BAAL. Asiatic god of thunder. Baal was worshipped in Egypt from the 18th Dynasty onward. As a thunder god, he was associated with Seth. In accounts of battle, the pharaohs of the later New Kingdom could be identified with the god. Sety I was “like Baal when he treads the mountains” in the text of his Libyan War. Ramesses II was equated with both Seth and Baal “in his moment of power” in the record of the battle of Qadesh, while the battle inscriptions of Ramesses III call him “brave like Baal in his time,” “his form and body are exactly equal to those of Baal,” and “like Baal on top of the mountains.”
BABYLON. City and kingdom of southern Mesopotamia. An ancient center, it did not become involved with Egypt in any direct military way until the first millennium BC. Babylon appears in the Amarna Letters as Karduniash (the city) and Shangar (Babylonia), participating in the gift exchange and diplomatic marriage network of the Late Bronze Age. The wealth of the country meant that Babylon became the focus of aggression by its northern neighbor, Assyria. From 728 BC onward, Babylon was ruled either directly or through Assyrian vassals, although there were frequent rebellions and periods of independence. These often affected (if they were not directly connected with) Assyrian actions in Syria–Palestine and Egyptian ambitions there. Assyrian involvement in Babylon allowed, for example, Taharqo to establish himself as the defender of Palestine.
Babylon’s power increased under the Neo-Babylonian dynasty founded by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC). Rapidly expanding at a time of Assyrian weakness, Babylon was able to conquer her northern neighbor and sack Nineveh (612 BC). Babylonian expansion brought direct military conflict with Egypt under Psamtik I and Nekau II. In his last years, Psamtik I attempted to bolster the ailing kingdom of Assyria, sending military aid, which confronted the Babylonians on the Euphrates. In 610, a joint Egyptian-Assyrian force abandoned Harran to the advancing troops of Nabopolassar. Nekau II renewed the initiative on his accession, resulting in Egyptian defeat at the battle of Carchemish (605 BC) and, with the accession of Nebuchadnezzar II, a Babylonian advance on Egypt itself. The hostilities continued through the reign of Psamtik II. Self-interest turned Babylon from enemy to ally when, deposed by Ahmose II, Wahibre fled to Nebuchadnezzar. In an unsuccessful attempt to restore Wahibre, the Babylonian king invaded Egypt (568 BC). Babylon fell to the rising power of Persia under Cyrus the Great in 539. Following the death of Alexander the Great in the city in 323 BC, it became a key center in the vast kingdom of the Seleukids, before falling to the Parthians and later the Sasanids.
BABYLON, Fortress (Old Cairo). The name probably derives from the Egyptian Per-Hapy-en-Iunu. The Jewish historian Josephos says that Babylon was founded by Cambyses who installed a Chaldaean garrison there. The origins of the surviving fortress are believed to be of Persian date (circa 500 BC), but there might have been a fort at this place from much earlier (perhaps the place attested textually as Kher-Aha), as it stands at a strategic point controlling land access to Memphis from Pelusion and Tjaru. The Roman fort was rebuilt by Trajan after the Jewish Revolt of 116 AD. This time it also served to defend the end of the canal, which ran to the Red Sea along the Wadi Tumilat, apparently an extension of that built by Darius I. The fort was again rebuilt, in the reign of Diocletian, and now forms part of Old Cairo.
Babylon is irregular in shape, being a rectangle with its west corner cut off. The east wall, 300 meters long, has evidence for six rounded bastions and two square corner towers; the north wall also had six rounded bastions. The short south wall, 100 meters long, had a gate flanked by rounded bastions. There were other gates in the east and west walls, the latter with round towers. The internal arrangements are unknown because the site is now occupied by later structures.
