the god of music...fertility is a primary attribute). All gods have tried to acquiesce this attribute, right down to Jesus. The depiction of this attribute in early societies is a voluptuous and well-rounded figure. This is also not unique to India though it may have emerged from there. Look at Minoan earth figurines and you may get an idea. On this topic, it was during his father's reign that contact with the Minoans became a common thing. The Amarna art shares many things in common Minoan art (from the voluptuous figures to the naturalistic depictions of nature). Influence? Perhaps. Suffice to say it was not 'disgusting'. People may not like all of its products but you have to give credit where credit is due. I am referring to innovation and execution. If I have time I'll scan some images in so we can see. The above ones are admittedly not the best stuff to come out of Amarna.
As for the notion of fertility lying outside of Egypt's realm, I'm afraid Mongoloid Cow has got it wrong. Once again I refer him to the texts mentioned above. The fertility attribute lay in all Egyptians gods to a greater or lesser extent (Ptah who became Asclepius, Osiris who became Dionysos/Apollo, Isis & Hathor who became Artmemis/Hera/Demeter) all have fertility attributes and were worshipped as such. We must stop thinking of the Egyptian religion in conservative strict religious terms. As with all religions it was highly adaptive and fluid with a vast mythology stemming from notions of fertility (just examine their creation myth or the Osiris/Seth story). This was brought more to the fore with Akhenaton as his reign focused on one god (the sun is the masculine fertility symbol par excellence). Of course the revolution could not exist without the counterpart (the feminine) for it would render his Aten mythology senseless so he himself seems to have taken on those attributes. We must remember that before the sun, the MOTHER and her DARK WOMB reigned supreme. The Aten was a natural trend away from the dominant female powers (in religious terms) to the orderly male ones (I'm not being sexist). It had been tried before in the solar cults which followed the period of pyramid building and reached its apogee in the union of Amun with Ra. The mother was relegated to the position of servant, as she had been in the social sense. Matriarchy gave way to patriarchy in religion as in society. Aten was the male dominant god with Akhenaton playing the subservient 'female' part. A bold religious revolution in many ways then.
Military: The Nubians were always on the war path and the fact that they scored no major victories over Egypt for years after should indicate the adequacy of the southern garrisons set up by Amenhotep III. The Israelites had no conquests in Egypt bar the occasional raid which was soon repelled. The Mittani were used as a shield against the Hittites (albeit a bad one as it turned out). A necessity when dealing with a superior foe (they had iron weapons to name but one advantage). Not even Ramses could defeat the Hittites so I wouldn't expect Akhenaton to try. What he accomplished was peace diplomatically. We must understand that when we are talking peace in antiquity it must be understood in fluid terms. There was never 'peace' in antiquity in our understanding of the term. It was a period of constant camapigns and conquests, re-conquests and so on. The Akhenaton period though is not marked by any major conquest/campaign. The loss of Syria was not a loss to Egypt in geographical terms as that area always lay outside Egypt's boundaries. It was a sphere of influence, ruled by an obedient people (to the Egyptians at least). It is assumed that Nefertiti was a Mittanian princess which would indicate at cordial realtions between Egypt and the Mittani. The Hittite conquest made the two empires geographically neighbours but Akhenaton's diplomacy managed to keep the two in a period of peaceful co-existence (again relative as raids and such continued). And the Hittites were not almost conquered. They were actually at the height of their power with Supililiuma I. Their destruction is a mystery still but more than likely they fell to the combined threat of ascendent Assyria and the Sea Peoples.
The soldiers camped in some far away area hating Akhenaton..well this was not a novel thing. Nobody would have liked these kinds of assignments (the Romans hated north England, Parthia etc) but it doesn't prove much in terms of real populace feeling. All such things are highly figurative and hence of no historic value.
Now, I have forgotten other points mentioned but I'm sure astute people like Mongoloid Cow will bring them up.
PS I'm delighted to know that games like Civ3 can stir historic interest so. Let's hope more people will be willing to share their opinions. I am too haphazard so I may not make sense at times...apologies.
Porphyrogenitos
Γένοιος Όιος έσαι μαθών
oh...that was what I forgot.
Mongoloid Cow mentioned the suspected disease/ailment Akhenaton may have suffered from but couldn't recall the name.
Well, as far as I know, there are two possible culprits:
1. Froehlich's Syndrome
or
2. Marfan's Syndrome (this one seems to carry the most favour)
For more on these and the theory I stand by see this brief but informative page:
Akhenaton: Genetics or Aesthetics?