BAGGAGE. An essential factor on any military expedition, but poorly documented. A letter preserved in Papyrus Koller lists some of the supplies and equipment, including weaponry and armor, but notably the foodstuffs for the horses, including straw and kyllestis-bread. The horses also required their grooms and stable masters. Scenes of the Egyptian camp, although rare, show that large tents were carried for the pharaoh and officers, with furniture, such as folding stools and folding beds (an example was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun), and headrests (shown in the Qadesh camp). A large body of nonmilitary personnel accompanied the expedition, such as scribes, servants, and grooms, all with their own specialist equipment. Ox-drawn carts are shown in a few scenes. These would have been extremely slow moving and affected the rate of march of the army. Some literature indicates that soldiers carried their own food and water on the march, although supplies must also have been carried in the baggage train, supplemented by forage and captures en route and during the campaign.
BAKENRANEF (reigned c. 715–710 BC). The only pharaoh ascribed to the 24th Dynasty, ruling from Sau in the western Delta. According to Greek sources of dubious reliability, “Bochchoris” was defeated in battle by the Kushite pharaoh Shabaqo and burned alive.
BASTION. Projection from the curtain wall or ramparts of a fortress, which enables the garrison to enfilade soldiers attacking the wall. In Egyptian fortresses, the bastions are semicircular or rectangular. Those at Buhen had an elaborate system of loopholes enabling the archers to shoot in a choice of directions.
BATTLE. A single confrontation between two armies. Despite the scenes of battles, detail about the tactics and conduct of pitched battles in the pharaonic period is actually very limited, Megiddo and Qadesh being the two best-documented. In the Old Kingdom, the infantry were involved in hand-to-hand combat with axes. This might have followed initial confrontation by archers. In the New Kingdom and later periods until the time of Alexander the Great, battle was dominated by chariots, and later by cavalry, although the actual deployment of chariotry is still controversial. The reliefs give little useful information, generally depicting a melee of figures with the vast image of the victorious pharaoh and numerous equally victorious Egyptian and mercenary soldiers. Texts give a little more impression of the clangor of battle, although the emphasis is still on the victorious pharaoh. Occasionally, texts refer to the pharaoh’s war cry.
There is little detail of naval battles, apart from that of Ramesses III against the “Sea Peoples” in which the fighting is between the usual infantry troops, many of whom are shown in small crafts. Battles between large warships, such as the trireme or quinquereme, do not appear to have been a feature of early warfare and only become common from the time of the confrontation between Athens and Persia at Salamis (480 BC). Sea battles were a feature of the Greek-Persian wars, and those of the Ptolemaic period, notably Kos, Salamis, and Aktion.
BATTLE, SCENES OF. For the vast span of Egyptian history, it is remarkable how few scenes of battle survive. Certainly, some monuments that might have carried battle reliefs, such as the temples of Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, and Merenptah on the west bank at Thebes have been almost completely destroyed, but even so, the concentration of reliefs is of the reign of Ramesses II and specifically of the battle of Qadesh. The following survey indicates scenes of battle, but also other more stylized representations that cover periods for which there are no specific battles.
From the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods comes a series of objects with scenes of battle or its aftermath: the Gebel el-Arak knife handle; tomb 100 at Nekhen (Hierakonpolis); the Hunter’s Palette; the Libya (or Town’s) Palette; the Battlefield Palette; and the Narmer Palette. The relief of Djer at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman is the earliest record of a campaign in Nubia. More conventionalized images are found on the ivory labels from the tomb of Den and the statues of Khasekhemwy.
Conventionalized images are typical of the surviving evidence from the Old Kingdom. Of the Third Dynasty, there are only smiting scenes of Sekhemkhet and Sneferu from Wadi Maghara in Sinai. The earliest surviving fragments of battle scenes are of Fourth Dynasty date, from the pyramid temple (or a private tomb) of the reign of Khufu or Khafre at Giza. The pyramid temples of the Fifth Dynasty pharaohs Userkaf and Unas carried battle scenes as well as more conventional smiting scenes. Scenes in the pyramid temple of Sahure were copied directly by his successor Niuserre and, in the Sixth Dynasty, by Pepy II. There are scenes of attack on fortifications in the private tombs of Kaemheset (at Saqqara) and Inti (at Deshasheh).
The troubled times of the First Intermediate Period and early 11th Dynasty are reflected in the scenes of conflict and attacks on towns in the tomb of Ankhtify at Moalla, of Setka at Aswan, of Intef at Thebes (TT 386), and of Baqet III and Khety at Beni Hasan. Foreign wars were shown in the reliefs of the temple of Menthuhotep II at Thebes. In the 12th Dynasty, the tombs of Khnumhotep and Amenemhat at Beni Hasan repeat scenes of siege, modeled on those of earlier tombs. The only surviving royal battle reliefs of the 12th Dynasty are fragments from the pyramid complexes of Senusret I at Lisht and Senusret III at Dahshur.
Despite the richness of the literature relating to the military activities of both pharaohs and officials in the early 18th Dynasty, hardly any scenes depict the battles or campaigns. Some fragments of relief have recently been excavated in the temple of Ahmose I at Abydos, probably relating to the Hyksos Wars. The body of the chariot of Thutmose IV depicts the pharaoh in battle with the Asiatics, and the painted box from the tomb of Tutankhamun depicted both Asiatic and Nubian battles. In both cases, the scenes are probably more ideological than historical. Nevertheless, these scenes point to the development of a genre of battle depictions, which is continued in the 19th Dynasty and suggests that other scenes have been destroyed. Tutankhamun erected a temple at Karnak that had scenes of Asiatic and Nubian Wars, which have recently been reconstructed. The chapel of Horemheb at Gebel Silsila depicts a Nubian campaign, perhaps that of the reign of Tutankhamun.
The largest number of battle scenes surviving is from the 19th and 20th Dynasties. At Karnak, a cycle of reliefs depicts the battles of Sety I with Libyans, Asiatics, Shasu, and Hittites. Fragments that can probably be attributed to the reign of Sety I were recovered from the temple of Sesebi in Upper Nubia and depict a Nubian battle, perhaps in the campaign against Irem.
The reign of Ramesses II provides the largest number of surviving battle scenes, but most of these depict the battle of Qadesh. There might have been battle reliefs at both Per-Ramesses in the eastern Delta and at Memphis, but nothing has yet been recovered from the sites. At Abydos, a Syro-Palestinian campaign (badly damaged) decorated the outer court of the temple of Sety I. The outer wall of his own temple at Abydos carries scenes of the Qadesh campaign. In the Theban region, the temple of Karnak (Hypostyle Hall, outer wall) had scenes of Qadesh, later altered, and Syro-Palestinian Wars. The pylon and the outer west wall of the temple of Luxor carry reliefs of Qadesh. The pharaoh’s temple on the west bank (the Ramesseum) has reliefs showing Qadesh and other Syro-Palestinian conflicts. In Nubia, the earliest temple of the reign, at Beit el-Wali, details a Nubian battle, perhaps of the reign of Sety I. There are also more conventionalized scenes of conflict in Syria-Palestine and with the Libyans. At Derr, there are scenes of Syro-Palestinian conflict. A badly damaged Nubian battle scene in the same temple is closely modeled on that at Beit el-Wali. The reliefs of the temple of Aksha are badly damaged. The Great Temple of Abu Simbel carries scenes of the Qadesh campaign and a more conventional Nubian battle and attack on Libyans. At Amara West there were scenes of the campaign against Irem.
A relief fragment from a Ramesside temple, found at Deir el-Bahari, shows Asiatics under the royal chariot. It cannot be ascribed to any specific reign.
The major cycle of battle reliefs of the 20th Dynasty is that of the reign of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. These begin with the Nubian battles, against Irem, and a conflict in Syria-Palestine, considered by some Egyptologists to have been copied from reliefs of an earlier reign. The most important scenes show the equipping of the army and the battle with the Sea Peoples, and the Libyan Wars. Further scenes at Karnak (temple of Amun) show the Libyan Wars and the pharaoh’s temple in the precinct of Mut depicts the second campaign against the Libyans.