Mongoloid Cow mentioned the suspected disease/ailment Akhenaton may have suffered from but couldn't recall the name.
Well, as far as I know, there are two possible culprits:
1. Froehlich's Syndrome
or
2. Marfan's Syndrome (this one seems to carry the most favour)
For more on these and the theory I stand by see this brief but informative page:
Akhenaton: Genetics or Aesthetics?
Porphyrogenitos
Γένοιος Όιος έσαι μαθών
allhailIndia
Deity
I would have to vote for Emperor Asoka, who has done more for the development of his subjects than any Indian ruler hence, except Akbar, and was also the first ancient ruler, who forsook war as an instrument of foriegn policy.
He was also instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, SE Asia and the Far East. It is no wonder, that his symbol is now the symbol of the Indian Govt.
He was also instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, SE Asia and the Far East. It is no wonder, that his symbol is now the symbol of the Indian Govt.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
So, MC or Porphyrogenitos, was Akhenaton black?
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
He was Egyptian - Egyptians weren't black. Why do you ask?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Yes, in general Egyptians weren't black, but it is often said that Akhenaton in particular is, because representations of him appear to be slightly negroid. And, BTW, African Americans are convinced that the ancient Egyptians were Black:
http://www.globalblacknews.com/history.html
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tiye.html
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html
http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage9.htm
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Pre-Hyksos, Egypt would be at best half-Negroid, but after the 13th Dynasty, you could no longer call Egypt 'black' simply because Asiatics had mixed in with the Egyptians. Nubia and Kush to the south, though, is another story.
Sayounara
King
Hammurabi was the start of many good law systems so he was important.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Hammurabi based his code of law on a much less an eye-for-an-eye set devised by King Lili-Bama, a good hundred years or so before Hammurabi was born. I don't really think Hammurabi should be remembered for those laws as much as his other pursuits.
Pericles brought his little city-state into a war which almost destroyed them, advocated a defensive policy which killed a third of his city in a plague and squandered his country's resources on a supreme act of vanity. Hardly the greatest ruler in antiquity?!
patriotism,no political entity can function on a very good level without it, and pericles showed a love of it far more than most other leaders ever have, not to mention that supreme act of vanity is only one of the most beautiful building in the world, but then look at my sig, i suppose i would be biased...
patriotism,no political entity can function on a very good level without it, and pericles showed a love of it far more than most other leaders ever have, not to mention that supreme act of vanity is only one of the most beautiful building in the world, but then look at my sig, i suppose i would be biased...
thedirk
Master of Stealth
There are of course merits to every selection, but I voted for David because he took a group of disparate tribesmen and turned them into a nation that became a regional power for a time. Some of the others were more powerful, masterful etc. but David made the most significant progress.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I voted for Qin Shi Huang Di.
Achievement :
-The unifier. Unified China as a nation. There were further conquests, dynasty changes and civil wars, of course, but his rise is generally considered by historians the birth of the Chinesse empire.
Yes, Alexander conquered more. But the Macedonian empire lasted a few years at most before disintegrating never to rise again. The Chinesse empire lasted two milleniums (of course, it was two milleniums with periods of civil war and even some "being conquered" in-between, no one's disputing that, but, unlike Macedonia, China didn't die out in the end) and though it is no longer an empire by name (though the communist party has been called "the new dynasty" before...), China still lives - as a serious world power - with its imperial borders not very different from what they where at the height of Chinesse power (lost a few territories at the fringes, like Korea and Vietnam, but compared to Macedonia...). Qin Shihuangdi, and his successor of the Han dynasty, set the stage for one of the world's greatest nation up to the 1700s and once more today.
-Architecturaly speaking, he sort of ordered the construction of (the original) of a certain Wall (as in, Great Wall)...
-He unified the measuring system, monetary system, writing system, etc (at least, IIRC).
(It's possible that with more time, Alexander may have managed to secure his conquests. Possible, but not certain.)
Achievement :
-The unifier. Unified China as a nation. There were further conquests, dynasty changes and civil wars, of course, but his rise is generally considered by historians the birth of the Chinesse empire.