There is hardly anything later than the 20th Dynasty from Egypt depicting battle, although conventional imagery continues (e.g., the relief of the victorious Sheshonq I at Karnak) and has been used to claim that certain pharaohs fought foreign wars (e.g., Siamun). The Kushite king Piye recorded his conquest of Egypt in a cycle of reliefs in the temple of Amun at Gebel Barkal (Napata). The invasion of Egypt by Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, was depicted in reliefs in the palace at Nineveh. One relief shows the sack of an Egyptian city and the deportation of its people. Glazed tile decoration also showed incidents of the campaigns, and preserved fragments show dead Egyptians and Kushites in water and beneath Assyrian chariots. Only conventional images, such as smiting scenes, survive from the Late Period. The text of the Rosetta Stone describes statues of Ptolemy V that were to be set up in the temples. These showed the pharaoh receiving weapons from the principal god of the temple. Similar conventional images of smiting continue into the Roman period, notably at the temples of Esna and Dendera, where emperors continue to be depicted as pharaohs.
BATTLEFIELD PALETTE. A fragmentary ceremonial slate palette of Predynastic date that carries a scene of the aftermath of battle on its obverse. The field is strewn with the bodies of the dead, some of whom are being attacked by vultures and other birds. A lion preys on the body of a larger figure. The defeated all have stylized curly hair and beards and are naked. Some have their arms tied behind their backs. Standards, which have been given arms, grasp two captives who have their arms secured behind their backs. The standards are surmounted by divine emblems, a falcon and an ibis, suggesting this might be a record of one of the wars of unification. The palette might have come from Nekhen or the region of Abydos; it is now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
BERM. The ledge between the ditch and the base of a parapet in a fortification.
BETH SHEAN. Tell al-Husn in Jordan 32°29′ N 35°32′ E. Garrison town south of the Sea of Galilee, on the west bank of the River Jordan. Beth Shean stands at a strategic point controlling the route via the Jezreel Valley to Damascus. There have been many excavations here and discoveries include an important stela of Sety I relating to his Asiatic campaigns. There was an Egyptian garrison in the town, certainly until the time of Ramesses III, in whose reign it included mercenary troops of Peleset and Tjekker. Beth Shean was destroyed by fire in the 20th Dynasty, the blame usually being placed on the “Sea Peoples.”
BLEMMYES. A people of Lower Nubia who posed a considerable threat to the southern border and the internal security of Egypt, particularly Upper Egypt, in the later Roman period. They were involved in conflicts with the Roman forces and were apparently defeated by Diocletian in 297 AD. Problems persisted in the fourth century until the Blemmyes seized control of the Dodekaschoinos around 395/400 AD. They are recorded as raiding in Upper Egypt in the early fifth century, causing people to flee to monasteries for safety. The raids reached Kharga Oasis. The imperial response might have been a strengthened garrison with new barracks on the island of Abu (Elephantine). The Blemmyes were at times variously in conflict and alliance with the other people of northern Nubia, the Noubades. Roman forces defeated a joint army of Blemmyes and Noubades in 452 AD. Later the Blemmyes were defeated by the Noubadian king, Silko, who records three battles in an inscription in the temple of Kalabsha. The long-distance raids of the Blemmyes might have been made possible, or at least easier, by use of the camel.
BODYGUARD. Armed force to protect the pharaoh or high officials. The royal bodyguard is frequently depicted in the tombs at Amarna, where it accompanies the public appearances of Akhenaten. It includes standard bearers and a variety of troops: Egyptians with spears and axes, Nubians with bows or cudgels, Asiatics with spears and khepesh-swords. A trumpeter accompanies them. Various autobiographical texts refer to serving in the royal bodyguard.
BORDER. A fixed line marking the end of a polity. Because of its geography, most of Egypt was not clearly defined by borders but by looser frontiers and boundaries. The clearest border was that to the south, against Nubia, where the cataracts of the Nile formed a clear physical border, which was then defended by fortresses. One of the roles of the pharaoh was to defend, and extend, the boundaries of Egypt. In the New Kingdom it is usually Amun who charges the pharaoh with this and to whom success is accredited. Stelae and rock inscriptions were used to mark borders and boundaries. In Nubia, Thutmose I left inscriptions at Tumbos (at the Third Cataract) and at Hagar el-Merwa: these defined the Nile and desert limits of Egyptian influence at one point in his reign (but not necessarily the actual riverine border). The Nubian inscriptions were paralleled by one set up (perhaps rock-cut) in Naharin when the pharaoh crossed the river Euphrates. The northeastern border with Asia was marked by the canal and fortress system around Tjaru. The two stelae of Senusret III erected in the fortress of Semna at the Second Cataract (both now in the Berlin Museum) are the best examples of border stelae. The first stela was set up in year 8, the second in year 16. The pharaoh addresses the troops at the southern border.
I have established my border further south than my fathers,
I increased that which was bequeathed to me . . .
A coward is he who is driven from his border.
As for any son of mine who shall maintain this border which my majesty has made, he is my son . . . The true son is he who champions his father, who guards the border of his begetter. But he who abandons it, who fails to fight for it, he is not my son, he was not born to me.
The inscription concludes with the statement that the pharaoh had set up an image at the border so that the soldiers stationed would fight on its behalf. Although the Egyptian word employed (tut) does mean statue, and could imply “one within the fortress temple,” it can also mean the stela itself. Whichever was meant, it symbolized the pharaoh’s presence.
The east and west borders of Upper Egypt and Nubia were much more difficult to control. There were undoubtedly watchtowers and guard stations at the entrance to the Nile Valley from major desert roads. In the Roman period, a series of forts was built in Kharga Oasis and the vulnerable west end of the Fayum, at Dionysias. It has been suggested that a series of small forts protected the western limit of the Delta and extended along the coast from Rakote via Karm Abu-Girg, el-Gharbaniyat, and Alamein to Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham. There are also Roman forts in the Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt. The most vulnerable border to the east was that which included the Ways of Horus and the fortress system of Tjaru and Pelusion.
BOREDOM. Boredom must have afflicted troops in many capacities: it is notably recorded in the text of Papyrus Anastasi IV, reputedly a letter from an official in an Asiatic garrison. He complains that everything he brought with him has vanished, although there is no one to rob him; the trees have no fruit, his eyes “turn longingly to the road that goes to Djahy”; he is plagued by gnats, midges, and sand-flies according to the time of day; the heat is unending and to cap it all, the scribe with him has a twitch and the toothache. The Semna dispatches also record the tedium of garrison life with their monotonous records of small groups of nomadic Nubians. The presence of opium vessels at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham suggests that the troops might have resorted to extreme ways of alleviating boredom. The bored charioteer is a leitmotif of bureaucratic tomb paintings. See also BUREAUCRACY.
BOUKOLOI. Troops recruited in the countryside, especially associated with the herdsmen of the Delta. They revolted in 171/172 AD and joined a wider rebellion, led by a priest Isidoros. They were accused of killing and eating a Roman centurion. The force marched on Alexandria but was suppressed by the governor of Syria, Avidius Cassius.
BOWS. 1. SELF-BOWS. The earlier type of bow consisted of a simple wooden stave with gut string attached. This type was universal in the Early Bronze Age (Old Kingdom). In western Asia, it was replaced by the composite bow. In Egypt, the self-bow continued to be widely used, especially by Nubian troops. The bowstrings were of gut attached by 10 or 12 twists around each end of the bow and secured by one or more hitches at one end. Good examples of strung bows were found with the bodies of the soldiers of Menthuhotep II buried at Deir el-Bahari. There were 14 self-bows in the burial of Tutankhamun, varying in length. The shortest was 0.67 meter and was perhaps made for the pharaoh as a child. Most of the bows were larger, ranging from 1.2 meters to 1.77 meters, with three over 1.9 meters. The self-bow had a range of perhaps 155–190 meters.