Yes, Alexander conquered more. But the Macedonian empire lasted a few years at most before disintegrating never to rise again. The Chinesse empire lasted two milleniums (of course, it was two milleniums with periods of civil war and even some "being conquered" in-between, no one's disputing that, but, unlike Macedonia, China didn't die out in the end) and though it is no longer an empire by name (though the communist party has been called "the new dynasty" before...), China still lives - as a serious world power - with its imperial borders not very different from what they where at the height of Chinesse power (lost a few territories at the fringes, like Korea and Vietnam, but compared to Macedonia...). Qin Shihuangdi, and his successor of the Han dynasty, set the stage for one of the world's greatest nation up to the 1700s and once more today.
-Architecturaly speaking, he sort of ordered the construction of (the original) of a certain Wall (as in, Great Wall)...
-He unified the measuring system, monetary system, writing system, etc (at least, IIRC).
(It's possible that with more time, Alexander may have managed to secure his conquests. Possible, but not certain.)
earendil 1
The Halfelven
How about Pericles of the city-state of Athens? He was largely respnsible for the city's democratic institution. He also made Athens what it is today. He rebuilt the Long Walls (Walls that connected Athens to its sea port, Piraeus, about 5 miles away), built the Parthenon, much of the temples on the acropolis, gave Athens an age of intelectual and philosopical flowering, and in genral helped to rebuild the city after the Persian destruction. He aligned Piraeus to a geometric grid, like what would happen in Italy during the rennaisance, about 2000 years later. With his help, Athens grew powerful enough to challenge Sparta. Im not saying that hes the leader I would choose, but why cant Pericles be a choice? Pericles wasnt the cause of the Pelopnesisn War, it was Corithian annoyacne with Athens because it was becoming a rivaling trade center, Sparta was annoyed because it felt Athens was a threat to its power, and the Boetians and other cities probably joined Sparta because the Athenians were demanding sums of money to be a "member" of the Delian League. Thebes only joined the Spartans when they realized that the Athenians would lose. Pericles thought that the other cities were happy to contribute money because he thought that the Greeks would love to donate their money to create the most beautiful city in the world. I guess Pericles was a little naive about that.
As for the defensive strategy, that was largely due to a plague that was spreading in Athens, and eventually it killed Pericles himself. Do you think that Pericles would let his troops go out of the walls and face the Spartan army by themselves?
Id guess I'd pick Alex the Great. He completely changed the way that phalanx warfare was waged, which had been invented by the Greeks. His empire, which split into 3 parts, put Greek culture into the middle east until the rise of Islam. He founded about 60 new cities in the middle east. Btw, Jesus spoke in Aramic, a language that originated from Greek.
Oda Nobunaga--- the reason why the empire didnt last was because he didnt have an heir, so his generals began a struggle for power, in which his wife and son were killed. But all of the lands that had been conquered were under Macedonian leaders (formerly gnerals),---Ptolemy Soter I, Selecus, and Antigonas Gonatas.
Yes id also like to see Assurbanipal, Nebuchadrezzar, and Hannibal (he shaped how the ROman Empire would form). I honestly dont know much about ancient Asian history.
To everyone who picked Caesar: Agustus made more reforms, expanded the empire, and a whole lot of more stuff than Julius did. The main thing that Julius did was he set up a dictatorship. Do you really think that that's reason for electing somebody to be one of the greatest rulers??
As for the defensive strategy, that was largely due to a plague that was spreading in Athens, and eventually it killed Pericles himself. Do you think that Pericles would let his troops go out of the walls and face the Spartan army by themselves?
Id guess I'd pick Alex the Great. He completely changed the way that phalanx warfare was waged, which had been invented by the Greeks. His empire, which split into 3 parts, put Greek culture into the middle east until the rise of Islam. He founded about 60 new cities in the middle east. Btw, Jesus spoke in Aramic, a language that originated from Greek.
Oda Nobunaga--- the reason why the empire didnt last was because he didnt have an heir, so his generals began a struggle for power, in which his wife and son were killed. But all of the lands that had been conquered were under Macedonian leaders (formerly gnerals),---Ptolemy Soter I, Selecus, and Antigonas Gonatas.
Yes id also like to see Assurbanipal, Nebuchadrezzar, and Hannibal (he shaped how the ROman Empire would form). I honestly dont know much about ancient Asian history.
To everyone who picked Caesar: Agustus made more reforms, expanded the empire, and a whole lot of more stuff than Julius did. The main thing that Julius did was he set up a dictatorship. Do you really think that that's reason for electing somebody to be one of the greatest rulers??
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
What's wrong with a dictatorship if it's well run?
Similar threads