BOWS. 2. COMPOSITE BOWS. A laminated bow, sometimes called a compound bow. The form was developed in western Asia and replaced the self-bow there. It was the bow of the Late Bronze Age (New Kingdom), and quickly adopted in Egypt. There is little firm evidence for its use after the 20th Dynasty in Egypt, but it continued in use in western Asia until the time of the Persian Empire. The composite bow is distinctive in representation: unstrung, the bow has a double-curved profile, with an inward angle at the grip, but when strung, this angle becomes external and the whole bow assumes a triangular profile. When the bow is drawn, it displays a sweeping curve, the angle almost completely disappearing. The composite bow has a wooden core (usually ash), which was covered with a layer of sinew on the back and a layer of horn on the face. This is then covered with a sheath of bark, usually birch. This covering was decorated, often elaborately. The tomb of Tutankhamun produced a collection of around 30 bows of differing sizes, some probably made for the pharaoh as a child (measuring 0.34 meter). The larger specimens, some elaborately decorated, were up to 1.4 meters in length. The bowstrings were of gut (some of Tutankhamun’s in four-strand twisted gut), which was probably attached through an eye. The composite bow had a range greater than the self-bow, with a modern replica achieving 230–260 meters. In the classical world, it seems to have been effective up to 175 meters.
Such bows are referred to as part of the gift exchange in the Amarna Letters coming from Mitanni, and it was assumed that, because of the materials employed in their manufacture, all composite bows were imported. It is now certain that some were manufactured in Egypt and that the bark (usually birch) could be imported. Birch bark remains pliable for some time, but even if it dries out, it can be used, if softened again. Scenes in the Theban tombs of Puyemre and Menkheperresonb show the manufacture of bows in the workshops of the temple of Amun.
BROOK-OF-EGYPT. Greek Rhinocorula or Rhinocorura, the modern el-Arish. At the seaward end of the Wadi el-Arish, it formed the boundary between Egypt and the empire of Assyria and probably that between Egypt and Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar II.
BUCOLIC TROOPS. See BOUKOLOI.
BUHEN. Major fortress and supply depot at the foot of the Second Cataract. From here, the river was navigable without major obstruction as far as the First Cataract. There were two fortifications: a vast outer enclosure wall and the inner fort (or citadel). The outer wall initially served as the defense of the site while the inner fort was being constructed. In the first stage, the outer wall was 4 meters thick, with 32 rounded bastions set 22 meters apart. It was later altered to a wall with towers and made more secure by the construction of the massive barbican gate and by a river wall connecting it with the inner fort. Additional defenses were the berm (dry ditch) 6.0 meters wide and 3.0 meters deep that followed the same line as the wall with salients where the towers, gates, and barbican projected. The battered sides of the ditch were faced in thick mud and white gypsum plaster. The towers and walls had a battered base about 1.50 meters high. The area between the base of the wall and the berm was paved in brick. On the outer side of the berm, the counterscarp was topped with a brick wall from which a glacis descended to ground level. In places, the ditch was cut into the escarpment, but elsewhere the scarp and counterscarp were revetted with walls of brick and rough stone.
On the desert side, the main entrance was through the barbican, a brick tower 47 meters long and 30 meters wide. It had projecting square bastions and a battered base. The tower was designed to prevent large numbers of troops entering at once. The barbican was divided by three gateways into two baffles (courts), the first with two square bastions overlooking it, the second with four.
The inner fort or citadel also had a surrounding ditch. It was a rectangular structure, enclosing an area 150 meters by 138 meters with its main walls being 5.0 meters thick. The height of the walls has been estimated at 8.0–9.0 meters or 11.0 meters. Bastions or towers were set every 5.0 meters and there were large square corner towers, perhaps higher than the curtain walls. On the three landward sides, ramparts comprising a berm and parapets with loopholes protected the citadel. The ditch was 7.3 meters wide and 3.1 meters deep, lined with white gypsum plaster.
The bastions had an elaborate series of loopholes. A single embrasure opened onto triple loopholes. The embrasures were arranged in two rows, the lower being flush with the floor. Altogether, the bastion could accommodate up to 10 or 12 archers, each with a variety of angles to shoot, enabling a devastating crossfire on any attackers.
The entrance to the inner fort was the west gate, like the barbican in the outer defenses, a massive tower with double doors of wood and a drawbridge on rollers. If the outer defenses were breached, the lower ramparts could easily have been reached, but the defense of the archers in the bastions would have limited access to the main walls of the fort. Any attack on the west gate faced the same problems as in the barbican, and even if access was gained, it led directly onto a small square with a baffle wall formed by a main block of the military quarters, enabling the invaders to be surrounded.
The buildings inside the citadel were laid out on a grid plan on three terraces sloping down from west to east toward the river. Two axial roads created three zones with the residence of the commandant in the north, with the temple (possibly in the Middle Kingdom, certainly in the New Kingdom), and with some entrepots and living quarters. In the central zone, the buildings were mainly living quarters or workshops. The southern zone contained residences for the officers, with more barracks or workshops.
The river defenses show that there was little fear of attack. Two quays projected over 21 meters into the river. There was certainly one water gate, perhaps two.
The garrison at Buhen may have approached 2,000. The estimate of its defense needs, calculated on the length of wall, would require between 350 and 700 for the inner fort and 700 to 1,400 for the outer defenses.
Buhen was captured by the Kushite rulers of Kerma in the 13th Dynasty and occupied by a mixed garrison of Nubian troops with Egyptian commanders. There was evidence for major fires in some parts of the fort, probably associated with its capture. The fort was reoccupied during the Theban expansion, at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th Dynasties, in the reigns of Kamose and Ahmose. It was extensively refortified, but during the later New Kingdom, its military role declined, although it must have remained an important staging post and depot. Following the Egyptian withdrawal from Nubia at the end of the 20th Dynasty, Buhen was abandoned until a period of reoccupation in the 25th Dynasty. As in the fortresses at Semna, Kumma, and Qasr Ibrim, the temple was restored by Taharqo, and Buhen certainly had a garrison and served as a staging post. There is no evidence for later military activity here.
BULL. The bull was one of the characteristic images of the pharaoh from Predynastic times onward. The pharaoh as bull appears trampling and goring an enemy (perhaps a Libyan) on a slate palette. On the Narmer Palette, he appears as a bull demolishing a fortification. Throughout the New Kingdom, each pharaoh was proclaimed as “Horus, the mighty bull.” At the battle of Qadesh, Ramesses II was “firm-hearted like a bull ready for battle,” and in the texts of his Libyan war of year 5, Ramesses III is described as “like a bull standing on the battle field, his eyes on his horns, prepared and ready to attack his assailants with his head.” Military standards give the names of some of the platoons of the army, which often have epithets of the pharaoh such as “Bull of Nubia.” The bull was associated with a number of gods, including Monthu.
BUREAUCRACY. Egypt was one of the most bureaucratic civilizations of the ancient world and this certainly extended to the arena of war. Because writing was the access to high office and indicated a member of the elite, all high officials were literate. Indeed, some generals, such as Horemheb, erected statues of themselves as scribes. In the Old Kingdom, a major military expedition was placed under the command of Weni, presumably because his organizational skills were of greater importance than those of the commanders of levies.
The intimate relationship between military and bureaucracy is emphasized by the terminology, in which many military terms and titles have direct parallels in civil and priestly spheres. For example, the word sa for a company or regiment of troops is the same as a phyle of priests; the weretu is both a civil administrator and military official; the djadja was both the court of magistrates and council of war; mesha and tjeset were words applied to both the army and gangs of workmen.
In the 18th Dynasty, with the introduction of chariots and horses, chariotry became the second skill that defined a member of the elite. This is shown by the length of time autobiographies accord to study at “school” and time “in the stables.” The scenes of reward at Amarna show that records of gifts distributed to officials were being kept in triplicate. Similarly, in scenes of the aftermath of battle, scribes are keeping records of the severed hands and phalluses of the dead enemies. There are many versions of the texts, often known collectively as “Be a scribe,” which were used as writing exercises. These emphasize the easy life of the scribe, compared with that of all other workers, especially that of a soldier.